Todd Howard says he expected Fallout 76 to generate ‘very well-deserved criticism’

    
46

Oh, Fallout 76. Just when it seemed like maybe we could all finally move on from the game’s disastrous launch, Todd Howard’s given a video interview to IGN in which he admits Bethsoft knew upfront Fallout 76 wasn’t going to be a “high Metacritic game.”

“We knew we were gonna have a lot of bumps,” he admits. “And that’s a difficult development – a lot of new systems, things like that, hey we’re gonna go try this new thing. Any time you’re gonna do something new like that, you know you’re gonna have your bumps. You know that a lot of people might say, ‘That’s not the game we want from you.’ But we still wanna be somebody who’s trying new things. And that was a very difficult, difficult development on that game to get it where it was. And we were ready for, you know, a lot of those difficulties ended up on the screen, and we knew, hey look, this is not the type of game that people are used to from us. We’re gonna get some criticism on it – a lot of that very well-deserved criticism.”

Ultimately, he says, Fallout 76 was a game Bethsoft wanted to play, and it was prepared to weather the early criticism to prove itself in the long run under the strategy of “keep making the game better.”

Source: IGN
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Sorenthaz

I mean, at least he’s acknowledging that it deserved a lot of criticism.

The rabid, blind hate though is a different story. Guess he can’t really win regardless so the best they can do in this situation is to keep making Fo76 better, and maybe eventually people will stop being sore manchildren over it. Kind of like that other online game that people frothed at the mouth over because it wasn’t Elder Scrolls 6, where it had a rough first year but nowadays is basically standing up by FFXIV and WoW when talking about MMOs.

Fallout 76 was necessary for the sake of Bethesda actually getting their engine to a point where it can handle potential online co-op and so on for their future AAA titles.

hurbster
Reader
hurbster

The difference being, ESO started with a living, vibrant world full of stuff to do and people to talk to. Fallout 76 quite frankly is a shell of a world.

It’s a cynical cash in for ‘games as a service’ nothing more, nothing less. People are pissed because they expected so much more from a Bethesda game.

Reader
Sorenthaz

The only difference with Fallout 76’s world compared to ESO is that there’s no loading screens beyond fast traveling or going into interior locations, and there’s no NPCs to talk to. That’s it. There’s a truckload to explore and discover and it’s a world that’s gasp supposed to be post-apocalyptic in nature.

The only thing cynical about it is folks like you calling it a cash-in while ignoring the efforts they’re putting into improving the game.

hurbster
Reader
hurbster

Nah, that’s bollocks mate. The game should be playable at launch. They sold you a broken game and expect you to wait while they fix their broken shite while you buy stuff from their ridiculously overpriced cash shop, you know the one that broke several trading laws with it’s false ‘sales’.

It’s a cash-in, pure and simple and no amount of white-knighting is going to change that.

And Tod Howard just needs to stop lying.

Reader
John Mynard

Honestly, if they want to keep him on as a Spokeshole or Founder-In-Residence or something, fine. But they need to stop him from making design decisions.

Reader
Goettel

Just remembered my days of wishing for Fallout co-op.
Now that the dust has settled: is it ANY good?

Reader
thirtymil

I think at its core it is. Yes, the engine is old and the scripting is janky in places (quests in particular but occasionally AI) but I think they’ve got the explore-shootout-scavenge-build/improve cycle well balanced and fun and perhaps the key thing for me is I never get bored going out into the wilderness. When I say ‘me’ I should say ‘us’ as my regular gaming group have been playing it persistently since it came out.

It’s got a lot of MMO-like systems but it feels like it’s got more freedom than most MMOs to play it how you want – albeit at a much lower player count per server.

But to actually be back in a world where every step is fun – like ESO before I completed all the other two factions’ quests and Warcraft before, well, before Cataclysm – is giving me a lot of pleasure. Plus screenshots like this (sorry, they’re only the thumbnails so I don’t spam the thread but should give you an idea)…

Photo_2019-05-14-154513-thumbnail.png
Photo_2019-05-27-214255-thumbnail.png
Photo_2019-06-02-003751-thumbnail.png
Reader
Goettel

Thanks, I’ll take a closer look.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

It really depends on what you enjoy about Fallout. FO76 will never be any good for me, in particular, because even if you disregard the QC issues, some of the things I need in order to enjoy Fallout games are for the most part incompatible with always-online games.

(Unless FO76 gains a completely offline mode with as good modding support as previous Fallout games have. That would convince me to start playing, though for obvious reasons you wouldn’t ever find me online.)

BTW, I do wish future Fallout and Elder Scrolls games to have co-op, but as something fully optional (meaning no content, at all, locked behind a requirement to be playing co-op) and with support for friends dropping in into an already existing single-player save.

Reader
Sorenthaz

Depends on what you’re looking for.

Objectively, yes, there are a lot of good elements. It does what it set out to do, i.e. deliver a Fallout experience that’s exclusively online multiplayer.

It’s using the same engine as Fallout 4, so the graphics haven’t been compromised nor have the systems been too heavily compromised either. Perks are different with the card system but that works in the players’ favor as you can swap perk cards out on a whim. The mutations system is really cool and adds some extra depth, esp. when you can get stuff like insane jump height (from Marsupial) which lets you scale buildings and reach places normal folks can’t get to.

Combat hasn’t really changed either, the only real difference afaik is that VATs is now real-time and doesn’t stop time for obvious reasons.

The main thing that’s changed of course is the lack of human NPCs and safe towns. The game’s singleplayer RPG-esque story elements more revolve around finding out what happened and why everyone is dead and with your CAMP you kind of carve out a small spot for yourself. So it more focuses on the exploration aspects and piecing together notes/holotapes/etc. to get an idea of what went on.

Right now it shows a lot of promise to continue growing better and, who knows – maybe the story will evolve over time and human NPCs can start settling in. Despite all the negative reviews and constant hate it still conjures for a lot of folks, I’m optimistic about its future and I think it’s going to turn around much like ESO did.

I think what’ll likely make this game shine and redeem itself in a lot of folks’ eyes is whenever moddable private servers become available, which will be either end of the year or sometime in 2020.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

I think what’ll likely make this game shine and redeem itself in a lot of folks’ eyes is whenever moddable private servers become available, which will be either end of the year or sometime in 2020.

For me, at least, it depends on whether or not I can host my own server on my own hardware without paying Bethesda, or anyone else, anything extra for the privilege. If I can get the game under my full control then I’m fairly certain I can turn it into something I can enjoy; if the “private” servers are required to be hosted by someone else, though, then I’m sure I won’t have enough control to pull off that.

Reader
Dug From The Earth

What was said, “We knew we were gonna have a lot of bumps,”

Translation, “We knew the game was rushed, on a crappy, buggy, dated engine, with no real goal other than the milk money out of people with microtransactions”

What was mentioned, “Fallout 76 was a game Bethsoft wanted to play”

Translation, “Bethsoft wanted to play it, but have YOU pay for it.”

The age of Giants is nearing its end…. Bethesda…. Blizzard… Bioware…

Reader
McGuffn

Translation: “We knew we were releasing a bad game.”

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
NeoWolf

I’m not sure I see the “up” in this admission IF its true, which I HIGHLY doubt it is. I suspect its flop came as much of a surprise to them as it did us.

But for a second let us assume they DID know it wasn’t going to be good and had issues then that means they knowingly sold us crap with lots of issues INTENTIONALLY… which frankly is FAR worse in my books.

hurbster
Reader
hurbster

Ahhhhh, corporate bs, nothing else like it.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
agemyth 😩

He’s not wrong about how these things tend to go and I don’t think they were wrong to give this project a shot. There is still a chance for them to turn things around. There are numerous examples of some of the current most played games being trashed when they launched. We as MMO players should understand how this goes more than most.

A lot of the criticism is valid, but I think the people who are still just in this to shit on their continued efforts to improve the game should move on. The game probably isn’t for you (as it is and likely will never be for me either).

Reader
Bruno Brito

Wait, you wanted to play this garbage?

My god, dude.

Reader
thirtymil

Ironically I didn’t want to play this when I first heard about it, but after Rafael posted about it I’m glad I did. Always grateful for the opinions on Massively :)

Reader
Arktouros

I mean to an extent sure. They were testing a new game model they hadn’t tried before. There were bound to be issues in doing something new (and it’s one thing to watch other people go through things and an entirely other to go through them yourself). Totally agreed there were bound to be bumps.

However the bumps he felt, nice and cozy in his “Todd does no wrong” Fallout Shelter, was a nuke going off and leaving a huge, smoking and radioactive crater in the reputation of the company.

Reader
wratts

If they wanted to make a new crafting/survival game that’s one thing, but tying it to the Fallout IP was a blatant cash grab and fundamentally misled players

Andy McAdams
Staff
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Andy McAdams

fundamentally misled players

I don’t think that’s true. Everyone know about the genre / style of the game before buying in. It wasn’t a surprise that wasn’t a standard Fallout game to anyone.

I think they completely botched the quality or the messaging as to the quality of the game to expect (in reality, probably both). It seems pretty clear that things had gone off the QA rails at some point and they completely bombed on the messaging on the game.

But I don’t think fundamentally misled players by making a different genre game with an established IP.

Reader
thirtymil

If they’d labelled it Early Access I think most people would have been a lot more forgiving on the bugs, given that every other survival genre game in EA I’ve tried has been worse (except for possibly Conan Exiles). But they didn’t of course, which was just another mistake in the PR/comms/marketing.

Reader
Sorenthaz

The only way I think people could ever use the “misled” argument is by digging up the Canvas Backpack shenanigans.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

The announcement itself too. Bethesda tried to lure all the Fallout fanbase by hiding the fact they were building hype for a completely different kind of game, aimed at a completely different demographic, than their previous entries in the franchise. I consider that to be as misleading and dishonest as what Blizzard did with the Diablo Immortal announcement.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
agemyth 😩

From the day of the first teaser trailer there were credible rumors that it was a multiplayer online survival game inspired by the likes of Rust and DayZ. They described the game mechanics and showed enough of the game off before release to know what the game was. The only way I see that as misleading is if you buy games based on name alone which is a problem in an of itself.

Reader
wratts

I don’t buy on name alone (usually) and didn’t buy ’76 because I’d read enough to know what it was and that it wouldn’t be my thing. That said, I’m willing to bet the entire reason it could release as a full box price AAA game was because they knew a certain population would buy anything if it was the “new Fallout”.

I’d want to see polling, but with the prior FO4 set in Boston, I’ll bet you there’s a certain percentage who thought this was a Revolutionary War themed expansion or something equally not what FO ’76 actually is