Fallout 76, Who is this game for?

Finally there has been meatier gameplay videos for Bethesda's next game, Fallout 76. However I'm not any less puzzled about who this game is for, it doesn't seem built to attract regular Fallout fans, certainly not the old school ones. Suppose one might as well take a closer look at Bethesda's first dabble with multiplayer. 

Fallout 76 is the name of the game

So what type of game even is Fallout 76? Well, according to their own statement; "Bethesda Game Studios, the award-winning creators of Skyrim and Fallout 4, welcome you to Fallout 76, the online prequel where every surviving human is a real person. Work together, or not, to survive. Under the threat of nuclear annihilation, you’ll experience the largest, most dynamic world ever created in the legendary Fallout universe." So judging from that it's a survival game, where you work with other players, or not, to rebuild, or not. I don't know.

Anyway, as I mentioned there has been longer gameplay videos out now and it does seem pretty straightforward if they're accurately depicting the game. You create a character who can only communicate with emojis since there are no real NPC's to interact with, only other players, and you seem to follow in the steps of the Vault 76 overseer who has left tapes for you to listen to. Riveting main quest I know. You also seem to get objectives like killing a certain amount of ghouls in a location. You know like those procedurally generated quests in Fallout 4 that you hated. Apart from the sorry excuse for quests you also build stuff, crafting seems like a central part. You craft your camp, weapons and armor. Overall it seems like you'll be looting a lot to craft better gear so you can loot more dangerous locations.

I think I'm starting to understand what sort of game it is, problem is, if I understand it correctly it's not really doing a lot to stand out in the genre. You know, the one Minecraft dominates. That really seems to be the foundational gameplay loop they're going for, which to be frank I don't think is going to be enough. Not only is the building and crafting mechanics much more restricted than other games in the genre the gameplay is just not good enough for combat and looting to be the only real mechanics. Like we've for a long time been having arguments about how Bethesda needs to update their engine (preferably make an entirely new one) because their animations, graphics and combat are painfully outdated. Thing is, in the past with games like Skyrim and Fallout... Lets say Fallout 3, yes the gameplay was nothing to write home about but they had deep worlds filled with interesting quests, characters, decisions that had consequences in the world and not to mention actual RPG mechanics. That's why Bethesda has always been excused for lagging behind in the gameplay, graphics and animation department. Now they've stripped it all away, and I do wonder if co-op is going to be enough to make fans happy. Not that I know what fans want this, as mentioned earlier, it doesn't seem like it's for Fallout fans since it lacks everything that was good about Fallout. Fallout isn't just about a huge world with lots of potential for crafting. When people ask for co-op in Bethesda games is this really what they want?

To get a bit petty about the lore involved I have a few things to day with the disclaimer that I'm not a huge Fallout scholar so I might be a bit off but... How does the concept make sense? Like no people around? At all? In every other game we meet ghouls who survived the initial blasts, not to mention entire communities who didn't turn into ghouls but instead just survived generation after generation. So why is this world so empty? Would make sense if it was in the middle of a blast crater but the world is green, buildings barely scorched, yet the only humanoid creatures around are the scorched ghouls. I just don't understand why this was done, would it really have been that hard to add human NPC's in the game? Just Raiders? Like I've read that they want human players to make up raider factions you usually see in Fallout games, problem is that there aren't enough players to make up those kinds of raider factions and with them taking steps to avoid griefing it's not even a viable role to play in the first place. Though fine, it's a spin-off, non-canon, I can dig the lore being off (if that's truly the case, I'm not so sure that it is).

In conclusion, it seems like this game is trying to do things that have already been done and better, not pleasing fans of their old games and not being able to compete with fans of similar games. I'm curious to see how this game will end up doing, might be a huge success (which would surprise me) or it might end up being a huge flop. Either way it's going to be interesting to see the consequences from how this game ends up performing. Bethesda at least seems confident considering they've gone on record saying they intend to support this game "forever".

Post E3 2018 Thoughts and Highlights

So E3 2018 is done, games have been shown, interviews have been done, articles have been written, so much info out there for coming games many look forward to and so little time to pay attention to everything. As I'm not paid to do just that I will just share my thoughts on the stuff that stood out to me and that which I care about. I will cover as much as I can but don't expect this to be a full review for everything. 

EA started off E3 with their conference, and what can I really say about it. Not much to be honest, it's one of the few conferences I didn't watch live, in fact I didn't watch much of it at all. I skipped over the boring parts so I think I ended up watching maybe 5-10 minutes of it. I saw some Battlefield V, not a lot of footage but the Nordic looking map that was shown off was thrilling as I like seeing environments that remind me of where I actually live. Same reason I liked Alan Wake as the forests reminded me of the forests back home when I didn't live in an urban environment. It's oddly satisfying to me. As far as Anthem goes, the gameplay that was shown didn't do much for me, looks like another sci-fi shooter revolving around multiplayer and I just can't be bothered with that.

After EA Microsoft was up, and oh boy, I'm no MS fan, in fact I've never owned an Xbox and likely never will, but this was the best conference of E3 to me. It was entertaining, had a good flow, and most importantly, they showed off both Dying Light 2 and Cyberpunk 2077. Now I didn't get too excited for Cyberpunk 2077 since it was once again just a trailer showing off the world, sure it was nice looking but that's about it. Still want to see actual gameplay but everyone who has seen it has had their mind blown so it does sound interesting. Dying Light 2 was the real highlight for me as it has Chris Avellone behind it and that's all I need to know. I loved the gameplay in the first game, if that gets improved and gets a high quality story with impactful decisions then you can count me in.

Bethesda was next with their showing, now they probably had the cringiest conference during E3 and to be honest, I wasn't particularly wowed. Rage 2 looks fine if not a bit stale, not sure about it yet but I liked the first game (believe it or not) so I'm keeping an eye on it. There were a bunch of announcements I don't really care much about, I mean there were vague teasers for Doom Eternal and I think a Wolfenstein expansion but I don't have any particular opinions on them except "okay". The big thing was Fallout 76, an always online game with no NPC's centered around.. Something. I don't get what that game is about, is it about combat and crafting? I mean who asked for this game? Who have ever said that their favorite part of the Bethesda Fallout games were shooting and crafting? Sure, I get that many people wanted to play Fallout with a friend, but do they even want this? Is it really a Fallout game without a well told story, heavy decisions and a world populated with interesting intrigue? I don't know, because Bethesda have been frustratingly vague when describing it. Todd Howard and Pete Hines are annoyingly good at giving non-answers. Though enough of that, they also announced Starfield as a next gen game and Elder Scrolls VI, interesting they would do that when they're so far off but I agree with the people who have been saying they did it to soothe over the worries that they're going online focused with Fallout 76.

Then I watched Devolver Digital and Square Enix back to back. Now to be honest I didn't watch the Devolver conference for the games but for the crazy show they put on. I just loved how they made fun of casual gamers who spend crazy money on silly microtransactions. Just a lovely show with a few games that honestly do look kinda fun. Don't remember any of their names though. As far as Square Enix goes I liked the Shadow of the Tomb Raider gameplay, looks really interesting but after that my attention went elsewhere and I missed most of it. I didn't even look away for long it was just that their showing was really short. Oh well.

Moving on to Ubisoft next, their conference was decent but out of all the things they showed what stood out most to me was the games they didn't show. I was hoping to see a new Splinter Cell game and Watch Dogs 3 but they were nowhere to be seen. Suppose Assassin's Creed: Odyssey looked fine and all but I am yet to play Origins so I have some catching up to do on that front. Still miss Aisha Tyler, she was a real highlight of Ubisoft's past  conferences but it seems like she's not returning. Which makes me sad.

What about the PC Gaming show then? Well, I didn't watch it. Don't care.

Now the final conference I watched was Sony, no I didn't watch Nintendo, their style of games just don't appeal to me so I'll only be talking about Sony from here on. Their conference or show, whatever they wanna call it, was poorly structured and boring, but man were the games they showed off impressive. We finally saw gameplay for several of their titles for the first time, The Last of Us: Part II being the first on the line. Truly impressive stuff, the animation was top notch, so much so that a Tomb Raider lead called it fake, but the gameplay was improved upon as well. I really look forward to playing this bad boy in whatever distant year they please to release it. Of course, there was some controversy about the kiss between Ellie and Dina. As far as silly controversies go this is a silly one, not only should people have expected it as Ellie and Riley kissed in the Left Behind DLC but ND, and Druckmann specifically, have openly said that Ellie is indeed gay. The only thing I could think about when watching it, seeing Ellie so warm and happy, is that Dina is super dead. Like she has to die, and I can't wait to see the Youtube reactions when they play that part. It's gonna be spicy stuff, my dudes and dudettes.

I believe Ghost of Tsushima was up next, now this game looked absolutely stunning. The visuals are to die for. Not only that, the gameplay looked really nice, I'm not a fan of over the top hack and slash games so seeing a more slower paced and grounded combat system was pure joy for me. One thing that kinda put me off was the very American sounding female ally that shows up during the demo so I'm glad to see there will be the option for Japanese voice overs. Overall, I liked everything I saw from it. There were other games shown off as well, but I wasn't really impressed, not really into Spider Man and as far as Kingdom Hearts go both the more realistic graphics for the Pirates of the Caribbean characters go and the weird choice to mute all sound but the voices in the trailers to highlight the music was jarring to me. Death Stranding looked neat though, gave off some walking simulator vibes but I don't care, I want this game and I want it ASAP. It looks delightfully weird and I'm very much into it.

Final words, I wasn't blown away by E3 this year but one or two games did make me squeal from delight which is really all you can hope for. I think this year's event was really... Safe in some regards. It upheld the status quo of EA being disappointing, Bethesda getting all sorts of attention, Ubisoft being Ubisoft with all the cringe that goes with it, Devolver being memes incarnate, Sony making weird decisions but ultimately leaving people satisfied, Microsoft flexing their wallet, PC Gaming and Square making little noise. Not the best E3 but certainly not the worst.

Murder and Killing in Video Games

Neil Druckmann of Naughty Dog recently interviewed Hermen Hulst of Guerrilla Games about Horizon Zero Dawn and a comment from Druckmann made me think about a certain aspect of video games. That aspect being murder, now that might sound dark but I would like to remind you that I will be discussing the killing of pixels only.

Big, evil and terrifying pixels.

The comment that got me thinking was when Druckmann and Hulst was discussing how people claim to be unable to relate to characters that isn't their gender and Druckmann retorted with "...But you're okay with playing a murderer?", interesting comment. Now I understand that it was a simplification and not a 100% accurate depiction of protagonists in violent games but it still got me thinking, do we as gamers relate to murderers when we play games about killing people?

In some regards we do, but I would say it's more often than not highly justifiable. Gaming is by all means a very childish medium and often paints conflict in a very black and white manner. You, the player, often play as an underdog oppressed by some pure evil force and is often forced into the conflict through self defense or to protect loved ones. Some would say it's murder regardless of the reason but our medium goes to extreme lengths to make it seem like the right thing to do, because if a game made you feel like an actual murderer I'd argue that not many would actually enjoy playing that game.

That said, there are games that more or less intentionally play around with this. Games like Spec Ops: The Line with more on the nose commentary on killing heaps of people and others more subtly. The example I'd like to bring up is Fallout 4 for a very specific area with very specific enemies. I'm referring to the raiders at the FMS Northern Star wreck who unlike other raiders speak Norwegian. Now the other raiders you meet in the game have few redeeming qualities and often speak about horrible stuff they've done or are going to do, but the Norwegians don't. They will say things like "Leave us Alone!" and "Get off our ship!" when attacked, simply put, they're not bloodthirsty raiders but a stranded crew who simply didn't speak the language and couldn't communicate with the locals and ended up having to fight for what was theirs in a cruel world.

What got to me was how this detail would likely be lost on a vast majority of people who played Fallout 4 as most don't understand Norwegian. However as someone who do understand the basics I was rather mortified about learning that they just want to be left alone and that I am in fact the villain who attack them. This wasn't me defending myself from an evil, faceless entity but me going into someone's makeshift home and actually murdering the inhabitants. Naturally I felt horrible and avoid going there unless I have to, and I think that's an important thing to highlight.

Gamers as a whole will try to do good, and that is why it's dishonest to say we identify with murderers. There's a lot of data that will back this up, games that offer gamers the choice of good versus bad a majority will choose to do good. Not only that, but study from University of Buffalo suggests that doing anything immoral in games will lead to guilt and in a sense make us more morally sensitive. Such a study would hardly suggest that gamers get into a killer mindset even after killing thousands if not millions of pixelated enemies. I've personally been killing virtual bad guys for over a decade and I still felt horrible after killing the previously mentioned Norwegian raiders, as a personal experience to back it up.

Not that it can't be interesting when games do turn the tables, anyone who has played Spec Ops: The Line will know that a morally gray game will also be very entertaining. It was advertised as a standard military shooter so when it turned out to be a "Heart of Darkness"-inspired adventure that really tested the moral fibers of gamers. It's quite welcome to actually question if we should feel so indifferent to killing so many and I'd like to see more games where we strike down our fellow man to not be so careless about it. If we want our medium to mature we should ask for games that aren't just mindless shooting galleries, games that encourage other approaches that perhaps doesn't involve shooting the enemy in the face.

It could be even more beneficial for us if games reminded us that it isn't always so black and white, perhaps have the enemies chat about how they're doing bad things for a justifiable reason themselves. Then give us the option to avoid conflict either through dialogue options or stealth. Life imitates art, as they say, and today more empathy couldn't hurt. Considering that such a large part of the modern population play games it could be a very effective way to inspire more care to tell encouraging stories instead of the same old ones where you are the absolute hero and the enemy is an absolute evil.

To mention another game that kind of dabbles in moral gray areas but not really, The Last of Us is a game that put the player in control of a very brutal man, named Joel. Joel is a man who has survived in a cruel world for many years and as a result has become a very cold killer. If it wasn't for his companion, Ellie, someone who hasn't seen as much violence and in turn give Joel a reason to care again, he would probably be the villain in someone else's story. Would overall be hard to relate to considering how cold he is if it wasn't for even more horrifying bad guys in the game. Would've been nice to hear them talk about anything but how they basically enjoy kicking puppies in their free time. It can be fun playing a anti-hero but as a result the enemies often become so absurdly evil to make it justifiable to kill them without feeling too guilty. Breaks the immersion to some extent.

I understand that devs don't want us to feel too uncomfortable playing their games but I do believe that gamers are more mature than they give us credit for. If they want to depict a very morally gray world then don't be afraid to depict it properly, the previously mentioned The Last of Us would be a good opportunity to show us that the enemies aren't necessarily outright evil and that you might prefer to avoid conflict instead of depicting them as monsters that the world wouldn't miss. You could say it's weird how they instead encourage killing your fellow man because he's an irredeemable monster.

Not that I want mindless shooting galleries to disappear, but like I said our medium is still in a very infantile place as a whole when it comes to how it handles killing. Some games that depict a more realistic take on conflict could be good, games where killing does make you feel uncomfortable. Solving conflicts more creatively could be interesting and could be the next step for gaming to take if we want it to mature as a medium.

As a conclusion, it's a false oversimplification to claim that gamers are put into the role of murderers when playing violent games and call them murder simulators. However, it could be interesting to push boundaries by putting the player in a position where killing could be considered "murder" while giving the choice to simply avoid conflict through more creative means.

Essential NPC's Rant (Fo4)

Talking about the immortal NPC's that Bethesda insists on filling their worlds with. I get that NPC's in such a huge and dynamic world are forever in danger and that it would suck for them to die randomly but there's better solutions than making them 100% unkillable.

Fallout 4: Settlements Rant [VLOG]

A rant regarding the settlement building in Fallout 4. Don't worry, it's not too negative, if you were a nice person you could even call it constructive criticism;

Bethesda and Fallout 4 reveal [VLOG]

The first video I'd call a vlog, consider watching it and let me know what you think!

E3 2015 Thoughts and Winners

Best E3, like, ever! It has to be said before going more in-depth, it was a great show and many unbelievable surprises. It was so much fun seeing old and new games doing their best to impress. With that said, lets get to the meatier stuff! Do note that these are my opinions and I do focus on the stuff I was personally interested in.

I started watching Bethesda's E3 conference at 5:00 am Finnish time, and I'm glad I did. They started off with Doom 4 which was looking really good. Cannot complain about neither graphics nor gameplay, it was fun to see. They had a bit of stuff I didn't care about in the middle, like the Elder Scrolls online thing but they also showed off a lot of Fallout 4, and what can I say about that? It looks damn good, gameplay looks very fun with combat that they've actually put effort into this time around and they have a crazy amount of customization options. Lets just say it's hard to say that Fallout 4 isn't your kind of game because there's just so many options on how to play it. I suppose I should also mention that I can't wait to see more of Dishonored 2, I loved the first game so I do also expect great things from this game.

Moving on, the next conference I watched was Microsoft. I seem to be quite alone in this but their conference was pretty boring. Sure, they had good stuff like announcing backwards compatibility and, yeah. Don't get me wrong they showed games like Halo 5, Gears 4 and Forza 6 but those are franchises I've never been very fond of so they were pretty forgettable. The one game I was interested in that they showed was The Rise of the Tomb Raider (silly title though) but that demo was really disappointing. Very linear, scripted and the same old "shit breaks" kind of set piece gameplay that's just not very fun. They did the same with when they showed off the reboot as well, I thought that game was going to suck big time yet it's one of my favorite games from that year.

However, if we're talking about an outright bad conference, lets check out EA. If you wanna go to sleep, this is where it's at. They were smart saying every now and then how long until the reveal of Battlefront 3, because that was really the only reason to watch their show. Sure they had the new Need For Speed which looked neat enough, but it was really Star Wars: Battlefront 3 that people were most excited about. They also showed off the new Mass Effect: Andromeda game, but there's not much to talk about there either, EA really should've waited to announce a few of their projects because it seems like they aren't even nearly ready to talk about their games yet. Better luck next year.

Maybe it was because I had just watched EA's snoozefest, but Ubisoft had a really good conference, or shall I say an entertaining one. With a good host and good games to show off, with highlights being The Division and Ghost Recon: Wildlands. Curiously enough with only a brief CGI trailer for Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, though I suppose that by now everyone knows what AC is. And lets not forget For Honor which also looks really interesting, new IP with a more realistic take on sword battles. Overall, good job to Ubisoft!

Next up, my personal favorite of E3 2015, Sony. Where to start, the first thing they did was reveal The Last Guardian which people have been waiting for forever. Almost unreal to see it again, and no mercy was given as they showed off a new IP, Horizon: Zero Dawn, with some impressive looking gameplay. The announcements kept coming, Final Fantasy 7 remake in the works and Shenmue 3 is also to be revived. Finally, they showed off more Uncharted 4 gameplay which looked really grand, more open and so detailed. To think that they still have plenty of studios still working on unannounced titles is really exciting. Sony really won me over this E3.

Nathan Drake in action!

As far as Nintendo and Square Enix goes, I don't have much to say. Nintendo's show was cute, sure, but I don't really saw anything worth of note. Square Enix then again showed stuff like Just Cause 3, but their speakers were so dull I just couldn't feel enthusiastic about their games. Seriously, if they don't care about what they're talking about then why should I? Charisma is really important in these situations, next time I hope they have speakers that actually care about our amazing medium.

Final words then, so this year Sony "won" E3 for me, however this year it was so great that I can't really say someone had the best show. All I can say is that EA, Nintendo and Square Enix still have a lot to learn, the rest all had good stuff going on. In the end it's the gamers that won, we will be getting so many quality experiences in these coming years it's insane. Hope you, yes you reading this, are just as excited as I am to be a gamer in this day and age!


You can also find me on twitter @crazycat690