Not bad. They release patches and fix it. I didn't have any serious bugs, only FPS drops at few big locations.

I really think that's what Beth was going for lol.

As an aside: Some people really don't want their copy of Fallout 76 https://twitter.com/GeoffLife/status/1064333322938007552

Wow, wasnt expecting a thread on the game on this forum, lol.

I've gone from barely being willing to playing more than a couple of hours in beta to deciding not to buy the game to playing it every day now (and foregoing playing BFV despite enjoying it).

I had trouble playing it at first but noticed I did feel like wanting to play whenever I wasn't able to. It's by no means a great game, probably not even a good game, but I'm having fun with it nonetheless (solo) and that's all that matters I guess.

As for performance, it's been fine for me on PC. The worst is an occasional disconnect now and then (which can be inconvenient with a few of the ingame mechanics). Nothing like FO3 which was guaranteed to crash x times per session for me.

Those review scores. Ouch. For better or worse, I feel this will be another dumpster bin game within a few months. A year from now the servers will probably be a ghost town (if not sooner). Online games are hard to keep up, and that's the good ones with a good revenue stream.

I think Bethesda took this one out of the oven too soon, and it shows. Glad I don't do online games any more. Seems a waste of time and money. Bethesda would have spend a lot of resources to appease gamers and keep this one going. Considering that they're now working hard on Elder Scrolls 6 AND Star Field or whatever it's called, that seems unlikely.

Completely different Team. These guys haven't even worked on the older Fallout/Elder Scrolls, the ones working on FO76 used to be called Batlecry Studios, they were just renamed Bethesda Game Studios

The real team is working on Starfield I think.

Then forget everything I said. I'm sure Fallout 76 will be around for years of gaming pleasure. lol.

"Fallout 3 and 4 were the biggest Pieces Of Shit ever, NV was the only HALF DECENT one out of the lot because of OBSIDIAN and Obsidian was rushed off their feet too"

Cant believe that people still sheepishly praise NV over F3 because of which studio made it when F3 is objectively better than NV in every single aspect. F3 is the closest thing there is to F1, so its great by default.

Bet you also think that Oblivion is bad...

I've played and liked both FO3 and NV. I ran into many more "serious" bugs in FO3 so I consider NV better. With that said, I still don't think either are as good as FO 1&2.

If you ignore bugs and just analyse the core games the winner is pretty obvious.

Its even worse to put F1 and F2 in the same boat, with F1 being the best by far and F2 the worst by far.

We'll have to agree to disagree on NV and FO3. But I think we can agree all of them are better than FO76.

C'mon, that sounds nothing like Gone Home. It's like saying Doom is kind of like Dear Esther, but with guns and health mechanism. The so called walking simulators are all about discovering a story in a mostly linear environment, they're not about survival, resource management and building in an open (multiplayer) world. It's perfectly fine to dislike both types of gameplay and say they don't provide enough motivation to engage your or something, but they're very clearly separated genres.

I was being sarcastic. If you look at his provided example he says you can search a house and find depressing notes about the family who lived there. But jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them I suppose.

also, Gone Home was garbage.

I've seen people comparing Todd Howard to Peter Molyneux. This is unfair to the latter, as Ole' Pete was passionate about his projects and the games he released were (relatively) tightly made for the time being. Sure, many of them overshot the audience and were often arcane, but at least he made the effort of innovation.

Thank you for the info! ^_^
Thank you too for the info, patches, patches never changes ^_^