Talk:Fallout 76/Archive 1

Archive 1

Standalone Game, or Add-on, or what?

This should be spelled-out in the Lede. I came here wondering this.2605:6000:6947:AB00:844:D4AB:6506:2CC1 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Fallout 76 is an upcoming online multiplayer action role-playing video game. Seems pretty spelled out. It's an upcoming video game. It is not an expansion or addon. -- ferret (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

First online

This is not Bethesda's first online game as the article states. Elder Scrolls Online has been out for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:d619:2b00:9985:d02:22ed:86b2 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how people are struggling with this. TES Online is developed by Zenimax Online. Bethesda Game Studios, the developer of Fallout 76, has never made a multiplayer game before. Bethesda Softworks is publisher. The sentence is not talking about Bethesda Softworks (the publisher), but about Bethesda Game Studios (the developer). -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth adding a note on the subject containing this clarification, since many are unaware of the distinctions and associations between the various Bethesda and Zenimax entities. CommissarPat (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

CommissarPat, one would understand that there might be confsion between Bethesda Softworks and Betehsda Game Studios (which is why we keep separate articles for both), but Bethesda Game Studios and ZeniMax Online Studios are two vastly different entities that are usually hard to confuse. The problem that arises, really, is that people are unaware/do not care that TES Online was not developed by Bethesda Game Studios, but another related studio. We also do not outline the differences between Epic Games and People Can Fly every time we talk about any Epic game, such as Fortnite Save the World. Lordtobi (✉) 07:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, the objective here is hardly to inform people about the bethesda/zenimax family tree, and the Bethesda Softworks page does have a disambig-like link to the Bethesda Game Studios, although the inverse is not present on the BGS page. CommissarPat (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Reclamation Day and WV's Partnership with Bethesda

So I was looking around on Wikia when this appeared as one of the links. According to PcGamesN and PC Gamer, as part of that influx of tourist that came with the game's announcement and the remix of 'Take Me Home, Country Roads' the local government and even WV Governor Jim Justice stated that they wish to take advantage of "advertising and touring opportunities" by partnering up with Bethesda and recognising November 14 as Reclamation Day. It's not an official holiday mind you, but the intention is to capitalise interest in West Virginia and increase tourism. Heck, Governor Justice said “It’s finally time the rest of the world sees what a gem West Virginia is. For years, I’ve been saying we have it all: beautiful scenery, the best people you could ask for and more. And now, we get to share a piece of that with people all over the world through the unique lens of this video game.”

Now, I'm not American, so I don't know too much about why or how WV seemingly slips under the radar in tourism, but whether I did or not isn't the point. The point is an official state of a real-life country has launched an official partnership with a video game by, among other things, naming an official day (not a public holiday or even a holiday in general) after the game's first mission; something I'm fairly sure has not only never been done before and is by all accounts jaw-dropping. I don't even know how to properly edit, but even if I did, how the hell am I supposed to write about THIS?!

Sorry about the unprofessionalism, it's just shocking and I'm not sure what to make of this. Can someone help me "investigate" this and figure out how to add this to the page. I'm fairly sure this is relevant enough to talk about but I need someone who knows their stuff to talk about how this needs to be added.Rook Bishop (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This definitely needs included at some point as the article expands, you're right the bring it up. @Wikibenboy94: Ben maybe you'd be interested in working it in? If not I'll try to get to it, bit busy at the moment. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Surprised you thought of me to ask to do this. Anyway, this is the first I've heard of this "Reclamation day" thing. I'm presuming this would only warrant a few sentences or a small paragraph? I can do it if so, otherwise I'm not anxious and wouldn't be fussed if you did it in in due course.Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah a short 2-3 sentence paragraph under development/marketing probably. I thought of you cause you edited it earlier today :) -- ferret (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That was quick. Though, I'm pretty sure - and this is my own opinion - that it's not just this one day recognised by the state of West Virginia that needs adding. If you search about PCGameN for articles about 76 you'll find a few articles talking about increased tourism interest in West Virginia due to the game's announcement. Because sure, the page mentioned the manager of Camden Park saying there was increased interest in the park's merch, but it goes beyond that; the Mothman Museum is selling some of the game's merchandise and has already sold out, the governor signed an official document claiming Nov 14 as Reclamation day and even Tourism Commisioner Chelsea Ruby has made an official statement on the partnership has "tremendous potential to bring folks to visit the Mountain State.” Again, I'm not really experienced in writing online articles, but I don't think a few short sentences will cut it, but that's my opinion. I just posted in the talk section because I wasn't sure if my sources were reliable. I've read Wikipedia's rules about them, but it's really confusing, so here I was. Anyway, thanks for noticing! ^_^ Rook Bishop (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Mixed to Negative/Unfavorable Reviews

I would in no sense claim this game has being received in a mixed sense by critics, almost none are praising it and even higher scoring reviews, few and far between, still contain huge sections of intense criticism. At this moment in time it is most definitely receiving a mixture of mixed to negative reviews from critics on Metacritic. I suggest changing this wording to reflect that in the appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We go by secondary sources. As has become canon within the Video games project on Wikipedia, Metacritic is used for reception sections to determine how the game was received. We directly quote Metacritic with "generally unfavorable" and "mixed to average", and it is not up to our opinion which reviews actually count. -- Wikipedia is not opinion-based. Regards Lordtobi (✉) 10:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mhmm, I understand this but I am just looking at the critical reviews on Metacritic, they are all mixed or negative, so I think a fairer opening description would be it has been receiving mixed or negative reviews. It doesn't really matter I guess I just think it's more accurate than claiming it is receiving just mixed reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:VG/MIXED. But basically, we're calling it whatever Metacritic calls it. To look at Metacritic, and call it something else, would be original research. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added an "according to Metacritic" to this. I usually don't dip into game articles on Wikipedia (I've been following this particular release and its reception due to its connection to West Virginia folklore), but this seems like something of a unique situation to me, particularly when compared to the plethora of exceedingly negative reviews this release has received so far. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So the game is now a Metacritic red 'Generally unfavorable' score on both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. I suggest altering the article accordingly as it's now, objectively, mixed to negative reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just negative. See WP:VG/MIXED; "mixed-to-negative" is imprecise and inferior to just one or the other. JOEBRO64 19:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Mixed is mixed, Metacritic states that on 2/3 platforms reception was mixed, and on one platform - "negative". I believe it's a definitive reason we should go with mixed and preferably ban IPs and other 4chan trolls that try to say otherwise. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes and when making these comments 2/3 platforms were generally unfavorable reviews, in the red. Perhaps you should cool yourself down and stop being so bullish about personally attacking others and demanding IP bans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I edited this before reading the discussion here. By now the far majority of the reviews is either mixed or negative with few positive reviews. Summarizing this as mixed to negative is not original research. It's simply stating what the graphs read. Besidess anything better then "mixed to negative" wouldn't match with the entirely negative subsequent paragraph.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Please also note this flaw in the manual. On metacritic "mixed" doesn't mean scattered across the board, it means mediocre. So in metacritic terms, mixed to positive is perfectly logical. Please discuss at the linked applicable manual.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

So should we change the opening section to mixed to negative reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

About time we changed it to negative, early reviews were mixed but recent reviews bring it to at least leaning negative. Especially with all the controversy lately. Anticitizen 98

Based on what sourcing? The metacritic scores have not shifted. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There is now a reliable secondary source that places the MetaCritic scores in perspective. What MC summarizes as "mixed to average" is actually a horrible score for a AAA title. I think hope the source i've quoted is what we've all been looking for.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 23:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to replace Metacritic's own scores with this, and additionally Forbes contributors are unreliable sources. See WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And chiming in that phrases like “mixed to negative” are awkward and aren’t used anywhere other than poorly written Wikipedia articles. We need to steer away from that poorly written language. In general, obsess less over that opening word choice, and focus more on capturing the overall sentiment through paragraphs of prose and quotes from reviews. It’s very possible to open with a “mixed” and still accurately capture all the negative sentiments out there too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. What Metacritic calls "mixed/average" means neither mixed (as in all over the place) nor average (as in about 50% of the games score worse). Since metacritic doesn't properly sum up it's own scores, i't better to prefer a secondary source that interprets the metacritic scores or sums up the reviews in another way, if we can find a reliable source on it.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 00:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don’t think sticking with “mixed” is the right move here—it simply doesn’t reflect reality. It doesn’t make sense to me that we’d blindly trust Metacritic’s arbitrary cutoff point of 50/100 to mean “mixed or average” when so many secondary sources refer to the reaction as predominantly negative. The reviews are objectively neither mixed nor average; as others have pointed out, few reviews are anywhere in the “positive” range, and a score in the low 50s is well below average. Metacritic, useful as it is, shouldn’t be treated as the word of God. —Will^(B) 17:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sales comparison

@Stormy clouds:, please stop adding the Fallout 4 sales comparison. Even if is sourced, the reader doesn't know how many copies Fallout 4 sold in that period. It's vague and incomplete information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Soetermans: - ok. Will do. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94:, same, it doesn't communicate any relevant information. Sales are 80% less? So? How many copies did Fallout 4 sell? And how is that relevant? Just because it's mentioned in sources doesn't mean we have to indiscriminately copy-paste the information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Obvious reception issues - Quote farming

@Bloodofox: Pinging you cause of your recent undo of adjustments to Guardian's review to go back to full quotes. This reception section is currently an outright mess of quote farming, without summarizing the reviews themselves. The entire section is bordering on a COPYVIO situation due to the excessive quoting and is wildly out of compliance with MOS:VG. Everyone who's editing this reception needs to give a read through of WP:VG/REC, the relevant section of the MOS. In particular, bullet five is about over-quoting and the need to paraphrase. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

These quotes are brief and by no means in violation of copyright. If you'd like to summarize the quotes, I have no issue with that, but I believe they're perfectly within WP:MOS as-is. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a copyright issue, just that for video game reception sections (in contrast to say the film project's guidance) we look for more prose summary of key aspects, with more highly selective quoting. --Masem (t) 16:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've given it a read over and will convert much of it over to original prose here soon (unless someone beats me to it). This is one of the corners of Wikipedia I'm currently less familiar with. I'll note that it'll be difficult to summarize these reviews into something more than 'this is very bad' (which essentially every major reviewer is clearly saying) without dipping into a brief quote or two. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not played the game (nor likely) so I can't help, but the way I would do it is read through all the major reviews, find points of common praise or criticism, and focus on those. Where appropriate those points can be accompanied with a brief quote. --Masem (t) 16:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not that hard. If every reviewer notes the lack of NPCs as an issue, you write it as a paragraph focused on that aspect, referenced to the relevant sources, such as: "Reviewers criticized the removal of non-player characters from the game, which makes the world feel empty and lifeless. They took note that with no characters for the player to interact with, there is no ability for a player to make plot based decisions as seen in previous games." and so forth. MOS:VG wants the highlights to be summarized together in this fashion. I'm sure more could be said from the reviews about the lack of NPCs, this was just a quick example. Similarly, a paragraph on technical issues common across reviews, or the lack of "permanence" due to the online nature of the servers. However, this DOES need to be balanced. The reception is heavily skewed to negative right now, despite the review scores hovering towards the middle. Most reviews I've seen do praise the world itself, its size and detail, etc, and that should also be covered. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The Metacritic review score is about 50/100, with the Xbox One Metacritic score currently below that. That's not exactly 'the middle', is it? These reviews are exceedingly—perhaps historically—negative. Most reviews complain about essentially everything but the map itself and, say, the game's original soundtrack. Presenting the few positives reviewers pass out as somehow 'equal' to the laundry list of negatives—which dominate the reviews—presents readers with a warped view of the game's reception. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the positives is not neutral either. If every reviewer is mentioning the world and soundtrack as positives, then we must include it. It doesn't have to be written about as MUCH as the negatives but it can't be ignored. -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Balance would be presenting the material as the reviewers do: overwhelmingly negative reception with a few positives reviewers mention here and there, such as the aforementioned soundtrack and the fictionalized map of West Virginia itself. I suspect that, at this rate, we'll get some thought pieces from major publications that will provide material for some general commentary for this section, as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This sort of edits is what occurs when we don't write prose about what the reviewers didn't like, and instead just quote the sound bites. The reception doesn't currently discuss any of the game's issues really, it just posts comments about how reviewers hate it for 80% of the cases. I won't have time to really sit down to this for a few more days but hopefully will start revamping it soon. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The edit you mentioned was made by a fan of the game who is desperately trying to portray it in a "less negative" way. You can see another example of same exact action for same exact reason here. Anyway, I took care of it by adding direct quotes from the already mentioned reviews supporting the claim in the lede.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the Guardian review originally. I'm very happy with converting the reception section, which is currently a sea of quotes, into prose. We would organise it based around basic points ("the game has been criticised/praised for x by y and z") as opposed to x said this and y said that. There is generally common ground between reviews on what is good and what is bad in the game to be able to group things together. --Michail (blah) 19:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Openlydialectic:, stop your biased editing. Stuff like this is not appropriate in a thoroughly sourced article. Lordtobi (✉) 21:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: lol. At the time of my edit there wasn't even a single mention of either "NPC" or "human" in the reviews section of the article, let alone a mention of that claim I put the citation needed tag after. And this is something I explained in my edit summary, but you've decided to ignore. And then you acccuse me of biased editing? Jesus Christ, Wikipedia is indeed dying if this is the degree of lying people are willing to go thru to put add their biases to articles here. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, you added a cn tag with the exact same, in most cases unrelated, question-exclamation behind every point in the criticism lead sentence, tagged the entire article as undersoirced and started editorialising. It is evident that you do not want to have the game portrayed in a negative way. As this discussion above might make you aware, the review section is currently in the progress of being rewritten (the same stance already applied to the time you made your first such edit). If you took a look at the many reviews cited, you will find all claims made in the lead present and they will as such find their way into the reception section once rewritten. So instead of plainly ignoring this discussion, editorialising and edit warring on the article, you could instead help improve the reception section as outlined in this discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 12:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Lordtobi Thanks for that wall of text, but that's a lie and you know that. At the time of my contribution there were no mentions of critics mentioning anything about NPCs in the article, yet you immediately removed my contribution nonetheless. If you don't care about substantiating your claims, why do you bother with wikipedia at all? Oh well, why am I even wasting my time arguing with the "Gamers rise up" crowd anyways. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, everyone can make a mistake and I made one thinking that the reception had already been rewritten or amended with the changes requested in this dicussion. That does not, however, change the fact that this discussion was long going over that issue, which you have ignored since. Surely the article has some issues, but that's no excuse for you to make it worse.

As I already said, all claims made in the lead can be read up on in the reviews cited and would have been ready to maade into prose (e.g. by you) at any time, as has been pointed out plenty, instead of saying that the "Gamers rise up crowd" (I am not even sure what that's supposed to mean) is spreading lies all over Wikipedia. To demonstrate, I just cited all critique points in the lead with reviews already present in article. Lordtobi (✉) 12:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Making article more neutral

I think it would be beneficial to also add Bethesda's reply to all valid criticism they have received so far, using this page. Something like "Bethesda has acknowledged many issues raised by people who played the game and they said that they're committed to rolling out fixes and features on a regular basis, and implementing changes based on player's feedback" or something of that sort, so there wouldn't be an impression that Bethesda are just ignoring everything that is wrong with this game. Not sure how to write it correctly so this is why I am posting it here. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, except I'd say they're not addressing many of the core criticisms, so I'd change it to "Bethesda has acknowledged some of the issues..."PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom:, that would be a good addition, but not from Bethesda's website directly (see WP:PRIMARY). We would need independent coverage on Bethesda's reply, and hopefully an additional reaction by a reliable source on that reply. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Class action lawsuit

I am surprised that Soetermans reverted my edits to the article, mentioning WP:NOTNEWS in the edit summary. Soetermans also reverted similar edits by Anticitizen 98. WP:NOTNEWS is mainly about Wikipedia articles: "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not ... news reports." This article is not "Class action lawsuit against Fallout 76". While the policy cautions against "routine news reporting", the extensively reported description of the legal investigation is certainly not "routine news".

Soetermans misapplied WP:NOTNEWS to remove legitimate, relevant information from the article. Incidentally, his heavy-handed reversion of my edits has re-introduced a grammatical error that I had previously corrected. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Axl:,

WP:NOTNEWS No. 2 says "routine news reporting of announcements (...) is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The text I've reverted reads "In response to the games questionable conduct following its launch, Washington law firm Migliaccio and Rathod LLC have considered filing a class-action lawsuit against the company for deceptive trade practices", my italics. That a law firm have considered legal action at this point is also not noteworthy at this point. If they're actually going to go forward, sure, but at this point it's more of an easy way for Migliaccio and Rathod to get some good exposure than an actual news item. I'd also like to point out that "games questionable conduct" (which should be the company's, not games [sic]) and "against the company for deceptive trade practices" is POV editorializing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I view this as essentially acting as advertisement for the law firm to a degree as well. If and when they actually FILE a lawsuit, it will be suitable for inclusion. Let's not help them fish, it's not our job. -- ferret (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The law firms potential lawsuit could be mentioned on the main Bethesda wiki page under the legal issues/controversies section perhaps. Anticitizen 98

Or not at all, until it's an actual lawsuit. -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversy over private info leak?

Bethesda Support leaked private customer information would that be best inserted here or in Bethesda's article itself? 2600:1700:E460:5330:7969:9389:794C:5D8C (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I added a small mention for now under the reception section as all reliable sources link this to FO76. Will further monitor this situation as this breach has potential to become one of gaming's biggest fuck ups --Loganmac (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better to insert into article about Bethesda. The data leak was not only related to Fallout 76, if you'll look at screenshots it was related to all of Bethesda's games. Here's a relevant Twitter post with an actual screenshot:

https://twitter.com/JesscaTracy9/status/1070408681320177664 Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

For now all reliable sources are linking this to Fallout 76 even though it seems their whole support system was compromised Loganmac (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Canvas shortage?

Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary citations, rather than primary? Isn't "revealed" a dodgy(weasel?) word? Isn't it more accurate to say that it was "revealed" to be done because it was cheaper? The article describing this according to the [obviously lying] PR from the company is fucky as fuck. 88.109.237.42 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a huge deal, but I did change it to "claimed". -- ferret (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERG versus accurately capturing the User Review

I'm concerned that there are several editors that are not providing a WP:NPOV in this article and are using WP:USERG as (in my mind), poor justification to exclude facts regarding user review. It appears the content is being removed not because it isn't accurate but they personally disagree with it.

In particular, I refer to the edit: [1]

As such I have restored the content until some discussion is actually made regarding removing the content rather than just referencing a WP guideline that uses the word "generally".

Aeonx (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we're currently not reflecting the reality of consensus, although I don't think we should be using user reviews—they're far too easy to manipulate. Watching this unfold, I've been mystified by the—intentional or not—obfuscation of this particular media production's reception: it's pretty clear that reviews of Fallout 76 have been overwhelmingly (and remarkably) negative. It's also unclear to me how anyone could describe a Metacritic score of 52/100 or less as "mixed". That seems highly misleading to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Bloodofox, we presently describe critics scores as mixed because Metacritic aggregated the individual critic scores sourced from secondary sorces for two platforms as "mixed or average" and one as "negative", of which the median is "mixed". Also keep in mind that some publications, for some reason, gave it > 8/10 reviews, so it was not negative across the board (thus, mixed). It has previously been discussed and guideline-ized that "mixed-to-negative" is not a proper way to describe such ratings. The Reception section goes into proper detail on how the reception is distributed. Lordtobi (✉) 21:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not often active in this corner of Wikipedia, if an average of 52/100 (even when influenced by "reviews" like the one you mention) can somehow yield a description of "mixed", it seems to me that this is a broken system. "Mixed" is simply not a reflection of reality in this case. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Aeonx, thanks for taking this to the talk page. User scores are rarely reliable because they are often infused, to a high degree, with trolls or people jumping on hate/hype trains. If you take, for example, Artifact's user score, you can see a rather low 2.1 score due to many people concerned about the game's monetization system giving it a 0/10 score, regardles of whether they have actually played the game or not (mostly not). Similar goes for Fallout 76, just that is was also poorly received by critics. Even Big Rigs, with the lowest Metascore ever (8/100), has a better user score than both of these games.

Let's take one of the top-voted reviews for F76's PC version, which reads "This game got a 0 rating from me because you couldn't pay to make me play it."; clearly this user has not played the game, but decided to give it the worst score possible anyways. In extreme cases, this can be referred to as review bombing (the reason GTAV still has 'Mixed' ratings on Steam, although it capped at 97% prior to the OpenIV fiasco). And this is also why we have WP:USERG. We aren't trying to outright ban popular opinion, but Metacritic user scores (or any aggregated user scores, for that matter) do not properly reflect popular opinion, and it is not a matter of NPOV. User reviews could still be included, but only if they are properly covered by reliable, secondary sources, in which case Metacritic isn't secondary (as all user scores are produced on the site).

Per WP:BRD I will retract the content for now, but obviously would like to see more comments. Lordtobi (✉) 21:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User reviews are absolutely unacceptable per WP:USERG, and further reinforced by MOS:VG. This is especially a problem with unvetted and open polls like Metacritic which have repeatedly seen Reddit/4Chan organize review bombs against high profile games that have had issues, legitimate or not. These sites don't even require proof of purchase or having played the game. If a secondary source comments on the low user score, we can reference that directly (See Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game) which indeed does just that). -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There are several independent news articles reporting on the user reviews. examples include: [2] [3] [4], and Bethesda themselves have acknowledged it [5]. Aeonx (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Altchar doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Kotaku and Screenrant don't mention the Metacritic user review scores. We pretty much have the individual issues covered to one degree or another, but reliable sources are not specifically making note of the Metacritic user score. Need to point out that WP:NPOV is specific that we balance the views published in reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Metacritic user score is not the issue here. The issue is the article does not in any way capture the overwhelmingly negative USER reviews. The Metacritic user score is just one element to that, and whilst this fact is blatantly obvious across many sites, it makes not one single mention in the article. Aeonx (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to wade in here; user scores for any game should never be mentioned as such. The only time positive or negative reviews should be mention is if a reliable source talks about this. Metacritic user reviews make zero difference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Aeonx, what content would you propose to be added that is unconnected to the Metacritic user scores and found in reliable sources? Something in the vein of "Users also found the same issues as critics"? That doesn't seem like it is much of a useful addition. Lordtobi (✉) 09:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If critics were positive, but users were very negative, similar to Mass Effect 3 or something that might be a good reason to mention it, but we would still need reliable sources to comment on user reception. Like @Lordtobi: said, they have all been very negative. I don't see a reason to mention user reception too at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly how policy/guidelines say we handle things like this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to again point out how very negative reception has been to this release. At the moment, readers simply find a 'reception has been mixed' notice when they read the article's lead, which is highly misleading and not at all the reality of this particular media product's reception, both among critics and users. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bloodofox, again, the reception for this game was not exclusively negative. Some people actually liked the game and gave it rather good reviews -- for example [6][7][8] -- and thus, reception was "mixed" when all scores are combined. I might add, the reception was "positive" enough to keep the game in the upper half of MC's scoreboard.

Look at releases like Ride to Hell: Retribution, Umbrella Corps and Big Rigs for examples where games really had overwhelmingly negative reception. Furthermore, controversies that followed the game's release did not weigh in on the critic score, as most (if not all) reviewers cannot see into the future. What could be added to the lead, though, is a mention of tje controversy that stirred up post-launch. The critic score is, more or less, set in stone. Lordtobi (✉) 21:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A Metacritic score hovering at 50 is negative, regardless of whether it technically falls under Metacritic's score of mixed. There's really no way to dress that up. A few scores well outside of the general consensus don't particularly matter—especially when they're from small and obscure sites (going against consensus can get you some top Metacritic billing, it appears). Again, this is simply misleading to readers and needs to change. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You, me, and everyone else that is a gamer knows of ratings inflation in VGs and that a numerical 50 average is not a sign of a good game, it is not an "average" (compared to "good" or "bad") score. But unfortunately it is original research for us to express this without a source. --Masem (t) 22:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 16 December 2018

Please add a "plot" sub-section to the article under the "premise" section as the game does have a story. It should read something like this:

Twenty-five years after the Great War, Vault 76 is opened up and its residents given the task of repopulating the wasteland. Shortly after they emerge from the Vault, the player character is contacted by the Vault Overseer. She reveals that Vault 76 was given a secret mandate to secure an arsenal of nuclear weapons deployed throughout Appalachia. The player character is directed to contact the First Responders, a faction of emergency services personnel who tried to aid the residents of Appalachia during the war; however, they discover that the First Responders evacuated after they came under attack from the Scorched. Further investigation reveals that the Scorched are ghouls infected by the breath of a Scorchbeast, a creature that was awoken after the Great War. As the Scorched represent a threat to the wasteland beyond Appalachia, the player character decides to secure a nuclear weapon and use it to destroy a Scorchbeast nest. In order to achieve this, they start searching the bunkers of survivalists calling themselves the Free States who were working on the means to detect the Scorched until the Scorched overran them. The player character is able to build a radar system that detects the viral signature of the Scorched, but its limited range makes it ineffective. They hack into a government network and draw the attention of the Enclave, the remnants of the United States government. The Enclave are led by MODUS, a centralised artificial intelligence system. MODUS asks the player character to help connect them to a series of isolated computer networks across Appalachia, and in return offers to connect to the radar system to detect Scorched across the region. Once MODUS is connected, they are quickly able to identify the Scorchbeast nest. The player character is directed to a nuclear weapons silo and they launch a missile at the nest. Venturing into the irradiated area, they uncover a laboratory at the centre of the nest, implying that the Scorchbeasts were man-made. The explosion awakens a Scorchbeast Queen and the player is forced to fight them. With the Queen defeated, the Scorchbeasts' hive mind is broken and the threat to the wasteland beyond Appalachia is halted. The player character rejoins the other residents of Vault 76 in rebuilding the wasteland.

Feel free to edit as needed. 1.129.105.192 (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, plots are generally considered to be sourced to the primary source, i.e. the game. -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: I just meant that, for a plot this size, in addition to the premise section, there should be at least some reference to either an independent source or to the game itself (explanation of the game on website, etc). However, if you disagree, I won't object if you make the requested edit. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added this section on the presumption that it is a good faith request and that other editors will fix it if it is incorrect. Since the article is only semi-protected, plenty of editors can modify it directly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia care about "spoilers"? One I wonder if this could be a spoiler, and two I wonder how Wikipedia deals with spoilers. Also the source of the text. If this is Bethesda's self-description, that might also put the excerpted text into a special status.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not avoid spoilers or put spoiler warnings up for plot. It's obvious that the plot section of an encyclopedic article on a book/film/game will contain spoilers. This is not text written by Bethesda. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

More criticism/controversy

It seems like there are more issues related to the game that has recently surfaced, in particular the increasing prices of the game's item shop and the currency used there. Here is one source that discusses it. There are probably more. I'm just not sure under which category this should be added, so if anyone wants to add it - feel free to do that.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

reworked main article

here is my version of the article i wrote:

Fallout 76 is an online action role-playing game developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks, part of the Fallout series. Released for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One on November 14, 2018, it is a prequel to previous series games. Fallout 76 is Bethesda Game Studios's first multiplayer game; players explore the open world, which has been torn apart by nuclear war, with others.

Bethesda developed the game using a modified version of its Creation Engine, which allowed the accommodation of multiplayer gameplay and a more detailed game world. Fallout 76 was released to generally mixed reviews, with many criticizing the game's numerous technical issues, overall design, lack of gameplay purpose, and absence of human non-playable characters. Controversy also arose shortly after launch concerning false advertising of content included in the game's special edition and Bethesda's attempts to rectify the situation.

it includes a link to List of video games notable for negative reception

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

so, here is my change to the main article:

Fallout 76 is an online action role-playing game in the Fallout series developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. Released for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One on November 14, 2018, it is a prequel to previous series games. Fallout 76 is Bethesda Game Studios's first multiplayer game; players explore the open world, which has been torn apart by nuclear war, with others.

Bethesda developed the game using a modified version of its Creation Engine, which allowed the accommodation of multiplayer gameplay and a more detailed game world. Fallout 76 was released to generally mixed reviews, with many criticizing the game's numerous technical issues, overall design, lack of gameplay purpose, and absence of human non-playable characters. The game was the subject of several controversies, chiefly in regards to the quality of physical content included in the game's special editions and player disgruntlement towards the responses given by Bethesda.

i added a link to List of video games notable for negative reception 64.72.210.21 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done I added the link to the top of the article as well as to the Reception section. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 23:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Genre

Fallout 76 is a Survival game and was advertised as such. Leaving that out of the first line may cause confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA0:D5:D1C:C0D1:C8FF:B953 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Is "torn apart" in the Lede to "Salesy"?

"Released for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One on November 14, 2018, it is a prequel to previous series games.[b] Fallout 76 is Bethesda Game Studios's first multiplayer game; players explore the open world, which has been torn apart by nuclear war, with others. Bethesda developed the game using a modified version of its Creation Engine, which allowed the accommodation of multiplayer gameplay and a more detailed game world."

It feels a little too over-the-top to me, and a term/phrase that a marketer for the game might use to describe it, vs. an encyclopedia. "destroyed" feels more neutral, and more encyclopedic, to me. Does anyone else agree, or is this just me?Tym Whittier (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't see an issue with the current language. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Fallout 76 "Multi-Player Only"?

I'm a fan of the game series, and once did some pre-release research, which as I remember ended with my belief that the game is multiplayer only, meaning you can't install it to a local computer and play it by yourself. There's a line in the Lede about "no NPCs", which I assume means that there is no "local" gameplay, however that's not clearly spelled out, and I think it should be (if it's true there is no local gameplay). In contrast, "Battlefield 1942" allows you to play "online" or "local". If Fallout 76 does not allow both, this should be clearly spelled out in the Lede. Seasoned gamers might think this is obvious, but non-gamers, newbies and dabblers (like myself) will not.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It means that the game has no non-player characters that the human player can interact with, at all. All non-player entities in the game are enemies. The lead sentence immediately states "this is an online video game" -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)