Talk:Fallout 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Splitting Reception into two sections

@ferret I'm about to update the article's Reception with criticism of the game's new monthly subscription model, but am ever-more aware that the section is growing larger whenever a new story arises criticising Bethesda's decision-making with changes to the game's design and playerbase; currently the amount of prose concerning this is equal to that of the prose that outlines the game's reviews. As a result, I don't know if it would be beneficial to split the section so one half comes under "Critical reviews" etc, and the other under another title (if so, what)? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it could be moved from reception to "post release" under development. -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, makes sense. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic Reviews

Can't help but notice that it seems there's been a bit of vandalism to the Metacritic Aggregate Scores. That should probably be edited. 71.222.6.86 (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it but I am not sure what fixed it. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's still visible to me (three 9[lot of 9]9/100) if I open the article directly – but oddly enough not if I manually open the current revision (by ApLundell) via the history. Some bug in the template sourcing it?
Also, the 3rd last edit by Wikibenboy94 unilaterally changed "poor reviews" to "mixed reviews", without rationale nor source. As such, the change amounts to vandalism. -- 95.90.219.19 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm… within the minute of writing that (and reloading the article): now the three figures are suddenly shown properly. -- 95.90.219.19 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page cache sometimes has to refresh before showing changes to Wikidata, where the scores are stored. The score vandalism was reverted within 5 minutes. Wikibenboy94's edit is correct, as we base the general statement of a game's reception on Metacritic, which is in the "mixed" range for two platforms, and "unfavorable" for one. It is admittedly borderline, but it's very bad faith to call his edit vandalism when he's written most of the article and heavily contributed to its current level of polish. -- ferret (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wastelanders

Fallout 76 is pulled from steam and the wastelanders edition will be released in two days (14-4). Clever way to get a fresh start in terms of steam reviews ;) I've updated the WP entry. I think these two references are obsolete now. [1][2] Can/should we archive them in some way without deleting? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 13:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wales, Matt. "Fallout 76's NPC-adding Wastelanders update has been delayed into next year". Eurogamer. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
  2. ^ Good, Owen. "Fallout 76's human NPC update delayed into next year". Polygon. Retrieved October 24, 2019.
I've added a more appropriate source than Forbes. I'm not sure what you mean by "Pulled from Steam", as the game has never been released on Steam before now. The Forbes source didn't say anything about Steam at all. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i wasn't aware that is wasn't launched on steam before. I misread an article on Bethesda's site on the topic. Thanks for correcting. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 14:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Bethesda refers to Wastelanders as an update, rather than an expansion or DLC. Probably for good reason as the game can't be purchased without waterlanders anymore. (Edit: paragraph has been added) PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steam reception should probably be added

PC gamer so far has taken note. https://www.pcgamer.com/fallout-76-now-has-a-mostly-positive-rating-on-steam/ -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know I've seen a few articles pass my news feed on how users are trying to fight off the review bombs. Definitely documentable. --Masem (t) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And noting I've added here, as well as at the Review bomb article (as a counterintended effect) and to the VG notable for negative reception, given that it's been compared to the FF14/NMS turnaround. --Masem (t) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection expiry

I know that much of Fallout 76 for whatever reason has drawn the ire of players, but surely protecting the page to expire in three years is a bit excessive? I feel that one, perhaps even up to two, years of protection would have been ample enough. There's not been a particulary high-level of vandalism on the page since the last protection expiry date (which was in place for a year), with the exception of the past month or so which has been particulary egregious, although I would warrant a lot of this was in relation to the "Wastelanders" update. Regardless, the game's a year-and-a-half old, and as a result most of the controversies or maligned decisions have been talked about and moved on from. While there's a chance this may still be Bethesda's only big title by the time protection expires and they won't have another game to take the limelight, most people will have just considered Fallout 76 a bad memory. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: Page protection durations are increased with each reapplication. When the last year-long protection expired, vandalism immediately resumes. Typically the next protection is 3 years at the admins discretion, if not an indefinite protection. There is no evidence that vandalism and disruption over this topic is anywhere near done, especially if you read their Instagram which is still subject to constant back and forth negative commentary. Honestly, I probably would have just indef'd. This is coupled to the fact that an editor with a dynamic IP is on a crusade to remove mention of positive reception of Wastelander. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalistic labeling

There are a number of citations for sources from forbes.com here, and someone has gone through and labeled just about all of them as "self-published." Forbes is very obviously *not* self-published, so this labeling is vandalism. Request that edits be made to remove the inappropriate labels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.12.2 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The citations tagged like this are from Forbes Contributors, who do not have editorial oversight from Forbes editors. They have long been declared to be treated as self-published opinion pieces and a recent discussion at WP:RSN confirmed this view. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed" reviews?

FYI, I went ahead and changed the lead to say that reviews were "generally unfavorable" and not "mixed". I'm aware that

WP:VG recommends we go with the description provided by Metacritic (which states the reviews are "mixed or average", except for the Xbox version, which does say "generally unfavorable"), but to call the reviews for Fallout 76 "mixed" is just not an accurate description of reality, in my opinion. "Mixed" implies a scattering of different opinions, but of the 46 reviews on Metacritic, only four are positive. That's not what I'd call "mixed". Especially given that this game is listed on the article for List of video games notable for negative reception
, it seems silly to deem it "mixed" just because of the verbiage Metacritic uses for its arbitrary cutoff points. The majority of reliable sources accurately describe the game's overall reception as unfavorable, and I'm inclined to go with them instead.

But I'm not a gamer and am admittedly not as familiar with the Fallout 76 controversy or with Wikipedia's style guides as many of you guys are, so I welcome other opinions. —Will(B) 20:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol okay it’s been reverted now. I tried. —Will(B) 01:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fallout_76&oldid=1218254641"