Still unsure whether to give this a go. I love Fallout 4. I love the basebuilding stuff. But i don't like playing with other people...
As a huge fan of FO4's settlement system myself, 76's CAMP system was a big let down. If you just enjoyed the settlement system for making hideouts and your own personal bases, then you might be alright here. But If you liked building larger towns to attract settlers, setting up trade routes between all your locations, and gradually recolonizing the map, then you'll be disappointed. You only get one location to build on at a time in 76, can't attract any settlers (even robots) to them (so no farming communities, trader stands, elaborate bars and taverns etc), and perhaps worst of all your "workshop" has a weight limit of 400 now so you have limited building materials too. They should be addressing the weight limit in the future, but until they allow you to build big, and in multiple locations, it all seems moot to me anyway.
Also worth noting that Bethesda made a big deal out of allowing you to build anywhere in this game rather than in predetermined locations only, but it's still very restrictive. You can't build around any existing structures or locations. I found a giant tree for example that had entire buildings up in its canopy and tried to build up there for the view, but wasn't allowed. So trying to build somewhere with character is difficult.
The biggest potential for this game imo was server persistence, where players could really take the role of NPCs like Bethesda suggested, by allowing us to build permanent structures that don't vanish when we log off. We could have seen how different servers evolve in different ways, with some players banding together to create city-sized trading hubs, and others banding together to create their own Raider strongholds. It's such a shame they couldn't make that happen.
i saw how hyped you were for rdr2 in past threads. those personalities could have trashed it for its "bad" controls while glossing over what makes it "good". a 3/10 wouldn't seem right for that game would it? it didn't happen but it always could have
Reading through all your posts here, I'm reminded of that joke about the crazy old man who is convinced that everyone else is crazy and he's the only sane one in the world, oblivious to his own condition...
It really is great that you're enjoying the game yourself, but could it be possible that all the bad reviews, the overwhelmingly bad public reception, and the terrible sales, are because the game is objectively bad? Like, really, quite bad? I know that's a lot to consider, but just maybe...
