The answer is poorly, but I don't think it should be compared in the first place. Unpopular opinion, I know, but I'm not saying that 76 isn't full of problems. Rather I take issue with virtually every reviewer basing their criticism on the comparison to Fallout 4 and their disappointment that it isn't simply a translation of that to multiplayer.

That kind of criticism is misguided IMO because it fails to look at the real issues 76 has, which would only become apparent when looking at the game in the context of its proper genre, i.e. a Survival MMO with sandbox elements. This isn't Fallout 4. This is Destiny meets Rust using the Fallout IP.

Is it actually good at that? That's the actual question that should have been asked when reviewing 76. With this genre usually come question about endgame, PvE vs PvP, balance, progression, etc. And the marriage to survival brings with it further areas of investigation, as does the sprinkling of sandbox elements. Do those work well at all?

But all I've seen from all the media outlets is the sentiment that this is a bad Fallout (and that it has bugs). What I'm hearing is resentment in that regard. How dare you call this Fallout when it's something completely different? As if spin-offs suddenly aren't an ok thing to do anymore. It's like taking SWTOR and calling it a bad KotOR. It's a failure/unwillingness to engage with the game on ITS terms.