Just wondering if it will have something like that or will it stay as all the other fallouts :3? Anyone know something x3?

No, confirmed as single player only. For which I am glad,Behtesda Game Studios has no experience with multiplayer, and I'd hate them to ruin the game trying to implement it.

ah thanks :3 sad would have been great playing with friends together ^^

No coop. Never. It would destroy the game.

Co-op could be nice, but it would need to have heavy restrictions so not to ruin ones single-player experience. But, IMO, I think Fallout need to stay single-player. It's when the complete immersion happens. Other players will just ruin it, even if I would play with family and friends only. :3

I would have loved a coop option. Not to make the game into something else, but have the option of sharing the singleplayer experience with someone else... Whether it be a full playthrough together, specific battles, showing off the new settlement or just guiding a new player on what to do.

It's not a dealbreaking thing for any game, but in good games, I'll sit there and think: Damn I wish X could see this!

Co-op could work. Just let the second player control a companion.

I'm sorry to rant but I don't understand why people want a multiplayer mode on a Fallout game. Fallout has always been single player and it needs to stay that way. If you want a multiplayer game then play GTA V or Battlefield or something along the lines of those, games everyone knows for the multiplayer mode. If Fallout brings in a multiplayer mode it will take time away from Bethesda being able to make a solid single player game and good story, and seeing the story in my opinion always seems a little rushed in places or just generally isn't long enough but somehow still manages to burn out by the end anyway, they need all the time they can get to perfect it.

No. Never. Good Day, Sir!!!

Sure, why not, it's already completely turned away from art to mass entertainment, might as well add, co-op. Hell, why stop there? Why not go as far as making it something like The Old Republic? Would that just be great? While they're at it, they might add new post-apocalyptic races, like elves, radioactive dragons, radioactive magic, etc. Oh, and don't forget about Facebook and Twitter integration.

And since they're obviously trying to pack as much popular nonsense features as possible, they'd better implement heists, vertibird pimping and races, tower defense (oh wait, they already have that), zombie survival, hat and knife trading, and for good measure some MOBA.

Yes, that would certainly be the game of the millennium.

Alternatively... The presense of additional features bring more sales, which gives more ressources for even singleplayer and story.

Yes, when people say coop, they most certainly mean everything else than coop. Which is how language works.

The solo experience was ruined by the addition of companions and how dared they add gun sounds. Now I can no longer imagine the sounds... So anti art and imagination.

I take it you forgot the beginning of the post before you reached the end. Which makes sense considering your nonsensical arguments later. Companions, weapons and, yes, sounds have always played major parts in the games. And why are you talking about imagination? Wrong thread, perhaps?

The non-sensical thing... was the argument against coop consisting of everything else than things to do with coop.

And since the mona lisa is art, and doesnt have gun sounds ... thus no fallout game can ever be art due to gun sounds... Thats the kinda senseless logic... the counter arguments were.

....

I mean what's wrong with these as examples of counter arguments?

"I prefer, that all ressources are used to give me the best possible singleplayer experience."

"I have no interest, what so ever, in playing with other people."

Other than they kinda falter if eg. a coop option could be added to a fallout game with minimal to no impact on the singleplayer experience, but since the impact... is minimal to none... Then there is no real reason to protest other than... protesting for emo protests sake or just spitefullness that others might get what they like and certain people apparently need that.

That was there to point out the absurdity of that suggestion.

Yes, Fallout is actually Mona Lisa (as Mona Lisa is the only art that has ever existed), good job spotting that!

Those counter-arguments are extremely general and implied from every single person who says "no" to coop.

Yes, VATS is completely doable when there are 2 players in the same realm, cutscenes and dialogues would cause no problems whatsoever, same with the physics. Of course, coop is a plug-n-play command so BSG could just say the magic word and not waste any time with making something as meaningless as netcode.

Ah, here comes the typical "you protest against , therefore you're and you shouldn't even talk unless you join the circlejerk".

In this case, the presence of co-op would cut sales. Majority of people want Fallout to stay singleplayer only, myself included.

What people never seem to understand is that adding co-op would have signifcant impact on the singleplayer experience. Furthermore devs have limited resources (budget, manpower, time, etc), thus adding co-op cuts away from the SP.

Keep ya darn dirty multayplaya outa ma Fallout!

*cocks shotgun*

Honestly, I'm not sure about that. Obviously there's no way to tell, but there does seem to be a lot of people would like to have some form of co-op. What they see in it is completely beyond me, but there you go.

Sure, many want it. Still majority doesn't.

One thing for sure, it would completely eliminate or the very least severely hinder mod support. That's something that Beth will never do.

1. It was not absurd... The counter argument of wanting coop = wanting radiactive dragons, wanting an MMO, wanting facebook and twitter integration... Was absurd.

2. It was as ridiculous as saying the line between art and mass entertainment is coop...And not equally arbitrary... Gunsounds... or that theater isn't art... because multiple people can experience it at the same time.

3. Have you asked every person who says no to coop? But atleast they are completely valid and consistent albeit subjective. Which is fair enough in and by itself.

4. Well one obvious solution is to not have vats work, when in coop. A tradeoff for sure, but a potential solution nonetheless, while stil allowing for vats in singleplayer.

Yes, it will probably require some undefinable amount of ressources being spent on something that A player want that B player doesn't want.

Possibly completely unacceptable, but I don't really know any game that 100 percent fullfills any players wishes. There are some here who still wish for isometric perspective and turnbased combat right? So someone... somewhere... probably said: "Ok, it's not for me, but if others like it, it's ok." .... about features you like.

5. I'd say that is pretty a pretty accurate description, if a person is completely unwilling to let other people be happy, with a minimal impact to one self. "Will you pass the salt?"... "Yes, but I'm not going to, because I don't want or need salt and I don't give a damn about you or respect you and your subjective tastes equally to myself and my tastes." ... That scenario sadly happens alot more on the internet than at the dinnertables.

Based on what comprehensive statistically significant survey of not only fallout fans, but gamers in general?

Based on what comprehensive experience in multiple different developments of games with a broad range of different implementations of singleplayer, coop and singleplayer and coop in the same game?

... "Some" impact... Is all we can say. Though offcourse you are right about ressources... but on the other hand... The devs are also "wasting" ressources on eg. guns I never use, but other people are.

I didn't put the equation there.

I didn't say the line is coop (nor did I say that Bethesda's previous Fallout was art).

No ,I haven't asked every person, but I understand the basics of logic.

Disabling VATS is getting rid of one problem, not all.

Naturally there are games that fulfil majority of wishes of its current and past fanbase, not the wishes of newcomers, outsiders or "the market".

Minimal impact? You believe implementing coop of any form wouldn't have a major impact on the game? Or do you consider "changing the balance and focus from a player to accommodate a second player, as well as game mechanics" a "minimal impact" because it wouldn't negatively impact the thing you like? Kinda hypocritical from someone who talks about others being selfish, isn't it?

And I'm sorry, this just again isn't leading anywhere, I'm moving on

This.

And this. xD

This topic will get locked, they have a thread for you to read about the multiplayer.

No. Nein. Nicht. Nyet.

(it really is one of the things I'm most sick of in the modern gaming industry, this constant push by various groups to shove multiplayer into every $@#*!)% game in existence. You have plenty of MP games out there. Keep your dirty, stinkin' multiplayer out of my games, dammit! )