[tannis]

What's wrong with rootbeer in clam chowder? :liplick:

Something about carbonated clams doesn't sit well in the stomach

[benjamin corsini]

Now this is going back quite a ways now, but there was a Russian mod making group who developed a multi-player system for Fallout 2(being unable to read Russian, I cannot provide many more details on the subject, aside from the information which they published in English). That having been said, Fallout could effectively be played as a multi-player event so long as it focuses on storyline and does not degenerate into "Fallout-Doom".

[lolli]

Co-op would be great but it would still be limited. If you were to make Co-op the storyline would have to involve the other people in the party. or would atleast have diversity to the character speaking to the npc. It would also be very tricky to make VATS work with two people or you would have lots of pausing and waiting in between.

Not saying I wouldn't want co-op .. but i seen what oblivions co-op offered and it was buggy and uncomplient with diferent patches to the game. (not mod friendly like most regular shooter games, I would really like to see a first person rpg mod friendly co-op game to be truthful)

[kirsty joanne hines]

I am against any form of "Normal Multiplayer" such as co-op, capture the flag, deathmatch or whatever in this game. The story is about you and that's why I play it. For myself to emerge in another world to forget the daily problems. Since most of the multiplayer Net people are screamfags I'd ruin the feeling. It's a damn rpg, they're not supposed to have multiplayer.

An MMO could work, but they'd have to make a pretty big and impressive one to get the wasteland feel to it.

[Sabrina garzotto]

Hi! I think I would like to give a try at making the game partially multiplayer. I tried making a game once and I was only able to make a server that clients could connect to, login, and then once ingame they could click and move around and see each other as they moved. I have a feeling though that making fallout 3 multiplayer is going to be alot harder.

The most i could do is probably have a menu popup at the press of a hotkey that allows you to see who is in game, their health, and maybe even their location. i could probably also have a npc that represents the player be in game and update their position on your screen to be where your friend is at. But most of that probably is only achievable if both clients have the right addresses for that stuff. But each client could have different addresses for the location of health and so on.

I will have to think about this..

[Eve(G)]

If Fallout or Oblivion had a multiplayer similar to Borderlands . . . that'd be pretty cool.

[Lalla Vu]

Anyone heard about http://fonline2238.blogspot.com/? Beta coming on August 15.

[Jesus Duran]

i dont like the idea. how would vats work? i cant shoot anything without vats. the game would just become more of a shooter rather than an rpg.

[kennedy]

There are a few problems with FO3 online. I also have some opinions of how it should(would have) work(ed).

Problems:
~ VATS would be a major problem. I have some friends that would do that stuff just to piss people off if it still froze. I wouldn't know a good solution to this other than completely removing it.
~ Trading: Well there would have to be some trading restrictions if you ask me because with all the DLC armor and weapons, it would be over used just handing out a bunch of great stuff.

Opinions:
~ 2-4 Players sound good enough. I wouldn't want to be running around the wasteland with 30 people doing the same quest I was.
~ Quest sharing (If Capable) World of Warcraft has a quest sharing feature in which you can share quests with others---- if they are that far through that quest's quest chain.

Weird. That's all I've got.

[Kat Stewart]

Well, no need to worry about anything like that since multiplayer WILL NOT be added to Fallout 3. It's too late to add support to a game that was coded for single player.

I imagine though, that any future games that might incorperate multiplayer will be designed to take into account anything like that.

[Steven Hardman]

I like the idea of being able to invite my friend/friends into my game to help with quests, trade and sell goods, or just run a muck on savages. I don't think I would enjoy a full blown multiplayer with tons of people. Just me and a few friends kickin it in the wastelands would be totally awesome. It's really bothersome when me and my friends are in a party and all playing our own game, talking about what's happening in it.

[Joe Bonney]

I think if there is to be a FALLOUT MMORPG(which I want to play) there will have to be Vehicles like in Mad Max 2, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

idea List of Possible Proffessions for FALLOUT MMORPG

Vehicle Crafter
Scavver
Mercenary
Raider
Wastelander
Weapon Crafter
Armor Crafter
Vault Dweller
Doctor
Lawbringer
Contract Killer

Factions to Join
Brothers of Steel(good karma)
The Enclave(neutral karma)
Talon Mercenaries(evil karma)


Of course these are just some Idea's to throw around

Discuss....

[Avril Louise]

Good thread on this discussion. From what I can tell though, a lot of it is too "in the box".

Fallout is a world; a future world 200+ years from now thats desolate with everyone merely trying to survive. That alone is the main storyline for a MMORPG. Don't get hung-up VATS or being vault-born, or Fallout only being single person, finding your dad, or whatever. It's completely Darwin out there, and the MMORPG should reflect that. If the Fallout series were to continue with a MMORPG, it should be completely realistic:

- no VATS. VATS was just a system of combat to incorporate skill %'s that stemmed from the first two Fallout games. It allowed the RPG to feel more like a table-top RPG with rolling dice.
-- instead use FPS with targeting bubbles (i.e. Mechwarrior), where increasing combat skills allows for increasing/bigger bubbles on different parts of your target, as long as you shoot in those invisible game-mechanic circles, the game registers it as a hit. VATS has no place in an online game. It doesn't make Fallout, drop it from consideration.
-- or use traditional MMORPG combat: 3rd person skills based in real time: press the button, watch your character hack away or shoot, wait for the recharge and repeat. Grab a pillow and zzzz.
-- which is more realistic? Watching your character fight, or "being" your character as they fight? FPS is the way to go. Better have a decent computer and internet connection and stiff chin.

- make it real!
-- no levels (gasp!). Yes, there's no levels. You can increase your skills as you successfully use them, but you don't "level". If a green player pops a cap on a veteran from behind, that veteran is still going to go down or even get killed. That's life. No magically reduced damage just because someone's 50 levels below you. That's a load of crock.
-- if you die, you're dead! (another gasp!); that's right, better not be reckless or pick fights you can't get out of. How much of Fallout 3 involved discussions? You better believe that players in a MMORPG will be more careful where they tread if they know once their toon goes down in a cloud of RIP, they're going to have to roll another while their their corpse gets looted. (you better remember that special cache hiding spot you made so your knew character knows where to find all that equipment you wisely didn't carry around). I'm certain someone will do the research for cloning at some point.
-- no hit points (wt?); all damage is physically based. You get hit, well you have some degree of bleeding, 2-3 organs penetrated, and have corresponding reduced function. Since there is no leveling, there's no gaining hit points. You might of maxed out all your skill sets, but you're just as soft as the next person. (Maybe you want to roll that super mutant after all for a thicker hide?)
-- limited resources in the game (gasp-gasp!). Weapons and equipment doesn't randomly generate in the real world. Stuff has to be made. There's only X amount of machine guns out there, and once all that ammo is spent, someone had better figured out how to produce more. You gun doesn't repair back to 100% either, eventually that gun's going to break for good at some point, and what then? Start scavenging for another or start making bows and spears (no joke!). Them the tough breaks bud, it's a real world out there!
-- no flaming or juvenile rants in world or broadcast. Simple because channel's aren't allowed (gasp!). That's right, you're in a wasteland, do you have a radio? Why on earth do you think you should be able to communicate with everyone else in the game at the same time? This is a real MMORPG! Unless you're within ear shoot distance of another player, you can't communicate with them. You get killed, they don't know you who were, and it's only your pride that gets hurt. If you can't live with that, you didn't make the maturity cut for the game.

- you chose want race & profession you want to play
-- human: wander, mercenary, raider, trader, reaver, talon, any other group/clan/gang
-- Super Mutant
-- Ghoul
-- Death Claw
-- Android, bioborg, robotic
-- Alien
-- whatever else... tumbleweed? molerat (ok I kid on these)

- sure you can have "safe" non-pvp zones in towns etc. But step outside the gates and you're in the wild west. That's the point of the game. If you wanted to play a trading character that never needs to leave a town, better network with reliable caravaners.

- everything is randomized. There's no regenerating monsters or equipment to farm etc. Once they're dead, they're dead too. Though a reproduction/birth rate would still apply for animals and npcs, so unless someone hunted something down to extinction, they'd still be some sort of "spawning".

- add vehicles and vehicle combat. How else are you going to get anywhere other than walking? No teleporting either.

And if you only wanted to play by yourself and do solo missions, don't buy the game or stick with Fallout 3. But the market is fat and plump for a MMORPG in a post-nuclear war setting. I can't believe it hasn't happened already.

[Michelle Smith]

If Fallout or Oblivion had a multiplayer similar to Borderlands . . . that'd be pretty cool.

i've been wondering how many fallout fans have heard of, and are anticipating borderlands.
if fallout 3 did have some sort of multiplayer i think that a borderlands co-op style would be best suited to the game.

[Chavala]

If bethesda were to make the next fallout a co-op enabled game it would have to be on a small scale.....like you and maybe four friends can join your game thats already in progress and help you out with quest and things because it wouldnt work to make the game more multiplayer than that unless your actions have less bearing on the world. It wouldnt work if you blow up megaton and your friend comes in to play and he has a home in megaton.

[Eilidh Brian]

If bethesda were to make the next fallout a co-op enabled game it would have to be on a small scale.....like you and maybe four friends can join your game thats already in progress and help you out with quest and things because it wouldnt work to make the game more multiplayer than that unless your actions have less bearing on the world. It wouldnt work if you blow up megaton and your friend comes in to play and he has a home in megaton.

The base games were not suitable for multiplayer ~also Fonline proves that I'd think. Tactics had MP, but its not really a Fallout game (just in the same setting ~And very , very fun too; but I'd not want MP in an official sequel). Fallout is supposed to invoke a feeling of desperate isolation (and the first two did it very well)... can't do that and have your friends along too...

[Cccurly]

If F4 was to implement multiplayer, 2-4 players would be good, but the game would have to increase spawns and difficulty of enemies fought. Trading ammo and meds would be okay, but trading weapons would lead to uber weapons trading. Repairing my friend's stuff would be pretty cool, charging him for it would make it all the better, untill he repays the favor by charging me for medical attention.

[Ludivine Dupuy]

The base games were not suitable for multiplayer ~also Fonline proves that I'd think. Tactics had MP, but its not really a Fallout game (just in the same setting ~And very , very fun too; but I'd not want MP in an official sequel). Fallout is supposed to invoke a feeling of desperate isolation (and the first two did it very well)... can't do that and have your friends along too...

When did Fallout 2 make you feel desperate or isolated?
Was it when you visited the high tech NCR? Or maybe when you became a porm star in New Reno?

But other then that I agree that these kind of RPGs are unsuited for multiplayer.

To make my point clearer:
TES: Battlespire and Baldurs Gate both had multiplayer. It svcked in both games.

[Susan Elizabeth]

I honestly dont see why, these two highly successful Single Player franchises, which have never focused on multiplayer, or been about anything other than a true (lengthy) Single Player experience SHOULD all of a sudden incorporate co-op or multiplayer. Theres literally mountains of games other than Fallout3 or Oblivion which do, take your pick, you could probably even find some mods which give you FO power armor or destroyed landscapes.
Why dedicate time and money away from perfecting the most important thing these franchises have to offer, the core SP gameplay and story? Especially since FO4 and NV have a lot to live up to now.
Just look at how much they have to rush in order to get some of their content out as it is. With a game this large in scope it would definitely mean a lowered standard of quality, more bugs, or even less DLC's.
Which wouldnt exactly please too many of the fans (new or old) as much as it may please the odd casual/friendship gamer.

[Darren]

I agree with your razorwire, I like that Bethesda doesn't split their focus between single player and multiplayer and I also think it's unlikely that the core Fallout series (or core Elder Scrolls series) will receive multiplayer. However this is a thread for discussing multiplayer so stepping in to say it's unlikely to happen doesn't add much to the discussion. Let me please remind you of the rules presented in the first post of this thread, specifically:

While it is unlikely that multiplayer will be added in future games in this series, it is still a legitimate topic of discussion. This thread is here specifically to allow this topic of discussion, there's nothing to gain by being contentious or telling people not to discuss this because it won't happen.

You aren't telling people flat out not to discuss this, but it's sort of implied. Regardless this thread isn't to debate whether multiplayer should happen or not.


Also, even if the core series remains single player exclusive it's certainly possible that we'd see this in spin-offs. There are two Elder Scrolls titles with multiple, The Elder Scrolls Legends: Battlespire and The Elder Scrolls Travels: Shadowkey. Fallout itself has a multiplayer capable spin-off, Fallout Tactics.

[Timara White]

Warning heeded HD, my apologies if my remarks were a bit too passionate or biased.

[Blessed DIVA]

While I don't particularly feel there's any real need to add multiplayer to the Fallout core experience, I also think there's more than enough room for compelling multiplayer Fallout spinoffs.

Some sort of co-op game that's designed from the ground up to be a cooperative experience could be very cool. You could play as a group of mercenaries (or even as Brotherhood of Steel,) for example. There could still be plenty of RPG elements in there, as well. I'd say something like that wouldn't need VATS, and would probably be better off without it. Perhaps some sort of target assist might be interesting, so that you could still target body parts, etc. But that could work just fine in real time, also.

I still think I'd like to see a resource management game based in the Fallout universe - I think that could work fairly well, and those are always good for multiplayer.

In short, I think the idea of trying to take Fallout 3 and apply multiplayer to it is just too limiting. Much better to let that game be itself and focus on what it's best at, and then come up with a spin-off that's very good at providing a multiplayer experience. With New Vegas, it's been shown that Bethesda is up to the idea of outsourcing the franchise for other spinoffs - I don't see why that couldn't be the case with a good multiplayer Fallout game, as well.

[Queen of Spades]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/fallout_mmo_enter_public_beta%E2%80%A6_2012

:foodndrink:

R

[Lloyd Muldowney]

As long as it's done well like borderlands then im happy for it.Nothing could beat ripping up the waste's with my buddy's.

[Veronica Flores]

I would say that personally I think that at least the main series of Fallout should stay single player as it is meant to be a desolate lonely experience and having other along would detract from that. So far in the series if you're defeated your character dies and does not respawn, ok you can reload an earlier save and continue from there but that is not respawning, so that part of the player vs player desired experience would not work.

Having said that a spin-off set in the Fallout universe with multi-player could work depending on how it was done. I think it would have to focus on you being part of one of Fallouts groups I.E. a member of the BoS/Enclave/Raider/etc and have the players be sent out on missions to do things.

Lastly the Multi-player games that I've seen so far have in my own opinion at least been lacking in storyline and plot, with the overall single player side being too short for my tastes.