[Glu Glu]

Yeah, multiplayer would be like strangling the last breath of air out of the FO RPG series. Getting killed by some sweaty hairy fat dude sitting in moms basemant on the other side of the world calling me a noob is... huh... not the FO experience.

It could work for Tactics or something like that. I do like Tactics but I do not consider it a true successor to FO1 and FO2. Same goes for FO3!

[Sabrina Schwarz]

Not sure if this has been said before, but what's stopping them from making it a DLC for Xbox or a plugin from their website?

Obviously most of who bought the game would love to play multiplayer, and post-release would let them focus on its design. They'll surely make a nice chunk of change from it, I just don't see the problem.

[Dominic Vaughan]

Not sure if this has been said before, but what's stopping them from making it a DLC for Xbox or a plugin from their website?

Obviously most of who bought the game would love to play multiplayer, and post-release would let them focus on its design. They'll surely make a nice chunk of change from it, I just don't see the problem.

The fact that it's very difficult, if not impossible to add multiplayer to an already released game is the problem. The multiplayer still has to be coded into the game during development, not afterwards.

The only reason for a multiplayer DLC is to activate features that were already present, but disabled. (ie: Resident Evil 5)

[Brandon Wilson]

The fact that it's very difficult, if not impossible to add multiplayer to an already released game is the problem. The multiplayer still has to be coded into the game during development, not afterwards.

The only reason for a multiplayer DLC is to activate features that were already present, but disabled. (ie: Resident Evil 5)

If people can make a mod to add multiplayer to Morrowind, Torchlight, etc. I'm positive a paid team of professionals could produce something great.

They like making singleplayer games, but yet they've dumbed them down so much I see no reason to exclude multiplayer as a post-release purchase. It's apparent they're after a younger audience, and the younger audience likes multiplayer games.

[Lory Da Costa]

If people can make a mod to add multiplayer to Morrowind, Torchlight, etc. I'm positive a paid team of professionals could produce something great.

They like making singleplayer games, but yet they've dumbed them down so much I see no reason to exclude multiplayer as a post-release purchase. It's apparent they're after a younger audience, and the younger audience likes multiplayer games.

But did the Morrowind Multiplayer mod work? Or the Oblvion one for that matter? As far as I know the mods -even after years of development- never made it much further past sending a few information packages between characters. As for Torchlight never played it so I don't know what the modding capabilities are like.

Using the mods as an example doesn't work.


The multiplayer still has to be intergrated during development. Releasing a multiplayer DLC is nothing more than a way of just squeezing cash from those that want it, since as I pointed out, all the DLC would do is activate features that are already there.

[Matt Fletcher]

But did the Morrowind Multiplayer mod work? Or the Oblvion one for that matter? As far as I know the mods -even after years of development- never made it much further past sending a few information packages between characters. As for Torchlight never played it so I don't know what the modding capabilities are like.

Using the mods as an example doesn't work.

The mods did, in fact, work. The mods were examples to show that it is possible, and if you refuse to believe that it is, even with these mods showing it has been done before, than obviously you're not fond of the thought of multiplayer in Fallout 3. Therefore any further discussion is pointless.

[Kelvin Diaz]

The mods did, in fact, work. The mods were examples to show that it is possible, and if you refuse to believe that it is, even with these mods showing it has been done before, than obviously you're not fond of the thought of multiplayer in Fallout 3. Therefore any further discussion is pointless.

When I ask 'did they work' I meant did they actually provide actual multiplayer. Could players quest together, chat in game, were players even visible to each other? I know the answers. Not really, yes and barely. There was a limit to how far those mods could progress, namely the fact that the multiplayer code can't be easily implemented into a game thats already finished.

No body sets out to spend literally years on a mod just as an example.

And just to back me up heres a quote from the very first post of this thread posted by Hungry Donner.

Multiplayer is not something that can be easily plugged into a game, particularly not one that's already finished. Many people underestimate how difficult it can be to incorporate multiplayer code, build up the multiplayer options, and streamline the game for smooth online play. Even for a game in development adding multiplayer requires a significant amount of resources and manpower. In the past Bethesda has said that they'd rather focus on making great single-player games with all of their energy going to adding to this aspect, rather than dividing their focus by including multiplayer.

This is all I'm saying, that multiplayer cannot just be 'plugged in' it has to be intergrated from the earliest stages of a games development and the games that have multiplayer DLC already have the multiplayer on release and the DLC just unlocks it.

[Nicole Kraus]

Those multiplayer mods do work but they also have considerable limitation. The last time I looked at the Morrowind multiplayer mod it only allowed two-player co-op and the second player was basically controlling an NPC. That's an extremely impressive (and cool) achievement but its far from what would be expected in an official feature.

Adding multiplayer to an existing engine is difficult unless this capability is planned from the get go. The TES III and TES IV/FO3 engines are streamlined for single player - things like scripting and memory usage can't handle multiple players. Changing this would not only require ripping out and re-doing large tracts of finished code but the final result would likely be pretty ponderous. Games that are designed for multiplayer are instead streamlined to run well over a network, something Bethesda can't do unless they want to re-do the engine practically from the ground up.

Even if Bethesda was to consider this for their next engine multiplayer is an extremely labor intensive feature. Not only would this take time and resources aware from other features but they wouldn't be able to streamline the engine for single player. The former would cut out the breadth of features we see in Bethesda's previous games and the latter would likely reduce the size and/or complexity of the world since the game wouldn't be able to handle as much data over a network.

It's a lot easier to say "why don't they add multiplayer" than "I'm willing to give up world complexity and gameplay features for multiplayer."


In the end Bethesda doesn't seem interested in making these sacrifices for the purposes of including multiplayer, at least not in their core games. They have included multiplayer in spin-offs and it's possible we'll see that again (particularly from Zenimax Online Studios) but in the mean time a multiplayer TES V or FO4 seems very unlikely.

[Chavala]

Personally I think it should be added on but, after reading through a few posts I came up with something. That maybe you guys can make it an addon and its true lent time spent on the multiplayer the more the single player experience will be but maybe u guys can have just a few people work on it and say have it take a year or so. then the next game, if there is one, will be on time and like the multiplayer for the vegas be released half way between when the next game comes out.

[joseluis perez]

Yeah, multiplayer would be like strangling the last breath of air out of the FO RPG series. Getting killed by some sweaty hairy fat dude sitting in moms basemant on the other side of the world calling me a noob is... huh... not the FO experience.

It could work for Tactics or something like that. I do like Tactics but I do not consider it a true successor to FO1 and FO2. Same goes for FO3!

i dont want multiplayer,... i want co-op... my opinion though.

[Liv Brown]

Let's please keep this thread civil guys. If you don't like multiplayer or don't want it in Fallout that's fine - but keep your posts civil and constructive and remember that others are welcomed to their opinions.

Personally I think it should be added on but, after reading through a few posts I came up with something. That maybe you guys can make it an addon and its true lent time spent on the multiplayer the more the single player experience will be but maybe u guys can have just a few people work on it and say have it take a year or so. then the next game, if there is one, will be on time and like the multiplayer for the vegas be released half way between when the next game comes out.

A few people working for a year is still a lot of developement resources, and those are resources being taken out of the rest of the game.

Also, multiplayer needs to be integrated in to the game from the beginning of the engine developement so it's not something that can be easily sequestered.

[Cccurly]

i dont want multiplayer,... i want co-op... my opinion though.

Agreed, I'm thinking just two people, people are throwing around the word multiplayer as if we want to change it into Mag or something. Two player free roam Co-op would be a dream come true

[Horror- Puppe]

How would VATS work in co-op?
That would be up to the developers. i dont completely know how that would work. maybe have it in real time for the opposite player or something jus in slow -mo for the person in vats or something. idk. that one ive been thinking about for a while...

How would the repuation/karma system work?
The player coming in to the game can have the choice to have karma effect them. each players actions dont effect the other player. so if someone starts killing innocents you could just kick them from the game and reload a last save. i know it would be awful to have to loose progress but i cant make people not do bad things.

How would the difficulty be re-balanced for multiple players?
The diffuculty would be balanced due to Hosts game diffuculty and and players lvls.

How would experience points be distributed?
each person will get the same ammount of experience points for each thing they helped kill or killed them selves. you kill it you keep the experience... you steal their kill, you dont get very much experience but the person who did the most damage to the enemy will get full experience.

How would the NPC interaction and plot elements/scripts work with multiple players?
The host does all the talking. you would see everthing the host does just you wouldnt be the one choosing what to say.

Which player would be considered the main character in the story?
The host would be the main player. The person joining in would just be a follower.

How would people running different mods/DLC or different versions of mods be handled?
I personally dont own a pc that i use to play games on. so for the console games this wouldnt be a problem. as long as they have the same dlc they can play together. as for p.c. i guess that they would have to have compatable mods/dlc. I'm not sure how mods work so i cant help you there (sorry)


How would plot-related achievements be handled?
The host would be the only ones earning the achievments. The followers (player joining in) would get no bonuses, no achievments, and the host ultimately decides what they get to keep.

Hope it helped. =)

I was thinking each person get the full xp for each kill, and as far as v.a.t.s. goes, have both players go into v.a.t.s. at the same time and choose what they want to shoot and have both players use the system at once

[Georgia Fullalove]

My thoughts on this subject For everyone that has played either WoW or Anarchy Online they should make it similar to those games. You should be able to choose the faction you prefer such as Enclave or BOS, NCR, Caesar's Legion or any number of mercenary factions or you could start your own merc faction kind of like starting a guild on WoW. As for Pvp there would be no use of V.A.T.S it would be just like Modernwarfare 2 just aim and shoot. Instead of using V.A.T.S the players should have an option to start with that or a number of Custom Pipboys and be able to purchase better targeting systems in the future for example the Combat Moduel that zimmer gives you in FO3. To clear confusion you would be born into your faction so you know and you can have options such as a rep system and decide if you no longer like that faction you can leave and join another but cannot return to your previous one not to mention you should have a Neutral option aswell such as being a Vault Dweller being a pure human and on exit you have faction options to join say since your Pure you can join the enclave because they only accept pure but just because you are doesnt mean you have to side with the Enclave if you like the BOS or NCR go join them and depending on your genetics it should grant you better stats in certain areas. Your genetics code should grant you more stats in certain areas such as being a ghoul permits immune to radiation and friendly with all ferals, Pure would give you higher intellegence and more endurance and so on. They should put Power Armour restrictions so that you cant wear another factions power armour also Power armour should be very hard to obtain say for the BOS you have like 60 lvls and once you reach a certain lvl you can obtain the quest to get your first power armour and keep progressing to reach better power armour. To even out the Faction controlled areas they should Flag mark the World map on what factions control what areas also adding the ability to Capture and lose outposts, retaking them if lost aswell. Certain factions would control certain Areas and to even it out The Enclave you gain the ability to Wear power armour quickly but at the cause of being in there faction your presence on the mainland is mostly all hostile aside from your bases/outposts and civilian populations where Every faction is tolerated. Along with every faction should have 2 Main Bases unable to be taken or destroyed and civilian populations where Every faction is tolerated.

[Zosia Cetnar]

Okay, I skipped from page 4 of topic. So I have probably missed something important.

Computer RPG's have had coop-mode in past and it worked quite nicely. Baldur's Gate's had that, it had few annoying features like pausing for not so important dialogues and everyone could pause game at any time. Lot of fun in LAN, but network code was horribly buggy and random disconnects did happen and back then there wasn't that useful VOIP software, like we have now with mumble, vent and TS, so I didn't even think about playing it over net with friends.

Basically there should be limitations on coop-mode. First that comes to my mind is that player should have completed single player to unlock it. Second would be that serious script triggering events should require that all players are near each other when it happens, regardless what it is, either dialogue or something completely different. All important dialogue should require that all players should be present at that location, non important dialogue like shops should be possible to perform alone. Important dialogue should probably be locked unless all players are present, probably red text on dialogue options that are locked due to distance of buddy, to show up that they exist, basically red lock could show up on hud on locked event triggering switches and other stuff of that kind. Players should be handicapped relatively to their number, more players and every ones stats go down or there should be more enemies . Max players should be very low, max 3 or 4 in my opinion. There isn't reasonable way to integrate VATS on it, besides is there need for VATS, group of players is always more effective in combat than one.

Personally I would love to see Fallout with coop. It would fit finely as long as it game is real time, regardless of view type. Basically FO3 is FPS, besides being RPG, it was quite easy for at least PC version when it comes to combat. I felt that difficulty was relatively easy, even on hard. Other difficulty levels were honestly quite wimpy. Fallout 3 coop mod should step up combat difficulty massively. Dialogues would have been fine as they are for coop as they are, as those were extremely straightforward in most parts, so very little of dialogue should need compacting for coop.

[Robert Jr]

Multiplayer is often a touchy subject.
People are afraid that when devs start working on multiplayer then the core game will go to crap because they'll focus only on the FPS style gameplay.
That may be true.

However, a game like Demon's Souls shows that multiplayer can be a part of any game and if done well can enhance the gameplay experience rather than detract from it.

I've been thinking about multiplayer in Fallout and I'd like to see it implemented in a similar fashion as Demon's Souls, not exactly the same, but in a way that enhances the single player experience. For example, when your character is about to die, network connections were made to an unknown IP also playing Fallout, to either come save you or finish you off.

It would be like a real experience in the wasteland. The unknown player could either be a raider coming down the street to finish you off and skin you, or a merchant who'll help fix you up, for a fee.

Players could participate or not in multiplayer functions. It wouldn't be necessary and I think it would enhance the game knowing that there are real people out there who can influence your game, just like in real life.

Of course, you could avoid the experience all together by not asking for help when you are about to die. Some people would probably prefer that.

I've got a lot more detail about the idea, but this is the main point of how I think that multiplayer should be implemented in the Fallout universe.

I would really not like to see another deathmatch game.
I am soooo sick of the deathmatch multiplayer games, don't even look at them anymore.

[Matthew Warren]

I doubt the single player Fallout games will ever be MMOs BUT...have we already forgotten the Fallout based MMO already in the beginning stages? No VATS that is for sure but it could be like WoW....only Fallout MMO would be much better and I could truly see it as the REAL WoW killer. I'd definately spend $14.99 a month on a Fallout based MMO and not on WoW.

[Laura-Jayne Lee]

personally what i think would be cool is a cooperative MP in the fallout games that would allow you to team up with up to 3 people you and two friends. this would be interesting because then you could invite your friend in to come see your house or to trade armor/weapons or what ever then go explore together. this would add a social aspect to fallout only rivaled by fable 2 (not very popular) this would also remove people having problems getting from one part to the other. just invite your friend and team up to run a heist, eliminate a city or fight your way through the mutant infested downtown. this style of multiplayer molds seamlessly into a single player game like fallout 3/4/5/6 etc. so that bethesda can work on the single player but allow people to play together. :fallout: :nuke: :gun:

[Connor Wing]

As of August 19th 2009 Emergent added in online multiplayer and networking tools to there Gamebryo - LightSpeed engine; plus the ability to convert and work cross platform transparently. Technically if there using a Build of the Gamebryo engine post 8/14/09 it could be modded in.

[Christine Pane]

Effort spent on multiplayer is effort that could be better spent on singleplayer.

[Jodie Bardgett]

My 2 cents:

VATS: The biggest negative, one I think VATS while cool simply has the problem of taking a FPS that is Fallout 3 and turning it into a turn based game then back into a shooter. While strong it becomes anoyying after the 100th time. Turn VATS into an energy based system similar to Rogues in WoW (Im using it as a gameplay example) Taking inspiration from New Vegas were melee has certain special attacks. Examples:

Sniper Rifle: Wounding Shot: 5 AP: Your next shot cripples the limb it hits.

Sledgehammer: Crushing Blow: 5 AP: Your next blow ignores armor

Then rarer weapons would have better versions of the abilities:

Super Sledge: Super Crushing Blow: 5 AP+ X (chargable) AP: Your next blow ignores armor and deals an aditional X x 100 damage equal to the amount of AP spent.

This would keep true to nature of VATS but allow continous Real Time Combat necessary for Multiplayer and get rid of the clunky turnbased system in general.

I think the Borderlands set up works pretty well however a better matchmaking system should be done, as Borderlands multiplayer is unbearable unless you have 3 friends to play with, trying to PUG it is bad.

[Lisha Boo]

I may have missed this point being brought up before but I kind of doubt it. There is a type of multiplay that would work perfectly for Fallout and it should not be technically difficult because it was present in an older game. If anyone played Freelancer back in 2003 then you will be familiar with what I am talking about. It had a multiplayer option that basically allowed a host to run a game but allowed everyone playing it to ignore or interact with each other as much or as little as they wanted to. You would "turn the world on" and then play as if it were the single player game, with the addition that you could group with other people (you could password protect the server also) for co-op for either completing the storyline or just free roam sandbox adventures, or even fight each other. Each player would effect the game in subtle ways such as bringing new goods into a system that weren't there before via trading, or change the prices in the area by saturating it with goods. Or in other ways by wiping out raiders in an area, or making the raiders more prevalent by wiping out the system defenders. It was "sandbox" before sandbox became popular.

This type of concept is exactly the type of multiplayer that Fallout needs. Is it without issues? Of course not but nothing ever is.

VATS - So stopping time with VATS wouldnt lend itself to multiplay very well. If some good idea has been discussed already then great, if not then I am more than willing to give up on VATS in order to play with my friends.

Storyline - Yes people like to play games differently and some people will want to play "evil" and others "good". Most of the necessary storyline characters tend to be invincible anyways in games, so thats not much of a concern. The only difficulty would be in those instances where a side-story character can be killed or in the rare instances where a city can be destroyed (Megaton). And my opinion is that this only adds to the feeling of the game being desperate and harsh. You may have to rush to an area to protect it from your friend, and that would be amazing IMO.


Multiplayer adds SO much to games and makes them so much more re-playable. I would likely still be playing Fallout3 if it had this type of multiplay option, instead it is gathering dust in a box in the closet.

[Pumpkin]

As of August 19th 2009 Emergent added in online multiplayer and networking tools to there Gamebryo - LightSpeed engine; plus the ability to convert and work cross platform transparently. Technically if there using a Build of the Gamebryo engine post 8/14/09 it could be modded in.

Gamebryo is purposefully designed to be highly customizable and the expectation is that developers will heavily supplement and modify it to their needs. So unless the developers keep multiplayer in mind when doing their own additions and changes it cannot be easily added afterwards.

There is a type of multiplay that would work perfectly for Fallout and it should not be technically difficult because it was present in an older game. If anyone played Freelancer back in 2003 then you will be familiar with what I am talking about. It had a multiplayer option that basically allowed a host to run a game but allowed everyone playing it to ignore or interact with each other as much or as little as they wanted to.

The fact that it's present in older games doesn't make it technically easier, and in fact what you are suggesting would be far more difficult to implement than a basic co-op mode where the server is "the player" and everyone else is a companion.

In the latter only one player is accepting quests and interacting with NPCs in a meaningful fashion, which means the script system already in place doesn't need much modification. Additional players are there for the ride - everyone can chat together, adventure together, and help eachother out but as far as the game world is concerned this is on player and several companions.

The system you are suggesting requires that the game work keep track of multiple PCs each with their own ability to accept/complete quests and alter the game world. In affect these games create mini-MMOs. It's not a bad system, but it's one that is very labor-intensive to implement and (in my opinion) does better as the main focus of the game rather than a supplement. When something this complex isn't the focus of developement it's harder to give it the attention it really deserves in order to do well.

[David John Hunter]

id say multiplayer is a big no-no really tbh. reasons being if you have a hunt and destroy mission with all your equipment (im sure most players want to kill each other here) is thats the problem you could have a higher level player killing lower level players using a fat man and they also have lower health so you see the problem. another thing is that coop missions would be good and all but most games have that now so they would have to think of suthing different like say a enclave v brotherhood online war. so say a player chooses the factions and each team does missions and fights against each other.

[Danii Brown]

I'd like for there to be something like RDR. Ya know, infiltrate faction hideouts with your friends.