[Jennie Skeletons]

The question that keeps coming to my mind in this topic is - why would a multiplayer-enabled Fallout have to be essentially FO3 but with a tacked-on multiplayer component?

That would solve the entire VATS question in one fell swoop - a multiplayer Fallout spin-off would just have some other mechanic than what basically amounts to bullet-time, while still serving some of the same purposes. You'd also get the benefit of a game that would be built from the ground up to be fun to play with more than one person, as opposed to a game that's built with a single player in mind. (I mean, it seems like if you just jumped into a friend's FO3 game, you'd be watching the other player go through lots of dialogue and the like that has no relevance to you.)

I'd just as soon see a completely different spin-off that was made from the ground up with two or more players in mind; and with quests and the like that were designed to be explored by more than one person. Even dialogue could be incorporated to take into account that another player is with you (or an NPC fill-in, of course.) A really clever game designer could probably even come up with some sort of system in which both players could interact equally with the NPCs.

Anyway, I'd just rather see something totally new than trying to fit a multiplayer component into a game (even the hypothetical Fallout 4) that's nominally made with just the one player in mind.

[kyle pinchen]

First of all, your initial response, in which you suggested your hypothetical loot system with duplicated items and lost money for the virtual deceased, was not even directed at me. Secondly, I told you how, in my opinion, that system wouldn't really work or could ruin some of the gameplay fun. Now, if I have somehow offended you by giving my opinion about an idea, I am terribly sorry. But please, how would you go around people looting their friends who have better stuff than they have, since all that stuff will be duplicated? Or wouldn't that be a problem since every gamer out there really wants to put some work into it when playing such a game...

Sorry if i came off a bit rude there mate, i've had a busy day at work.

To stop people looting superior weapons/armour to their own, there could either be a level system associated with weapons/armor that required you to be a certain level to wear certain armour, or you could simpley have it were you couldn't take armour off a dead players body unless you have found or bought the armour/weapon in the single player part of the game.

But we know that fallout 3 will not be made into a multiplayer game so this type of discussion is irrelevant as there are countless was that an actual fallout multiplayer game could be designed to make things ballanced.

[Kristian Perez]

I disagree. I think there are plenty of roles for everyone to fill in a Fallout world.

But I though this was a discussion concerning a Fallout game that has a multiplayer component, not an MMO. What roles could you see people wanting to fill if the game only let 2 people play together?

[Davorah Katz]

But I though this was a discussion concerning a Fallout game that has a multiplayer component, not an MMO. What roles could you see people wanting to fill if the game only let 2 people play together?

Cooperative gameplay just like you can have a companion in a single-player Fallout game.

[Skrapp Stephens]

Off the bat, I should say that I am flatly against multiplayer of any kind for the Fallout series of games.

~But... I could see a modern title loading up a dynamic world where the games connect and allow random human players to wander in and out of each others way, dragging their own group of 'tag-along' NPC's and leaving a looted [possibly trapped] location for another player to find eventually. I can see the occasional alliance of opportunity (with the option to switch sides during the fight), or even have one PC bribe the other PC's NPC away from him.

But Fallout never ever seemed like a buddy game, and it would seem wrong somehow if it were to copy "Army of two", or other co-op games.

[Phillip Brunyee]

Cooperative gameplay just like you can have a companion in a single-player Fallout game.

But what role would that co-op partner play? I was responding to FalloutChris when he said there would be plenty of roles to play other than a gun toting wastelander.

[Alan Cutler]

Note: if it had Multiplayer, it wouldn't be "fallout". Mightbe fun, but it's a completely different play-style.

Multiplayer in Fallout would be good if you just did your own thing, then evenually came across another player, andeither tried to jump him for his gear, or worked together with him.

I wouldn't like big green letters with names hanging over their heads (but that's why that should be optional)
It would be neat to co-operate with a good friend on a quest or two and then part ways, but anything else would be incredibly immersion breaking.

And that would make the entire online community run around with PA and full high-tech gear in the weapon class they prefer within, say, two weeks? People wouldn't get their equipment by accomplishing anything, they would just form up and jump on one guy with excellent gear to get his gear without him losing it when he respawns. That would make every character out there generic (at least in gear and appearance) and would discourage finding that stuff yourself.

I don't see the issue with losing your gear if you die (if someone takes it) and being left with only a few basic supplies (maybe you wake up in a pile of useless junk,and there's one pistol, some ammo and a nail board).
If multiplayer is optional, and players allowed in a given world are limited to a certain number, I don't see the issue.
It would be kinda fun to have to track down the person who took your equipment (maybe a an NPC by their name appears in a house in some town, and you'd hve to fight them to get back unique items)

Besides, if a group of players is low-down and dirty enough to gang up on high level players, do you thin their group coherency will last long? Especially if you had one item that outvalued the rest when they killed you?

These backstabbers (on a small enough server) will get theirs eventually
I always thought it would be an interesting added challenge to have to carefully avoid low level "packs" or form alliances with people of your calibre, to whom you could run if something went wrong.

Again, these games would be set in the Fallout universe, nothing more, but I think there is definately interesting potential for a fun game to come out of this.

Edit: I like Gizmo's outlook. Shame multiplayer games are split into MMO, and shooters, with no middle ground.

[sam]

Note: if it had Multiplayer, it wouldn't be "fallout". Mightbe fun, but it's a completely different play-style.

Funny, I could say the same about it being first person and real time.

Here's what Chris Taylor, one of the makers of original Fallout, said:

I've seen some discussion here and there about how many players is anti-Fallout (or, more generically, anti-post-apocalyptic). I'd disagree, of course, otherwise I wouldn't be involved in V13. There are plenty of precedents for grouping and social organizations. Even the Road Warrior had allies during his cinematic adventures. In Fallout, NPCs were always available to join your group and there were plenty of social organizations that had a number of members.

My vision includes the lone wanderer, erm, wandering through the wastes and a team of individuals working together for a common goal (like getting a truckload of fuel past some raiders). In any MMO, there will be times and places that have more people than others (social centers vs. instances, for example). It won't be all of one at all times

[Lilit Ager]

I could see a modern title loading up a dynamic world where the games connect and allow random human players to wander in and out of each others way,

I like the way you think. :hehe: A friend and i were talking about the exact same thing last night. We though it would be good if the game connected you to random people but it wouldn't tell you who the real players were and part of the challenge would be to blend in with the NPC to allow you to avoide being targeted or to enebal you to get close to an enemy.

[Lovingly]

i think it would be a neat feature for a Co-op feature to be added, not a full multiplayer game.
so many times have my other fallout friends ran through the same "dungeon" at the same time and had a grand time just talking about how we died, or killed something...but to actually see it and interact with what can happen is another dimension that can increase the gamer experience.

also about VATS...it could simply be a removed, or activated as a "special move" such as multiplayer guitar hero's star power.

even if the Co-op was available for dungeons only and not the actual wasteland that would be very entertaining

just my opinion

Nice topic btw

[Nancy RIP]

I'm sure if you put five minutes thought into how it would all work, you could answer your own questions.

Lets say that Bethesda released a patch that allowed you to connect to someone who was in the same part of fallout 3's world (paradise falls for example), chances are that one player would see the other first giving that player the advantage. That player could enter VATS which does not stop time but instead works in real time and therefore the chance of hitting the other guy would change as that player moves around. The player using VATS would have to fire their shot when they think they will stand the best chance of hitting the target.

Once one person kills another they would be able to search the body and take any bottle caps that player is carrying. They could also take weapons and armour from the dead player but these items would be duplicated and not permanently taken from the dead player. Meaning that when the dead player respawns, they would have all their weapon and armour but would have lost all the money they were carrying.

I like your VATS idea but not so much your search idea. Also If you don't have a DLC that has a weapon you just picked up in it would you be able to use it even though your game doesn't recognize it at all? Also the search idea is just asking for a bunch of boosters up and ready to ruin the game.

[Jonathan Windmon]

I don't want to read all of the posts so I'm just going to hope that this hasn't been said.
A two player would be good but is quite difficult.
Having 2 people escape the vault or whatever would have been/be fun but then what if your mate left and you wanted to continue on your own? Leave the char in the hands of the CPU? have them wait somewhere? Then the second player misses out on some quests etc. especially if it was an over the net thing.
Or if you made a second player essential that would ruin it if you wanted to play on your own because you couldn't.

I suppose what would have worked would be if you have a companion, e.g. Charon and they get to take them over while at yours or even over the internet as just a spare hand would have been cool.

I hope no-one has suggested that, because I think it would have been a cool idea. that way, the AI is in charge of the companion and it would have been scripted that way but then if a friend comes over they can just join in too. then you have a smarted (or a more stupid ) back up.

The last option would be that you both play the storyline, but you can do it individually too. so you both can do a quest together but if you're on your own for a while, you can do the next bit yourself and your mate can catch up, however incorporating all that with VATS could be the hardest part.
If you're in a certain radius when one person goes into VATS you both do, but when outside if one person is in VATS it doesn't affect the other person?

Well that was me spitballing some ideas.
Let me know if you think any could work or what the problems would be if you think of any.

EDIT - I wouldn't want a VS.

Thanks

Master.

[Zach Hunter]

I suppose what would have worked would be if you have a companion, e.g. Charon and they get to take them over while at yours or even over the internet as just a spare hand would have been cool.

I hope no-one has suggested that, because I think it would have been a cool idea. that way, the AI is in charge of the companion and it would have been scripted that way but then if a friend comes over they can just join in too. then you have a smarted (or a more stupid ) back up.

It would greatly simplify the game if one person was the "main character" and everyone else was treated like a companion. Not only has that suggestion come up before on these forums, but the Morrowind multiplayer mod basically works that way.

With most NPC interactions (and therefor, the nuts and bolts of the quests) restricted to a single player, there would be a low risk of multi-player interference, and the NPC dialogue wouldn't have to take multiple players in to account. There would have to be some sort of work around for NPC services, but that shouldn't be too difficult to partition. It would limit some of the open world feeling, but it would require that co-op be cooperative.

[Chavala]

I believe Multiplayer would fail.
Dont know why.

[Juliet]

a buddy and I discussed this topic in length...We both can to the conclusion it would be fun playing in the same party but then have 10000 people on the same server would spoiler the game atmosphere. If you could play on a LAN and regulate the number of people would help some. The VATS issue you could have one person go into VATS then the other people would slow down to "bullet time" or slow motion. If the person checks thier inventory they would be just standing there while the other people keep going about there business. just a few of my thoughts.

[Nathan Hunter]

Fallout 3 would be the perfect game if it had cooperative multiplayer capabilities. So would Oblivion, and honestly I would play Morrowind all over again if a cooperative multiplayer version came out. Cooperative Multiplayer games are a fantastic way for me to spend time with my wife and kids. We really bond together as a family when we can go on quests, etc. It's a fun experience.

Incomprehensibly, there are no moddable fantasy 1st/3rd person perspective cooperative multiplayer games available in the industry, save for perhaps NWN2, which unfortunately is a turn based game and does not have the action flow that my kids and I enjoy. The first game that comes out with these capabilities, if properly implemented, will make a fortune. Everything else that seems to be available is a MMORPG, which is sad to me as I have no interest in playing with strangers, and I've never seen a MMORPG that was moddable in any supported capacity.

Dungeon Lords was unfortunately very bugged on release, but it was a good example of what can be done with cooperative multiplayer over a LAN. If it had been moddable, I would still be playing it with my family, bugs and all.

I love VATS but would trade it in an instant for cooperative multiplayer capabilities for Fallout 3.

Hi zardalu and everybody,

I agree with your arguments, your are in same situation than me. I like to play in cooperative multiplayer mode (local Lan only , not by internet and not by MMORPG server), with my wife and kids. It's very funny. I hope, in future, an cooperative multiplayer capabilities for Fallout 3.

[Rachel Cafferty]

Fallout 3 had a multiplayer option of play.

A player sets himself up as a host and others joined to make up the numbers.

There were several hosts and games running at any time. As far as I can remember they were all 'Capture the flag' type games and usually lasted about two minutes of actual play, after waiting some time for players to decide their setups, team, etc.... and "Is everybody ready?"

I joined some of the games and gave it several try-outs to see much fun and interest the games had, and they were all highly unsuccessful.

[XPidgex Jefferson]

Fallout 3 had a multiplayer option of play.

A player sets himself up as a host and others joined to make up the numbers.

There were several hosts and games running at any time. As far as I can remember they were all 'Capture the flag' type games and usually lasted about two minutes of actual play, after waiting some time for players to decide their setups, team, etc.... and "Is everybody ready?"

I joined some of the games and gave it several try-outs to see much fun and interest the games had, and they were all highly unsuccessful.

What? No it didn't.

Are you sure you're not thinking of something else? Like another game or a mod?

If it was a mod then yes, it's not going to be very fun since the engine was never coded for anything more than single player. Previous multiplayer attempts on the engine were ambitious, but rubbish....or at least, not very workable.

[Alex Blacke]

I hope, in future, an cooperative multiplayer capabilities for Fallout 3.

Bethesda won't be adding multiplayer to Fallout 3. I suppose it's a possibility for Fallout 4, but I think it is extremely unlikely. If we do see a multiplayer Fallout game it will likely be a spin-off, similar to Fallout Tactics or The Elder Scrolls Legends: Battlespire.

Fallout 3 had a multiplayer option of play.

A player sets himself up as a host and others joined to make up the numbers.

There were several hosts and games running at any time. As far as I can remember they were all 'Capture the flag' type games and usually lasted about two minutes of actual play, after waiting some time for players to decide their setups, team, etc.... and "Is everybody ready?"

I joined some of the games and gave it several try-outs to see much fun and interest the games had, and they were all highly unsuccessful.

:huh:

[J.P loves]

I'd just love to see some sort of on-line multiplayer mode on fallout not deathmatch like other games but like an MMO eg wow but not as gay, that would be awesome. mybe in a up coming fallout game or rpg.

[sas]

I'd just love to see some sort of on-line multiplayer mode on fallout not deathmatch like other games but like an MMO eg wow but not as gay, that would be awesome. mybe in a up coming fallout game or rpg.

Punctuation, do you speak it?

[leni]

Hi all

I wouldn't want Fallout or TES to be multiplayer. It would ruin the series, imo.
Both are based on single character with the occasional followers or helpers. They should remain that way. Making the next one MP would be a terrible thing.
How could we use mods? Everyone would have to have it and as we all know, no mod suits everyone.
What about things like lowering the amount of grass for better performance? That would be a cheat, because you can see better with grass edits.

No these series should continue on as single player RPG's.
I'm fine with Bethesda making an online game, but feel they should not do it with TES or FO. Both of these series have a strong following and making them MP would probably hurt them more than improve them.

[Zach Hunter]

What about a free mode like gta IV that would be cool just you and a few of mates roming the wastes and doing pointless stuff thats just what I whant that or no ending so that I can play on (like oblivion) with out spending 800ms points on.
I know I cant aford broken steel that would help for some machinimas im planing to make to. maybe in some future projects :fallout:

[Allison Sizemore]

Punctuation, do you speak it?

See I can't even aford a good education let alone broken steel.

[Sabrina Schwarz]

What about a free mode like gta IV that would be cool just you and a few of mates roming the wastes and doing pointless stuff thats just what I whant that or no ending so that I can play on (like oblivion) with out spending 800ms points on.
I know I cant aford broken steel that would help for some machinimas im planing to make to. maybe in some future projects :fallout:

That would work. It would make exploring buildings and underground caves a lot more entertaining.