[pinar]

Punctuation, do you speak it?

Mr. Sam Jackson thanks you for your contribution to the thread.

/English, motherfarker, I speak it.

[Kelvin]

As much as I love Co-op mode in video games(to this day it annoys me that COD 4 doesn't have it) it would be very difficult in a RPG and also doesn't suit the fallout 3 experience.

The main character is called the Lone Wanderer.

V.A.T.S would be really hard to program into the game. Multiplayer code doesn't work too well in those situations. Plus when you enter V.A.T.S what would your friend be doing? Scaling of enemies, loot etc. aren't things that are easily solved.

Fallout 3 isn't meant for online play. Fallout:new Vegas might be and maybe even fallout 4. but its not going to happen in this iteration.

[Bones47]

I don't understand why Bethesda can make simple Co-op option in their games. Everybody knows when playing with friend is always 2x more fun than alone.

[CArlos BArrera]

what there to co-op with ??

the whole idea is individual gameplay

[Jonathan Montero]

My opinion is NOT co-op multiplayer. But some sort of sharing, like going into othere peoples fallout world, seeing there
houses, there accompishments. And for the PC it could be something like:

Say you want to see someones custom house.
You can go in, see it. But the catch is,
you have the ability to steel ANYTHING and take it
back to your world. But that person's turrets, defense system
will be activated, and you have to try to make your way out.
Or the players have the ability to TRADE. In my opinion co-op would, be
wierd, and just wouldn't work so well. So if something like this
was ever created, it would leave in the independent part of fallout,
but would create some more fun, so the game would never end.
You could go into your friends world, help with quest's, explore the
wastes. But co-op wouldnt be rite for an RPG.

[Travis]

Punctuation, do you speak it?

you don't speak punctuation, you use it

[Lauren Denman]

Theres no need for Fallout 3 multiplayer the single player mode is good enough besides multiplayer does not mesh with Fallout 3.

[Solène We]

A co-op mode would be fantastic. Something like Saint's Row 2. VATS would be problematic but one can dream!

[Stacey Mason]

Maybe Bethesda could lease the MP aspect to an independent company, like 2K Marin is doing for Bioshock 2.

[Nice one]

It's never impossible to make a multiplayer mode. I understand Bethesda focus on game business. But still it's not impossible.

[Hannah Barnard]

Simple fact is that multiplayer games and singleplayer games are very, very different. I would make no interest in a Fallout MMO most likely, and I bet a ton of other Bethesda fans would say the same thing. I just don't like that genre... same thing with the coming Star Wars MMO... I like that brand, loved KotOR, and love Bioware, but I have no interest in that game due to genre.

So, keep multiplayer out of my Fallout, or at least develop it as a seperate game, like Interplay is supposedly doing.

[Rozlyn Robinson]

It's never impossible to make a multiplayer mode. I understand Bethesda focus on game business. But still it's not impossible.

I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested that it is impossible, but it is certainly impractical. Adding/developing/testing multiplayer requires a substantial chunk of the game's total resources, and Bethesda would rather focus their resources on the single-player. A lot of people discuss that they want multiplayer added but few write up a list of what Bethesda can cut to afford this.

[Lily]

I would love drop in drop out co-op in F4 or FNV

[Connie Thomas]

I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested that it is impossible, but it is certainly impractical. Adding/developing/testing multiplayer requires a substantial chunk of the game's total resources, and Bethesda would rather focus their resources on the single-player. A lot of people discuss that they want multiplayer added but few write up a list of what Bethesda can cut to afford this.

Not being rude here but your point is straw man isn't it? Yeah it would take away from them being able to do something else. However every time they work on adding something new to the game it takes away from something else. I'm sure if they didn't add VATS they would've had more time to add a few more dungeons maybe even a few quest. If they didn't work on having random encounters they could've had more time to add more weapons using different types of ammo in Fallout 3 not to mention more armor and more different types of enemies. The whole argument about adding something new to a game will take away from them doing something else (which is true) is a very old argument and if they never did add anything new to the sequels you're just going to end up playing the same game with a new story and better graphics. This is just going to get old very fast and make people lose interest in the game and hurt the company by giving them a reputation of not being creative at all. While the story is the heart of the game and the setting is the soul game play is the backbone and can never be ignored in anyway shape or form.



As someone who doesn't generally care if a game is multiplayer or not and does feel that Bethesda should stick to single player games. When Looking at Fallout 3 I think it could've worked. If use followers a lot in the game your already use to having a companion anyway so I don't see how having someone else join your game would make a huge a difference at all. Granted asking for multiplayer in Fallout 3 is a lost cause at this point because unless some mod team gets together to do it or your talented enough to do it yourself it's not going to happen.

Fallout 4 even New Vegas could have multiplayer. Just having one character be considered the main character and someone who joins the game play as a follower would work (although I'm a bit leery about that way of doing it because San Andreas wasn't very good doing it) and solve needing to do quests differently in a single player game and multiplayer game. As far as VATS goes it doesn't need to be disabled when one of you enters VATS both you do. It could become tedious but that's one way I think it could work that or when player 1 enters VATS player two is basically in a regular bullet time situation and adding a clock to how long you're in VATS would make it so it's not okay pause the game and let player two have an hour to kill everyone for me with no challenge.

As far as heads up Arena style multiplayer goes I see that being more problematic. It would probably have to be its own separate function where you don't use a character from the regular game but a pregenerated character with its own strengths and weaknesses. Or you have a character you can make where you both adjust you stats to match up equally before entering a death match, capture the flag etc.

Overall it could work and I think it could be done well and no I don't think it would cost $100.00 per game either considering how much profit Bethesda makes off their games anyway I found that remark to be extremely ridiculous to say the least. The only problem I see with it is Bethesda not doing it well. They've only done multiplayer on one game before that I'm aware of and that was years ago. Also fallout 3 didn't have the greatest shooter elements either so my biggest thing is not if it could be done or if it would take away from something else it's would multiplayer be done right?

[Kim Kay]

No, No, No and No There simply isn't place for multiplayer in a game like Fallout 3. It would simply destroy the lore; can you imagine 'And so ends the tale of the lone wanderer,... and his X online friends'. Story driven single-based rpg's should remain single-based. Look what they did to kotor :'(. Also can you imagine trying to complete quests like the purifier... it is supposed to be an epic moment, where the story grabs you by the throat for a couple of seconds. Can you imagine that same feeling when other people are standing there yelling 'OMG roflcopter, wtf??' And things like 'WTF why did that happen that way or this that way' -> spoiling it for everyone. And for multiplayer... how could dad possibly have enough children to support all the people who want to play online, Nova will have to work over I think ? And maybe most important of all, if there is multiplayer... there is pvp so how does one go into his inventory? Does the game pause for him? does he dissapear for a sec? Fallout is put together in an awesome way, in a way that only depends on the actions of the player, with 5000 other people running around you aren't 'the one' anymore. Plus the capitol wasteland wouldn't be so unpopulated anymore.

-Star

[Lillian Cawfield]

Death match would have to be its own separate thing where you can't use your character from the game. It would have to be like Halo or Doom with the matches taking place on separate maps etc. As far everyone you play with someone being annoying the simple solution would be don't play with anyone else. I'm not trying to be rude or beat anyone down here but if you hate the idea of playing with someone else why would you even use co op?

[Stephani Silva]

Not being rude here but your point is straw man isn't it? Yeah it would take away from them being able to do something else. However every time they work on adding something new to the game it takes away from something else.
...

Sure, everything you try to add is going to take away from something else. (Opportunity cost and all that...) But, in a single-player game, then anything added - and their respective opportunity costs - works towards making an (ostensibly) better single-player game. Give and take.

Taking a single-player game, and adding a multiplayer component; would (by this rationale) take away from the single-player aspect without adding anything to that element in return. ie, adding multiplayer would be no give and all take - from the point of view of the single-player portion of the game. Erego:

Single-player additions: take away from that single-player element (by virtue of shifting focus) and add something of equal or greater value in return.

Multi-player additions: still take away resources from that single-player element; and then add nothing in exchange to the single-player element. Viewed as an overall game, nothing is lost (as obviously, if it didn't not only even out but also make for an ostensibly better game - there'd be no point in making sequels anyway.) But to the player with no intention of playing multiplayer - something is very much lost. That being the resources that could have been applied to what they're buying the game for.

[Matt Bigelow]

True someone who favors single player games and doesn’t like multiplayer games isn’t going to like multiplayer and what they perceive as flaws in the game (regardless if there truly flaws or not) is going to anger them because Bethesda could of used the time it took them making multiplayer to fix those flaws. However looking at this from the other side for someone who wants multiplayer this could be only seen as a plus. Because it allows them to have their friends play alongside them and this wouldn’t be much different than having a follower game play wise.

Multiplayer would be a very ambitious thing to add in Fallout 4 seeing as there no games like Fallout 3 and TES that are multiplayer at least none that I'm aware of. While yes this would take away assets being used to make a better single player game. On the other hand it could be extremely innovative and successful and make for a great experience and this is coming from someone who usually plays games by themselves even if they are multiplayer.

Overall multiplayer has its pros and cons. Yeah it will take up assets that can be used elsewhere but I doubt it’s to the extent other on here think it will. It's something I do however think Bethesda should look at doing in Fallout 4 since it’s been requested in their games for a while now and was something that Van Buren was going to have. So I don’t think adding it would be too farfetched. Either way though this is hardly a game breaker for me in anyway shape or form it’s just something I think could be in a future game and believe would work.

[Kay O'Hara]

I just think it would be better off as it's own game, designed from the ground up to be a largely multiplayer/co-op experience. Or if they did something like Splinter Cell, etc - where the multiplayer was basically it's own game packaged on the same disk, and developed independantly of the core game.

(In other words - I like the combination of chocolate and peanut butter - but that doesn't mean that you have to put peanut butter on all of my chocolate. )

[Marguerite Dabrin]

Not being rude here but your point is straw man isn't it? Yeah it would take away from them being able to do something else. However every time they work on adding something new to the game it takes away from something else.

I fail to see how this is a straw man, I'm not attempting to manipulate or skew Superior Defender's argument. In fact I agree with his argument - it isn't impossible to add multiplayer.

Semantics aside, you are correct that any work in one area will preclude work in another. If Bethesda hadn't wanted VATS the programmers could have implemented something else, if the designers put in fewer quests they could have made the ones they already had longer/deeper, or perhaps added more locals, etc. I'm sure there were plenty of ideas the developers were excited about that were eventually cut due to resource constraints.

Multiplayer is a particularly large and resource-intensive feature. I merely suggest that the people who want Bethesda to include it consider that this would draw considerable resources away from other aspects of the game developement. Even ignoring that they might have to sacrifice some features in order to have the needed resources it would complicate making the scripting system, greatly complicate VATS, make it difficult to streamlining and clean up the engine, and require a lot of additional QA.

Overall it could work and I think it could be done well and no I don't think it would cost $100.00 per game either considering how much profit Bethesda makes off their games anyway I found that remark to be extremely ridiculous to say the least. The only problem I see with it is Bethesda not doing it well. They've only done multiplayer on one game before that I'm aware of and that was years ago. Also fallout 3 didn't have the greatest shooter elements either so my biggest thing is not if it could be done or if it would take away from something else it's would multiplayer be done right?

Chances are Bethesda (or Obsidian) would need many more programers and testers, which would lower the number of designers and artists. Some people are OK with having a smaller game in order to gain features like MP. While I am not part of this camp I certainly don't begrudge someone their opinion. All I did was point out that adding MP requires sacrifices, I don't think you can simply ask for everything Fallout 3 had plus MP.



I enjoy multiplayer games, but I'd much rather play a game the focuses on being multiplayer or singleplayer than a game that tries to do both. Most of the latter end up feeling weak on at least one side, and often both. There are exceptions, including a number of FPSs and RTSs, but they tend to be very focused games to begin with.

[Richus Dude]

Perhaps adding multiplayer would make Fallout 4 less detailed then Fallout 3 then again perhaps not. Bethesda could expand significantly in the next year or two for all we know or they might even downsize none of us can know for sure what the future holds. Why multiplayer would take more resources when making Fallout 4 Bethesda might have those extra resources needed that they didn't have making Fallout 3. Fallout 4 could still have as much or maybe even more detail then Fallout 3 has with multiplayer. It depends on more factors then just what Bethesda does since id is now owned by Zenimax if there games like the upcoming Doom 4 are successful it will help Bethesda now if it's not successful it'll hurt Bethesda. Although I highly doubt Doom 4 would flop so much so I'd bet everything I own on it literally?but I'm getting off topic. Point is we can't know for sure how having multiplayer would affect a Fallout game until it's implemented. While I do understand the fears of everyone who is against adding multiplayer I can't say for sure that those fears are well founded.

[Krista Belle Davis]

Considering how many bugs and issues these games have already, do you really want to add multiplayer bugs and issues on top of it? Also, as the game budget propably won't increase, adding multiplayer will mean less content and QA for the SP section, which is what sells these games. Another point is that the Gamebryo engine was not designed to support multiplayer, and if Bethesda uses it for future projects, including MP would require quite intensive recoding of the engine, which would mean even higher deveploment costs, and the extra profits from players attracted by the new MP feature propably wouldn't be enough to cover those costs.

TL;DR: No. Stick to the openworld SP RPG you're so good at, Bethesda

[Markie Mark]

With or without multiplayer any future fallout game Bethesda makes will have bugs regardless. Will multiplayer have bugs? Yeah I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. As far as there budget not increasing for the next fallout game we have no way of knowing this for sure. The budget could increase significantly or decrease significantly only time will tell. As far as gamebryo goes I imagine there going to ditch it soon or a later in favor of id tech 5 which supports multiplayer.

Again I'm seeing a lot of fear here while I understand it I think it's a little overblown.

[Ludivine Poussineau]

With or without multiplayer any future fallout game Bethesda makes will have bugs regardless. Will multiplayer have bugs? Yeah I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. As far as there budget not increasing for the next fallout game we have no way of knowing this for sure. The budget could increase significantly or decrease significantly only time will tell. As far as gamebryo goes I imagine there going to ditch it soon or a later in favor of id tech 5 which supports multiplayer.

Again I'm seeing a lot of fear here while I understand it I think it's a little overblown.

Is it fear or distaste? The argument for multiplayer is fine... Multiplayer is fun... I like Multiplayer ~just not in Fallout; I like rootbeer too ~just not in Clam Chowder.

*Two examples of good things that don't go together.

[JERMAINE VIDAURRI]

Is it fear or distaste?

Fear. Granted there's distaste in there to but most of the replies are it will make the game to small, take away to many features and make the game cost a $100.00. If someone doesn't like the idea of multiplayer in a future fallout game like you've just stated then there's nothing anyone can say to that. Now if you're going to say they can't do it because it cost too much or the game wouldn't sell very well because it has multiplayer that is fear.


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