Ok, ready? I watched this movie the other day for the first time since i was about 12 and it reminded me a [censored] tonne of fallout 3....Waterworld!! That atoll (floating city) at the start was like megaton and deacon and all the smokers living on that giant frigate reminded me of rivet city and there was mention throughout the movie of slavers. I think it would be great to have a game set in the waterworld universe living the sailor life, scavenging, trading, buying and fixing up a boat and robbing, killing or helping other survivors. Anyone agree? The main thing that i think would be a setback is finding a way of making travelling around one vast mass of water interesting. I mean it would all look the same. The only way i can think of that might get around would be having an emphasis on surviving from day to day. Like having to concentrate more on fishing for food or getting water, fixing the motor on your vessel or conserving fuel so you can get back to a town before you starve to death or get picked off by raiders. I think if you were concentrating more on these things you would pay less attention to the repetitive surroundings. That and having some random encounters and side quests (eg. finding shipwreck survivors floating adrift, coming across an abandoned boat to explore and scavenge stuff off). Or if you played as a mutant like the dude in the movie you could breathe underwater and be able to dive down and explore the ruins of the world as it used to be. What are your thoughts? I know it's kind of weird to think about it this much when it will never even come to exist but i just think it'd be a sweet game. Think FO3 at sea!

They did have a Waterworld game back when the film released.

It was bad, very bad. Sticking your face in a blender would have been more fun.


If you have a PC, you'd be better off hoping for a mod. Nobody is going to invest money in anything remorelty connected to Waterworld considering the film tanked despite it's epic budget.

Its an interesting idea, considering Fo3 doesn't even have Rain in the game!

I'm sure that something like this will get built by a modder.

M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld_(video_game) Both for the PC and for the Virtual Boy. They both were pretty bad, with the Virtual Boy one being unusually bad, even for an already terrible system.

Three days it took me to catch that "ne1" was used to mean "anyone".

Frank Herbert wrote three books that centered around an interesting world that eventually became submerged in a world wide Ocean. I think a game could work in a massive Ocean world, provided they come up with a few really good gimmicks with the water.

There is a game about submerged world where remains of civilization trying to survive on small islands and everything like this. It's called Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, go play it lol.

I neverheard of that Console System, figures it was bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_boy Here we go, Tells you all you need to know.

One of Nintendo's few disasters.

Ya lost me.

Yep. That and the Wii

Edgy.

That's just plain and simple console bashing.

Let's look at those figures.

Xbox 360 : Units sold Worldwide: 30.20 million (as of March 31, 2009)

PS3: Units sold 23.8 million (as of June 30, 2009)

Wii: Units shipped Worldwide: 52.62 million (as of June 30, 2009)

Hmmm.....if the definition of disaster is to be more popular, then I suppose you are right :rolleyes: Plus there's none of the technical issues (Overheating, scratched discs, RROD (Xbox), etc) that have been reported on the Xbox 360 and PS3.

It's not the most powerful, but it's certainly the most popular. Note: I'm not digging on the Xbox or PS3, just replying to what was esssentially a console flame with actual facts.

edit: and rather than create a new post. As Vainglorious points out 'Popular' is the wrong word Can't deny the Wii's success though.




On topic: Having a post-apoc flooded world game would be interesting. Windwaker and Phantom Hourglass showed a big ocean with a few small islands CAN make a good game.

It would just have to avoid using the Waterworld name.

Well, the PS3 and the Xbox 360 directly compete with each other, sharing many titles and being the most expensive of the lot. The Wii doesn't really have any competition, being purposely designed by Nintendo to be cheaper, carry more casual titles, shoot for a generally younger target audience, and of course have plenty of Nintendo exclusives.

So the fact that the Wii sells more doesn't necessarily mean it's more popular. It just means that many people will buy either an Xbox 360 or a PS3, but not both, while they will also buy a Wii; and for children under the age of 18, parents are going to go for the Wii almost every time, given that many of its games are targeted at a younger, more casual audience. Also, it's cheaper, and that alone sells more consoles (if you look at the pure dollar value of each console, the Wii isn't nearly as far ahead as the per-unit numbers will indicate).

If there were only one "serious, expensive" gaming console (i.e., only the Xbox 360 or only the PS3), I think you'd find that the Wii and the other console would be neck-and-neck with each other in terms of sales.

Still, the Wii isn't a "disaster" except in some people's personal opinions, I'll give you that.

------------------------------------------------

Back on topic, Waterworld was a terrible movie. It spoiled any possibility of me enjoying a flooded, post-apocalyptic world, and traumatized me for the remainder of 1995.

Id be into it. If someone like Beth ever made a new one. Which of coarse they will not

Don't quote me , but i think its just assumed that waterworld tanked at the box office, when in reality it made money.

It did make money, but much less than expected.

I'd probably have liked the idea better if you hadn't mentioned the name "Water World" at the beginning.

I'd prefer eat dog vomit than watch that again.

Yeah, and this is significant because for every dollar (and hour) spent producing a film, the industry expects it to turn a certain amount of proportional profit. Hardly passing the break-even point on a film with a huge budget basically equates to failure.

If I loan a guy $100, and he gives me $105 three months later, I basically just gave up the use of my $100 for three months for a Starbucks latte. My time and money would have been better served investing in someone or something else. While I didn't technically lose the capital I started with (and in fact gained a bit), in theory I've lost what I could have potentially made by investing in something worthwhile.

In other words, Waterworld is a failure because all that money and all that time could have been spent on a different, much more successful and profitable film.

Why not just have fallout 3 except in the middle of the pacific ocean that way you can have the fallout canon and you can be stranded at see. All the Military and citizen vessle in the pacific ocean just roped together to form make[censored] towns. And it would be really nice aslong as they didn't have some stupid underwater vault conspiracy thing. "The people of vault 31 got a rude awakening when they found out there vault was UNDERWATER! Now the Lone Drifter must venture to the surface to find an anti-waterchip to prevent his vault from flooding." Get it, its like fallout except backwards.