a question on forum rules regarding multiplayer

[Ratty Sr.]

i have a question regarding the rules on this board (you know,"Fallout FPS and Fallout Online are unwelcome topics here. Don't be a Chuck and post them.")
does the rule mean that any form of multiplayer in a Fallout game is unacceptable? because, though i really dislike the idea of Fallout Online, i generally support and endorse the idea of cooperative multiplayer in Fallout 3. by this i mean the option of several characters forming a party and playing the main story together and not some lame cooperative deathmatch or anything like that. reason why i'm not opposed to this idea is because Fallout 1 and 2 tend to feel somewhat...lonely at times, not to mention the potential that lies in the fact that several characters could specialize in diverse skills and, what's more important, use these skills fruitfully and not shoot you in the back, blow you up, kill children for no reason whatsoever or do other stupid things. i repeat, this form of multiplayer should be STRICTLY oriented on cooperative party play, and maximum number of players shouldn't be higher than 3-4.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

reason why i'm not opposed to this idea is because Fallout 1 and 2 tend to feel somewhat...lonely at times,

Hmm isn't that one of the themes of Fallout games, you alone in the desolate wasteland? Isn't this one of the reasons that FOT didn't feel like a Fallout game, because you started out a member of a fairly large organisation and not alone against the odds?

 

[slicer]

what i love about fallout is that it consists of more than just combat. If you want to play whit muhnckin (don`t know how i spell that) and show them of to your frends play diablioII that is a grate game to

 

[Brother None]

Well, I know the ban on the subject was originally because of the huge fields of idiocy. To be honest, FOOL has been discussed to death and the general concesus among Roshambos is that it's idiotic.

I'm just moderating the rules, I don't make 'em, if any of the uppers (Rosh, Odin, Miro) disagree with the locking of the topic they should feel free to call me back and kick me ass for this.

Hmmm, I'll ask Odin his thoughts. In the meantime, I'll unlock the topic.

 

[Odin]

I've got no problem with you guys talking about Multiplayer/Cooperative Play, but Fallout Online and a Fallout FPS has been discussed to death, and we're tired of them..

I've locked the thread again..

 

[Ratty Sr.]

i agree that the whole idea of Fallout is in serious contradiction with online crowd play, but i find that simple cooperative multiplayer option wouldn't hurt the idea at all. it would actually make a lot of sense, especially for Fallout 1 - why would Overseer send only Albert to find the waterchip. or only Anna? if he sent Albert, Anna and Max together, it would be a much more reasonable decision, as each of them posseses skills that the other two are lacking, so they are much more likely to survive in the wasteland and accomplish their task. of course, people who feel like playing alone in true Mad Max style could do just that. anyway, all i am saying is that option for 3 or 4 players should exist, and certainly not that whole game should be based on, and revolve around, multiplayer, like Diablo II and Nox do.

 

[MrMarcus]

Co-operative play is something I wish was in FO:T - it would have made the game more enjoyable for me. I have a group of friends who also like to play that style of game. We got together and romped through Diablo II (literally - the party we had was SICK) and I'm sure I could have convinced them to play Tactics if we could have done it as a team.

I'm not sure it truly fits into the Fallout base-game mindset, but if BIS implemented it in FO3 properly I wouldn't object.

 

[Stranger]

Yeah, I too thought it would have been nice to play in the same squad with another player. I've never been a huge fan of having to control 6 guys at once (though I kind of wished that you had combat control of the other characters in Fallout 2 so that Marcus would quit minigunning me in the ass). I always find it better to control a single character well than half a dozen ones poorly.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Coop would have been more suited to Fallout Tactics than it would have been to Fallout 3. The people who have said it before were correct, Fallout 3 is about a lone wanderer who makes good, basically.

Beyond that, you run in to the problem of long, elaborate quests and how the players are allowed to deal with those quests. If the players are allowed to split up, and player A gets a quest from Bob the Scrap Merchant to recover a piston rod from a corvega, meanwhile player B stumbles on that piston rod and sells it to Fred the Gun Dealer... What then?

It's not that big a deal in with a small quest, but what about a big one like the Get the Waterchip one from Fallout?

That's the big problem there, having one player botch a quest for another player, which is really rather easy to do. One player could kill a person involved in another player's quest. One player could get an item first before the questing player. One player could say the wrong thing to someone, voiding any NPC relationships that might be required for the quest. The list goes on and on.

Now, you could say, "Hey, what if the game DOESN'T let players split up? That solves most everything!" Well, sure, but how fun would that be? You'd have one person as the Lone Wanderer, and the rest being sidekicks, only there for the occational skill use or for combat.