S
Stag
Guest
While I do realize that a massively multiplayer fallout would...less than ideal, what do you think of a co-op mode?
well the biggest problem in my eyes for a Fallout style game would of course be the need to be balanced for it, as it'd easily get overpowered since everyone can focus on their specific specialisations (the usual stereotypes: a 'warrior', a 'doctor', a 'thief').
it'd be great if a co-op existed that reacted to number & attitude. you could easily form a raiding party, the a-team or a fellowship (for lack of better words) if you wanted to that way.
however, co-op, due to it's balance issues would probably be as hard as making an entirely new game, i think.
it'd be great if a co-op existed that reacted to number & attitude. you could easily form a raiding party, the a-team or a fellowship (for lack of better words) if you wanted to that way.
however, co-op, due to it's balance issues would probably be as hard as making an entirely new game, i think.
S
Stag
Guest
couldn't the enemies just be made more powerful?
Oh, and I'm nerding out about the possibility of chatting in that little green fallouty font.
Oh, and I'm nerding out about the possibility of chatting in that little green fallouty font.
S
Stag
Guest
Yeah, but trialogues...no need. Just do a dialogue...but...they...muppets...
Surely it would not need to be onetalks-one-punches? Have just the player who initiates the conversation talk, would allow two to go and gather information etc. Seperatly. Also means that while the character with higher speech would do most of the taking; that'd be a tactical decision.
Co-op if you didn't have to stay in the same screen or town even would be cool. (I just want to use the radios to initiate chat conversations with teammate.)
Co-op if you didn't have to stay in the same screen or town even would be cool. (I just want to use the radios to initiate chat conversations with teammate.)
Many of the old FOOL discussions can be searched through on these forums, detailing much of the problems of a multiplayer Fallout.
It just doesn't work with the setting and story style. It's about a lost man in a lost world, who becomes skilled and stronger than most around, to either save or destroy the world.
This kind of setting and gameplay doesn't allow for much explanation or balance for multiple protagonists.
In other words, think about Planescape: Torment, and about a Nameless One, Nameless Two, Nameless Three...
It just doesn't work with the setting and story style. It's about a lost man in a lost world, who becomes skilled and stronger than most around, to either save or destroy the world.
This kind of setting and gameplay doesn't allow for much explanation or balance for multiple protagonists.
In other words, think about Planescape: Torment, and about a Nameless One, Nameless Two, Nameless Three...
S
Stag
Guest
I think FO could do co-op. It's not mmo, it's just an extra party member, or even like RP said, just another vault member out in the wastes.
Wasteland could sort of be played co-op, if the players all used the same computer while cooperating and taking turns. One great feature of Wasteland was the ability to split the party into up to 4 sub-parties, each of which could go anywhere in the world independently of the others. The players would just have to agree on a system for sharing control of the computer.
QuietAndNasty
First time out of the vault
Stag said:
so, which one of them makes the decisions ?
what if one of them likes killing innocents, and the other one doesnt?
what if one of em wants to be a slaver? and the other one wants to hunt slavers ?
it would make the game too easy if both were as "strong" as the fallout main character. one could choose to be a medic, diplomat, scientist... the other would be the fighter. this means that there would be no challenges anymore. and the story wouldnt work, either.
in fallout1 the vault overseer says that YOU are their last hope.
and in fallout2 YOU are the chosen ONE
fallout isn't tango & cash or batman & robin
S
Stag
Guest
Fallout 1 I think is kind of questionable. Besides which, this is regarding FO3. Because I'm a little worried about how Bethesda would handle it, I don't think it should actually be done; Bethesda would turn it into an MMO if done at all.
Stag said:
Because Bethesda has such a long history of making multiplayer games?
Uhhhh?
If anything, they may make it like Diablo 2's multiplayer (was that considered an mmorpg? whatever). D2's multiplayer is pretty much you can host rooms, people can join these rooms, and can work together to complete a mission, or to fight each other. It could work, eh?
P.i.p Boy 2000
First time out of the vault
It would be possible to make a Fallout co-op if it wasen´t turn based. That I think is the real problem.
why cant TB be co-op, P.i.p Boy 2000?
just put up a timer to limit the time an individual player can take. look at Risk for instance which can have similar mechanics when played online.
the problem lies not in the TB aspect.
just put up a timer to limit the time an individual player can take. look at Risk for instance which can have similar mechanics when played online.
the problem lies not in the TB aspect.
P.i.p Boy 2000
First time out of the vault
Well think if you and a friend are in a city, you go and shop for some rads while the other is making problem for him self. The the timer would start for you when he is in the other end of town. That would be annoying.
I think it would be best to make it RT for Co-op. But to be honest i like TB more.
I think it would be best to make it RT for Co-op. But to be honest i like TB more.
TB and co-op can be made to work together quite well, and it's been done before a long time ago. In addition to the ability to play Wasteland co-op, there was also Adventure Construction Set (Electronic Arts, 1985).
The engine is turn-based (with movement points) and allows 1-4 characters to play at once and travel anywhere independently, and they can be played by different players in hotseat mode. Characters can join or leave the adventure at any time, and there is a built-in mechanism for sharing control. If multiple characters are in the same region, they each take one turn in sequence. If they're in different regions, each one gets several turns in a row before control switches. That way, if you and your buddy are in the same city and he gets in trouble, you might be able to get to him in time. If you're in different cities there's little chance of that, but that's how it should be.
ACS has some severe limitations, which I pushed as far as I could when I made games with it, but for its time it was very advanced. I grew up on it and had fun playing the games I made in multiplayer with my friends on my old Apple IIc.
The engine is turn-based (with movement points) and allows 1-4 characters to play at once and travel anywhere independently, and they can be played by different players in hotseat mode. Characters can join or leave the adventure at any time, and there is a built-in mechanism for sharing control. If multiple characters are in the same region, they each take one turn in sequence. If they're in different regions, each one gets several turns in a row before control switches. That way, if you and your buddy are in the same city and he gets in trouble, you might be able to get to him in time. If you're in different cities there's little chance of that, but that's how it should be.
ACS has some severe limitations, which I pushed as far as I could when I made games with it, but for its time it was very advanced. I grew up on it and had fun playing the games I made in multiplayer with my friends on my old Apple IIc.