Fallout 3 WILL have multiplayer..read here why..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
If interplay are going to put a multiplayer into Lionheart then surely they can put one into Fallout3 because the two games will be the same, well perhaps apart from Fallout3 might be 3D (which means it wont run on my pc..Damn) but that shouldnt make much difference. Anyway lets hope they make a good job of it and that it doesnt turn out to be like arcanums MP, Buggy, Characters dont save properly, and lots of lagg. As soon as Lionheart is released look at its multiplayer if its good then Interplay better make sure they use it in F3, If its bad lets hope they learn from their mistakes. I really want a good online RPG, at the moment its either Diablo2 or Dungeon Seige both good...but hardly any thinking is required. Go for it Interplay, make me proud.
DoG_MeAt
 
God no. FO isn't a game that would work multiplayer, IMHO.
The quests, the rich setting, all would be reduced to naught by a bunch of people with names like "SuP@R mUtANt_2099393" using the shout command for things like "st0p campz0r1ng th3 3ncl@v3 tr00p3rz f@g0t".
 
Hmm... Thinking some more, it could work, but it would have to be vastly different from most multiplayer "RPGs". Something like this:
The world would have to be at least 10 times bigger than FO2, and maybe 10-100x the number of quests, major NPCs, etc. Players would be able to group, and there would have to be some system for talking to NPCs at the same time. Also, some sort of loot-dividing system. Basically, every few months or so, the team throws out a new scenario. Each player would be a member of some organization, the organizations working against each other. Organizations would have the goal of weakening the other organizations and strengthening themselves, and every once in a while the team would throw out a scenario for a given group, which that group's members would have to accomplish. Basically, it would be in sort of "chapters''.

Now, did that make any sense?
 
1. Congratulations for posting on the wrong forum. Try reading next time.
2. Multiplayer games are a vastly different experience, even when multiplayer is an option. One of the things that weakened most of the story and quests in the Inbred Engine games was because it was tooled to have multiplayer.
3. Dungeon Siege good. Good grief...
 
Fallout 3 may well have multiplayer, I see that clearly now. But if it does, it will be denounced as a failure like tactics was. I tell you, there is a possibility of making a decent multiplayer version of fallout, but black isle would be treading a very thin line if they decided to do this. Personally, I would not want to risk it.

"If we cannot live proudly, we die so!"
-Eladamri, Lord of Leaves
 
The problem with muliplayer games is that there is no way to speed or slow down time. That would mean a multiplayer Fallout game would have to be restricted to one town unless you wanted to have a teleportation system, which doesn't seem to fit in very well.
 
it doesnt have to be a teleportation thing. i could be like one large world like a mmolrpg with no loading boundaries just walls to show towns and things. Dungeon Seige has this and its world is massive, and im guessing it woruld be really easy in 2D. And whoever says 2D is rubbish you are wrong...it can produce some of the best effects.
 
>it doesnt have to be a
>teleportation thing. i could be
>like one large world like
>a mmolrpg with no loading
>boundaries just walls to show
>towns and things.

Get a clue.
 
The problem is, how much realism do we want to kill for practicality? If you want to keep the game entirely real, then you could do real-time travel between towns. Yeah, my account payment will have timed out after the half a month it takes to cross the wastes.

Alternatively, a sort of teleportation system could fit in, and in some cases people don't even notice how unreal this is. The idea was to have a directory of towns, locations and bases and you could click one to go there automatically. Doesn't sound really Fallout themed to me, but it could be fun.

One other thing is that each of these different locations could be run by differant people, so you wouldn't have one large group of people making every new quest and plot line in the game. And there would have to be quests, whether built into the game itself or user created.

A multiplayer version of Fallout could offer us a chance to explore areas of the game which could not so easily be done in single player. Liking working for one organisation against another, the levels of power constantly shifting. It would take a hell of a lot of work (though I don't really know anything about programming.)

The game would probably allow for you to take up countless proffesions other than adventurer. You could be a Doctor (selling medical supplies as they do) and providing treatment in exchange for money. Or a guard protecting the town from raiders. Perhaps you would like to work as a caravan guard, going on regular runs about the world.

Of course, you would get countless people with silly names that kill realism even more. How to prevent that problem, I don't know. It would be nice is only Fallout enthusiasts got in, but how could that be done without killing off the game financially.

Would this kill off the setting of Fallout as we know it? I don't think so, I like the idea of the game constantly changing and expanding into new areas, but not all would agree with me.

"If we cannot live proudly, we die so!"
-Eladamri, Lord of Leaves
 
The strength of Fallout and Arcanum stem from the single-player experience. Most of the material used in either would not really hold up well under multiplayer gameplay.

That is why, for all intents and purposes, multiplayer quests in CRPGs are either insanely simplistic, or lead to the neutering of the Inbred Engine. Where that is a problem is that everything halts for everyone else when someone's at a shopkeeper or talking to someone, etc. to prevent bugs and erronious flags being set.
 
You are both right but perhaps travelling between towns could be fun...just imagine cruising down a road and noticing 2 people having a fight, you could stop and help or kill them both, also it would make it more party orientated if you could just pick up people on the way to places. The moral is, dont think about how they are going to do it.. imagine how much fun it would be if they got it right!
 
>The moral is,
>dont think about how they
>are going to do it..
>imagine how much fun it
>would be if they got
>it right!

That's not a moral, that's pipe-dreaming.

It's also stupidity, as you're wanting to fuck with Fallout in drastic ways over "cool" features, without taking into account of how it would seriously alter the game mechanics. Namely, combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top