Fallout Online

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

Guest

Guest
It seems to me that almost everyone in this forum is against any type of Multi-Player Fallout, be it MM or small scale multiplayer. I think the possiblity should be at least explored. With the right game design techniques I believe that it is possible to get players to gravitate more towards an Online RPG and less of an Online FPS fest in RPG clothing. For example: what if certain restrictions were placed on PKers? Maybe a player who kills another player gets no experiance and only a few caps? What about giving people the option of being a PKer or not(I believe this is an option in Everquest)? Help me out here people! Lets try and figure out a way this could work. Does anybody have any ideas or is everybody going to chastize me for being an idealist?
 
O, i think the future of RPGs lies within the Online Gamming community, however, the tech to do this "well" is still a bit behind. so, using today's tech, if you were to create an Online Fallout RPG, well, it'd turn out to be shit most likely. I say wait a few years... Then perhpas it'll be "doable."

"Emotions are like a pair of shades... They cause the world to seem darker than it really is"

http://theorder.vault13.net/personal/europa.jpg
 
It's not just a matter of tech

Most of the problems associated with an on-line RPG could not practically be fixed by advances in technology. I could go into detail about said problems, but the subject has already been argued again and again; there are no new ideas you could come up with to make FOOL work.
 
RE: It's not just a matter of tech

I dont know about that... I think, if the engine used were advanced enough, it could cure "some" of the problems previously stated. I mean, you never know what they might come up with. "Right now" the idea is like communism... It only looks good (to some people) on paper (even the idea of it is "iffy" though). however, when implemented, it fails miserably. I am happy with FOT though... I think that's basically the closest FO will ever come to being an online game. I mean, if you took FO and gave it online capabilities, i think it'd play the same way as FOT will/should. Basically it'll just become squad wars and individuals blasting each other away with lazer rifles. There's nothing else you could do with it really... without filling up 5 GB of space and 10 years in the making. hehehehe


http://theorder.vault13.net/personal/europa.jpg
 
>It seems to me that almost
>everyone in this forum is
>against any type of Multi-Player
>Fallout, be it MM or
>small scale multiplayer. I think
>the possiblity should be at
>least explored. With the right
>game design techniques I believe
>that it is possible to
>get players to gravitate more
>towards an Online RPG and
>less of an Online FPS
>fest in RPG clothing. For
>example: what if certain restrictions
>were placed on PKers? Maybe
>a player who kills another
>player gets no experiance and
>only a few caps?

Since when does a PKer kill people for experience? They kill them because they're easy targets.

>What
>about giving people the option
>of being a PKer or
>not(I believe this is an
>option in Everquest)?

Oh that's great, make a whole new class for the PKers. It sends them the message that it is acceptable.

>Help me
>out here people! Lets try
>and figure out a way
>this could work. Does anybody
>have any ideas or is
>everybody going to chastize me
>for being an idealist?

It won't work, or if it does, it will be so corrupted and perverted that it will not be Fallout.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: It's not just a matter of tech

>I dont know about that... I
>think, if the engine used
>were advanced enough, it could
>cure "some" of the problems
>previously stated. I mean, you
>never know what they might
>come up with. "Right now"
>the idea is like communism...
>It only looks good (to
>some people) on paper (even
>the idea of it is
>"iffy" though). however, when implemented,
>it fails miserably. I am
>happy with FOT though... I
>think that's basically the closest
>FO will ever come to
>being an online game. I
>mean, if you took FO
>and gave it online capabilities,
>i think it'd play the
>same way as FOT will/should.
>Basically it'll just become squad
>wars and individuals blasting each
>other away with lazer rifles.
>There's nothing else you could
>do with it really... without
>filling up 5 GB of
>space and 10 years in
>the making. hehehehe

Tell me, what kind of "tech" could make Fallout Online possible at all? Even the most advanced technology can't overcome impossible ventures.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
With the right game design almost anything is possible. Of course your argument seems to be "It won't work because human nature says so" and no design doc I can think of can change human nature. I'm just thinking that if emphasis was placed on banding together and working as a team the game has a shot. It may kill the whole "me against the world" mentality some people love in Fallout, but it would also change the way people think of online gaming. The Fallout Universe has so many possiblities and differences from the other RPG worlds that I think those possiblities should be at least explored, if not pursued.

I also think that people should keep an open mind about putting Fallout online. Ask any game developer (or anybody in the gaming industry for that matter) if the internet is the wave of the gaming future and they will tell you that it is. There are at least 15 games in development that will be persitant worlds. If those games have even half the success of AC, UO, or Everquest; other top publishers (like Interplay) will maybe try to put one or two of their big name franchises into a persistant online world. I'm not saying I want to see Fallout's name butchered, but the way I see it is that it's going to happen, so why not think of how it could work and what cool ideas would be good for Fallout Online? Who knows, Fallout 3 just might be Fallout Online.
 
>With the right game design almost
>anything is possible. Of course
>your argument seems to be
>"It won't work because human
>nature says so" and no
>design doc I can think
>of can change human nature.

No, I say it doesn't work because Fallout Online won't be Fallout Online, it will be Fallout guns in the Fallout landscape, that's it.

>I'm just thinking that if
>emphasis was placed on banding
>together and working as a
>team the game has a
>shot.

Working as a team, against who? Let me guess, raiders right? What kind of storyline could you possibly put into FOOL? And you know what, that's the very essense of an RPG.

What would be the point of banding together? You won't be staking out a living, hell, why would anyone want to pay for an online service and take up the profession of a farmer? No, people want to shoot things. The only people who would enjoy FOOL would be the people who thought it was entertaining to wander around in Fallout 2 for 8 years killing mutants. But I guess it's those kind of no-life drips that want FOOL.

>It may kill the
>whole "me against the world"
>mentality some people love in
>Fallout, but it would also
>change the way people think
>of online gaming.

Here's some news: It's been done before, and quite frankly, it isn't all that entertaining. Gee whiz, I'm in a band with a bunch of other guys, big fat deal. You can't go on any quests, because you're in an online world, maybe you'll stake out some sort of guild... no wait, that's UO. Really, what is the point?

>The Fallout
>Universe has so many possiblities
>and differences from the other
>RPG worlds that I think
>those possiblities should be at
>least explored, if not pursued.

Differences how? You run around and kill stuff or stay in your guild until you're big enough to kill stuff. Name a few, and try to keep them connected to an online "RPG" setting, and to reality if you can help it.

>I also think that people should
>keep an open mind about
>putting Fallout online.

Fallout is an RPG, and a damned good one too, why sham its name by submitting to the no-life UO eleven year-olds who just want to spend their life in a virtual life killing things?

>Ask any
>game developer (or anybody in
>the gaming industry for that
>matter) if the internet is
>the wave of the gaming
>future and they will tell
>you that it is.

However ask companies such as BIS what they think their future is in? I doubt it will be online "RPGs." That's why there is something called "variety."

Want to know why Baldur's Gate I was criticized? Because it had a very weak storyline and quest system compared to most RPGs. If people wanted online "RPGs" so badly they would not have complained because that's what online "RPGs" have, inane quests and mere hacking and slashing, no storyline. Why do you think BGII has much more emphasis on storyline? Why do you think Planescape Torment is heralded as one of the best RPGs ever created? Why do you think UO is not even on the list?

>There
>are at least 15 games
>in development that will be
>persitant worlds. If those games
>have even half the success
>of AC, UO, or Everquest;
>other top publishers (like Interplay)
>will maybe try to put
>one or two of their
>big name franchises into a
>persistant online world.

That's because they're cash cows. They attract loser eleven year-olds who can afford to spend 12 hours a day playing in their virtual world because they have nothing better to do. Why do you think there are so many immature losers on UO?

Persistant online worlds are like the new boy-band music groups. They attract trendy half-wit people, are hated/shunned by the more mature older people and are invented to be cash cows.

>I'm not
>saying I want to see
>Fallout's name butchered, but the
>way I see it is
>that it's going to happen,
>so why not think of
>how it could work and
>what cool ideas would be
>good for Fallout Online?

Let me get this straight, if something is going downhill already, why not give it that extra push? The way I see it, if you encourage it, more of it will grow. Fallout should not sink to the levels of UO or Everquest only to become a game that people revered as a standard in its genre only to fall prey to the whims of a society of AOLosers.

>Who
>knows, Fallout 3 just might
>be Fallout Online.

If it does, BIS will no longer be heralded as a quality company.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Fallout Online (long)

I am new to these boards, and in my reply, hope that I do not alienate myself so early.

I think the reason why so many people are against a FOOL is because of the "standard" that has been set with other MMORPG's.
You cannot have a workable, persistant world when you have AI or computer generated quests. Current Online only games have proven this. In a truly persistant world, there are no such things as "PKers". Why you ask? Glad you did. :) Because being a player or character that hunts down players and kills them for fun is part of the RPG experience. It can generate it's own quests. Think of the players that would make it their ambition to hunt down the "outlaws" of this persistant world, to eliminate their threat. So many online games have trouble because they have quests or "assignments" that are dictated by the AI. "Go find this sword.", "The Stone of Relieving will set your people free.", yada yada yada. If more people (game developers) could or would steer away from this time of game play, I think you would find yourself emmersed in a world where it is actually fun to be in. Get rid of those stupid NPCs..they are really not needed, except for maybe very mundain, and menial tasks. Yes you would always worry about those degenerates that find it fun to blast on a fellow gamer, but so what? What goes around comes around...it would take care of itself. "Posses and bounty hunters" would become common place. Arms dealers, Stim pack pharmacist, mercenaries, etc. could all be player professions, just depends on what you want out of your gaming experience. Players do not need the "story" to give them a reason to be there. Maybe a leader of a tribe that lives outside of their now abandoned vault, needs to find some water, or maybe the "mythical" GECK, so as the leader, you hire a band of mercs (players) to go in search of it. You see, no PC driven quests, it's all generated and managed by the players.

I love Fallout, and the story behind it. I will probably love FOT as well. If FO3 comes out, and it's turn based, isometric action game, I will love it too. I also think that an online, persistent world, running the Fallout story as a backdrop, would be fun as hell.
Just my opinion, and you know what they say about those. :D

Adios
AS
 
Ok, i'm no computer programmer but and so i don't know what's possible and what's not but this sounds like an Ok idea.

I'm not saying i want Fallout 3 online i just want something like tactics but neared an RPG while still set in the falllout universe. Personally i think that if BIS was to bring out a level designer then their game would have a lot of succes. Not that it hasn't already with all us here arguing. If you could play the game online attempting basic quests to kill NPC's who would be computer controlled or cotrolled by these so-called eleven year old losers. I think that it would tend to lean to strategy a bit more however. I mean wouldn't it be cool to create your own town and NPC's and then have some guys from a site (Like this one where i nad i'm sure many others know quite well some of the other guys around) they could tell you what they think on your place AND you could play it yourself indiviually. Plus BIS could bring out loads of little subtitles just by running design a good senario and we'll put it onto a game competitions like what was done with AOK.

I hang out on the Roleplay board, i wouldn't mind the ability to do that visually and have more of a system decide what happens.
 
xotor hmm let me c i cant come up whit a good exampel but it cant be so hard to make it

ok im ganna try to explain it for u

hope u understand what im wright

u just look the charakter in the midle of the scean and take turnd based game in the screan hmm hard to explain in english hmmm sorry


and about the story is that it can be like 100 years after the chosen one dyed adn that he dident get any children
and the world have bean corupt and the hostile groups are stronger then ever and the citisents in U.S are trying to stop it
ok that was only one story maybe not extreamly good but if i get a sweadis - enlish wordlist i can some up whith a beter one
 
RE: Fallout Online (long)

>I think the reason why so
>many people are against a
>FOOL is because of the
>"standard" that has been set
>with other MMORPG's.
>You cannot have a workable, persistant
>world when you have AI
>or computer generated quests.
>Current Online only games have
>proven this. In a
>truly persistant world, there are
>no such things as "PKers".
> Why you ask?
>Glad you did. :)
>Because being a player or
>character that hunts down players
>and kills them for fun
>is part of the RPG
>experience. It can generate it's
>own quests. Think of
>the players that would make
>it their ambition to hunt
>down the "outlaws" of this
>persistant world, to eliminate their
>threat. So many online games
>have trouble because they have
>quests or "assignments" that are
>dictated by the AI. "Go
>find this sword.", "The Stone
>of Relieving will set your
>people free.", yada yada yada.
> If more people (game
>developers) could or would steer
>away from this time of
>game play, I think you
>would find yourself emmersed in
>a world where it is
>actually fun to be in.
> Get rid of those
>stupid NPCs..they are really not
>needed, except for maybe very
>mundain, and menial tasks. Yes
>you would always worry about
>those degenerates that find it
>fun to blast on a
>fellow gamer, but so what?
>What goes around comes around...it
>would take care of itself.
>"Posses and bounty hunters" would
>become common place. Arms dealers,
>Stim pack pharmacist, mercenaries, etc.
>could all be player professions,
>just depends on what you
>want out of your gaming
>experience. Players do not
>need the "story" to give
>them a reason to be
>there. Maybe a leader
>of a tribe that lives
>outside of their now abandoned
>vault, needs to find some
>water, or maybe the "mythical"
>GECK, so as the leader,
>you hire a band of
>mercs (players) to go in
>search of it. You
>see, no PC driven quests,
>it's all generated and managed
>by the players.

There is a problem with self-regulating online societies. #1, they are not the real world and thus there are no professions outside of stealing, killing, and being hired to do those things.

What does this leave? It leaves a game with probably about 4 major clans who have a bunch of no-life players who stay on all night killing raiders for weapons and goods (the only way to keep the amount of guns and ammo from depleting itself). All this serves to do is build a huge stockpile so newbie members that are recruited will be equiped with only the biggest and baddest weapons. With the major clans doing this, their power soon becomes so great that really there is nothing better to do than join a clan.

The clans themselves battle each other every once and a while but not risking their lives and their record because none of them can really destroy the other.

But let me ask you, why would this be fun? It's a pointless existance in the game. There wouldn't be any user-made quests for mercenaries because all the warriors would be "in house" for the clans. All smaller clans would be eventually destroyed since those people are the only ones the larger clans can pick on.

Then the game would only be known as a clan game where you join a clan and basically do nothing for fear of dying.

Lame.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>xotor hmm let me c i
>cant come up whit a
>good exampel but it cant
>be so hard to make
>it
>
>ok im ganna try to explain
>it for u
>
>hope u understand what im wright
>
>
>u just look the charakter in
>the midle of the scean
>and take turnd based game
> in the screan hmm
>hard to explain in english
>hmmm sorry

It is fundamentally impossible to implement turn-based/real-time game play. You would have to literally be a god to do that.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-00 AT 10:07AM (GMT)[p]>first im not a god i
>just think logical
>it would be easy

Ok, chuckles, here's your chance.

How would you put a turn-base system for combat into a real-time game? All online games are essentially real-time. There are no exclusions save for those that are unrealistically implemented. There is no way to mesh together a real-time roaming system with a turn-based combat system without any glaring faults or exploits. There are far too many exploits and various other problems found through the MANY ways that have been discussed.

Right now I'm asking you to put your point where your mouth is. So if it's so easy, show us. Tell us how this is going to be done.
 
ok it isnt easy but im gona try to make a program so it will work
i have tryed whol day and it doesent seem to work but maybe some time soon maybe wary soon
cya when i have the things u wanted to c
 
RE: Fallout Online (long)

>There is a problem with self-regulating
>online societies. #1, they
>are not the real world
>and thus there are no
>professions outside of stealing, killing,
>and being hired to do
>those things.

That doesn't have to be the case. The only professions needed in a "self-regulating" world are those that encourage game play.
I have to disagree that this type of world would only encourage stealing, killing, and characters being hired to do these things. I think you sell the gamers short, as a whole. Once you enter AI or NPC into a persistent world, you begin the very thing that you are striving to avoid.

>But let me ask you, why
>would this be fun?
>Lame.

I agree completely(the game would be lame), with the scenario you have given. I just don't see this happening. Sure people would build "clans" or whatever you want to call them, but not everyone is interested in joining a clan. It wouldn't be necessary either.
The fact of the matter is that gamers play most online games, for one of two reasons: 1). To play with 2.) or against other gamers. With a persistent world, you can have both, and they can both exsist cohesively, if outside (or inside) elements do not dictate an overall gameplay attitude. If a player's only choice for advancement in a game, is to seek out computer generated quest/missions, and these quests/missions regurgitate every few days or so, you get a lot of what goes on in Everquest: Camping around the quest's origin or objective, or waiting around until someone else completes the quest, and then stealing from them. If you let players generate the quests, and goals for themselves and others, then they are dynamic, and that's what makes an online world fun: persistent and dynamic.

I do agree with what others have said though. A MMOG based on Fallout, would not be Fallout. It would not contain a lot of what makes FO a great RPG. It would be a persistent world with the Fallout story as a backdrop.

Thanks for the reply.

AS
 
RE: Fallout Online (long)

>>There is a problem with self-regulating
>>online societies. #1, they
>>are not the real world
>>and thus there are no
>>professions outside of stealing, killing,
>>and being hired to do
>>those things.
>
>That doesn't have to be the
>case. The only professions
>needed in a "self-regulating" world
>are those that encourage game
>play.

WHat 'professions' would these be? Nobody's going to sign up and pay money to sew shirts on end unless it helps them somehow. And you have to admit, that the selling point of a LOT of these online games is the capability to go kill others.

>I have to disagree that this
>type of world would only
>encourage stealing, killing, and characters
>being hired to do these
>things. I think you
>sell the gamers short, as
>a whole. Once you
>enter AI or NPC into
>a persistent world, you begin
>the very thing that you
>are striving to avoid.

I've played UO, AC, and been on countless M*s. For persistent worlds, the number of helpful people versus those who would kill you for a few coppers is at a ratio of 1:1000. I've seen it far too much with online games, because just like the internet, people can basically do what they want for the most part without having to face r/l consequences. And with internet laws going into effect, the only place where they can act like an ass and kill things en masse will be in online games.

Try being a UO counselor or an Imm on a M* with pkill?ok sometime. You'll see it quite easily.

>>But let me ask you, why
>>would this be fun?
>>Lame.
>
>I agree completely(the game would be
>lame), with the scenario you
>have given. I just don't
>see this happening. Sure
>people would build "clans" or
>whatever you want to call
>them, but not everyone is
>interested in joining a clan.

Agreed.

> It wouldn't be necessary
>either.

That's where you are wrong, for the most part. For UO, if you are alone you can get pretty far along, but if you are in a clan or guild, then you can get a lot more wealth and skills, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top