Fallout Online

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
*waves the bullshit flag*

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-00 AT 09:25AM (GMT)[p][font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-00 AT 09:20 AM (GMT)

>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


1. I'm sure as hell not going to d/l a program from someone I don't know. Plain and simple. I know ways of making a system FUBAR wtih a program without tripping off ANY virus detector. So, no dice there.

2. This 'program' would have to implement netcode, and be usable by many people at once. It might look fine, or even like Fallout's way of real-time for roaming, and then turn-based for the combat, but it would need many people to test it out. And then I *highly* doubt it could address many of the problems that we've sorted out before.

3. As has been discussed before in links previously given to you, turn-based combat in real-time roam does NOT work.

If A and B got into combat together right outside of town, and they are put into 'turn-base combat', what is to prevent player C from taking potshots or taking a free shot while they are in real-time? Or what would prevent player B's buddies from ICQing his friends to surround the 'combat' while he delays and prevents player A from going anywhere, which if he wins or loses, player A is fucked either way as the others in real-time have surrounded those in turn-based.

Either the whole world would be put into turn-based while their combat ensues, or they would be put into a 'fog of war' like Realm does, and have combat into a sort of turn-based combat while the rest of the world sees an animated graphic. In which case, you can't hope for back-up help from your friends like UO can do. Unrealistic to an extreme, and there's no mainstream MMORPG that uses a main turn-based system.

It's not possible to implement turn-based combat in a real-time roam in a mass-online game without glaring faults or exploits.
 
>>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.<<

Maybe, but how do you know that is all it will be? The simple answer is that you don't. That is your speculation about how it will be. Now is that a very possible scenerio? Yes it is, but that dosen't mean it will happen if Fallout Online becomes a reality.

>>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.<<

Maybe raiders, but I hadn't even thought of them until you mentioned them. Put players into a community-like setting, where they must stay together to survive. Survival was the key issue in both previous Fallout games so why not it Fallout Online? Have players pick skills when they create their character (not sewing shirts) so that they must stay together to survive. If everyone starts to pick combat skills they won't survive very long will they? Now, let's say the main skill you choose is Doctor or First Aid or something of that nature. You skill is very valuable to others. Not only are you needed because you can heal those combat minded players, but you are one of the few who CAN heal them. You need them because obviously you need protection. All of the sudden working together seems a little more realistic dosen't it? Raiders and probably Radscorpions would attack your little village from time to time and some mercenaries and caravans with merchants would arrive once in a while. Are there holes in this type of design? Hell yes, but isn't that better than your thought of what will happen. Sure clans will form but what are you going to do about them? Nothing. Those clans better not just be a bunch of gun weilding bastards because with my design they won't get too far. They need people who can barter so they can get their weapons and people who can heal their injuries. Without them the real role-players will out number them and stupid clans will cease to exist except in small numbers (there's always one bad apple). Now do you see the point of banding together?

>> 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?<<

So let me get this straight: You don't like it so it won't be fun for anyone else? Nobody is forcing you to buy this game and pay $10 bucks a month to play.


>>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.<<

You can't be as dumb as you sound or how could you keep this site going. Anyway, let's see there are no fairy's or dragon's or magic. When was the last time you played an RPG without magic? That's right Fallout 2 wasn't it? Ok, instead of dwarves we've got ghouls and instead of orcs we've got mutants but those differances aren't major. The whole post apocalyptic theme isn't done too often.

>>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?<<

There's also something called "money". If Baldur's Gate I had sold less than 1000 copies but was regarded as the Greatest Game of All Time by the "experts" do you think we would have seen Baldur's Gate II? Ever? Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't sell very well. Now let's say Fallout Online comes out and has mild success: only a fan base of 20,000 paying $10 bucks a month to play. That will more than cover the cost of running the game and will make money for Interplay. They are in a business you know. If BIS does this game it will be good. They are the best in the business and I know I have complete faith in them even if you don't.

Remember which RPG it was that jump started CRPGs again? Fallout. Time and care were taken with it to make it as good as it could possibly be. Who's to say that the same couldn't be said for a Fallout Online game? BIS is fully capible of making it work.

>>Why do you think UO is not even on the list?<<

Because it was the first of its kind? Somebody had to make some mistakes for the better of the industry. Maybe the smart thing to do was wait for the mistakes to be made and then not make those same mistakes. Give it a year or two, so more games can come out and more mistakes can be made. Again, BIS knows what they are doing.

>>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 says online games are pushing gaming downhill? You do. You don't encourage a clan based pseduo-RPG that dirties the Fallout name, right? But would you encourage a game in the Fallout Universe (not necessarily an RPG) that would better gaming and you gaming experiance? Of course you would, and you'd be a liar if you said you didn't. You play games to have fun or, at least that's why most people play games. If it's fun you will play. Everybody reading this knows that. I sure as hell don't play games I don't like and I'll be the first one to admit that I will delete Fallout Online if it sucks, but if it dosen't? Then I'll be a very happy gamer. You shouldn't sell short a game that hasn't even seen the light of day. Give people a chance they might just suprise you.


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

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

-Xotor-<<

I find that hard to believe. BIS is as quality as they come and even if Fallout Online comes out and sucks- well, everybody makes mistakes. Listen to this lineup of full games: Fallout, Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate I, Baldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale, Planscape: Torment. Every one of those games has two things in common. 1) they were made by BIS and 2) they are all multiple award winning games. Did Looking Glass Studios get bashed for the bad games they made? Hell yes. Were they regarded as no longer a quality company? Hell no. They went back to the drawing board and proved the nay-sayers wrong. If BIS takes a chance and comes up short then they will do the same. Trust them.
 
RE: *waves the bullshit flag*

have i ever said i were doing it in fallout nopp i havent i have done a simpler game so

but i cant make it

and i dont wont a fallout online anymore or if there were a fool i had bought it but i want a fallout 3 exakly like does befor maybe a new map with new citys and so or maybe all us if thay could make a game that big it would be funy and it could been a litle more civilised world becous thay got the geck in the outher other it would be funny just think about a broderhood of steel fort in nevada hmmm nice ass hell
 
RE: *waves the bullshit flag*

>have i ever said i were
>doing it in fallout nopp
>i havent i have done
>a simpler game so

The point of the argument is that it is fundamentally impossible to implement a real-time/turnbased online game, not whether it will be done in Fallout or not.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>Maybe, but how do you know
>that is all it will
>be? The simple answer is
>that you don't. That is
>your speculation about how it
>will be. Now is that
>a very possible scenerio? Yes
>it is, but that dosen't
>mean it will happen if
>Fallout Online becomes a reality.

You can only base judgements on the past. I take the line of other Online "RPGs" as evidence that that people will ruin the game. What you're suggesting is that FOOL would be like a utopian society, where everything works out perfectly. However I am looking at the real world, where people play online RPGs because they want to kill things.

>Maybe raiders, but I hadn't even
>thought of them until you
>mentioned them. Put players into
>a community-like setting, where they
>must stay together to survive.
>Survival was the key issue
>in both previous Fallout games
>so why not it Fallout
>Online? Have players pick skills
>when they create their character
>(not sewing shirts) so that
>they must stay together to
>survive. If everyone starts to
>pick combat skills they won't
>survive very long will they?
>Now, let's say the main
>skill you choose is Doctor
>or First Aid or something
>of that nature. You skill
>is very valuable to others.
>Not only are you needed
>because you can heal those
>combat minded players, but you
>are one of the few
>who CAN heal them. You
>need them because obviously you
>need protection. All of the
>sudden working together seems a
>little more realistic dosen't it?
>Raiders and probably Radscorpions would
>attack your little village from
>time to time and some
>mercenaries and caravans with merchants
>would arrive once in a
>while. Are there holes in
>this type of design? Hell
>yes, but isn't that better
>than your thought of what
>will happen. Sure clans will
>form but what are you
>going to do about them?
>Nothing. Those clans better not
>just be a bunch of
>gun weilding bastards because with
>my design they won't get
>too far. They need people
>who can barter so they
>can get their weapons and
>people who can heal their
>injuries. Without them the real
>role-players will out number them
>and stupid clans will cease
>to exist except in small
>numbers (there's always one bad
>apple). Now do you see
>the point of banding together?

However think about this: People will want to be killers because they can simply kill whoever they encounter, take their goods, and buy healing supplies. Since when in real Fallout did you ever need your companions for healing you? Never.

The fact is that while a community-oriented idea is nice in ideology, nobody wants to take up the profession of a doctor for the sake of the group. It is boring, and why spend $10 a month to simply be every warrior in your tribe's bitch?

People don't play to be helpful members of a society, they play because of the action. Nobody is going to farm for food for their "tribe," no, because it is simply a waste of time and gameplay. They could be out killing things.

The real roleplayers would get bored too. Why would they want to waste their time doing inane jobs to support their community? There's no glory in that, there's no story either.

>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.<<
>
>You can't be as dumb as
>you sound or how could
>you keep this site going.
>Anyway, let's see there are
>no fairy's or dragon's or
>magic. When was the last
>time you played an RPG
>without magic? That's right Fallout
>2 wasn't it? Ok, instead
>of dwarves we've got ghouls
>and instead of orcs we've
>got mutants but those differances
>aren't major. The whole post
>apocalyptic theme isn't done too
>often.

*Sigh* It *is* just the same, only a change of motif. Instead of bows and arrows, you have guns. Instead of magic, you have explosives. I'm talking about possibilities concerning the game play itself.

That's why it would simply be UO with guns.

>There's also something called "money". If
>Baldur's Gate I had sold
>less than 1000 copies but
>was regarded as the Greatest
>Game of All Time by
>the "experts" do you think
>we would have seen Baldur's
>Gate II? Ever? Fallout and
>Fallout 2 didn't sell very
>well. Now let's say Fallout
>Online comes out and has
>mild success: only a fan
>base of 20,000 paying $10
>bucks a month to play.
>That will more than cover
>the cost of running the
>game and will make money
>for Interplay. They are in
>a business you know. If
>BIS does this game it
>will be good. They are
>the best in the business
>and I know I have
>complete faith in them even
>if you don't.

The argument isn't about Interplay trying to make a quick buck, that's the only reason Online RPGs are made, they're cash cows. I'm talking about whether FOOL SHOULD be made because of QUALITY issues and disgracing the Fallout name.

>Remember which RPG it was that
>jump started CRPGs again? Fallout.
>Time and care were taken
>with it to make it
>as good as it could
>possibly be. Who's to say
>that the same couldn't be
>said for a Fallout Online
>game? BIS is fully capible
>of making it work.

BIS works in making *real* RPGs, not persistant online worlds which are not real RPGs in any shape or form. Online "RPGs" are basically hack and slash with stats, lacking a storyline and only providing idiotic "retrieve this,"/"kill him" quests. BIS wouldn't touch it

>>>Why do you think UO is not even on the list?<<
>
>Because it was the first of
>its kind? Somebody had to
>make some mistakes for the
>better of the industry. Maybe
>the smart thing to do
>was wait for the mistakes
>to be made and then
>not make those same mistakes.
>Give it a year or
>two, so more games can
>come out and more mistakes
>can be made. Again, BIS
>knows what they are doing.

Let me rephrase that question: Why has no Online RPG EVER been on the list?

Again, BIS wouldn't even bother.

>Who says online games are pushing
>gaming downhill? You do. You
>don't encourage a clan based
>pseduo-RPG that dirties the Fallout
>name, right? But would you
>encourage a game in the
>Fallout Universe (not necessarily an
>RPG) that would better gaming
>and you gaming experiance? Of
>course you would, and you'd
>be a liar if you
>said you didn't.

However it wouldn't. Online "RPGs" are not RPGs, they are cash cows. They attract the trash of the internet, they turn RPGs into killing fests, they're that way because it deals with real-time *human* players which simply reflects what society has to offer. Furthermore since these losers don't have to face others as themselves it reveals the worst in them.

>You play
>games to have fun or,
>at least that's why most
>people play games. If it's
>fun you will play.

There are different kinds of "fun." I play RPGs for the complex storyline. Most (99%) people play online RPGs because they want to kill things, most notably, other players. Simply ruining a game series for the reason of what kind of "fun" is most popular is not a good reason.

>Then I'll be a very
>happy gamer. You shouldn't sell
>short a game that hasn't
>even seen the light of
>day. Give people a chance
>they might just suprise you.

FOOL is like communism, ideally, it is good, realistically, it would/does suck.

>I find that hard to believe.
>BIS is as quality as
>they come and even if
>Fallout Online comes out and
>sucks- well, everybody makes mistakes.

You make a mistake and it is permanent. Also, don't think that BIS has all the answers. Even if they made the perfect online RPG engine, people will still ruin the game. It is not the game, it is the PEOPLE that ruin the game.

>Listen to this lineup of
>full games: Fallout, Fallout 2,
>Baldur's Gate I, Baldur's Gate
>II, Icewind Dale, Planscape: Torment.
>Every one of those games
>has two things in common.
>1) they were made by
>BIS and 2) they are
>all multiple award winning games.

They all have one other thing in common: Centering around a single player RPG.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-00 AT 10:00AM (GMT)[p]Not really directed at you, Xotor, but it's a little wake-up call for some who failed common sense.

>>Who says online games are pushing
>>gaming downhill? You do. You
>>don't encourage a clan based
>>pseduo-RPG that dirties the Fallout
>>name, right? But would you
>>encourage a game in the
>>Fallout Universe (not necessarily an
>>RPG) that would better gaming
>>and you gaming experiance? Of
>>course you would, and you'd
>>be a liar if you
>>said you didn't.

>However it wouldn't. Online "RPGs" are not RPGs, they are cash >cows. They attract the trash of the internet, they turn RPGs >into killing fests, they're that way because it deals with real->time *human* players which simply reflects what society has to >offer. Furthermore since these losers don't have to face others >as themselves it reveals the worst in them.


Let's take everyone's beloved 'MMORPG', UO. Please note the sarcasm, for those who would miss it otherwise.

I've been on UO for over two years. Some of that time was as a counselor. In that time, I've met over a few thousand characters, and many I've had conversations with of various depths.

I can honestly say, that AT LEAST 90% of the players that play UO don't have a clue as to what the game Ultima is. They've never heard of it. They only know of an online game that really sucks ass compared to most decent MUDs as far as game features.

They don't know of the enveloping and enthralling game Ultima was. Yes, I say that in the past tense. I'll explain in a bit later and in depth for those who can't be bothered to fire off the single neuron in their head when they say UO is a good game, or for those too naive and just pipe-dream and verbally masturbate. Yes, I like that term. Why? Because when someone usually masturbates, their brain isn't quite in use. Hence, their mouth runs, but nobody's at the wheel. Hopefully this can shed some light their way. Of course that might just prove to be a futile task, but let's see....

Ultima used to be a fun game, and a really good RPG. The first part of the series was the traditional old CRPG, which was really more Adventure than RPG elements. Starting with IV, the series had an innovative and great story. Number 7, both parts, was a wonderful game, and had a really in-depth world.

What happened? Greed.

Around that time of number 8 and Dick's complete sell-out to Origin, plans were already being formed of making a mass-online game (and thank whatever is holy Cat got his ass out of there, smart man). Ultima Underworld 2 is considered to be the real U8. U9 wasn't that much better, but for the sake of this topic, I will lay off of it for a while.

Now, UO shows up.
Everyone flocks to it, because it's like a graphical MUD. It was still lacking in many features that most MUDs had, but it appealed because the cattle could enjoy the graphics and watching things die. This is the first introduction that nearly all of it's players have to the Ultima 'series'. The UDIC is the fan-group of Ultima, and there's only about 14k members. That's only a percentage of the UO players...

Now, whenever another Dragon or myself would bring up 'the earlier Ultima games', the poor 'Ultima newbie' as some of us called them would just sit there blankly.

When some finally DID check out the older games, they looked at them and immediately dismissed them, because it wasn't what drew them into the Ultima series.

End result? Ultima 9 was just a sorry 'ending' to the series, kind of a cop-out on Garriot's part to leave Origin. He's got his castle, why should he care? Origin had really no intentions of funding U9 to any great deal, and Garriot put a bit of his money into it as well because of such. Why didn't Origin want to focus on U9? Because UO was what made them the most money, and it made more sense to concentrate on UO2 than on U9.

So, when the Ultima series finally died (versus 'finish'), it was the most loud, most disgusting and corpulently loud explosive diarrhea upon the face of the gaming world at that time.

And then, the entire reason for the Ultima series became lost.
Ultima DIED at the time it was realized that the traditional game didn't mean much anymore to the 'fan-base'. As far as Origin was concerned, 'UO player' meant 'Ultima fan'.

As a majority, there wouldn't be any interest in the original concepts of the game, or what made U7 good. It was all good for Origin's/EA's pocketbook to keep UO going, and a flop for the main series.

Now, if BIS did that, what do you think the outcome would become of THIS series? Do you want Fallout to die, folks?! Do you want Fallout and Fallout 2 to become some sort of 'novelty' game for those who came in during the online game's time-span? What would happen once Interplay finds out Fallout Online is making more money and is far more profitable than the original Fallout series?

So then, by this incontrovertible proof, would you want Fallout to die as it exists now? (This also assumes those with the grandiose plans for wanting it online actually have a clue as to why Fallout was made, it's origins, and why it is the way it is.)

By asking for it to become some online game, yes, you really are...

Now, if some of you haven't figured out why a lot of us are vehemently against FOOL, I'm sorry, but I guess you are completely stupid, and humanity probably doesn't have any use for any part of you above the neck besides using your nose as a dust mite breeding ground.
 
RE: *waves the bullshit flag*

Hey, you ever heard of spell-check, bazze?
 
>>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.

uh-huh,, fallout (guns) in the fallout landscape, what exactly are you talking about?, if your talking about people just shooting eatchother up, who says that is all it will be? you
>
>>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.

no storyline is (an) essense of an RPG, not the very, another essense of an RPG, annd yees uu guesed it, (role playng)
>
>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.

uuh, me and true raven want FO online, and i know i dont just want to go around and kill things for 8 years, and if you ask me you are the no-life drip, bitching about how it wont work enstead of helping to try to find a way that it could work
>
>>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 point would be, role playng with other role playrs, not programms (NPCs) so what if they will have to change the fallout online a little bit, like i sugested before randomized NPCs, or atleast some of them randomized, and who says you couldnt have any quests, other than killing???
>
>>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.

uuuhh i do not see how he is swayng from reality, if you ask me it will be more towards reality, and if you would listne to the man, and think, and stop being so ignorant, the difference is that in fallout online, there wouldnt be just a guild going around killing things, like in other online games, so dont dare try to compare it to that
>
>>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?

uuh, so what if the eleven year olds would just go around and kill things, that is just the eleven year olds, where is your proof that that is all it will be? none, so i say lets try it and see, just to prove you right!
>
>>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."

yes i agree, there are reasons there is something called "variety" and there would be in a fallout online
>
>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?

ssiiiggh, uh-huh
>
>>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?

i do not know why there are soo many immature losers on UO, in fact, call me dumb, but i do not know what u are reffering to in UO, but yes it would suck to have to pay for fallout online, that is the only drawback (THE ONLY DRAW BACK) ;-)
>
>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.

YOU SAY they are half wits, buts thats because ure half wit, thinks that the only people that would enjoy it is people who wander around (for 8 years and kill things) wich it will not be
>
>
>>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.

yet again, sigh*, what makes you think it will sink to levels of UO and everquest? and who says everquest is bad? there are lots of quests, and things that have not even been done yet, and evenmore as a online game
>
>
>>Who
>>knows, Fallout 3 just might
>>be Fallout Online.
>
>If it does, BIS will no
>longer be heralded as a
>quality company.

what makes you think that will make it a no longer quality company?
>
>-Xotor-
>
>[div align=center]

>http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
>[/div]


i dont know if that is a real website, but i agree, f2s.com/files.dontbesostuped.gif/stfu/arogentFUCK.html.lamo

PAS ureself, and PAA people against arogence
 
>>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.

uh-huh,, fallout (guns) in the fallout landscape, what exactly are you talking about?, if your talking about people just shooting eatchother up, who says that is all it will be? you
>
>>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.

no storyline is (an) essense of an RPG, not the very, another essense of an RPG, annd yees uu guesed it, (role playng)
>
>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.

uuh, me and true raven want FO online, and i know i dont just want to go around and kill things for 8 years, and if you ask me you are the no-life drip, bitching about how it wont work enstead of helping to try to find a way that it could work
>
>>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 point would be, role playng with other role playrs, not programms (NPCs) so what if they will have to change the fallout online a little bit, like i sugested before randomized NPCs, or atleast some of them randomized, and who says you couldnt have any quests, other than killing???
>
>>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.

uuuhh i do not see how he is swayng from reality, if you ask me it will be more towards reality, and if you would listne to the man, and think, and stop being so ignorant, the difference is that in fallout online, there wouldnt be just a guild going around killing things, like in other online games, so dont dare try to compare it to that
>
>>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?

uuh, so what if the eleven year olds would just go around and kill things, that is just the eleven year olds, where is your proof that that is all it will be? none, so i say lets try it and see, just to prove you right!
>
>>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."

yes i agree, there are reasons there is something called "variety" and there would be in a fallout online
>
>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?

ssiiiggh, uh-huh
>
>>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?

i do not know why there are soo many immature losers on UO, in fact, call me dumb, but i do not know what u are reffering to in UO, but yes it would suck to have to pay for fallout online, that is the only drawback (THE ONLY DRAW BACK) ;-)
>
>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.

YOU SAY they are half wits, buts thats because ure half wit, thinks that the only people that would enjoy it is people who wander around (for 8 years and kill things) wich it will not be
>
>
>>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.

yet again, sigh*, what makes you think it will sink to levels of UO and everquest? and who says everquest is bad? there are lots of quests, and things that have not even been done yet, and evenmore as a online game
>
>
>>Who
>>knows, Fallout 3 just might
>>be Fallout Online.
>
>If it does, BIS will no
>longer be heralded as a
>quality company.

what makes you think that will make it a no longer quality company?
>
>-Xotor-
>
>[div align=center]

>http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
>[/div]


i dont know if that is a real website, but i agree, f2s.com/files.dontbesostuped.gif/stfu/arogentFUCK.html.lamo

PAS ureself, and PAA people against arogence, yeah u say arogence is forgivable, but thats only because that is what you are
 
Listen:

"i do not know why there are soo many immature losers on UO, in fact, call me dumb, but i do not know what u are reffering to in UO, but yes it would suck to have to pay for fallout online, that is the only drawback (THE ONLY DRAW BACK)
>
>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.

YOU SAY they are half wits, buts thats because ure half wit, thinks that the only people that would enjoy it is people who wander around (for 8 years and kill things) wich it will not be"

This just shows how naive you really are.

I've been on various MUDs, and I played UO, EQ, and AC for a while. UO for over two years.

So instead of sitting there and verbally masturbating, actually do some research and do something that's generally thought acceptable when having a conversation.

It's called 'research'. Do some before you open your mouth.

As for your flaming, I would ask that another admin look at it...I wouldn't want to be called 'unfair', now would I?




This redefines sucking ass...​
 
RE: *waves the bullshit flag*

It's pretty obvious that English is not his primary language.
 
waves the ignorance flag*

I do not know what you mean by nieve (nevermind my spelling) but if you ask me you people are ignorant, sure, maybe alot of (eleven year olds) would play fallout online, with there parents having to pay for it, but how many eleven year olds can there be?, as for research maybe you are right, but atleast i am sayng some logical things, and not opinions on what you think Fallout online would turn out to be witch all of you biggets( nevermind the speling) think would just be alot of people going around in a "fallout guns in a fallout invironment" I wish they will make fallout online, just so i can see if people will just be shooting eatchother up, and so i would be wrong and end this insane, argument, give it a try, want to feal big? and not only make people look low, but actually have proven it, then let there be FOOL, and as i have stated before, almost a thousand times it feals like, no i will change it, what do you care if there is fallout online? if you wont be playng it? and so what if,, if ,, if there is 90% of people just going around shooting eatch other up in there guild for 8 years, atleast there will be 10 %, not doing that stuped "no-life" kill things for 8 years thing, or whatever%, i know me, and true raven do not want that no-life crap going on. but seriously what would you care if you wont be playng falloutonline???
 
ATTN : Rosh or any other admin

Would it be in bad taste or against board regulations to let it be known (without resorting to flames) that, *in my opinion*, mouse is annoying, uneducated, not worth our time, and above all, I don't like him?

If yes, then I wouldn't make any fuss if you deleted or edited this post or something.

- Inquiry Patrol -
Hell_Patrol@juno.com

P.S. - On a side note to everyone else, I apologize for my relevant subject title... I'm kind of breaking my gimmick right now. :-(
 
RE: waves the ignorance flag*

>I do not know what you
>mean by nieve (nevermind my
>spelling) but if you ask
>me you people are ignorant,
>sure, maybe alot of (eleven
>year olds) would play fallout
>online, with there parents having
>to pay for it, but
>how many eleven year olds
>can there be?, as for
>research maybe you are right,
>but atleast i am sayng
>some logical things, and not
>opinions on what you think
>Fallout online would turn out
>to be witch all of
>you biggets( nevermind the speling)
>think would just be alot
>of people going around in
>a "fallout guns in a
>fallout invironment" I wish they
>will make fallout online, just
>so i can see if
>people will just be shooting
>eatchother up, and so i
>would be wrong and end
>this insane, argument, give it
>a try, want to feal
>big? and not only make
>people look low, but actually
>have proven it, then let
>there be FOOL, and as
>i have stated before, almost
>a thousand times it feals
>like, no i will change
>it, what do you care
>if there is fallout online?
>if you wont be playng
>it? and so what if,,
>if ,, if there is
>90% of people just going
>around shooting eatch other up
>in there guild for 8
>years, atleast there will be
>10 %, not doing that
>stuped "no-life" kill things for
>8 years thing, or whatever%,
>i know me, and true
>raven do not want that
>no-life crap going on. but
>seriously what would you care
>if you wont be playng
>falloutonline???

I would cite that *you* are speaking out of ignorance. The future can only be predicted by using the past as evidence. Your argument that "it might be good" is like saying, maybe people will suddenly stop fighting and make peace. It doesn't happen.

But what do you have to say about the Fallout series as a whole? It is not so much that we hate FOOL as an entity, but rather that it would disgrace and degrade the Fallout series much like UO for Ultima. Another RPG boat sunken by too much franchising.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: ATTN : Rosh or any other admin

>Would it be in bad taste
>or against board regulations to
>let it be known (without
>resorting to flames) that, *in
>my opinion*, mouse is annoying,
>uneducated, not worth our time,
>and above all, I don't
>like him?

Well I personally don't like attacks on other people's character which is a reason I don't comment on people's spelling and grammar. However when it comes to "sup d00ds what r u thinkin?" people, I show no mercy, because they simply diserve no respect.

I do wish that mouse would spend a little more time to make his messages look at least slightly presentable. I really have it when people use commas instead of periods for trailing dots ,,,

>P.S. - On a side note
>to everyone else, I apologize
>for my relevant subject title...
>I'm kind of breaking my
>gimmick right now. :-(

Please only ATTN: us when there is a real problem. Just stick our name in the subject if you want our attention.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>uh-huh,, fallout (guns) in the fallout
>landscape, what exactly are you
>talking about?, if your talking
>about people just shooting eatchother
>up, who says that is
>all it will be? you

I am saying that Fallout will become a killing fest because that what all online RPGs become. It is not the nature of the game, it is the nature of the players.

>no storyline is (an) essense of
>an RPG, not the very,
>another essense of an RPG,
>annd yees uu guesed it,
>(role playng)

Well then with that logic, role-playing, would not a racing game consitute a RPG? Afterall I am role-playing a racer in a racecar. No, RPGs are defined as playing a character for which you only make mental decisions for the character in the story and depend solely on the character's abilities to survive, not your own. An RPG without a story is a pointless game.

Get a little experience before you start ranting.

>uuh, me and true raven want
>FO online, and i know
>i dont just want to
>go around and kill things
>for 8 years, and if

Then you are an idealist, not a realist. You're in the same boat with people who think communism works. It doesn't.

>you ask me you are
>the no-life drip, bitching about
>how it wont work enstead
>of helping to try to
>find a way that it
>could work

Strike #1.

>the point would be, role playng
>with other role playrs, not
>programms (NPCs) so what if
>they will have to change
>the fallout online a little
>bit, like i sugested before
>randomized NPCs, or atleast some
>of them randomized, and who
>says you couldnt have any
>quests, other than killing???

Let me see, there are 10,000 people online, how could you possibly create quests to suit all those people?

The fact is that online "RPGs" don't attract role players. Role players look for story. Online RPGs attract people who want to kill other people, or get to the point where they're powerful enough to do it. You can look at any online "RPG" and see that it is so.

>uuuhh i do not see how
>he is swayng from reality,
>if you ask me it
>will be more towards reality,
>and if you would listne
>to the man, and think,
>and stop being so ignorant,
>the difference is that in
>fallout online, there wouldnt be
>just a guild going around
>killing things, like in other
>online games, so dont dare
>try to compare it to
>that

You're really pulling specifics here. Tell me again, what would be different than other RPGs in game play (not swords to guns, etc.)?

>uuh, so what if the eleven
>year olds would just go
>around and kill things, that
>is just the eleven year
>olds, where is your
>proof that that is all
>it will be? none, so
>i say lets try it
>and see, just to prove
>you right!

Eleven year-olds is a term to describe the losers who spend their time playing online RPGs just to go around and kill others.

My proof: The past. Take a look at ANY online "RPG" and you will see that the game is just filled with people who just go around and kill others. Ever hear of PK? Of course not, you're speaking from ignorance.

>yes i agree, there are reasons
>there is something called "variety"
>and there would be in
>a fallout online

FOOL is not variety. It is simply another cash cow online "RPG" much like UO or Everquest. A world where people go around and hack newbies to pieces, only FOOL would feature guns.

>ssiiiggh, uh-huh

Really pulling the arguments out of the bag. You sound like Al Gore, only his head doesn't rattle like a spray paint can when shaken.

>i do not know why there
>are soo many immature losers
>on UO, in fact, call
>me dumb, but i do
>not know what u are
>reffering to in UO,

Quite evident.

>but
>yes it would suck to
>have to pay for fallout
>online, that is the only
>drawback (THE ONLY DRAW BACK)

And I'm sure you've thought this out quite extensively, putting as much time into it as you do into your messages.

>YOU SAY they are half
>wits, buts thats because ure
>half wit, thinks that the

Strike #2

>only people that would enjoy
>it is people who wander
>around (for 8 years and
>kill things) wich it will
>not be

Please, give me an example in the past where it has been different than this? FOOL will not attract Fallout Fans, or not as much as the eleven year-olds who will ruin it. Fine in conception, horrible in implementation.

>yet again, sigh*, what makes you
>think it will sink to
>levels of UO and everquest?

And what makes you think that FOOL will be any different? I'm sure the people making UO and Everquest imagined a world where people would be playing like real RPGers. Unfortunately you're dealing with humans here and the only people willing to waste their money on an online "RPG" are those who are not of the RPG caliber.

>and who says everquest is
>bad? there are lots of
>quests, and things that have
>not even been done yet,
>and evenmore as a online
>game

But look at the situation. People killing each other as usual.

>what makes you think that will
>make it a no longer
>quality company?

BIS is known for quality RPGs. FOOL will not be quality, falling by the ranks of UO and Everquest. It reflects back on BIS.

>i dont know if that is
>a real website, but i
>agree, f2s.com/files.dontbesostuped.gif/stfu/arogentFUCK.html.lamo

Strike #3, Bye.

>PAS ureself, and PAA people against
>arogence, yeah u say arogence
>is forgivable, but thats only
>because that is what you
>are

Strike #4, as if you need another.

Say goodbye, if you cannot debate like a normal patron, you shall be banned.

-Xotor-


[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Uh guys... have any of you heard of Anarchy Online? www.anarchyonline.com
Check it out. I won't say I have any experience in this kind of game (I've never played one) but AO seems to adress many of the problems you mentioned. It's not released yet, but it seems pretty ambitious. May happen it'll turn into another PK fest despite the creative solutions, though.
 
>Uh guys... have any of you
>heard of Anarchy Online? www.anarchyonline.com
>
>Check it out. I won't say
>I have any experience in
>this kind of game (I've
>never played one) but AO
>seems to adress many of
>the problems you mentioned. It's
>not released yet, but it
>seems pretty ambitious. May happen
>it'll turn into another PK
>fest despite the creative solutions,
>though.

Sadly most do. Even the best ideas are crushed by wave after wave of lamers..

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top