Fo3 Co-op multiplayer

[Odin]

Well for those of you who actually read the interview with JE Sawyer here on NMA, you would have noticed this little bit:<blockquote>So would I, but I don't get to decide that, unfortunately. It will probably be TB with a RT component, and it's likely that there will be a co-op multiplayer mode.</blockquote>Well this has stirred some minds and other have embraced it, a follow-up answer from JE is here:<blockquote>I've never liked multiplayer components in these sorts of RPGs. They work pretty well in games like Diablo because the whole game is set up primarily for multiplayer fun. From the way the engine loads and unloads levels to the way dialogues work, Diablo and its kin are made for that. Multiplayer components in games/engines geared towards single player seem like the single player game but with more annoyance and less fun. That's just my take on it.</blockquote>Well does quite give us any answers, but heck..So what's your take on Co-op in Fallout 3? Leave your comments and state your opinion!

 

[Malky]

I'm guessing that by "co-op multiplayer" you mean something like, playing the single player game through with the option to bring in your pals?

Well, hell, I'm all for that.

...As long is it's done right. I don't want gameplay and story sacrificed for a few extra features. Also, how would in game interaction work? If one player character talks to an NPC, would all the player characters be able to monitor the conversation? Could a PC say, get in a fight with another PC, and then fight it out (boxing matches would be kind of cool, like in New Reno)? Can characters go off on there own...say, divy up the quests/mini quests?

*can't wait to bicker over who gets to loot the freshly killed bodies*

-Malk

 

[Odin]

I'm guessing that by "co-op multiplayer" you mean something like, playing the single player game through with the option to bring in your pals?

Yes, that's correct..

The only issue I've got with this is how the balancing of the game/action would be affected as a result of having the option of a co-op multiplayer mode, how will it be handled ?

 

[Malky]

Yeah, that's one of my concerns. The first FO games had action, but not at the sacrifice of gameplay, storyline, and character development. Who wants to play a multiplayer game where you go through the world trying to "find yourself", so to speak?

I don't think FO was really made for multiplayer.



-Malk

 

[JJ86]

Yeah, you couldn't make it balanced for both SP and coop. Separate scripting would have to be done for both types, basically giving you two distinct games. And then if it were 3-player coop?

 

[Malky]

Separate scripting would have to be done for both types, basically giving you two distinct games.

That's the only way that it could be done well. ...God I hope they don't screw us over.

And then if it were 3-player coop?

If they're going to go co-op, they should just go ahead and go all the way. I'm talking fully immersive, *multi* PC parties. Like, say, 4 or 5 people.

-Malky[/quote]

 

[Chairface]

If they're going to go co-op, they should just go ahead and go all the way. I'm talking fully immersive, *multi* PC parties. Like, say, 4 or 5 people.

Of all the new FEATURE$$$$$ being proposed to (ostensibly) increase Fallout's appeal to a wider audience, multiplayer is the first that doesn't immediately scare me. Even if it's done poorly, who here hasn't wished they could at least trade gear with other people or gang up on tough encounters? Besides, this is one place IPLY isn't just being silly, it is basically impossible to ship an RPG these days that doesn't have a multiplayer function of some sort.

Sure, some people will gripe again that it's ruining the "lone wanderer" aspect. Feh. When you say they're adding 3D just to cash in, I agree. When you say the real-world guns are shameless cash-ins, I agree. But multiplayer, even if done incredibly poorly, would be neat.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Of all the new FEATURE$$$$$ being proposed to (ostensibly) increase Fallout's appeal to a wider audience, multiplayer is the first that doesn't immediately scare me. Even if it's done poorly, who here hasn't wished they could at least trade gear with other people or gang up on tough encounters? Besides, this is one place IPLY isn't just being silly, it is basically impossible to ship an RPG these days that doesn't have a multiplayer function of some sort.

I haven't wished for that, because if done poorly, reviews will reflect that - or should reflect that. They probably won't though, since a number of reviews reported that IWD2 multiplayer was good, even though the Infinity Engine flat out sucks for multiplayer.

If multiplayer is done well, then we're talking about streamlining single player quests so your chums don't trip over the quests you're working on, or aren't just there to be dragged along with you.

 

[JJ86]

If multiplayer is done well, then we're talking about streamlining single player quests so your chums don't trip over the quests you're working on, or aren't just there to be dragged along with you.

Saint alludes to the problems if the friends decide to take off to a different city. Think of the complexities that could be generated if all the players didn't stick together. Of course that could be regulated to some extent but even within one city like Junktown for example there could be the potential to have someone having a conversation with one NPC while you have one with another NPC. There would have to be a way to enforce order among the players.

 

[Chaoticlandraider^]

i reckon it would work well only if there is a seperate multiplayer quest/world etc like in games like dungeonsiege with the kingdom of ehb and the uthrean peninula kitted out for co-op game play.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Well for those of you who actually read the interview with JE Sawyer here on NMA, you would have noticed this little bit:

So would I, but I don't get to decide that, unfortunately. It will probably be TB with a RT component, and it's likely that there will be a co-op multiplayer mode.

Well this has stirred some minds and other have embraced it, a follow-up answer from JE is here:

I've never liked multiplayer components in these sorts of RPGs. They work pretty well in games like Diablo because the whole game is set up primarily for multiplayer fun. From the way the engine loads and unloads levels to the way dialogues work, Diablo and its kin are made for that. Multiplayer components in games/engines geared towards single player seem like the single player game but with more annoyance and less fun. That's just my take on it.

So he thinks it'll suck but he's putting it in anyway because he has no control over Fallout 3? Even to the point where he's admitting that the game will have to be significantly altered in order to make the option viable "the whole game set up primarily for multiplayer fun".

Is this supposed to be inspiring?

 

[atoga]

SEC. 2. And be it furthered enacted, That an addition of ten per centum shall be made to the several rates of duties specified and imposed, in respect to all goods, wares and merchandise, which, after the said last day of December next, shall be imported in ships or vessels not of the United States, except in the cases in which an additional duty is herein before specially laid on any goods, wares, or merchandises, which shall be imported in such ships or vessels.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Saint alludes to the problems if the friends decide to take off to a different city. Think of the complexities that could be generated if all the players didn't stick together. Of course that could be regulated to some extent but even within one city like Junktown for example there could be the potential to have someone having a conversation with one NPC while you have one with another NPC. There would have to be a way to enforce order among the players.

Basically, yeah. What if you're getting the quest from Loxley to steal Hightower's necklace without killing Hightower. Meanwhile, your buddy is out killing Hightower? This should bust that quest. If it doesn't bust that quest, because your friend did it and NOT you, then you have an exploitable situation that circumvents the point of the quest in the first place.

The only real good way around snafus like this is to keep players stuck together, but how fun is that? If you want to go to the Gunrunners and your friend wants to stick around Adytum, what then? How fun would it be if a group of players are just dragged around the game by the host for the sake of the occational generator repair or combat?

 

[4too]

Pretense

Multiplayer is trendy. It's a selling feature like white wall tires and copious cup holders. Copious cups implies Sex Appeal, and or Curb Appeal. It allows the market'eers the pretense, they are "directing traffic in the direction it's going."

MP functioning in a game is "someone else's problem", including the gamer that purchases the product.

It's the compounding of "like" and "as" features that morph's all values
into a clone of "the last big hit". It's entertainment industry tradition. It's show business.

It's Bauldar's Gate, or whatever, in Fallout clothes.

4too

 

[MrMarcus]

I disagree with multiplayer in Fallout 3. It's a personal quest, not a run 'n gun with your buddies seeing how many kewl gunz everyone can score.

If they really want a co-op MP experience, they should make Tactics 2 (ugh... must wash up after this one) due to the squad-based experience lending itself to MP better than regular Fallout.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I tend to agree, Fallout Tactics was a missed opportunity for co-op play in the Fallout world. Co-op would have worked a lot better for the game than the poorly balanced Deathmatch thing they tossed in the game.

 

[Chairface]

Fallout Tactics would've been a MUCH better game with coop multiplayer. Even if the "multiplayer" just consisted of each player having direct control over X party members in combat.