Interplay Website launched, hires Chris Taylor

aenemic said:
first of all, this game will be even further from the old Fallout games than Fallout 3 is. maybe not setting/lore wise, but definitely gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

It's a spin-off, dude, it doesn't have to stick to the gameplay concept of the originals.

$10 says it'll treat the lore a lot better than Fallout 3 does, excepting of course what Bethesda forces on the game as nu-canon.

aenemic said:
second, for an mmorpg to work and keep players interested you need one hell of a budgest and one hell of a reputation
Click to expand...

Fable actually. The biggest problems with MMOs is that they're currently treated as high rollers even more than normal AAA titles. It is perfectly feasible to run an MMO with a smaller budget and usergroup. I'm not even talking Minions of Mirth here, and nevermind that Ultima Online, EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot are still running, recent MMOs have had success as steady climbers (Tibia or EVE Online) or great success just filling their niche (Toontown Online or even Second Life). These are all MMOs in the sub-200k regions (ok EVE Online outpaced that now but whatevz)

On the other hand, NCSoft seriously overinvested in Tabula Rasa and the game folded because of it. Same with Age of Conan: Funcom is overinvested and would have gone bankrupt if it didn't sell well, and currently has to put up all sails to stop the player leakage. WAR should be fine with EA to support it, despite its European catastrophes.

Those companies just aren't being realistic. Instead of just going out and making an MMO and doing their own thing, they're chasing after WoW - a high-risk gamble with a mythical and unrealistic reward of WoWian usernumbers. And while NCSoft won't be going bankrupt over it, it means a serious overinvestment for NCSoft Austin or Funcom, companies that should not be boxing with giants.

Interplay's problems are its not-ideal circumstances determined by its contract with Bethesda, not inherent problems with the MMO genre.
 
Brother None said:
aenemic said:
first of all, this game will be even further from the old Fallout games than Fallout 3 is. maybe not setting/lore wise, but definitely gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

It's a spin-off, dude, it doesn't have to stick to the gameplay concept of the originals.

$10 says it'll treat the lore a lot better than Fallout 3 does, excepting of course what Bethesda forces on the game as nu-canon.
Click to expand...

yeah, they'll probably treat lore more correctly which would be great. depends on who gets the final say, I guess. but I can imagine Chris and Jason pushing for as much of their Fallout lore as possible.

I know it's a spin-off, but like you I would definitely prefer a Fallout title with some kind of turn based combat and choices and consequence. combat system is one thing, but unless they're being totally innovative the quest system will look pretty much like what we have in all other mmo's today. there will be quest grinding and linear storytelling.

a perfect Fallout mmorpg would for me change according to player actions and wouldn't even have any kind of "quests" in the normal sense but rather have you reach whatever goals you have by helping inhabitants in their day to day life, protecting the weak or simply just taking whatever you want and preying on the weak. say a town like Megaton is in the game - if someone decides to blow it up, it's gone. forever. on that server at least. can you imagine this happening? I certainly can't.

Brother None said:
aenemic said:
second, for an mmorpg to work and keep players interested you need one hell of a budgest and one hell of a reputation
Click to expand...

Fable actually. The biggest problems with MMOs is that they're currently treated as high rollers even more than normal AAA titles. It is perfectly feasible to run an MMO with a smaller budget and usergroup. I'm not even talking Minions of Mirth here, and nevermind that Ultima Online, EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot are still running, recent MMOs have had success as steady climbers (Tibia or EVE Online) or great success just filling their niche (Toontown Online or even Second Life). These are all MMOs in the sub-200k regions (ok EVE Online outpaced that now but whatevz)

On the other hand, NCSoft seriously overinvested in Tabula Rasa and the game folded because of it. Same with Age of Conan: Funcom is overinvested and would have gone bankrupt if it didn't sell well, and currently has to put up all sails to stop the player leakage. WAR should be fine with EA to support it, despite its European catastrophes.

Those companies just aren't being realistic. Instead of just going out and making an MMO and doing their own thing, they're chasing after WoW - a high-risk gamble with a mythical and unrealistic reward of WoWian usernumbers. And while NCSoft won't be going bankrupt over it, it means a serious overinvestment for NCSoft Austin or Funcom, companies that should not be boxing with giants.

Interplay's problems are its not-ideal circumstances determined by its contract with Bethesda, not inherent problems with the MMO genre.
Click to expand...

I totally get what you're saying and you're completely right. at the same time, it's not strange that bigger companies with bigger budgets are aiming to cast WoW off the throne. I can't imagine that being Interplay's goal with this title, however. but as I said before, they're making this game to build a budget for other games. running an mmorpg, even a lower profile one, takes money and dedication. with the goals they're setting up to continue several of their earlier series and becoming a well respected company again, I don't think they would want to create an mmorpg aimed at a relatively slim audience.

I can this going two ways:

1. we get a decent Fallout mmorpg that has a steady but small player base. they won't maintain it very well due to lack of revenues and the company developing other titles at the same time. it will be buggy, unbalanced, lacking regular updates etc.

2. we get yet another WoW clone aiming for the big audience which inevitably fails because the Fallout fans despise it and the regular mmorpg players play WoW and/or Warhammer instead.

I simply can't imagine Interplay gathering enough resources to launch a good, well maintained mmorpg while developing other titles at the same time.
 
aenemic said:
first of all, this game will be even further from the old Fallout games than Fallout 3 is. maybe not setting/lore wise, but definitely gameplay wise.
Click to expand...

While it is a spinoff as BN pointed out, and does not have to follow the originals, I'd wager anything I've got that if this thing comes to light it will look, play, and feel more like the originals than FO3 does.

I think SPECIAL combat could work fine in real time. Think something along the lines of constantly regenerating AP's. This could still be faithful to the ruleset and lead to some pretty entertaining firefights.

You heard it hear first, it'll be the RPG-rich Diablo with Guns MMO :)
 
I think SPECIAL combat could work fine in real time. Think something along the lines of constantly regenerating AP's
Click to expand...

That's how it worked in Tactics in Van Buren.
 
just sounds like interplay wants to hop on the old "lets make a buttload of money while ripping people off for a game that allows assholes to be even bigger assholes, characters that take so long to work on that you might lose your job or relationship, become a shut in. while interplay's collecting a monthly fee, then offering a expansion pack only when their end quota sales start slipping".

Lets face it interplays not making any money at the moment and their still sporting their ancient games from the mid and early 90's. Also they have to pay Bethesda 12 percent of sales and subscription fees for the use of the IP after selling Bethesda the rights to fallout. FOOL is going to have to make money or interplay will again fail hemorrhaging cash. The reason they failed once before was the overzealous business deals like this one.
 
Bloodshed said:
just sounds like interplay wants to hop on the old "lets make a buttload of money while ripping people off for a game that allows assholes to be even bigger assholes, characters that take so long to work on that you might lose your job or relationship, become a shut in. while interplay's collecting a monthly fee, then offering a expansion pack only when their end quota sales start slipping".
Click to expand...
You could just say "MMORPG". It means the same thing.
 
As for it being "a spin-off" and thus "okay with the folks here"... keep in mine that FO: BoS was also "a spin off" and we all know how well that went over.
 
BoS treated the lore with heaps of disrespect, and had even less respect for the "feel" and underlying setting philosophy of Fallout.

It was also a bad game.
 
I think if you're going to do a real time SPECIAL then you should just dump action points altogether. They were created for turn based purposes, no sense in keeping them if you're real time. And if you're real time, then just do a new combat system from scratch, because Fallout's combat is turn based.
 
Morbus said:
I think if you're going to do a real time SPECIAL then you should just dump action points altogether. They were created for turn based purposes, no sense in keeping them if you're real time. And if you're real time, then just do a new combat system from scratch, because Fallout's combat is turn based.
Click to expand...
Less than half the franchise at this point is exclusively turn based.
 
mandrake776 said:
Morbus said:
I think if you're going to do a real time SPECIAL then you should just dump action points altogether. They were created for turn based purposes, no sense in keeping them if you're real time. And if you're real time, then just do a new combat system from scratch, because Fallout's combat is turn based.
Click to expand...
Less than half the franchise at this point is exclusively turn based.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that 1 out of 3 = more than half.

I have no clue how they would implement combat in FOOL but if they heavily instanced the world then turn based could be possible I guess. Otherwise after seeing how bastardized SPECIAL is in FO3 using real time, I have no clue how one could properly implement it.
 
I think he's talking about Tactics and BoS. Though I can definitely see how it's easy- and a good idea- to ignore BoS when talking about Fallout games. Even then, it's not less than half; it's half, even. Unless you're counting FO3, which you can't because it's not released yet.

More on topic: I'd be very excited if FOOL *did* turn out to have TB combat. And if it was done well, the game would definitely be my first MMO experience. Well, okay, my first non-drunk "what the hell, I'll use the free hours because I'd heard so much about this game and decided to try it" MMO experience. I don't really count that one.
 
Moving Target said:
I think he's talking about Tactics and BoS. Though I can definitely see how it's easy- and a good idea- to ignore BoS when talking about Fallout games. Even then, it's not less than half; it's half, even. Unless you're counting FO3, which you can't because it's not released yet.
Click to expand...
I can, and did.
 
mandrake776 said:
Morbus said:
I think if you're going to do a real time SPECIAL then you should just dump action points altogether. They were created for turn based purposes, no sense in keeping them if you're real time. And if you're real time, then just do a new combat system from scratch, because Fallout's combat is turn based.
Click to expand...
Less than half the franchise at this point is exclusively turn based.
Click to expand...

It's cute how you actually seem to think that matters.
 
And I think it's funny how NMA seems to be getting a lot more people who get this "You all think that turn-based is better all the time" thing from us, when all most of us are saying (there are exceptions, of course) is that for a Fallout game, turn-based makes sense, was part of the core design philosophy, and that taking it out is just one more thing that Bethseda is getting wrong about the Fallout series.
 
Moving Target said:
And I think it's funny how NMA seems to be getting a lot more people who get this "You all think that turn-based is better all the time" thing from us, when all most of us are saying (there are exceptions, of course) is that for a Fallout game, turn-based makes sense, was part of the core design philosophy, and that taking it out is just one more thing that Bethseda is getting wrong about the Fallout series.
Click to expand...
I assumed we were talking about Fallout as that's what this site is all about. And anyway, it's part of the core design philosophy? You mean that fallout is intrinsically turn-based and that you can't have fallout without turn-based combat? That seems silly to me. Fallout to me is the setting, and the freedom. Oh, and getting viciously murdered the first time you give your traveling companions a fully automatic weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top