I hate it, it sucks a moldy cock.
>ok aside from my other idea,
>this bears no reference to
>it........
>Ok, I can describe it in
>2 words..."fallout online"
>there you go, need I say
>more?
Two words: Get Real. Need I say more?
>MMORPG, fallout would destroy all other
>competition in this field.......you have
>to admit that......
Here's an outline of why it would not work from the Anti-FOOL FAQ:
----
Q: What is Fallout?
A: Fallout is a computer role playing game (CRPG) created by Black Isle Studios which is a subdivision of Interplay. Fallout as of this writing has two Fallout titles produced, Fallout, and its successor Fallout 2. Both use the same hexagonal tile-based engine with minor improvements added to Fallout 2's version. Fallout takes place in a post-nuclear-war fallout world (in northern California to be exact) where the world's infrastructure has been destroyed by the "war." The Fallout world has a retro-1950's motif, where some people had taken refuge in "Vaults" (fallout shelters made to last 1000 people through the fallout radiation), and other people survived the war. With the former infrastructure gone, the world is in chaos, with no real authority other than local leaders and mafia-like organizations.
Fallout's gameplay is that of old-school CRPGs. Moving around is real-time but combat is turn-based. What would could take only 2-3 minutes in real-time gameplay is extended so the player can decide what to do in battle. Thus a player could go off and eat during battle. It also helps take into account stat modifiers since that is what really determines how well you do in battle.
It is because of this combat system that Fallout is a classic RPG. RPGs are about role playing where the player only makes decisions for the character but does not actually act them out themselves. This is a contrast to real-time games like Quake or DOOM where the player must be sharp and quick in order to succeed.
Q: What is an online game?
A: "Online" implies that a game can hook up with a server and play against/with other players. In contrast to "multiplayer," which is simply allowing more than one player to play the game at one time, online games must account for many different computers, with many other people, some who may not even know each other. Quake would be considered an online game because you're interacting with many people all the time. All online games are also multiplayer games because they have many players at once.
Q: Why can't a turn-based game be Online?
A: Turn-based games allow for unlimited time between decisions. In an online environment, this it is impossible to implement such a system unless the other people playing are willing to wait for the one person to make a decisions. Yes, this has been implemented on some games such as Alpha Centauri but in such a game only a limited amount of people play at once and patience is required. Also such games are not really considered online. The computers are not on a server but rather in a web where each computer conveys its decisions to the others and they all update.
Thus online games must be real-time. What if one of the players decides to go eat during the game? The player can't make a decision so the whole game is stopped until he does. This simply cannot happen in an online game.
Q: Why not implement a turn-based/real-time system then? Couldn't the people not involved in the turn-combat walk around and do stuff?
A: No. Here's an example why:
John and Mark are in combat, turn based. What does Chris, the observer, in real time, see? He sees two players standing still and every once and a while moving and attacking. What do John and Mark see of Chris? They see a guy running around in real time and yet they cannot react to him if he, say, puts a stick of dynamite under one of them, after all they are in turn-based combat and time does not really exist. Chris could walk up to Mark and shoot him at point blank.
Q: Then why not make Fallout real-time?
A: Because Fallout is a classic RPG. Fallout relies on the stats of the character not the skills of the player to determine how the player does in battle. If you make the game fully real-time the game becomes a hack-and-slash game with stat modifiers. That is not a classic RPG.
Think about the old pen-and-pencil RPGs that Fallout is really based on. The players don't, when in combat, pick up swords or sticks and act out the battle. No, stats and turn-based decisions are used to decide the battle. This is what Fallout is: a return to the classic RPG.
Q: Um, I'm not seeing your problem here, why not make Fallout real-time? It would be great, kind of like Ultima Online (UO) or Diablo.
A: Is that Fallout? No it is not. If Interplay/BIS wanted to create a game like that, they would have.
If you've ever played UO, you know that the game is filled with Player Killers (PKs), that the game has no plot, that the world is small because a world any larger would be inconcievable on today's internet servers. What would a Fallout world be in a game like this? An area smaller than a square on the Fallout map, that's how large. Any larger and you'd need epic quantum computers on internet backbones to run such a world. Is this Fallout? Fallout has a rich plot and storyline, UO has nothing. UO has a bunch of newbies who run away, PKs, who kill newbies, guilds where newbies go about the monotonous task of upgrading their stats.
Q: Then how about like Diablo? Fallout looks a lot like Diablo in some ways.
A: Diablo is even worse than UO. At least in UO you can modify the environment and have more classes. In Diablo all you do is move through dungeons and kill stuff, steal people's things, or just hang around. Pointless.
Q: How about as an additional option?
A: Quality suffers when diversifying. What do you want, two games in one, neither of which are up to par, or one solid good game that is what the whole series is known for? People bought Fallout because it was a return to good solid RPGs with good storylines. Other people wanted multiplayer games, so they bought Diablo, Baldur's Gate or UO. Fallout won RPG of the year because it had an excellent storyline and game.
Having two options is time consuming and opens up room for more bugs and making people concentrate on the game's multiplayer capability. Fallout's main draw is its plot and story developement. If you add multiplayer capabilities, people concentrate on that and not Fallout's strong-point: it's plot and storyline.
----
Let me point you in the direction of a number of topics (not just messages) that deal with your FOOL (Fallout Online) idea, provoking so far as to generate an Anit-FOOL initiative.
Here:
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/index.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=122&forum=ForumID2
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/index.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=133&forum=ForumID2
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/index.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=144&forum=ForumID2
-Xotor-
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/AntiFOOL.gif
Really, what WERE you thinking?
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
