Overly Critical
First time out of the vault
Alright, before this thread is closed for mentioning online fallout, take the time to read and understand what I'm saying, as I'm not ADVOCATING online fallout - much to the contrary.
I'll begin by taking a look at the most popular commercially available MMORPGs, and comparing them afterwards to Fallout 1 and 2. Hopefully, by the end of this post, you'll understand why a fallout MMORPG will -not- work.
ULTIMA ONLINE (and later incarnations)
You create a character to participate in the (originally) frontier world. You are able to do virtually anything you like, from running a merchant outpost out of your fancy house to becoming a wealthy spellcasting swordsman adventurer.
EVERQUEST
You create a hero to adventure into the formerly-new world of Everquest; this character is one of many classes and races, which generally specialize in one "field" of abilities (healing magic, solo-killing ability, meat shield, etc.) You are a hero in the sense that your actions, along with other players', help to influence the world around you (at least in respect to players.) Guilds are common and can reach extreme levels of in-game power.
Asuron's Call and AC2
More oriented to solo play than Everquest, AC is Microsoft's entry into the MMORPG arena. A decent first effort in my own opinion, maybe we'll see something more from them in the future? Similar character and class creation to Everquest, although the gameplay is very different.
Anarchy Online
Anyone remember AO? .. .. Neither do I.
Diablo 2
Calling this a MMORPG is a travesty to the beauty and intricacy put into the so-classed MMORPGs; however, it has impressive play stats, especially for a free service four-five years after the game release. Hack n' Slash at it's best/worst, depending on how you think of it. Rated "M" for mouth-breather. I play this game every day.
Now, when you look at all these games, what do you find in common?
NONE OF THEM ARE FOCUSED AROUND A CENTRAL HERO AND HOW HIS/HER ACTIONS AFFECT THE WORLD AROUND HIM/HER.
I acknowledge that it could be argued that "Well, what about the rest of the world? They didn't just disappear when the bombs went off..."
But, to keep with the storyline of Fallout (not that they do so, see Tactics and FO
oS), they would have to maintain that only America had vaults.
Not only this, but the story does not allow for the kind of dynamic, large world capable of supporting vast numbers of heroes. It is ideally suited to just one hero, or a party led by the hero.
To wrap it up, I'll leave you with my closing thoughts:
While the concept of an online Fallout at first may sound appealing, it just isn't feasable in the sense of continuity and entertainment.
Notice that I didn't even delve into the financial feasability of a project as vast as a MMORPG.. I don't think Interplay could do it, unless they got BIG backing, and with the mediocre BoS coming out soon, I worry about their intents for the series.
By the way, Mods, if you feel this needs to be moved, you have my blessings to do so; however, judging from the number of "Oh, well, a fallout mmorpg is necessary" arguements (or attempts at arguements) lately, I figured they could use a slice of truth pie.
I'll begin by taking a look at the most popular commercially available MMORPGs, and comparing them afterwards to Fallout 1 and 2. Hopefully, by the end of this post, you'll understand why a fallout MMORPG will -not- work.
ULTIMA ONLINE (and later incarnations)
You create a character to participate in the (originally) frontier world. You are able to do virtually anything you like, from running a merchant outpost out of your fancy house to becoming a wealthy spellcasting swordsman adventurer.
EVERQUEST
You create a hero to adventure into the formerly-new world of Everquest; this character is one of many classes and races, which generally specialize in one "field" of abilities (healing magic, solo-killing ability, meat shield, etc.) You are a hero in the sense that your actions, along with other players', help to influence the world around you (at least in respect to players.) Guilds are common and can reach extreme levels of in-game power.
Asuron's Call and AC2
More oriented to solo play than Everquest, AC is Microsoft's entry into the MMORPG arena. A decent first effort in my own opinion, maybe we'll see something more from them in the future? Similar character and class creation to Everquest, although the gameplay is very different.
Anarchy Online
Anyone remember AO? .. .. Neither do I.
Diablo 2
Calling this a MMORPG is a travesty to the beauty and intricacy put into the so-classed MMORPGs; however, it has impressive play stats, especially for a free service four-five years after the game release. Hack n' Slash at it's best/worst, depending on how you think of it. Rated "M" for mouth-breather. I play this game every day.
Now, when you look at all these games, what do you find in common?
NONE OF THEM ARE FOCUSED AROUND A CENTRAL HERO AND HOW HIS/HER ACTIONS AFFECT THE WORLD AROUND HIM/HER.
I acknowledge that it could be argued that "Well, what about the rest of the world? They didn't just disappear when the bombs went off..."
But, to keep with the storyline of Fallout (not that they do so, see Tactics and FO
oS), they would have to maintain that only America had vaults.Not only this, but the story does not allow for the kind of dynamic, large world capable of supporting vast numbers of heroes. It is ideally suited to just one hero, or a party led by the hero.
To wrap it up, I'll leave you with my closing thoughts:
While the concept of an online Fallout at first may sound appealing, it just isn't feasable in the sense of continuity and entertainment.
Notice that I didn't even delve into the financial feasability of a project as vast as a MMORPG.. I don't think Interplay could do it, unless they got BIG backing, and with the mediocre BoS coming out soon, I worry about their intents for the series.
By the way, Mods, if you feel this needs to be moved, you have my blessings to do so; however, judging from the number of "Oh, well, a fallout mmorpg is necessary" arguements (or attempts at arguements) lately, I figured they could use a slice of truth pie.
