The fact

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
The fact that you people never SAW a CRPG with multiplayer which was a good RPG, doesn't mean there won't be one, or that Fallout 3 can't be one.

You people never saw a game that simulates real life visual appearance in 100% yet either, but I assume it will come in this century or the next.

People never saw an object flying which wasn't a bird until we invented aeroplanes.

A good CRPG multiplayer, and Fallout specificly, is very possible. Anything in Gaming is possible, it all depends on the technology availible, in the market, and in what you wana do.

If people didn't want MULTIPLAYER in any type of game, there wouldn't have been any, or if there wasn't INTERNET or LAN or other computer connections.

All we have to do is WANT a good multiplayer Fallout, understand that it is possible, and it all depends on how much we will demand it, and how eventually it will come out.
Indeed, as I see it, the FO motivation of BIS is VERY low, and after FO2 they seemed a little tired of Fallout.
With this, and with my opinion that FO3, which will obviouslly be completely different in FO2 or FO1 in TECHNICAL matters (non gameplay), and therfor i think it will suck, i believe that BIS wouldn't make a good FOMultiplaya if they tried.
I, on the other hand, have a very clear vision of how the FOMultiplaya I want will look like, and how all the "problems" will be solved.

So if I shall be realistic and practical as YOU guys (the resistance) then indeed I will come out right.

BUT - if WE ALL shall be visionary, and creative, and try to ACT to MAKE THE MULTIPLAYER GOOD AND EXISTING, then we may be successful, and we shall affect BIS and FO.

I believe that Interplay's "By gamers, for gamers" is not exactly true in this case.
They don't make what they wana play in FO's case, they mainly make what will bring them in big cash.
So either they'll make a sucky multiplay that the "masses" will like, or they won't make it at all, and FO3 would be sucky and for the "masses" (as i see it).

IT IS NO PROBLEM to make a good Fallout multiplayer, indeed all you need is some sort of control over the game (using a "game master") or you can have some sort of "VIRTUAL TIME LIMIT" of turns, which the players of the game can SET, CANCEL or CHANGE.
IT will mean that for example in battle, when its ur turn, u have X seconds (30 for example) to make your move. and for example you moved one step, then again you will have X seconds for ur next move/action.
Inventory check/reload won't count.

and for example, if u want to PAUSE , cause u gotta pee, or u gotta do something in the middle of the game, then u "call for pause"
then all the players must aprove the pause, and if all of them do, ur in PAUSE mode and can go.
Then all it takes all the REST of the guys who DIDN'T CALL THE PAUSE, to unpause it manually (without the guy who called the pause).


This way, u play the way u like.
If you KNOW who u'r playing with, and u trust them, u can cancel X time.

This way it will be EXACTLY like single player battle, only that people can't "screw up" in the middle or their turn will just be skipped.
30 seconds is damn reasonable time to do ONE thing, it can even be less.
if you have to GO, u call for PAUSE.

When saved, each player gets a copy of the SAVED GAME, so u can all continue from where u were.
In case you miss one person or more, they will be "deleteD" when u load the save game, and can JOIN in the middle just the same (requires approval of all players.)
For "just-in-case", all players will get the Character file of each of the guys they played with to a GAME-NUMBER(X) folder, so a guy who plays from a different computer or a new guy who wants to join ur game using the character of a guy who is no longer with u, can do that.

These are just some ideas of how to make the multiplayer better, and im sure it's very easy to do, and all u got to do is want it, and hope BIS knows what they're doing.

I fail to believe a fallout fan DOESN'T WANT A MULTIPLAYER at all (not connected to what it will come out like, but to what it could be if made well)
A multiplayer fallout will just means u play your GAME - exactly like singler player, with ur friends.

You can set it to HARDER LEVEL because you are not starting the game alone, and u can for example choose to CANCEL some NPCs.

It will just have to be very co-operative.
You can SET, if u want, a LEADER of the game, whose actions the rest will follow.
For example, leaving a town, or entering houses.
and you can choose to "CONNECT TO GROUP"
or "DISCONNECT FROM GROUP" , so u can unleash urself from a team and its leader.

This way you can have two or more TEAMS, either rival or co-operative.

You can also for example be "FREE" or "LED" which will mean ur status as a group. You can choose to be FREE when the group is travelling, but its better to be LED when in town so u can HEAR what the rest of the group HEARS (from dialogs with characters in the game) or participate in the same battles.
For example in DIALOG, u can set a GROUP DIALOG, when one does the talking, and the rest are "dragged" to the dialog and can watch it when they are in "LED" mode.
The players can also change the leader in the middle, or the TALKER.
Bartering can be individual.

See, it's so fucking easy...

Klayhamn - ThieFoRent
 
sorry

sorry for the double post.
Accident.
Delete the older message.
 
"You people never saw a game that simulates real life visual appearance in 100% yet either, but I assume it will come in this century or the next."

A game that looks real. I can see that happening in the next 100 years.
A game that simulates real-life (if only from a visual stand-point.) I think within 200 years is being overly optomistic. I can't imagine AI being advanced enough to simulate the chaos of real-life (if only visually.)

"People never saw an object flying which wasn't a bird until we invented aeroplanes."

What about bugs? What about a flying squirel (so they're actually gliding, birds often do the same thing)?

If people didn't want MULTIPLAYER in any type of game, there wouldn't have been any.

And this fits into your argument how? Of course if no one wanted multiplayer in computer games they wouldn't exist.
Many people want super-weapons and psionics and many other things in FO3. Are you saying because people want these things, that they should be added?

All we have to do is WANT a good multiplayer Fallout.

I (and I'm sure many others) don't want multi-player in Fallout. If we wanted multi-player, we would be asking for it.

Indeed, as I see it, the FO motivation of BIS is VERY low, and after FO2 they seemed a little tired of Fallout.

<sarcasm>I can't imagine why.</sarcasm> Their first two games were Fallout & FO2. It makes sense to me that they would take a break after. And so they have Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, and a yet to be announced non-Fallout title. It looks to me that the next game has a high chance of being Fallout 3.

With this, and with my opinion that FO3, which will obviouslly be completely different in FO2 or FO1 in TECHNICAL matters (non gameplay), and therfor i think it will suck, i believe that BIS wouldn't make a good FOMultiplaya if they tried.

So drop the subject of multi-player if you think it will suck.

I believe that Interplay's "By gamers, for gamers" is not exactly true in this case.
They don't make what they wana play in FO's case, they mainly make what will bring them in big cash.

Umm, ok, because Fallout, Fallout 2, and Planescape: Torment were all made for the masses. Since when have the masses wanted hardcore RPGs? Wasn't one of the biggest complaints about PS:T that it was 'too wordy'? People wanted another Baldur's Gate (hack & slash with multiplayer), it's a shame BIS gave them a great RPG instead.

So either they'll make a sucky multiplay that the "masses" will like, or they won't make it at all, and FO3 would be sucky and for the "masses" (as i see it).

Let me see if I understood this. If FO3 has multiplayer, the multiplayer will suck; because it was made for the masses. If FO3 doesn't have multiplayer, the game will suck; again, because it was made for the masses. So FO3, one way or another, will be made for the masses; and it will suck no matter what they do regarding multiplayer. Sounds to me, like there's no reason for them to attempt adding multiplayer.

IT IS NO PROBLEM to make a good Fallout multiplayer,

But, you've been rattling on and on about how it will be sucky multiplayer.

all you need is some sort of control over the game (using a "game master") or you can have some sort of "VIRTUAL TIME LIMIT" of turns, which the players of the game can SET, CANCEL or CHANGE.
IT will mean that for example in battle, when its ur turn, u have X seconds (30 for example) to make your move. and for example you moved one step, then again you will have X seconds for ur next move/action.
Inventory check/reload won't count.

I'm glad you saved combat, because we all know that's the most important part of Fallout.

I fail to believe a fallout fan DOESN'T WANT A MULTIPLAYER at all (not connected to what it will come out like, but to what it could be if made well)

Then don't believe me when I tell you, "I don't want multiplayer in FO3." Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it any less true.

A multiplayer fallout will just means u play your GAME - exactly like singler player, with ur friends.

Why would I want to play Fallout with my friends? I like the lone warrior experience. If I want a party-based RPG, I'll play one.

You can set it to HARDER LEVEL because you are not starting the game alone, and u can for example choose to CANCEL some NPCs.

So CHA doesn't affect NPCs anymore? You can have four 1 CHA friends team up together? Maybe, you can start to kill off other role-playing decisions as we continue.

This way you can have two or more TEAMS, either rival or co-operative.

Because, we all want Team Fortress Fallout.

For example in DIALOG, u can set a GROUP DIALOG, when one does the talking, and the rest are "dragged" to the dialog and can watch it when they are in "LED" mode.
The players can also change the leader in the middle, or the TALKER.

So, then, one character can be the diplomat, while another character is the thief, another the fighter, and last the scientist.

See, it's so fucking easy...

Doesn't appear to work to me.

Skie
 
>A game that simulates real-life (if
>only from a visual stand-point.)
> I think within 200
>years is being overly optomistic.
> I can't imagine AI
>being advanced enough to simulate
>the chaos of real-life (if
>only visually.)

For that Real-Life, I hope it never happens... Have you ever played Sims? Damn boring I say! Let's see, real-life, eat, go to job, eat again, go out, sleep, etc. and this combined with fallout... C'mon, who want's to play real-life simulator?! We all got one of your own.
 
HAHAHA

No, not a GAME-OF-LIFE, play, eat, shit, drink, get a job...
but a *TECHNOLOGY* that will enable you to play a game (or other stuff) THAT IN VISUAL ASPECT, IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR HUMAN EYES - EXTREMELY HIGH DETAIL AND "RESOLUTION" ETC.
and for you Skie.
You, apparently, have failed to get what i was talking about.
I didn't say that - "oh , common people, please want multiplayer cause..... duuuuuuh... uh - then everything will be good and we will have multiplayer"

I said: "Listen. Although PRACTICALLY and from the realistic point of view of yours, you predict that FO Multiplayer will RUIN the game, destroy the RPG gameplay blah blah blah -
I FAIL TO BELIEVE that you wouldn't enjoy - no matter TECHNICLY how - to play with your friends (as team) the fallout games.
Just like they can sit next to you, and see what you do? so imagine that you can also connect a 2nd keyboard to your computer, and a 2nd screen, or simply connect two computers, and you guys play.

Very simple."

This is what i said.
i was saying: "If people didn't want MULTIPLAYER in any type of game, there wouldn't have been any."
TO SHOW YOU - that THE DEMAND - will set the OFFER.
What ALL the market wants, or the majority of it, will eventually be what they will be offered.
If every single person with a PC would say: "I WANT Fallout FPS!" then i assume Interplay would say: "oright guys, FPS it is"
and they would make it.
SOO - i was just try to point out, that in case you say: "oright, you know what, LETS ASSUME that this multiplayer indeed is possible, i doubt they will make it"
so this is where you would have been wrong.
YOU SAID:
********
<sarcasm>I can't imagine why.</sarcasm> Their
first two games were Fallout & FO2. It makes sense to me that they would take a break after. And so they have Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, and a yet to be announced non-Fallout title. It looks to me that the next game has a high chance of being Fallout 3.
********

wana bet that it won't be?
It will be some other non futuristic RPG.
I curse the day that RPG was invented as a role play game in a world of FANTASY.
We could have had tons of FALLOUTS, and other post-nuclear, post-apocalyptic, and other futurisitc RPGs.
So what if they did two whole games.
IF - IF they didn't do ANYTHING afterwards, okay.
But i don't get it, what, working on 2 futuristic ganes pulls out their future-drive, and they had to move on to fantasy worlds?
Sick of FALLOUT specificly?
make another game.
MAKE ONE FANTASY GAME,
but no, they had to make a whole damn BUNCH of them.
And its not A YEAR, its YEARS, and meanwhile all we do is sit around, talk and talk in those message boards, hoping that one day this game will come out.

See, the problem is, i dunno about you or the other guys, but the prob is that i don't really like other games.
RPG is simply the best, for OBVIOUS REASONS.
Strategy games, tactics, FPSs, are nothing compared to the only type which is the closest to simulating "real life" - you are someone.
You are a character.
In a good RPG (which should be unlinear) you don't have goals. you have yourself. And you do what you would have done, if you were really that character, and were in that world.

So, when i just FINISH FO1 and FO2, i don't know how you guys do it, but i can't just - oh my , let's play this again.
No, when i finish an RPG, espicially one like Fallout, it's like a damn ADVENTURE, i play it day night, 72 hours a day until i finish it.
Now i need more...

See, so in FANTASY RPGs, they get it all the time, whoops i finished that, give me another, good - finished that, give me another one...

I'm sitting, forced to play LOW AND UNSOPHISTICATED GAMES until FOT comes out, which will give me some relief, and hopefully till FO3.

There ain't a buncha futuristic/present RPGs i can choose from.

So you can't say to me "Look, i think FO2 and FO1
were fun, but enough, let's bury this game while it's good."

I want MORE FALLOUT. Fallout 7, fallout 8, fallout 100.
I want to have a NEVER-ENDING FALLOUT IN MY COMPUTER.
I found the game which is EXACTLY what i wanted, or needed (and didn't know i want). The WEAPONS, the music, the environment, the nuclear theme, the humor, the fact it is FUTURISTIC, yet "realistic".
A game in the "classic future" with flying cars, huge tech-buildings and a "not destroyed" world would have been fun, but NOT LIKE Fallout it is.
So what is easier, to make a MULTIPLAYER, which makes the game last FOREVER (realtively) or to make more and more and more FO Games?

FO3 - ok
FO4 - excellent
FO5 - YES!, and i will be satisfied with that, as LONG AS I HAVE MULTIPLAYER WITH ME.

Because with a non-quest-based Fallout multiplayer, which will mean, FALLOUT WORLD.
Like "BUILD YOUR OWN FALLOUT, AND PLAY IT"
You can build towns, which will be hosted on some main server everyone knows.
Then you can choose your "job" not only in virtual clans like the ORder, but in REALITY.
You really have a clan, it has a base, you can ally, wage war, enhance your buildings and structures, spy... and so on.
Possibilities are endless.

I said i think the multiplayer will suck because i was being REALISITC like you guys, and stuck to steady opinions and positions.

MY REAL opinion tho, is that if we will all be realistic and sit and say: "nah, multiplayer will ruin the game. lets not do it." then THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN, though if you actually MAKE YOUR WILL TO PLAY FALLOUT GAME WITH SOMEONE BUT YOURSELF, then a mutliplayer we will have, and its quality will depend on BIS.

Huh?
No, FO1 wasn't for the masses.
They had an IDEA, they were "INSPIRED" ny Wasteland game, AND THEY made it come true - in the shape of FALLOUT.
FO2 was for the masses, and this why, at least in my COUNTRY, Fallout 1's price was reduced to 10 dollars (translated from Israeli coin) in most stores after a month, and FALLOUT 2 was sold in 51 dollars, and was SOLD OUT in some point.

I've met TONS of guys here, who played FO2, didn't get shit about any of the quests really, but enjoyed like hell buying guns and blasting innocent people, or take quests without being aware of it, then accidently succeed in them.
Almost non of them knew FO1.

I dunno if the same happened in other places, but i won't be surprised if it did.





No, again, what i was saying - is not that the multiplayer will suck no matter what they do.
What i said is:
**************
So either they'll make a sucky multiplay that the "masses" will like, or they won't make it at all, and FO3 would be sucky and for the "masses" (as i see it).
*****************

SAY THEY DECIDE TO MAKE MULTIPLAYER?
I *BELIEVE* - it will come out the way I HATE IT.
I believe that all the things that the "resistance" said about multiplayer, will be true, and it will suck.
I DONT WANT IT TO BE, IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE, but being realistic, i believe this is what will happen.
IF THE WON'T MAKE IT, then they will make FO3 itself, the one they have to SELL, MORE profitable, by sending it out to a bigger consumer group, like the "HEH, WHAT IS THIS GUY WITH A BONE IN HIS NOSE WHO SAYS GRAMPY BONE ALL THE TIME? WHO CARES, LETS KILL HIM! HEHE" people.

quote:
*************************
IT IS NO PROBLEM to make a good Fallout multiplayer,

But, you've been rattling on and on about how it will be sucky multiplayer.
**********


Ya, because I'm saying - ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE EVENTUALLY BIS WILL DO THE WRONG THING, AND WON'T MAKE THE GOOD MULTIPLAYER, IT IS POSSIBLE, AND VERY EASY, to make one.

Correct, if i don't believe it it doesnt mean it is less true, but it means TO ME - that you are only saying this because you have a picture in ur head of what the multiplayer will come out like, and not a picture OF WHAT U WANT.

Unless of course, you REALLY hate to play RPGs with someone else but urself. (IN THE *GENERAL* MEANING OF IT, don't say now: "but the RPGs with multiplayer suck!" I'm saying TO PLAY GENERALLY, A GAME YOU LIKE, WITH YOUR FRIENDS.)

You like the lone warrior?
So you mean, you DO NOT TAKE NPCs.
If you don't then ok, but you're part of a minority. I think most of the fallout players do prefer to take at least one NPC with them.
Or a dog...
IF U DID TAKE NPCs with you - then ur not a "lone warrior" and you are playing with an NPT.
NON-PLAYER-TEAM.

quote:
******************
You can set it to HARDER LEVEL because you are not starting the game alone, and u can for example choose to CANCEL some NPCs.

So CHA doesn't affect NPCs anymore? You can have four 1 CHA friends team up together? Maybe, you can start to kill off other role-playing decisions as we continue.

*************************

HUH? You will not HAVE NPCs. Your team will be your HUMAN-player friends.
They - THEMSELVES can choose wether or not to team up with you.
LIKE IN A CLASSIC non-omputer-based RPG... duh.....
Your human-player team members can CARE about your CHA if they want to, but they don't have to.
They are not computer controlled.
They make their decisions.

This is NON-LINEAR.
An NPC will only act as its AI tells it, and therfor if u accidently shoot it can attack you.
Your PLAYER-friends can avoid that...

no i don't want TEAM-FORTRESS Fallout.
I want FALLOUT WORLD in which you and your team/clan whatever u call it, work together, travel, do quests, or can even set a "base" which can basicly be a TENT.


BTW
You can say the same thing about NPCs for example.
" I DONT WANT NPCs, believe me"
But hey, the game has NPCs in it.
you will say: "AHHHH - BUT you can choose wether or not u wish to work with them."
I say: "SO U WILL BE GIVEN THE CHOICE WETHER U WANT TO PLAY FALLOUT-MULTIPLAYER, FALLOUT-WORLD (FOR THE CLAN THING I DESCRIBED ABOVE) or the regular singler-plaer.
All possible.
Or take the guys who say: "too many guns in fallout, we want swords!"
So what do u tell them? they also "REALLY-DON'T-WANT-IT-BELIVE-ME".
But the game has it. What can they do? eat dirt and play, or simply avoid playing FO.
Or for example FO2's plot, which was a bit to similar to FO1's.
What did we all do? eated dirt, played the game, had fun and finished it.
Maybe next time the plot will be better.
Multiplayer is an option.
Like VIOLENCE LEVEL is.
Like MUSIC VOLUME is.
Like THE CAR is.
You either pick it, or u don't.
Good for you, "lone warrior" - that u like to play alone. I like to play BOTH ALONE, AND BOTH WITH MY FRIENDS.
I WANT EVERY PIECE OF PLAYABLE FALLOUTS THAT BIS CAN MAKE.
Multiplayer, sequels, tactics, MODs for half-life that i didn't even check out yet, SHIRTS, POSTERS, DESKTOP THEMES, WINAMP SKINS...COMICS(!)
I want them all.

Hmm, i gave myself an idea. I'll start working on a comics! I'll post adress when i'm finished with first draft.

Yours,
Klayhamn - ThieFoRent.
 
FO Tactics could be multiplayer...

Don't hang me or my character on the Roleplaying board for this, but Fallout tactics: BoS could be multiplayer based. Each person play one character in the game. In 2000 years B.C chinese flew with kites.In 1783 (I think)the Montgolfier brothers buildt and launched a baloon. In that baloon the Marqiues d'Arlandes and Jean Pilatre de Rozier flew in 25 minutes. That was 121 years before the Wrights (no NOT the maffia family in New Reno) flew with their Wright Flyer No.1. So, humans did see things that flew before the aeroplane. Well, except for the bugs and bees and flying squirrels of course.
 
Correction

Correction, FOT:BOS WILL have multiplayer capabilities.

-Xotor-

>Don't hang me or my character
>on the Roleplaying board for
>this, but Fallout tactics: BoS
>could be multiplayer based. Each
>person play one character in
>the game. In 2000 years
>B.C chinese flew with kites.In
>1783 (I think)the Montgolfier brothers
>buildt and launched a baloon.
>In that baloon the Marqiues
>d'Arlandes and Jean Pilatre de
>Rozier flew in 25 minutes.
>That was 121 years before
>the Wrights (no NOT the
>maffia family in New Reno)
>flew with their Wright Flyer
>No.1. So, humans did see
>things that flew before the
>aeroplane. Well, except for the
>bugs and bees and flying
>squirrels of course.


[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Multiplayer in FO3.

"Listen. Although PRACTICALLY and from the realistic point of view of yours, you predict that FO Multiplayer will RUIN the game, destroy the RPG gameplay."

There is a time and money restriction on all games. The addition of multiplayer detracts from the overall time allowed to develop the game. This will take time away from other more important elements. FO will be less of a game if it has multiplayer.

"If every single person with a PC would say: "I WANT Fallout FPS!" then i assume Interplay make it."

You are probably right, but that doesn't mean the game will be any good. Just because everyone wants something, doesn't mean they will like it once they get it.

"I curse the day that RPG was invented as a role play game in a world of FANTASY.

I think your problem is with Tolkien then. The first main-stream RPG (D&D) was based on that universe. Had Tolkien not created a lush and interesting world, fantasy might not have become the main-stream for RPGs. Then again, we might not have RPGs either.

"We could have had tons of FALLOUTS, and other post-nuclear, post-apocalyptic, and other futurisitc RPGs."

And then you would have to sort the trash from the good ones, much like you have to do with Fantasy RPGs.

So what if they did two whole games.
IF they didn't do ANYTHING afterwards, okay.
But i don't get it, what, working on 2 futuristic ganes pulls out their future-drive, and they had to move on to fantasy worlds?


They spent 3-4 years deveolping the Fallout games. Why do you have such a problem with them developing 'two whole games' (obviously a small amount according to you) in the fantasy genre?

"Sick of FALLOUT specificly?
make another game.
MAKE ONE FANTASY GAME, but no, they had to make a whole damn BUNCH of them."

I'm confused, is 2 'a whole damn bunch' or a small amount (i.e "So what if they did two whole games.")?

"And its not A YEAR, its YEARS."

Do you realize it takes about 2 years to develop a game? That means, FO3 has a minumum of coming out 4 years after FO2 (even had they only developed one fantasy game inbetween.)

"In a good RPG (which should be unlinear) you don't have goals."

So was FO a bad game because it had goals? Was it not considered an RPG for this? Or was it linear?

"You do what you would have done, if you were really that character, and were in that world."

No, I roleplay a charcter in that world. Many times this character is nothing like me.

"When i just FINISH FO1 and FO2 i can't just - oh my , let's play this again."

Sounds like a character flaw to me. This would definatly explain your whining and urging for multiplayer.

"No, when i finish an RPG, espicially one like Fallout, it's like a damn ADVENTURE, i play it day night, 72 hours a day until i finish it.
Now i need more..."

Sounds to me like you need to get outside, read a book, do something other than play computer games.

"I'm sitting, forced to play LOW AND UNSOPHISTICATED GAMES until FOT comes out, which will give me some relief, and hopefully till FO3."

No one is forcing you to play any game. You can do something else.

"There ain't a buncha futuristic/present RPGs i can choose from."

Wait a few months, then there'll be a decent amount of them.

"With a non-quest-based Fallout multiplayer, which will mean, FALLOUT WORLD.
Like "BUILD YOUR OWN FALLOUT, AND PLAY IT"
You can build towns, which will be hosted on some main server everyone knows.
Then you can choose your "job" not only in virtual clans like the ORder, but in REALITY.
You really have a clan, it has a base, you can ally, wage war, enhance your buildings and structures, spy... and so on.
Possibilities are endless."

Do you mean FOOL? This sounds alot like FOOL? If you want a futuristic multiplayer RPG, wait for Anarchy Online; this way you can play forever.

"FO2 was for the masses, and this why, at least in my COUNTRY, Fallout 1's price was reduced to 10 dollars (translated from Israeli coin) in most stores after a month, and FALLOUT 2 was sold in 51 dollars, and was SOLD OUT in some point."

<sarcasm>Yeah, FO2 was a cash cow.</sarcasm>

"No, again, what i was saying - is not that the multiplayer will suck no matter what they do.
What i said is:
So either they'll make a sucky multiplay that the "masses" will like, or they won't make it at all, and FO3 would be sucky and for the "masses" (as i see it)."

Let me rephrase it a bit, just to make it flow a little better.

They'll either:
1. Make sucky multiplay that the "masses" will like.
2. They won't make it [multiplayer] at all, and FO3 will be suck and for the "masses."

In 1, F03's multiplayer will be bad; and in 2, FO3 will be bad. Did I get that right this time?

"SAY THEY DECIDE TO MAKE MULTIPLAYER?
I *BELIEVE* - it will come out the way I HATE IT.
I believe that all the things that the "resistance" said about multiplayer, will be true, and it will suck."

Common sense tells you that if you know you will hate it, you shouldn't want it. Shouldn't you not be asking for it then?

"IF THE WON'T MAKE IT, then they will make FO3 itself, the one they have to SELL by sending it out to a bigger consumer group"

Why do they need a bigger consumer group? Sure it's not going to be a cash cow, but the Fallout games do well enough on their own.

"Ya, because I'm saying - ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE EVENTUALLY BIS WILL DO THE WRONG THING, AND WON'T MAKE THE GOOD MULTIPLAYER, IT IS POSSIBLE, AND VERY EASY, to make one."

If it was simple and easy, then there would be a good multiplayer CRPG. Since there has yet to be one, it stands to reason that they aren't simple and easy.

"It means TO ME - that you are only saying this because you have a picture in ur head of what the multiplayer will come out like, and not a picture OF WHAT U WANT."

I want a great single player game. When something detracts from that experience, then it doesn't coniencide with my idea. That means, I don't want it.

"You like the lone warrior?

Yep.

"So you mean, you DO NOT TAKE NPCs."

Rarely, and not through the whole game.

"If you don't then ok, but you're part of a minority. I think most of the fallout players do prefer to take at least one NPC with them.
Or a dog...

A dog is a bit different from an NPC. I can't imagine another person controlling a dog. It would also completely ruin the game for if dog was to say, "Arf, we should kill that merchant," or "I need to eat dinner now, I'll catch up with you later."

"IF U DID TAKE NPCs with you - then ur not a "lone warrior" and you are playing with an NPT."

But, I always start off the game alone. I control every conversation in the game. I don't have to worry about NPCs being completely out of character.

"You will not HAVE NPCs. Your team will be your HUMAN-player friends.
They - THEMSELVES can choose wether or not to team up with you."

Exactly, so the CHA feature for # of followers is
useless. See the problem?

"An NPC will only act as its AI tells it, and therfor if u accidently shoot it can attack you."

Sounds to me like it would be better to improve the AI, than to waste time on multiplayer. That way I won't run into the 'accidently shooting someone' problem ever.

Skie
 
hehe

someone apparently doesn't like to read info :)

anyhow - skie
The last times i wrote 350 words in a reply, i had a little more time.
Now i don't.
So i'll make it short (is it possible) and to the point.

Look, just be safe... okay?
uh, hmm... uh...
Look, you tend to be too sarcastic, and to take whatever i say in the wrong form.
The REPLY i posted, was in that form - of a REPLY.
So most of the "issues" in it, where replies to your replies to the original post.
So sentences like (this time i'll mark it)

WARNING - NUCLEAR QUOTE!!!
-------------------------------------
*************************************
So what if they did two whole games.
*************************************

is a reply to when you said:
'They did two whole games, it's logical they will get tired'

Also, when i say - (QUOTE!!!) "I WANT MORE"
or when i say i played DAY and NIGHT, it should not be taken as : "I SAT, AND SIT EVERY SECOND AND DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE"

I studied, read, i did "go outside", saw movies blah blah.
I only wanted to say that FO1 was exactly the game i needed, and i got addicted to ALL THE THINGS ABOUT IT. I felt good just looking at the cover of the box, or reading the manual.

Anyhow.
this is getting "unshort".
All i wanted to say - basiclly, in the original post, is that MULTIPLAYER can be FUN.
I didn't say they would DO IT, since the thing you said about money and time, unfortunately is correct.
But here, Interplay went and produced TWO games that were directed to the relatively SMALL group of RPG players, and to the sub-group of people who like futuristic RPG (or post nuclear, post apocalyptic, whatever).
So maybe they still can do it, maybe it will be risky for them but they will still do it.
Maybe, and the more realistic answer, they won't.
But all i wanted to say, regardless of the technical things such as TIME, MONEY and the rest, MULTIPLAYER Fallout - if played by a guy who isn't an ever-lone-warrior.

MY position is not to be taken as an incouraging statement to make the multiplayer.
It is said from a "fanatic" fallout fan, who doesn't want Fallout to end in FO2 or possibly FO3. I want more of it.

Same thing about the FANTASY.
My "hatred" towards fantasy CRPGs is personal.
It's not really RATIONAL.
So if they decide to never make futurisitc RPGs again, it is most likely that only I and the ones who don't like fantasy - will suffer.

I posted my OPINION.
It's not a suggestion.
I shared my "feelings" in hope for someone who will either UNDERSTAND my position, or will think the same.

FO wasn't a bad game cause it had goals.
It would have been a BETTER game if it had no LINEAR goals.
Eventually all Fallout games that were played - were pretty much the same, inspite of the great differences between the paths, characters, and so on. When i say "no goals" i mean that one guy can finish by "finding his family" one can "kill a 'master'" and one by "crossing the atlantic" - in a game.

"forced to play" doesn't always mean SOMEONE IS FORCING ME, but i can also mean that IF I WANT TO PLAY (AND I DO) I *HAVE* (AS DEFAULT) to play only what's in the MARKET.
Unless I MAKE a game.
For now, it is unlikely.


HAH, u still didn't get that simple thing.
I was saying - FO3 WILL BE FOR THE MASSES ANYWAY, THEY WILL TRY TO MAKE IT MORE PROFITABLE THAN FO2 BUT -
*even* if they make a multiplayer, it will be for the masses.

IN SHORT- *WHATEVER THEY *WILL* DO IT WILL BE FOR THE MASSES. FOR THE BIGGER CONSUMER GROUP.*

(i makred WILL so u won't connect this to FO2 or 1)

NOW U UNDERSTAND?
They will make a game for the masses, but even if they will add a multiplayer to it (which - "hey, u wanted multiplayer? you got one!") i assume it won't be the type i'm talkin about.


Being practical IN THIS CASE, will get me nowhere.
Being OPEN-MINDED and CREATIVE on the other hand, will make IDEAS for MYSELF for the game that I WILL MAKE when I'm older.
Market Shmarket.
It will be a "side-projecT" and i will do it for 5 or so years, WHILE doing other games.
Or, in the rare case, it will push people to be creative and open-minded and NOT too-realistic-n-practical, and can even lead to hopefully, a slight change at BIS :)

Who can invent an aeroplane, if not a man who dreams of flying.

(don't give me one of your sarcastic answers like: " a scientist who knows about aerodynamics and has a technician with him")

heh.

Oright, i think i'll finish with this.
Short? hah.

Klayhamn - ThieFoRent
 
RE: hehe

>someone apparently doesn't like to read
>info :)
>
>anyhow - skie
>The last times i wrote 350
>words in a reply, i
>had a little more time.
>
>Now i don't.
>So i'll make it short (is
>it possible) and to the
>point.
>
>Look, just be safe... okay?
>uh, hmm... uh...
>Look, you tend to be too
>sarcastic, and to take whatever
>i say in the wrong
>form.
>The REPLY i posted, was in
>that form - of a
>REPLY.
>So most of the "issues" in
>it, where replies to your
>replies to the original post.
>
>So sentences like (this time i'll
>mark it)
>
>WARNING - NUCLEAR QUOTE!!!
>-------------------------------------
>*************************************
>So what if they did two
>whole games.
>*************************************
>
>is a reply to when you
>said:
>'They did two whole games, it's
>logical they will get tired'
>
>
>Also, when i say - (QUOTE!!!)
>"I WANT MORE"
>or when i say i played
>DAY and NIGHT, it should
>not be taken as :
>"I SAT, AND SIT EVERY
>SECOND AND DON'T DO ANYTHING
>ELSE"
>
>I studied, read, i did "go
>outside", saw movies blah blah.
>
>I only wanted to say that
>FO1 was exactly the game
>i needed, and i got
>addicted to ALL THE THINGS
>ABOUT IT. I felt good
>just looking at the cover
>of the box, or reading
>the manual.

Yeah maybe so, but that isn't really relevant to this discussion, is it? The thing Skie was trying to say is that it wasn't that crazy that BIS was tired of fallout after just developing two games in that universe. If Black Isle would've done Fallout 3 right after Fallout 2 the game most likely would not have been good. To illustrate what I mean I'm going to quote Scott Warner from Team Torment. In his notes on the Dirty.org homepage he said: "There’s a complacent trap that people in creative fields fall into when they find their niche. They become repetitive with their vision, ultimately churn out more & more product, and their original interest in pushing the limits and exploring new methods of expression gets curtailed by their own comfortable design climate and lifestyle."

That is exactly what would have happened if BIS had made FO3 right after the second part. BIS needed to do something else after Fallout 2 if they didn't want their creative fire to burn out. And what they did was creating the great Planescape: Torment. A game that offers a real roleplaying experience that is just as good as the one in the fallout games, if not better (a little off-topic there, but I can't help but praise PS:T).

So what I'm saying is be glad that they took some time off from the fallout universe. Because when Fallout 3 finally gets announced you know that they're going to start on that game with a fresh perspectiv and the will to make it a game that will be the best roleplaying experience ever.

Whether or not it will have multiplayer we will see (my bet is it won't), but since Black Isle hasn't made a bad game yet (note that Baldur's Gate was developed by Bioware mainly, not by BIS). I have good faith in that whatever they develop will be good.
 
RE: HAHAHA

>No, not a GAME-OF-LIFE, play, eat,
>shit, drink, get a job...
>
>but a *TECHNOLOGY* that will enable
>you to play a game
>(or other stuff) THAT IN
>VISUAL ASPECT, IS SIMILAR TO
>WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM
>YOUR HUMAN EYES - EXTREMELY
>HIGH DETAIL AND "RESOLUTION" ETC.

oh my, oh my, stupid me... too bad i can't reload my last savegame in this reality.. hmm, maybe i should leave my pc alone for a while...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top