I wonder that in F3 ...

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:17 am

Garf wrote:Sounds like what you're hinting at is an MMORPG of Fallout..

Oh god no.

Agreed.

Evil Natured Robot · Post by **Evil Natured Robot** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:44 am

FallOut OnLine = FOOL = FOOLish.

Bad idea, it's been discussed and put to death. Nobody wants to play a game of Fallout with the asshats that inhabit MMORPGs.

Obsydian · Post by **Obsydian** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:06 am

like it was say that is no funding to do MMORPG ...

Dark_Machine · Post by **Dark_Machine** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:42 am

It was dead, Obsydian. The topic was dead, everyone had forgotten it, now you bring the shuddering corpse back from the grave. What the hell were you thinking?

The only possible way that Fallout could ever go decently into an MMO-type of experience would be something along the lines of The Sims, where everyone plays a little character in a little place, doing little things that revolve around little plots. Nothing epic could ever be accomplished by anyone, which would ruin the atmosphere of Fallout, because nobody wants to play in a Post Apocalyptic wasteland unless they can kill the bad guys (or good guys, depending on your taste), and implenting that would bring about the FOOL concept, mentioned above. It's just not possible.

Now what I'd really like to see is a Fallout Sims :wicked: Where you build up your own Post Apoc township, enter trade and barter agreements with the neighboring establishments. Set up trade routes for Jet to New Reno or uranium from Broken Hills. Hell, trade guns with the Enclave if you want. That'd be pretty sweet, but it would also ruin the atmosphere of Fallout, so the concept will go into the grave.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:56 am

I'm fine with FO: sims style. with some conditions:
1. Strictly regulated. EQ style with official mods/admins.
2. Pay-to-Play. This weeds out (no pun intended) those damn 15 year olds that take all the fun out of titles like Diablo II, CS, and (insert MMOG here).
3. it could not be done by any big-name corporation. they would creat another FO:POS in their ultimate search for money.
4. Made as an add-on or a (fat chance) mod. If it were included in the origonal, they would undoubtedly spend a lot of time on it, ruining/unbalancing the base game.

I'll re-phrase these later, my heads in the crapper...

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:17 am

Personally, if they were going to include multiplayer, I'de hope it'de be handled more like Buldars gate. It's kept between friends, you know everyone most likely and there can still be a plotline and everything that is atleast the F3 storyline. I'm all against a multiplayer where everyone plays together or just goes deathmatch with their characters. Ever play counterstrike? I don't know about you, but I'm tired cheaters and 12 year olds with chips on their shoulders, especially since me kicking their ass seems to somehow make me gay for some still unexplained reason. Even more reason for not having any other multiplayer besides the one used in BG is that clans would develop and most people in clans are just elitist moron's who aren't all that elite and cry fowl everytime someone else beats them.

On the other hand, I'm against multiplayer ((even though it offers fun and the ability to play with friends)) for afew reasons. One is that, as previousily mentioned, it'de take away the developers time towards the single player mode and the story and such, which is the reason I'm buying the game. The other reason is simply play balance issues. I'll leave these to your imagination, but personally, I'de rather have a game that plays and plays well then one with a nifty tacked on feature of playing with other people.

Duck and Cover

I wonder that in F3 ...

Dog?