Fallout MMORPG? Why not!

[Ed the Monkey]

Your concepts are so set that you can't even comprehend other argumets that fallout outside the realm of "fallout sucks." If Fallout Online is an impossiblity than why didn't you logically state that before instead of attacking theoretically gameplay that you obviously havn't even considered at all. I honestly don't think that anyone is reading anyone else's posts in here besides maybe me... I think you're all just clipping and pasting angerly because you can't possibly comprehend the concept that maybe you're wrong. I don't want to see fallout online as the next title... but I'm not really sure that there can be a million titles in the Fallout series, at some point it has to end... after the fuel has burnt out, then what exists can be gathered up and placed into an MMORPG. A propetually new fallout world would be a nice thing once we KNOW that there won't be any new fallouts. Maybe it shouldn't be made, whatever... but there's a concept called logical debate that seems to have slipped by you. You see, it's where two or more parties present concepts to each other, and the sides think about the issue and calmly work it out. If there is some impossiblity then it is presented first, and concepts are adjusted from there. When one party holds a single concept and cannot rationalize the other side's opinion debate fails. You cling to your concept of how awful fallout online will be because it is impossible, not because it will acutally be awful. What i've been trying to do is debate and come to a concept that might be mutually acceptable, what you've been doing is clipping phrases from my posts and attacking me with them. This isn't debate, this is mindless slander. But oh well, I highly doubt you have the capablity for civilized discussion... I think you have serious emotional problems.

[Tank]

Ed, I'll agree with you- however, this subject has been turned over and over until it got dizzy- then it puked and we all saw what it was made of. The fact still remain; a Fallout Online would just not work like Fallout. No matter what you do, the vast distances, SPECIAL, half the skills, etc would not be bable to be implemented. What you're left with is a completely new game with the name Fallout smacked on it. So why not just call it something else when it isn't really Fallout?

[Rosh]

Your concepts are so set that you can't even comprehend other argumets that fallout outside the realm of "fallout sucks."

Mouth-stuffing.

If Fallout Online is an impossiblity than why didn't you logically state that before instead of attacking theoretically gameplay that you obviously havn't even considered at all.

A bullshit straw man and more mouth-stuffing. To those in the know, you've now made yourself look quite a fool, as this argument has been going on for years, over many sites. Including the old DAC, NMA, and V13. Trust me, you've brought up nothing new that previously clueless idealists haven't already. Hey, can you tell me what the advantages and disadvantages of a "dumb client" are? I didn't think so.

I honestly don't think that anyone is reading anyone else's posts in here besides maybe me... I think you're all just clipping and pasting angerly because you can't possibly comprehend the concept that maybe you're wrong.

Yet more bullshit and sniveling.

I don't want to see fallout online as the next title... but I'm not really sure that there can be a million titles in the Fallout series, at some point it has to end... after the fuel has burnt out, then what exists can be gathered up and placed into an MMORPG. A propetually new fallout world would be a nice thing once we KNOW that there won't be any new fallouts. Maybe it shouldn't be made, whatever... but there's a concept called logical debate that seems to have slipped by you.

Mouth-stuffing and straw men are a piss-poor "tactic" to use. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Rest of the bullshit snipped....

Do you have any experience with how to construct, operate, and in general, develop a MMORPG? I've done such for more than 15 years. If you cannot see where a MMORPG would have no semblence whatsoever to Fallout and what makes up Fallout (unless you happen to be a munchkin or a Roll Player), then you need to go buy yourself a clue. MMORPGs are definitively lacking in depth as they have to keep track of thousands of players at once while they play the game, and it's also wasted effort if they make something for a niche audience. They also have to be approachable for many kinda of other players, as the players are from other game genres and MMORPGs are their first introduction to the "CRPG" genre as a friend brought them into it. The depth of Fallout would be an unmarketable idea in a MMORPG, as it would require an immense amount of work, much more than most MMORPGs out there. Didn't you pay attention to where I noted that the costs and development times (mostly due to weeding out all the places where exploits could hapen, as if most MMORPGs don't already have enough) would have to be substantially larger, or were you too busy kvetching your ass off? Did you also fail to pay attention to where I noted that MMORPGs have to cater to the widest audience possible for financial reasons, or were you too busy kvetching your ass off? Or are you proposing that Fallout be skullfucked into some shallow hack and slash game with just the name of Fallout slapped on the box? The last sounds more likely.

In that case, go play Anarchy Online. There wouldn't be a desolate wasteland setting for FOOL to resemble, as there'd be hundreds of shitheads scrubbing their collective asses across the servers for the hell of it, and because they aren't really doing anything wrong according to the AUP. The admins couldn't kick them for minor stuff, because they need the income. Even so, it's not much of a wasteland if there's thousands of fighters milling around the cities and locations. So much for the shanty town setting, wth dozens of fighters all camped around the merchants or quest actors. :roll:

The ability to support complex quests that can be solved in different ways while also having zero affect upon the world at large would at most be possible. Instead of world-changing quests, you could farm the same ones over and over because they are built for the thousands of players to each take advantage of, character attributes permitting. They are either put on time-delay or randomized so that the player doesn't get done with a number of quests and then have nothing to do aside from camping spawns.

In this, key points of Fallout would have to be butchered. CHA would be nearly useless, as who would put in points into that stat when they could put points into other stats that would make them a better fighter and/or carry more raided equipment from the idealistic MMORPG newbies like yourself who thought that social skills or putting points into Basketweaving skills might really have a viable part of the game, and they got killed and looted by the better crafted fighter character.

Instead of bitching on how people loathe the idea from years of experience in MMORPGs and game design, go out and get a clue on how MMORPGs work and get past the "It would be kewl!" stage. At least Methidox did so after a while, I guess we need to wait until you go out and get some experience as well. Tank brought up a good point. If it's not going to have any facsimile to Fallout, why call it Fallout at all unless you are one of the aformentioned fan-boys who would buy a turd if it had "Fallout: The Dried Up Turd" carved on it?

C-riz brought up an example that kind of kills one of his older points. Players do make up a MMORPG, for the social aspect. In that case, Ragnarok Online is a shithole already, moreso than any other free beta I've seen. A hell of a lot worse than T4C's beta, AC's beta, and UO's beta all included.

[Strap]

FOOL is a fitting acronym...

go play diablo2 for a few months, and you will see how friggin boring it gets, VERY BORING

there will be like level 99 guys that will PK your starter charactor in less than a half a shot. everyone would have like an M72, APA, and everything else that is the best. no fun... no fun