radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
How many games are worse off for tacked on shit MP. Those 10 devs could be fixing real bugs.
I like dark souls... im not a complete shut in
Fallout 4
- Thread starter Regime
- Start date
I like dark souls... im not a complete shut in
You have to be stupid, Co Op games have been around forever.
All you are doing is making the game scale to how many players there are in the game..... It's not rocket science...
It's the same damn game you get in single player you are just adding, an extra player.
Tacked on MP is when they add a mode for multiplayer. I.E. the multiplayer mode in Inquisition
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
I doubt i am the one who is stupid in this particular situation.
To make the game like you want you need to build it from the ground up to be MP. Aka fucking borderlands. I liked borderlands. Borderlands is fine. Madden MP is fine. Dragon age MP is not fine, I agree with that.
You cant just make monsters 1.5x times hps and drop twice the loot and call it a day. Especially if it is going to run on the same engine as all those good Bethesda Games. SKYRIM would be ass multiplayer. The games they make are about the space between firefights And dragon kills dude. Also i would hate to be the guy waiting on dialogue wheels while the host gets a quest. if you want coop play a fucking shooter with your other 14 year old buddies. there are only a million generic ones out there that have exactly what you need. Let fallout be Fallout.
Bioware already solved how to do co op quests and Dialogue decisions in SWOR, and scaling up content to a certain amount of players is not that difficult.
You sir are in a dieing race of out of touch over the hill gamers, and for the record there are not that many co op online games that are not competitive.
Like I said adding co op does not effect your shut in experience at all. You still get your single player game, nothing changes on your end.
You sir are in a dieing race of out of touch over the hill gamers, and for the record there are not that many co op online games that are not competitive.
Like I said adding co op does not effect your shut in experience at all. You still get your single player game, nothing changes on your end.
- 17,781
- 25,897
When a game has a Co-Op option, it has to be balanced for the possibility of a Co-Op encounter by the players, and this affects the single player experience in several subtle ways. It's not the end of the world or anything, but to be honest, I would rather (for this series) they not even THINK about making FaceFuxx0r6969 happy. Abandon him as a market. You aren't going to get his money unless you abandon mine. Don't go full retard and insult his preference for Co-Op rocket jumping, just ask that he go play his game in his stadium. You won't ever see me asking for a better more fleshed out single player experience from Call of Duty, that would be ridiculous. An analogy for me would be that we play baseball outside and we play monoploy inside, and there's no need or reason to try to make a baseball friendly family room or a monopoly friendly pitcher's mound.
If Fallout is baseball, COD is monopoly. Or vice-versa. They happily coexist in separate spaces and neither one of them is bad.
If Fallout is baseball, COD is monopoly. Or vice-versa. They happily coexist in separate spaces and neither one of them is bad.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
I argue that star wars didnt solve anything. Its also a MMO that is designed from the ground up to be a MP experience. Fallout is not. Its a survival game. Its a roleplaying game. Its a fakey fps with stat rolls to hit. you can skillup one player to be perfect. It by design goes against those MMO principals. If they want to make a MMO that is all well and good. But look no further than Elder Scrolls online for how that goes. That game is just like skyrim man!
No you want them to appear in different spaces when the gaming community is clearly moving to more social landscapes. We finally have the infrastructure to support it, and the hardware with these newer consoles.
If anything this gives you more ways to play a game after the single player experience.
Also your analogies are assinine.
This has nothing to do with an MMO, and in Fallout 3 you weren't exactly the last human standing. Replace the bots with a human player, and there is no difference. Decide you want to go it alone, and the game still has the single player experience for you.
You guy act like you've never played a co op game before in your life.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
Eq eq2 swtor dark souls dark souls 2 WoW A thousand brown shooters. I was into S4 league for a minute. All Maddens besides 12 I loved quake 3 arena Borderlands
I have lead guilds. I have lead leaderboards. I have developed raid strats. My ass knows coop. My ass knows MMO. My ass knows more about game theroy than your 14 year old troll ass. Take your self back to Dr Marios rickshaw thread son. You are playing checkers with a chess master.
- 17,781
- 25,897
You misunderstand. I don't want them to exist in separate spaces, they alreadydoexist in separate spaces.
A certain subset of the gaming community can keep getting franchises to open themselves up to FaceFuxx0r6969, and another subset of the gaming community will continue to retreat from those franchises and spend their money elsewhere. These two markets are already separate and nothing short of holding a gun to someone's head can ever change that.
If Fallout must sacrifice itself to the voracious appetites of the 'more social' gaming community represented by WarbladezBloodsword, then so be it. Bethesda can have his money instead of mine. That is certainly their choice and perhaps it is the fiscally wise one. But there will always be my desire to stay away from Fuxx0rBoxx0r and, as it turns out, my money is just as green. I exist in a separate space of the market.
A certain subset of the gaming community can keep getting franchises to open themselves up to FaceFuxx0r6969, and another subset of the gaming community will continue to retreat from those franchises and spend their money elsewhere. These two markets are already separate and nothing short of holding a gun to someone's head can ever change that.
If Fallout must sacrifice itself to the voracious appetites of the 'more social' gaming community represented by WarbladezBloodsword, then so be it. Bethesda can have his money instead of mine. That is certainly their choice and perhaps it is the fiscally wise one. But there will always be my desire to stay away from Fuxx0rBoxx0r and, as it turns out, my money is just as green. I exist in a separate space of the market.
Amzin
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 2,917
- 361
There's so many things in the way of turning New Vegas/FO3 into co-op games that I don't even know where to begin. In fact, I won't, because no one will change their mind. But I have AVOIDED buying games before because they cut or didn't have co-op, and I would probably avoid the next Fallout if it DID include Fallout because they would HAVE to implement decisions around co-op being a part of the game. From how dialogue and story progressed to "zones" (which are annoying in BL and thankfully nonexistent in FO) - saying "you can just scale it" shows an immense ignorance of game design and actual functionality as well
And this has nothing to do with an MMO. Why you keep bringing up MMO's and Competitive shooters is beyond me
Were talking Co-op and you are bringing in 2 genres that don't even remotely coincide with that. You have to be trolling, no one could be that stupid.
Holy shit can you use paragraphs bro?? The wall of text is just ridiculous, are you posting from your phone...
And wrong some games with open worlds are trying already. Dying Light, Boderlands,Far Cry etc. There not tacking on multiplayer as a separate mode, they are incorporating it into the game as a different way to play it, but not forcing you to do either one.
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
As games built from the ground up to be MP. And even then the design will be skewed to MP in many ways. Also the games story is designed around MP. Which takes away from a single player isolated experience like fallout. Why not make a squad based game around the brotherhood of steel if thats the case.
God you are such an idiot and you insult people so well child. Maybe you can doxx me for the lols next.
- 17,781
- 25,897
Actually I'm typing on a 14 inch desktop. So maybe the paragraphs don't seem as big to my eyes. I fixed it.
I am happy for Dying Light and Borderlands and Far Cry. Good for them. In fact, I played Borderlands 1 and I thought it was great. But when I play Fallout, I am not looking for a Borderlands experience. I am looking for a Fallout experience. And Fallout is a lonely sort of story that plays a bit slower.
I could maybe imagine a game that had Fallout's theme placed in a Borderlands world or stadium, but that game would not be what I would be looking for when I say that I want more Fallout. Fallout is what it is because they don't eventryto think about making it Co-Op. If they did, it would stop being the thing I crave. It would maybe still be a good thing, but it would not be the thing that would scratch my itch. I want the feel that a lonely single player game like Fallout can give you. I want Tuco's Fallout.
Fallout: Borderlands might actually be a really cool game if it were ever made, but it runs the risk of not getting my money because that is not what I expect when I buy a Fallout game. It would be like buying a Tom Clancy book called 'Parachuting out of Helicopters and Shooting People in the Face' and opening it up and finding out that it is about a 16th century French debutante of the King's court and her long term goal of getting the Duke of Anjou to marry her sister.
Any of these open world off the rails games can inc-operate co-op very easily without impeding the way you want to play the game.
Boderlands didn't have close to the story of a Fallout game because it was trying to match a more diablo type gameplay. There is no reason any of these type of games can't have co op now. It is no longer a hardware concern.
For instance, we will take the recent game Dragon Age inquisition. A game that is entirely open world. A game that at any point you can take control of any section of your party. There is no reason that it couldn't have up to 4 players at any point of that game without ruining anything.
Instead of bots they are run by your friends. Same thing with GTA5, a game that always has you working with a partner that is AI. Same with Dragon's Dogma
If your argument was that The last of us should not be Co Op then I would agree. It is not an open world game, and it is very much on rails with you playing the protagonist. It would be very difficult to add another player in a genre like that.
Fallout would still be your single player game, it would just give you the option if you wanted to for someone to be in that huge world with you.
Fallout 3 was anything but lonely from an AI/Bot standpoint.
- 17,781
- 25,897
And again, that's all fine and good but they won't get my money for it. I'm not hating on Co-Op gaming as a thing, I am just loving on a franchise. A franchise that has never cared about the Co-Op scene. Like I said, the way it affects the experience is subtle, and is found mostly in the story and the pacing, but is it still enough to sort of 'ruin' (although I hesitate to use that word) the experience.