Fallout Online: Coming Soon?

[MyNameDidntFit]

OK. So, I'm not sure how many of you are aware, but there's been a whole lot of speculation, mixed with very little fact, about the Interplay V Bethesda legal battle regarding who holds the license to the Fallout IP. Anyway, basic gist is this: Bethesda were given the rights to the IP, barring a Fallout MMO, which Interplay were allowed to keep under the condition that it was in development by April. Now, Bethesda are claiming that Interplay breached this agreement and rabble rabble so on and so forth.

But that's the boring stuff for lawyers to deal with, not us. So here's the fun part: Interplay have not only set up a teaser website, but are also promoting 'Fallout Online' (until recently 'Project V13') from their website (http://www.interplay.com):

http://www.interplay.com/images/index_main_banner.png (http://fallout-on-line.com/)

The teaser website (http://fallout-on-line.com/) doesn't have much; a desktop with a gun, some books, a reference to The Master, Brahmin and some other random bits and bobs. That shows up for a bit before a subscription form/beta opt-in pops up and obscures it. Fill that out and you're dumped at the Interplay forums. From what I've heard (and experienced) the site is notoriously unreliable and slow across all browsers, but don't let that deter you if you're interested.

Anyway. It's looking good. Maybe we'll actually see some progress and those lawyery bastards will get out of the way of this lovely, lovely piece of software-to-be.

So, other than Konnie, who either already knows all this, or will be ecstatic, anyone got any thoughts on this shebang?

[Jason]

Fallout has massive potential as an MMO. It's got a rich backstory, which is essential for any successful MMO, and the fanbase is massive. However, Interplay have to deliver big time with this, because they'll only get one shot at it. Age of Conan screwed up royally by releasing a buggy and unstable game and expecting players to pay while they sorted their act out. It didn't work for them, and it's unlikely to work even for something as popular as Fallout. After all the legal wrangling, it'd be a tragedy if they screwed it up now.

[Lance]

Is it just me (and I LOVE Fallout) or does this seem a really bad idea for MMOs which are generally bad to begin with?

I mean, you have a post apocalyptic world, with FEW survivors - and dump say, 13,000 (just guessing here) people in it running around trying to kill everything in sight, including each other. What drew me to Fallout 3 was that you're just one guy running around this massive landscape with little/no people in it trying to find everything. In any MMO, you're going to have someone on every hill or building with a sniper trying to blow your head off.

That doesn't scream post-apocalyptic to me.

I may be wrong, and it may be a fantastic game, but I'll steer clear of anything that says MMO thanks :D

[Jason]

Ah, but any MMO worth its salt will have safeguards in place to prevent 'unauthorised' PvP in safe zones. This is to prevent aforementioned 'asshole snipers' (which isn't a slang term for anything!) from killing people left, right and centre.

As for 13,000 players, as long as the maps/areas are big enough, there's no reason this would be an issue. EVE Online runs 50,000 players on a single server, and apart from a couple of 'trade hubs', things are very rarely crowded.

What I hope they don't do is to repaint World of Warcraft in brown colours, crowbar in a couple of guns and call it a Fallout MMO. As Lance touched on, the entire feel of Fallout revolves around the fact you're alone. There shouldn't be missions where you have to 'party up' or something, or if there are, they should be limited to a maximum of two or three.

[Archangel]

Make a large enough world map (cover perhaps the large majority of a state or, hell, several with a transport system between the major cities in each or the like), throw in some instancing here and there (not that I'm much of a fan of instancing. Kinda defeats the purpose of an MMO) or at least different realms so that not all players are in the one server, and overpopulation won't be an issue.

Having your post-apocalyptic world populated with a handful of other players that will quite merrily try to shoot your nads off would compliment the atmosphere very nicely I'd say. You just can't have too many people that want to shoot your nads off. Also, the party system could work extremely well if you did it just right. After all, you're in a post-apocalyptic world, and when there's just you all alone, it's difficult enough to scavenge the resources you need. You'd have to increase the loot when there are more people so that it's still possible to party up and survive, but to it to an extent that there's less per person.
So, 1 person gets 100% loot. 2 people get 170%, 3 get 200%, 4 get 220% etc or somesuch. So when you have 3 people in a party, you'll get more loot than you would alone, but the equivalent amount means that one dude in your party is actually getting nothing, making ammo and such alot more scarce.

But anyway, the concept of a Fallout MMO has the potential to be awesome, or to be blergh and destroy the series. Here's hoping for the former.

[Lance]

You just can't have too many people that want to shoot your nads off.

That's what I'm worried about - Too many people in one place would ruin the atmosphere, but you're right, doing it right - spread out over a few states, MASSIVE maps, there may be hope.

But anyway, the concept of a Fallout MMO has the potential to be awesome, or to be blergh and destroy the series. Here's hoping for the former.

100% agreed - I don't want this to end like Michael Jordan's career.

But if any of you guys joined, I'd love to hear how it goes. If it's everything we want, I'll be on it like a bunny in heat.

[Jason]

There definitely needs to be some PvP, or it'd basically be 20,000 people all playing a singleplayer game at once. The other thing is that players are lightning-quick to form and adapt ad-hoc societies in MMO games.
No sooner do you implement safe zones in major towns/cities where attacking players is punished then you'll have a guild/gang/clan of bandits who will hang out on the main roads between major cities looking to ambush travellers. In pretty short order, you'll probably find a group of bounty hunters or enforcers going out there and hunting them down, as well as high-level players offering to escort beginners safely between cities for money. I'm sure sociology students would have a field day with the early stages of an MMO.

[Konrad]

So, other than Konnie, who either already knows all this, or will be ecstatic, anyone got any thoughts on this shebang?

I uh... Don't like MMOs and do not care for this at all? >_>


I registered though, just in case it turns out to be Free, Microtransaction based or the best thing since sliced bread.

[MyNameDidntFit]

I uh... Don't like MMOs and do not care for this at all? >_>

I thought you'd be all over it 'cause it's Fallout and by the guys that did the originals. But obviously your fanboyism isn't as intense as you say ;)

[Konrad]

Surprisingly, I'm more pumped for New Vegas. But by the time they start releasing screenshots and an actual beta I might be all giddy about this too.

Though frankly, it's New Vegas that I see as "done by the guys that did the originals". Fallout was only published by Interplay, and developed by Black Isle which fell apart and from it's remains formed Obsidian. I'm not sure how many of the devs remained with Interplay, and do to this day - but to me Obsidian is the new Black Isle, and it really shows considering the glitchy fuckfest that apparently didn't stop Alpha Protocol from being awesome.

[MyNameDidntFit]

We're opposites then, 'cause I can't get excited for what isn't showing anything about itself than 'FO3 expansion'.

[Archangel]

Not that you've played FO3 yet.

[Konrad]

We're opposites then, 'cause I can't get excited for what isn't showing anything about itself than 'FO3 expansion'.

Other than: "Fallout 3 done by the guys who actually know how to do Fallout". :p