Fallout 4, Anyone?

[Jayce Dimmer]

Now I'm curious. How the hell would multiplayer ruin modding? It appears to be a complete non sequitur.

[bjornk]

Maybe it's Wasteland 2?

 

It's going to be a turn-based, team-based, tactical game in a post-apocalyptic setting, pretty much a mixture of Jagged Alliance and Fallout, two of my favorite games of all time. I'm much more excited about this than any other Fallout sequel.

[juliojakers]

if its a multiplayer ... It will be sucks ...

why .. because there will be not so much mods for multiplayer games like bethesda game before ...

if a multiplayer game have a mods, that mean is cheats on multiplayer game....

I hope its not multiplayer... so we can freely mod their games...

I love bethesda game because they let people mod their game...

and thats the fact that they success on their selling...

[Jayce Dimmer]

...You can mod a game that has multiplayer with the same limits imposed by single player modding. Check out NWN for crying out loud.

[Guest endgameaddiction]

I don't care for multiplayer just as much as I don't care for a Fallout MMO. Rather they keep the games offline. And the game is easy enough single player. With or without companions.

 

I just cannot picture how a MMO would work with the way the game is. Create a PVP? That'll get boring too quickly. Wars between factions? That'll get boring. Implement a story line? How far and driven will that go before it starts to lack interests... And the fact of playing a Fallout MMO with vanilla settings doesn't exactly seem like something I ever want to experience. Yeah, sure I can see mods created for a Fallout MMO, but I rather see Bethsoft let us showcase mods with each players on the server.

 

Just keep Fallout 4, Fallout bananas or what ever it will be called offline. No sense of seeing another MMO by them. Still need to see how TES will become. As many others and I myself suspect it will be a massive bug fail at launch. Lets hope not as fail as FF14 was for the sake of you TES fans out there.

[Jayce Dimmer]

Multiplayer game != MMO. Multiplayer generally means playing with a couple of folk. How you got MMO from that...Must be thinking too hard.

 

And it's easy to implement in an enjoyable way. You know how you can get companions?

 

What if...Just what if, the other player would create their own character and function as a companion for the first? Or even better, allow the two to game in the same environment, no matter whom was the first player.

 

On the subject of the game getting easier; *Drum roll* MODS!

[DoctaSax]

...You can mod a game that has multiplayer with the same limits imposed by single player modding. Check out NWN for crying out loud.

 

Timescale, physics, movement speed, weather, combat styles, AI, bullet time, healing rates, encumbrance, über-gear?

[Jayce Dimmer]

Indeed 'tis possible. I mean, Skyrim Online is coming along nicely; physics and all. And that's just a group of hobbyists.

[Kendo 2]

Timescale, physics, movement speed, weather, combat styles, AI, bullet time, healing rates, encumbrance, über-gear?

Not to mention all of the overhauls people love to make and play with.  Don't see how those would jive with multiplayer unless everyone used them.

[Jayce Dimmer]

Not to mention all of the overhauls people love to make and play with.  Don't see how those would jive with multiplayer unless everyone used them.

 

 

Get player 2 to have the same mods. Problem solved.

[DoctaSax]

It wouldn't just have to be the same mods but the same settings too - how would you ensure fair play in that kind of environment? The only practical way is making all that stuff unmoddable.

[Ark of Truth]

So apparently Fallout 4 is a hoax?

 

http://www.ign.com/a...ouncements-soon

[maybenexttime]

It wouldn't just have to be the same mods but the same settings too - how would you ensure fair play in that kind of environment? The only practical way is making all that stuff unmoddable.

I think it's possible but the only thing is that there will only be very small group of mods that can be used for co op. You won't have the freedom of installing any mod you want. But perhaps its better if the game was just for single player.

[DoctaSax]

But perhaps its better if the game was just for single player.

Truer words have never been spoken, except maybe for "it's not the size that counts but what you do with it".

Ahem.

Anyway so how about this hoax thing? Maybe the hoax is a hoax? Let's diversify the speculation here...

 

[jimdandy28]

So apparently Fallout 4 is a hoax?

 

http://www.ign.com/a...ouncements-soon

All that says is that they won't be announcing anything at VGX. It does not mean its a hoax.

[jonas_opines]

 

But perhaps its better if the game was just for single player.

Truer words have never been spoken, except maybe for "it's not the size that counts but what you do with it".

Ahem.

Anyway so how about this hoax thing? Maybe the hoax is a hoax? Let's diversify the speculation here...

 

 

[jonas_opines]

 

It wouldn't just have to be the same mods but the same settings too - how would you ensure fair play in that kind of environment? The only practical way is making all that stuff unmoddable.

I think it's possible but the only thing is that there will only be very small group of mods that can be used for co op. You won't have the freedom of installing any mod you want. But perhaps its better if the game was just for single player.

 

 

I suppose if they did a Fallout Online it would be all right, as long as it was totally separate.  But I just don't play well with others, for the most part.  

 

The main problem though, is that Fallout Online would have to go by the acronym FOO.  Which would thus invoke the wrath of Dave Grohl.  And nobody wants that.

[Jayce Dimmer]

It wouldn't just have to be the same mods but the same settings too - how would you ensure fair play in that kind of environment? The only practical way is making all that stuff unmoddable.

 

You can't distinguish MASSIVELY ONLINE MULTIPLAYER from MULTIPLAYER can you?

 

And as for settings, guess what? They don't matter. Like in every other damn game, multiplayer or not.

 

Ruddy hell the reasoning behind alot of the "I don't want multiplayer" advocationaries is just pathetically nonsensical.

[DoctaSax]

You can't distinguish MASSIVELY ONLINE MULTIPLAYER from MULTIPLAYER can you?

 

And as for settings, guess what? They don't matter. Like in every other damn game, multiplayer or not.

 

Ruddy hell the reasoning behind alot of the "I don't want multiplayer" advocationaries is just pathetically nonsensical.

Check your superiority complex and argue the point; all I see from you is "people disagree with me so they're stupid" and how's that for pathetic? You said "the same limits as a single player game"; I'm pointing out the extensiveness of moddability of single player rpgs like the ones we mod here, and seriously question how any multiplayer game can be exactly as moddable and modded to the full in a play session, while ensuring fair play in MMO & complete compatibility in whatever other non-single-player mode exists. Also, with settings I meant mod settings affecting gameplay elements like the ones I brought up, not vanilla settings like screen resolution. 

Your examples are unconvincing; a quick look at NWN mods doesn't show me anything serious in the way of gameplay mods along the lines of what I mentioned, and pointing to a fledgling MP mod for a single-player game as an example of the moddability of multiplayer games has to be some sort of joke. Other than that, I don't see much argumentation, so if you fail to convince me, maybe do something about that instead of assuming I'm just too slow to follow.

 

 

 

[Jayce Dimmer]

 

Check your superiority complex and argue the point; all I see from you is "people disagree with me so they're stupid" and how's that for pathetic? You said "the same limits as a single player game"; I'm pointing out the extensiveness of moddability of single player rpgs like the ones we mod here, and seriously question how any multiplayer game can be exactly as moddable and modded to the full in a play session, while ensuring fair play in MMO & complete compatibility in whatever other non-single-player mode exists. Also, with settings I meant mod settings affecting gameplay elements like the ones I brought up, not vanilla settings like screen resolution. 

Your examples are unconvincing; a quick look at NWN mods doesn't show me anything serious in the way of gameplay mods along the lines of what I mentioned, and pointing to a fledgling MP mod for a single-player game as an example of the moddability of multiplayer games has to be some sort of joke. Other than that, I don't see much argumentation, so if you fail to convince me, maybe do something about that instead of assuming I'm just too slow to follow.

 

 

Oh my. Need I type it out for you again? Multiplayer IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with Massively Multiplayer Online. How you got the idea that I was supporting an MMO rendition of Fallout is beyond me, and I did call out the reasoning behind that train of thought. Do tell me what your rationale was for coming to that conclusion.

 

A quick look? Must have been blind when you looked, then. Check out the Arelith persistent world server for a prime example.

 

Pointing out the hobbyist project Skyrim Online was to point out that Physics, quests, AI and all that can be synced. And if you're a 100-man strong gaming studio, it would be done with relative ease. While initially intended not to be used as an example for the moddability of multiplayer games, it does become a rather good one. With Skyrim Online you can use the CK to do whatever you were able to do for single player, but with a couple of additions required so as to make your mod compatible for the multiplayer component.

 

Too slow to follow? I'm asking how would multiplayer impact on the moddability of the game. So far, people initiated the debate with little more than 'It will reduce moddability and I don't like it' without any explanation. Then people go ahead and assume that mutliplayer, I.E playing with more than one person, is the exact same as an MMO. Which it isn't. At all.

 

I'm asking these folk how multiplayer would reduce moddability. Yet to find one argument for it.

[jimdandy28]

Oh my. Need I type it out for you again? Multiplayer IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with Massively Multiplayer Online. How you got the idea that I was supporting an MMO rendition of Fallout is beyond me, and I did call out the reasoning behind that train of thought. Do tell me what your rationale was for coming to that conclusion.

 

A quick look? Must have been blind when you looked, then. Check out the Arelith persistent world server for a prime example.

 

Pointing out the hobbyist project Skyrim Online was to point out that Physics, quests, AI and all that can be synced. And if you're a 100-man strong gaming studio, it would be done with relative ease. While initially intended not to be used as an example for the moddability of multiplayer games, it does become a rather good one. With Skyrim Online you can use the CK to do whatever you were able to do for single player, but with a couple of additions required so as to make your mod compatible for the multiplayer component.

 

Too slow to follow? I'm asking how would multiplayer impact on the moddability of the game. So far, people initiated the debate with little more than 'It will reduce moddability and I don't like it' without any explanation. Then people go ahead and assume that mutliplayer, I.E playing with more than one person, is the exact same as an MMO. Which it isn't. At all.

 

I'm asking these folk how multiplayer would reduce moddability. Yet to find one argument for it.

Because of how modding is not a definitive practice. What is stable for one player is sometimes not stable for another for various reasons.

 

My comment in terms of "limiting modding" would follow from the issues involved with forcing one player to act as the server, making for a ton of stress on that users system, or the issue of forcing both players to effectively have the same load list.

 

The entire reason why I think co-op would be a possibility is because of how consoles work and we all know that is where Bethesda is focused, and has been focused, for years.

[Jayce Dimmer]

The server issue is easily resolved; peer-peer multiplayer. Same way that LAN multiplayer tends to operate.

 

And requiring both players to have the same load list is a reasonable requirement. Keep everything in .bsa files and you're dandy.

[DoctaSax]

Oh my. Need I type it out for you again? Multiplayer IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with Massively Multiplayer Online.

I caught that the first time you said it, acknowledged it by mentioning other MP modes and issues with those being fully modded in the same sentence, and that's two posts in a row that I can see as nothing but insulting. In some cases, the third time is never the charm so take it off capslock.

 

MMO or 'just' MP, can people load it up with whichever mods & mod settings they like that significantly affect gameplay like movement speed, ai etc without having to be completely in sync on both counts to avoid incompatibilities, and drama about cheating in the case of PvP? (note: not saying MMO, at all, except for mentioning it to say I'm not saying it) If not, how can this be imposed and policed in PvP? And how would you avoid countless bug reports by people trying to team up in non-PvP and forgetting that they have a mod setting that tweaks timescale or level-up speed while the other person doesn't, despite having the same mod? In SP, when you fuck up your install or cheat, it's just your own game that's affected, not so in MP, and as a consequence it becomes the studio's problem too: too much liberty in modding an MP game can cause a bad experience for large numbers of users. So how do you avoid this? Can the software linking up players read every single variable set by any mod in existence, or read into local files created by a script extender or similar plugins? Can it stay up to date in doing so? I think not, so it comes down to human behavior messing stuff up & human effort having to sort it out.  Beth game devs working on a new, let's call it non-single player game, would much rather cordon off some aspects of the game that just can't be modded than provide long-term tech support or fix issues that become apparent after release.

 

Skyrim online's a skyrim mod, and although I'm not too familiar with it (looks rather MMO-ish to me) it's a bad example of MP moddability because the moddability is skyrim's, an SP game. In practice, if skyrim online ever allows your MP buddy to actually fight alongside or against you, limitations about mod use will exist one way or another. Devs working on a new game would most likely put those limitations in the moddability of certain aspects of the game itself, leaving mostly cosmetics. Agree with it or not, but be civil about it. Better still, maybe it's time we get this poor thread back on track.

[Kendo 2]

Asks the obvious:  How will multiplayer (no matter the delivery) improve my 'army-of-one-lone-wolf-get-it-done'  post- apocalyptic experience?

[maybenexttime]

Asks the obvious:  How will multiplayer (no matter the delivery) improve my 'army-of-one-lone-wolf-get-it-done'  post- apocalyptic experience?

 

Well I can only thing of the obvious. PVP. Kill, grab their gear, run back to base etc. But than again that will be like DayZ. BUT than again, I wouldn't mind it. BUT than again there is a game like that is going to come, called the Division next year which looks sick.