Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on December 12, 2006, 09:12:45 pm
-
http://www.destructoid.com/fallout-mmo-interplay-says-yes--28559.phtml
While Bethesda scooped up the rights to a true Fallout sequel, Interplay, the original publishers of Fallout, managed to hang on to the rights to make a Fallout MMO, and according to this SEC filing, they intend to do just that, and very soon.
Maybe you should, I dunno...pay your employees, get out of debt or set up a decent website before embarking on mutli-year multi-million dollar adventures to compete against the most popular PC game in the world.
I'm baffled and amused by this, as I'm sure many others are as well. I mean, what can you say? It's so absurd, it defies arguement.
-
I wouldn't count on it being good considering the budget.
-
I wouldn't count on it having, say, graphics, considering the budget. Or an installer. Or a loading screen. Or any levels. Or interactivity. Or gameplay.
It'll just be a picture taped top a monitor, while the picture will be of a level created using the original Doom engine by the night janitor on his 15-minute break.
-
If you've read thier mission statement, they decided to re-align themselves in the MMO world... Of course Fallout would be the title of choice, and with backing from ANOTHER developer or publisher, you MIGHT just be surprised. Though I'm not holding my breath....
-
why MMO's?
oh right, making money has become more important than making good games.
-
Bethesda bought the rights to Fallout but Interplay retained the right to make a Fallout MM0. So they're taking the MMORPG route because that's all they can do.
-
you mean instead of coming up with something new? creative? worth playing?
-
They're bankrupt, remember?
Gotta work with what you have at hand.
-
...a cardboard box and scraps from the local McDonald's dumpster? :p
-
And yet you all forget that they can get funding from other studios and publishers, akin to how independent filmakers get funding from other producers to make thier films. Interplay alone will not be able to do this, but partner up with a big company who's willing to take a risk and bank on a franchise to make money (sadly, yes, it's all about the money today) and you could be heading back into the black. One of two things will happen from this, either Interplay will be "reborn", or they will finally be finished and wiped clean from the market. Part of me hopes that they'll make it, and yet, most of my feelings wish interplay would die like pac-man. Just implode on itself until there's nothing left.
-
****, I suppose if people are still injecting cash into Phantom, it's not that shocking Interplay think they can get funding.
After all, it's not as if MMORPGs have a high failure rate, is it?
Ah.
-
Move the corporation to Korea, let them be assimilated by NCSoft, and be done with it. The reason why I'd like to see Interplay fold is that the IP rights to several titles would probably be sold, instead of hanging in limbo forever, and be put to good use.
-
****, I suppose if people are still injecting cash into Phantom, it's not that shocking Interplay think they can get funding.
actually, no, they've seem to have changed direction. they're supposedly doing some online content delivery system now.
-
****, I suppose if people are still injecting cash into Phantom, it's not that shocking Interplay think they can get funding.
actually, no, they've seem to have changed direction. they're supposedly doing some online content delivery system now.
The company has also renamed itself to 'Phantom'.
-
****, I suppose if people are still injecting cash into Phantom, it's not that shocking Interplay think they can get funding.
actually, no, they've seem to have changed direction. they're supposedly doing some online content delivery system now.
The company has also renamed itself to 'Phantom'.
but do they fight crime?
-
I'm a fan of Fallout, but not a fan of MMOs. *sigh*
-
why MMO's?
oh right, making money has become more important than making good games.
Well thats the bottom line philosophy of most game companies. But usually good games bring in the money right? RIGHT?!! :(
-
I'm a fan of Fallout, but not a fan of MMOs. *sigh*
s'alright, I believe Bethseda own the rights and are making a 3rd installment; IIRC Interplay sold them on the condition of keeping the MMO rights for the brand (confusingly) for exactly this project.
-
i hope interplay comes back.
they have done alot of good games.
-
wow... what I've dreamed for long COULD become true ! :eek2:
-
Since they have a reputation of NOT paying their employees... WHO's going to work from them?
[Epiphany]
Ah, Nevermind, Change name to Phantom and OUTSOURCE lots of people out of college who are clueless...
(Make hand motions like Mr Burns...) Excellent! :yes:
-
I hope it flops and Interplay dies like an earthworm on a hot sidewalk.
-
well, they already had a MMO for fallout, "tactics" it had an online capablity, but since interplay bit the big one, there were no servers to host it. but it's not the first attempt at a fallout MMO, mabey it'll work this time.
-
Do you know what MMO stands for?
-
Do you know what MMO stands for?
Massively mulitplayer online? they had one, but it doesn't connect to anything
-
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but Fallout Tactics isn't an MMO game. It has multiplayer capabilities, but it certainly isn't massive.
-
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but Fallout Tactics isn't an MMO game. It has multiplayer capabilities, but it certainly isn't massive.
wait, do you mean something like daiblo? in the sence that you can play online with more than just team battles? you can play through the storyline with other players? perhaps?
-
No. Massive. They put that word in the acronym for a reason. You know, Everquest, World of Warcraft. Games like that.
-
well now that, that's been cleared up, it does seem like a cool idea.
-
Massively implies more than 8 players, and while it's been awhile since I've played Fallout Tactics, I think that was how many you could have in a multiplayer game... but it has been quite some time, so I could be mistaken.
-
Massively implies more than 8 players, and while it's been awhile since I've played Fallout Tactics, I think that was how many you could have in a multiplayer game... but it has been quite some time, so I could be mistaken.
naw, when you created players for a multiplayer game in Tactics you use points, the better your starting player was, the more points he had, but in the game itself, you had a maximum amount of points each team had to stay within, so you could have a bunch of realy crapy players, or just a few good ones.
-
Massively implies more than 8 players, and while it's been awhile since I've played Fallout Tactics, I think that was how many you could have in a multiplayer game... but it has been quite some time, so I could be mistaken.
naw, when you created players for a multiplayer game in Tactics you use points, the better your starting player was, the more points he had, but in the game itself, you had a maximum amount of points each team had to stay within, so you could have a bunch of realy crapy players, or just a few good ones.
A massively multiplayer game is, by admittedly inprecise definition, one where you can have hundreds or even thousands of players on a single server, not even necessarily having to interact (co-operatively or competitively) with each other. For example, a fully populated countryside in an MMORPG like World of Warcraft, where one group is doing mission xx, another mission yy, one fighting group zzz, another running around naked, another dancing, etc. It's also a more open ended world; for example, I'd imagine Fallout Tactics places you in a single mission with friends (or enemies) playing beside; that's more akin to an "instance" in an MMO game (or a dungeon).
-
A massively multiplayer game is, by admittedly inprecise definition, one where you can have hundreds or even thousands of players on a single server, not even necessarily having to interact (co-operatively or competitively) with each other. For example, a fully populated countryside in an MMORPG like World of Warcraft, where one group is doing mission xx, another mission yy, one fighting group zzz, another running around naked, another dancing, etc. It's also a more open ended world; for example, I'd imagine Fallout Tactics places you in a single mission with friends (or enemies) playing beside; that's more akin to an "instance" in an MMO game (or a dungeon).
No, i was just saying that there was no limit to players, but a limit to points.
-
I think there is some confusion to players, as in the person(s) sitting at the computer, and the characters/soldiers/squad/whatever they create. I believe Fallout Tactics multiplayer allows for a total max of 8 players per game (as in, fleshly breathing people sitting at their computer), and each player is allowed a squad of 1-6 (whether it be all points spent on one soldier, or a few points spent on 6 different soldiers each). If we maximized both, that would be 8 players with 6 person squads each (here assuming that points aren't an issue, of course), thus totalling 48 in game characters/soldiers/whatever. 48 is a far cry from hundreds to thousands.
Gosh, you're making me want to reinstall it just to make sure I know what the heck I'm talking about! :p
-
I think there is some confusion to players, as in the person(s) sitting at the computer, and the characters/soldiers/squad/whatever they create. I believe Fallout Tactics multiplayer allows for a total max of 8 players per game (as in, fleshly breathing people sitting at their computer), and each player is allowed a squad of 1-6 (whether it be all points spent on one soldier, or a few points spent on 6 different soldiers each). If we maximized both, that would be 8 players with 6 person squads each (here assuming that points aren't an issue, of course), thus totalling 48 in game characters/soldiers/whatever. 48 is a far cry from hundreds to thousands.
Gosh, you're making me want to reinstall it just to make sure I know what the heck I'm talking about! :p
ok now i know what you ment, and don't, it's not worth it, although reinstalling Fallout 2 so i can play some of the weapon and quest mods for it sounds like a good idea.
-
I dont see why every franchise have to have a MMO these days you have Star Trek Online coming And Stargate worlds coming now a Fallout MMO, suck does this mean i have to play 3 online games at the same time since I like Stargate, Star Trek And Fallout.....
*Wishing Fallout 3 turns out alot better then Star Trek Legacy
/Dice