Fallout 4 - Multiplayer Could Ruin The RPG

Martin Toney of GamingBolt thinks if Bethesda adds Multiplayer to Fallout 4 it could ruin the game. Now a few years ago I would of agreed, but what about you?

A while back, I told you that “If Fallout 4 has multiplayer, we riot.” Well now we have a legitimate reason to ready our pointy sticks and loud speakers. Fallout is, and always has been, a decidedly single player experience. So I ask you, should you be concerned that a Bungie staff member has departed their studios and move on to join Bethesda Softworks? Well probably not.

Bungie gameplay designer, Josh Hamric, has moved on to become a senior systems designer for Bethesda. But new job title aside, what does that mean? Well Josh was previously a big name within Bungie for working on online games including Halo Reach and Destiny, and moving onto Bethesda he might be overseeing an already in place gameplay system.

I’ve said before that the online mechanic has a place in modern video gaming, there’s no real denying that. But in a game that’s all about seclusion and being the lone wanderer, do you really want some guy bouncing around a hub world, dancing and emote-ing? I sure as hell don’t. That’s not to say that multiplayer is bad, but just that it has its place, and that Fallout is not that place at all. It’s easy to see why The Elder Scrolls went multiplayer, but Fallout couldn’t pull that off in any meaningful way. Right?

More information.

Please do not add multliplayer to this game if you are reading this Bethesda.

Originally Posted by jd
Please do not add multliplayer to this game if you are reading this Bethesda.

Not bloody likely. Bethesda does whatever it wants since forever, so…If they want to put MP in a new Fallout game, they will. Plus, there were rumors about a Fallout online developed by Bethesda, but those were never confirmed. But if the rumors are true, yeah, adding someone like Hamric to the team would make sense.

We'll see. Time will tell.

Too may multiplayer games out there in my opinion. Multiplayer will add nothing good to Fallout - the game series is about a lone wanderer - with a dog or companion, but I can't see it working in multiplayer mode.

Originally Posted by wolfsrain
Not bloody likely. Bethesda does whatever it wants since forever, so…If they want to put MP in a new Fallout game, they will. Plus, there were rumors about a Fallout online developed by Bethesda, but those were never confirmed. But if the rumors are true, yeah, adding someone like Hamric to the team would make sense.

We'll see. Time will tell.

Or maybe, just maybe, Mr. Josh Hamric was hired to Bethesda Softworks to work on this Fallout online project, being left out of the new Fallout single-player game (let's call it Fallout IV for lack of a better name).

Maybe, just maybe, rumours are true and a Fallout online game is being developed. Not that I want it. Definitely, I don't. Because a post-apocalyptic experience is better savoured alone

For me, generally MMO = no buy.
However, if it'll be Fallout MOBA that is League of Legends clone without pay2win content, I'm in. If Bethesda is planning to sell horses again, they can sell those to their mother.

Originally Posted by joxer
For me, generally MMO = no buy.
However, if it'll be Fallout MOBA that is League of Legends clone without pay2win content, I'm in. If Bethesda is planning to sell horses again, they can sell those to their mother.

Nice reference to the most uninspired piece of content ever. Not a fan of MOBA's or MMO's, because i lack the necessary reflexes. So i won't buy any of those.

MOBA is not about reflexes. You don't have to reflex anything, in LoL pick Akali and rightclick randomly to win. Okay, not quite, depends on your opponents really, but…
MOBA is about toxic community. If you can't rage and can't understand raging, feel free to skip the genre. Completely.

But if we'll talk about actual reflexes, I just finished the QTE ridden game (AC:Rogue), and while I didn't have problems with doing those QTE since my reflexes are still okay, it's… Disgusting design.
I can understand doing it in games for joysticks and controllers where you just can't give freedom to players because the hardware has too much limits, but that crap on keyboard+mouse feels like bullshit ment for retards who can't do anything creative but have to be spoonfed on what to press by some flashing icon on screen. IMO QTE on PC is an insult and is developers' message "you're too stupid to play this game without us telling you what exactly to press".

Assassin's Creed stopped being interesting after the Ezio series. To be honest those were the only games i liked. But i did play AC4 for its naval combat which was quite nicely done.

And, yeah i dislike raging, so definitely a skip

Multiplayer is not possible in the traditional sense anyway. Might as well be writing an article titled, "Please give everybody whatever they ever wanted or didn't want in Fallout3."

Assuming they're using Skyrim Creation Gamebryo engine - and that's pretty much a given - modding will still be at the forefront of anything they design around. With every mod, you can change the gameplay in fundamental ways. How do you add multiplayer to that? You don't, at least not in the traditional sense.

You instead create user servers built on that suite of mods that can be password-enabled. A NWN/Minecraft MP setup.

Anyway, dumb article, just another random noname person drawing more random tidbits from connecting dots that ain't there. Wait till June.

Originally Posted by wolfsrain
Assassin's Creed stopped being interesting after the Ezio series. To be honest those were the only games i liked. But i did play AC4 for its naval combat which was quite nicely done.

I've posted in Pricewatch thread.
If naval battles are supposed to be AC4's forte, I didn't play that game nor will because AC:Rogue apparently has them even better made.
I recommend just skipping it. Both AC4 and AC:R.
Go on GOG, buy old Sea Dogs game for some pocketchange and then you'll see the real beauty of naval combat.

Ezio trilogy (AC2, Br, Rv) definetly surprised me. I bought AC2 and the story was so good I instantly bought two sequels.
I will try not to spoil it for people who didn't buy it but a small tidbit from stories. Ezio meets Leonardo and it's, by itself, a great thing because you're reliving those stuff from Leonardo's actual drawings. In Revelations, I couldn't believe when they added Piri Reis, it was like OMG is this even possible, am I really seeing him in a game. I've seen people disliking Revelations, probably because Piri Reis was not the most mysterious figure in their childhood, but to me he was a perfect addition to the story that had a perfect ending for both Ezio and Altair. And in AC:R? You meet Benjamin Franklin. What things he provides? None. Just activates a "gadget" with electricity. Completely wasted potential, I'd love to see more of Franklin's involvement with the story, but Ubi decided on not to.

But it's not just the story that's far better in old AC2, it's other things. Puzzled levels are so pathetic in AC:R and almost no existing unlike Ezio trilogy where each city is one big puzzle to crack with many smaller puzzles. Cities in Ezio Trilogy are spectacular - in AC:R you're practically climbing over trees in some woods and the only city is NY, okay it's correctly displayed, but it's just a slightly bigger village.
QTE in Ezio trilogy? Almost none.
I must say that music in AC:R and in Ezio trilogy is on par, scores you hear through these games are fantastic.
The only thing AC:R has done better is graphics. Big deal. Ezio trilogy graphics, except horrible hair of course, is still beautiful.

Seems that Ubi didn't understand that what kept a player going over repetitive stuff in Ezio trilogy was one of the best made stories I've ever seen in games. Instead of building up on that, it looks Ubi concentrated on just getting graphics better and the story boring and dull.
I stepped on their landmine called Watch Dogs already. There is no way I'll buy another Ubi game unless the audience agrees that the story is not dull. AC fans said Rogue's story is great that's why I bought it. It's not. It's probably great compared to AC3+DLC, Liberation and AC4 - but it's still not great.

Same as with ME3

No no, we can assure you that the MP will not affect to the SP in any circumstance

then cry

Fallout seems similar to the Western genre in that a small number of individuals can make a significant difference to the setting. I suppose one could view a multi-player version as the equivalent of the posse or gang in the Western sense. But that idea doesn't interest me as a player.

Originally Posted by CRD
Same as with ME3

No no, we can assure you that the MP will not affect to the SP in any circumstance

then cry

ME3's MP affecting the singleplayer campaign outcome instead of vice versa was one of the worst game designs I've seen in my life.

I don't see the point of this article, it seems like a game blogger creating "news" out of some very far-fetched speculation.

But no I don't think multiplayer belongs in any RPG, it's a waste of ressources.

Joxer, Sea Dogs on GOG was an instabuy. I also have Pirates of the Carribean (rebranded Sea Dogs 3), Age of Pirates: Carribean Tales (awesome naval combat, only surpassed by the modded PoTC) and Age of Pirates: City of Abandoned Ships. What can i say, big fan of the piratey setting.

And i seriously dislike the mingle player and the idea of mixing what i do in MP with what i do in SP. I prefer those things to be kept apart.

Small scale cooperative multiplayer would be wonderful, but it's pretty unlikely to happen. Todd has always been pretty firm about their focus on singleplayer experiences. I don't really know why anyone would write an article as if that was about to change, except as cheap clickbait.

would never happen. We are all jumping the gun though as it hasn't even been announced yet.

Fallout sequel and a multplayer experience. Pass! These two ideas are philosophically incompatible for me and certainly I'd argue that to rationalise and somehow mash them together is to misunderstand what the core Fallout experience has been at a fundamental level.

Having said all that, I wonder if some bright spark hasn't already tried to heavily mod Borderlands into a more "F3/New Vegas era Fallout-ish" multiplayer experience?
We could play BorderOut. Or FallOutLands. Ok, I'll stop now.

If this has any MP junk or mmo vibes, I'll be passing on it. I love Fallout, but there is so much good stuff these days that I won't be bothered at all to pass on one thing.