Fallout 4 - Multiplayer Could Ruin The RPG

2 player coop mode would be nice though and as far as I'm concerned would fit into the setting. Not that junk that is MP in DA:I or ME:3, etc. So it can work but only if they keep it small and limited to coop.

might

The key word.
The future of the video game industry is so concerning, it is better to start lobbying right now over a feature that might be included as somebody muses over newly hired staff.

Originally Posted by xep624
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.

Agreed. If they include multiplayer into it then it will be another title I won't buy.

If I wanted to play games with people I would seek out such titles that had them.

Bethesda hires a guy who previously worked on multiplayer games = Fallout 4 will be multiplayer? Article has that HL3 confirmed vibe…

When I buy a SP game I expect to play it alone. No MP and no coop.
I am in my 30s and finding friends of my age to play with is too much of a hassle.
I have played every game of the Assassins Creed series and I hate with the intensity of a thousand suns : the coop missions, blue chest, gold chest, companion apps, Initiates, etc.
I want to be able to buy the game, play it when I can and for as much a time as I can spare.
Keep coop and MP separated from the SP gameplay. Please.

Fallout 4 -The inclusion of Bethesda Could Ruin The RPG

They made FO first-person to attract a wider audience. They will likewise add multiplayer. Maybe even online capacity (hey it happened with TES).

The way it works is grab a famous IP and make profit off its reputation. They really are no more than parasites.

I wouldnt have minded running around the DC Wasteland, fighting mutants with a friend…

Originally Posted by luj1
They made FO first-person to attract a wider audience. They will likewise add multiplayer. Maybe even online capacity (hey it happened with TES).

The way it works is grab a famous IP and make profit off its reputation. They really are no more than parasites.

Considering how much I loved exploring the world of FO3, I'd love me some more parasitical action

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Considering how much I loved exploring the world of FO3, I'd love me some more parasitical action

Heh, I loved FO3. It's only that I view it somewhat as a standalone. It's a great, enjoyable RPG, just not really the same franchise for me.

Originally Posted by luj1
Heh, I loved FO3. It's only that I view it somewhat as a standalone. It's a great, enjoyable RPG, just not really the same franchise for me.

Fair enough.

I found it had a lot of the same qualities as Fallout. In some ways, it was inferior (mechanics, writing and combat) - and in some ways it was superior (immersion, exploration and technically).

Overall, though, it felt like much the same setting and franchise to me.

That said, while I'm a fan of Fallout - I'm not emotionally invested in it. It takes a lot for me to get there.

However, if someone took System Shock and turned it into an isometric game with turn-based combat, I would most likely be mighty pissed

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
However, if someone took System Shock and turned it into an isometric game with turn-based combat, I would most likely be mighty pissed

Me too. But if done properly, it wouldn't have to be a bad RPG. Just as FO3 isn't. It's only that the purist part of the fanbase would view that as a discontinuation of the series.

Originally Posted by luj1
Me too. But if done properly, it wouldn't have to be a bad RPG. Just as FO3 isn't. It's only that the purist part of the fanbase would view that as a discontinuation of the series.

Very true, it could be a fantastic game.

I'd get over it if the game turned out well, it was just a demonstration of why so many people are so pissed at Bethesda.

They let their emotional desire to see what they love continue - largely untouched - cloud their vision of what the game actually is.

Even if a turn-based System Shock might not be what I'd want it to be, it doesn't have to be bad.

Still, it would be a strange choice

I have a much easier time seeing games like Fallout turn into first person games focusing on immersion, then I have seeing System Shock turn into an isometric TB game.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
They let their emotional desire to see what they love continue - largely untouched - cloud their vision of what the game actually is.

Nicely put (and I'd agree) however while I do see FO3 for what it truly is, a respectable RPG in its own right, I still can't accept it as a part of the same family. For me it's just Bethesda's Fallout.

Originally Posted by luj1
Nicely put (and I'd agree) however while I do see FO3 for what it truly is, a respectable RPG in its own right, I still can't accept it as a part of the same family. For me it's just Bethesda's Fallout.

Well, it IS Bethesda's Fallout

Hehe yeah They own it now.

After TESO I'm not sure Bethesda is eager to try another classic multiplayer approach in one of their games. But don't forget they can try other multiplayer design like the Souls game or embrace UGC Minecraft style.