×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fallout Online Website Arises Amid Legal Battle

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the how-refreshingly-unceremonious dept.

PC Games (Games) 85

Rumors of a Fallout MMO have been swirling for years, made all the more credible by hints from the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay over licensing for the franchise. Now, Interplay has quietly created a teaser website for Fallout Online, offering beta sign-ups. Quoting Massively: "Currently, there isn't much there, just a brief glimpse at a workshop desk with various Fallout references to the Master, Brahmin, and Nuka-Cola before a form obscures the screen. ... It looks legit, too: Interplay is promoting Fallout Online from their main website, and the new teaser site is indeed registered to Interplay Entertainment Corp."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

85 comments

Well... (3, Interesting)

zerospeaks (1467571) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599210)

Well it looks like InterPlay is trying to make a come back. GOOD! I say. Once upon a time Interplay was awesome.

Re:Well... (2)

Qantravon (1466953) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599368)

Interplay WAS awesome. Some of the best games of the 90's were Interplay. And they managed to put out a few good Star Trek games, which alone wins a degree of my loyalty. Here's hoping it pulls through and is awesome.

I signed up for the beta literally seconds after finding out about the site.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32600888)

You may want to curb your enthusiasm. This is "Interplay" in name only. Brian Fargo is long gone, as is Feargus and anyone else who made this company great. They're just a name now, like "Atari". The real owners are called Titus, I believe.

This is about as exciting as if someone had dug up Ultima and...oh, wait.

Re:Well... (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32602238)

Interplay had some great development houses. The upper-level management of Interplay screwed them, didn't pay their bills and ran into bankruptcy. Those developers have all gone elsewhere. Interplay barely exists in name and is clinging to IP they own. They want to make a comeback, but without good developers they are nothing.

They've been talking Fallout Online for probably 5 years with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32609900)

Exactly. Parallax Software was the wonderful group that people confuse with Interplay. After Descent II, they split up into Outrage, which went on to make Descent 3 and then the inimicable Red Faction, and Volition, which went on to make Freespace, which is still being actively modded at hard-light.net.

Fallout MMO and New Vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32599262)

It seems with the upcoming titles that fallout is returning more to it's original feel. I'm not sure these will be the commercial blockbusters that fallout 3 was. It was a mishmash of a number of popular game's play styles and am leery to say that Interplay's version of style and gameplay would be as popular. ...Oh yeah I'm AC so I have to go offtopic abit, who wants to see Arcanum or Arcanum style gameplay in Bethesda's engine?

Post Apocalypse (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599352)

Finally, a chance to play in a post apocalyptic world... this may even wean me off of Azeroth if it's any good.

Re:Post Apocalypse (4, Interesting)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599382)

You might be interested in this: http://fonline2238.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:Post Apocalypse (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600192)

... words cannot describe how much thanks I send your way...

Re:Post Apocalypse (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#32601508)

I concur. I had no idea this existed, I am extremely excited to get home this evening and check this out.

Though I suspect my girlfriend may not be as happy about this as I am.

Re:Post Apocalypse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32619604)

But does it run on Linux?

Re:Post Apocalypse (1)

chstwnd (1751702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32620898)

obviously, you have not heard of Fallen Earth. Haven't played it, myself. at debut, it was considered a spiritual offspring of FO for the MMO world when the real FO:OL was vaporware (and may still be). There are several MMOs in development with a PA setting. Afterfall seems the most ambitious after Fallen Earth. And there are dev videos available on YouTube. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-apocalyptic_video_games [wikipedia.org] it would be nice if this list broke it out by SP/MP/MMO

Not ready for public yet? (1)

gravos (912628) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599362)

I wanted to sign up but the page doesn't seem to work. The button doesn't do anything and the menus are blank. Does anyone else see the same thing? I'm thinking maybe it's a prerelease or not ready yet.

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599374)

Some can sign up and some can't at the moment, speculation is that the beta will be North America or US only.

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

Xiph (723935) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599478)

It's funny, you have to choose between your favorite fallout...
*fallout
*fallout 2
*fallout tactics

They must realize that theres an omission (though of no consequence to my choice.
From Denmark i could sign up for the beta

Re:Not ready for public yet? (2, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599962)

Fallout Tactics? Please. No, Fallout 2 for me. But really, FO1, FO2, it's a close call. They both had more than their fair share of really cool bits. Maybe FO1 was more fun during the second half of the game. Hm...

In any case, I signed up for the beta (from Netherland).

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#32605822)

But really, FO1, FO2, it's a close call. They both had more than their fair share of really cool bits.

From personal anecdotal experience, it seems that people generally tend to like more the one which they've played first.

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32610948)

From personal anecdotal experience, it seems that people generally tend to like more the one which they've played first.

Could well be. I'm trying to be as objective as possible about it, but I did play FO2 before FO1.

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#32601018)

After FO3 there is no going back.

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604650)

After FO3 there is no going back.

Why not?

Fallout 3 was fun, even with the annoying DLC (DLC is annoying, but FO3's DLC was more so since half of them didn't really tie into the game), but it really didn't carry on with what made FO1 and 2 great. FO3 took out most of the humor, and somehow, even with a bigger world, it took out a lot of the "largeness" of the original two games. I'm not saying that FO3 was a crappy game, it just wasn't a great game.

In FO2 I wasted hours running around New Reno in a purple robe, killing prostitues with a close up SMG blast. Yes, it is creepy, but it illustrates how you could create your own mini-games, and play them for hours completely ignoring anything that the devs wanted you to do. FO3 was also EXTREMELY easy, yes there was some tough parts, but it was easier to get past. Within the first 4 hours of FO3 I managed to lure a patrol of folks wearing power armor, fully decked out with energy weapons, next to a car, I blew up the car, and had over powered armor for the rest of the game (well 75% of it, until I was supposed to get it legitimately). The biggest challenge was keeping my follower from blowing themselves up (which I suppose is close to par, since I remember giving Vic in FO2 a shotgun, and having him kill me repeatedly every fight).

I also vastly prefer the 3rd person hex style of the original fallout. Making something first person (or over the shoulder 2nd) doesn't make it better. I'm actually getting fairly sick of making everything an FPS. FPSs are rather claustrophobic, which hurts when something is supposed to be in a vast, detailed, world. I liked the feel of playing a table top RPG in the first two, and having to budget your AP. The VAT system was a nice try, but was pretty much nothing but a situationally useful gimmick.

Not to sound too negative, I did enjoy the game. It just wasn't as Fallout-esque as I hoped it would be.

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#32615840)

I never figured out how to get and use power armour without getting the power armour training which doesn't come until after you go through a lot of hassle... certainly more than four hours worth IMO. And I always set the game to the hardest level, and I haven't seen anything with power armour be killed outright by blowing up a car beside them. I do do that. I don't use any hacks or mods to get more power. Not saying you do. Maybe I'm not as 'good' at gaming, but I found most of FO3 very challenging. And I liked the realism and graphics. I expect graphics of this calibre now for this type of game. I would expect to have it in a multiplayer online game format. I agree that some add ons/downloadable content is not really related to the main story (like the mothership one), but otherwise they are in the same vein as post apocalypsia. And I agree that I would have liked a little more challenge from the AI. Like when you here the sound of a drum bouncing around after you accidentally hit it while sneaking, the bad guys don't hear it, but if you run or stand up, they will 'hear you' even if you are in another room. I absolutely hate 3rd person mode. FPS is to me the only way. And I have no idea at all why game makers do that to some driving games... 3rd person view only, when I want the first person view. I don't even look at driving games any more because of that. All in all, I think it is the best in the franchise. Based on its success, I think it is fair to say I am not alone. :) To each their own.

The real answer is... (1)

malakai (136531) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604312)

...Wasteland for the C64. That would be my favorite 'fallout'. ...You are taken to a small orchard by Sam and his farmer friends....
                                                          READ PARAGRAPH 63

Re:Not ready for public yet? (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599772)

Its a flash site. Are you perhaps rather foolishly on an iPad? I signed up and I am from the UK

Re:Not ready for public yet? (3, Funny)

thomst (1640045) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599870)

I wanted to sign up but the page doesn't seem to work.

That's because you haven't completed the quest, yet.

OT: Old school Interplay cred (-1, Troll)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599366)

I used to play Command and Conquer, and Quake on the Interplay LAN after hours in Irvine back in the 90s. They've released some great games.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32599570)

Command & Conquer was made by Westwood Studios and Quake was made by id Software. You should have gone with Battle Chess and Baldurs Gate.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599978)

I think you made his point. His point being someone would come and gibber about how he played [insert Interplay games found on wikipedia] for hours back when he was young.

OTOH you chose Baldur's Gate as a symbolic Interplay masterpiece so you cannot be that bad. I love you. No actually I love Baldur's Gate but call it collateral damage.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600236)

Planescape Torment wipes it's ass with Baldur's Gate.

Sure, Baldur's Gates were great games, but Planescape's story seemed quite deep.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (3, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600542)

There's no shame in being worse than Planescape Torment. Everything is.

Baldur's Gate was not as good as Fallout either, but still pretty good.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600706)

Planetscape and Fallout had the advantage of being much more original. I love both games and I'm surely more of a Fallout fanboy than a baldur's gate fanboy but Baldur's Gate achieved near perfection in the classic AD&D universe and I think they deserve credit for that. (Except Throne of Baal which was a total mess IMHO)

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32601156)

Am I the only person in the world who couldn't get into Planescape Torment? It's just not particularly fun. Didn't like the Baldur's Gateses either.

I'm a huge fan of Fallout 2 and Fallout, though.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32601274)

Yes, you're the only one.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (1)

MoriT (1747802) | more than 3 years ago | (#32601564)

I've just started replaying Planescape Torment. While the graphics haven't aged well, the story and game play have done fine.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32606034)

The music is something else too. Deionarra's theme still brings a tear to my eye. It takes a special beauty of music to do that.

Re:OT: Old school Interplay cred - fail (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#32608624)

You're right, they were both made by other companies. I guess it never dawned on you that Interplay employees might play games made by other publishers after work, back in the days before people could afford to network a bunch of computers together in their home.

New MMO's (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599386)

Although the precedence of WoW won't be threatened, it's a GREAT time for MMO players at the moment. Star Wars MMO, Fallout MMO, Final fantasy etc

Re:New MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32599434)

"it's a GREAT time for MMO players at the momment ... Final Fantasy" If Final Fantasy Online is what we're calling a "great" MMO...thats setting the bar extremely low.

Re:New MMO's (1)

ellenhuang (1831060) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599452)

When I was young, I loved collecting watches very much. Until now I have collected hundreds o f different kinds of watches. If you have the same interest with me , or you also like watches very much, why not try to this. an excellent description. http://www.watchesgoogle.com/ [watchesgoogle.com]

Re:New MMO's (3, Insightful)

Thrymm (662097) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599626)

What "precedence" did WoW set for MMO's except make getting to max level easy, and raid content an almost given win even if a few people couldn't play their way out of a tin can?

EQ, UO set precedences, WoW dumbed things down, but has better graphics and youtube rage videos.

Re:New MMO's (3, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599916)

Don't be churlish - no matter what you may think of the game, the precedent of WoW was bringing the MMO to the masses (even the non-gaming masses and media), and that's what GP is talking about. No matter how good FO is (and god I hope it's good), it will struggle to put a dent in WoW's numbers, we just have to hope the bottom line is profitable enough that it doesn't get canned before it gets a chance to take off.

Re:New MMO's (5, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599940)

What "precedence" did WoW set for MMO's except make getting to max level easy, and raid content an almost given win even if a few people couldn't play their way out of a tin can?

EQ, UO set precedences, WoW dumbed things down, but has better graphics and youtube rage videos.

WoW set the precedence that MMO can function on it's end-game content rather then leveling, and then did what blizzard always does - polished the hell out of it, making so that no one comes even close. This is why pretty much all other MMO's largely die off a few months after release now - leveling part ends, and people notice that end-game is non-existent in comparison to WoW, both in quality and in quantity. So you have massive influx of new players at start, they spend a few months leveling, and then they go back to WoW once again appreciating just how good they have it in WoW.

As for difficulty, mind you, if you seriously think that you can take heroic Lich King on, all's good for you. Most servers in the world still don't have ANYONE who downed him. Hell, many still struggle with heroic Putricide, which isn't nearly as hard and vast majority of players is barely doing any hard modes. So yes, it's hard, unless you count top five percentile, and call everyone else dumb.

Re:New MMO's (3, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600242)

lol, I never managed to push myself past level 50. I always got stuck trying to beat heroic Yawnmeister.

Re:New MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32600962)

WoW set the precedence that MMO can function on it's end-game content rather then leveling, and then did what blizzard always does - polished the hell out of it, making so that no one comes even close. This is why pretty much all other MMO's largely die off a few months after release now - leveling part ends, and people notice that end-game is non-existent in comparison to WoW, both in quality and in quantity. So you have massive influx of new players at start, they spend a few months leveling, and then they go back to WoW once again appreciating just how good they have it in WoW.

From my POV it is not just the end game content, though that is a big part of it. Another part, a very important part, is the user interface as it pertains to social and trade matters. This stuff has to work well. Period.

WoW players are used to these things working well. If your chat doesn't work at least as well as WoW's chat then you've got some work to do improving your chat. Don't even bother trying to move ahead until your chat is up to par.

The same thing goes for player to player trading, vendors, mail and auction house. These things have to work well or you're going to be annoying your players something serious. If you can send only one item per mail sent that's going to frustrate players. If getting an item from the mail takes more than a second or two because your database won't handle the load that's going to frustrate players. Especially the ones who have more than one item to get out of the mail.

Sure, some players may stick with you for a while, but their frustration with user interface shortcomings added to problems with content and game play will mount until they've had enough. Then they load up the account management page and click Unsubscribe. Hopefully the account management page works better than your crummy game UI.

Re:New MMO's (1)

MoriT (1747802) | more than 3 years ago | (#32601592)

Also, mods. I now get frustrated at any awkward UI elements in any game, because I expect to be able to find a mod to reskin it, move it, replace it with Baud Manifest...

The idea that you can't run something in windowed mode baffles me.

Re:New MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32601368)

"WoW set the precedence that MMO can function on it's end-game content rather then leveling, and then did what blizzard always does - polished the hell out of it, making so that no one comes even close."

  Source or just your opinion?

  And when you say polish - you mean after 5 years?
 

Re:New MMO's (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32603000)

So - at what point did you start playing WoW? Burning Crusade? Maybe a year before that?

Wow, in it's early stages, was much like any other MMO. It took a long time to level to the max level, making it a grand achievement. The only end-game content was PvP at one point, there was a time when even Onyxia wasn't available. There was certain gear you could only get from a 45 minute Baron run, and THAT was considered the hardest thing in the game, a 5 man rush.

Also, Gold was harder to get without Dailies, and so was Rep. If you were a gnome riding an epic Cat, that "meant something". It was like, not only have you played enough to reach this level but you've also farmed enough runecloth to donate for really high rep with a faction that gives you direct bonus.

So the only point at which "End game" really mattered was when WoW was already bustling with users and it needed to retain it's subscriptions. New content kind of stuff. So it has the precedence long before it had the end-game. It KEPT its precedence by focusing on the endgame. Then the MC/BWL/AQ/Naxx pattern was starting to get old, people wanted a whole new area, not just new instances. And so now they are using the Expansion pack cycle, who knows how long this'll last (when its $120 to get into the game they'll see new subscriptions slow down quite a bit).

As for Difficulty in WoW - there was a time when people didn't have strategy guides. Wow has become A LOT easier. Of the 5 Percentile that HAVE done the bosses, the rest of the masses just have to look up the video, make sure they've got the gear, and do it. WoW was much more difficult when nobody had downed a boss yet, and it had effects that weren't seen before, so the strategy on how to handle them wasn't yet defined. But now, anytime a new boss is made, expect a guide within a week. (And thats just focusing on the raid element of WoW, getting Gold is so easy its a joke, getting good gear is easy with badges or whatever they're on now. PvP went to hell when anyone could get full Gladiator by playing enough Arena games a week to maintain a 1500 rating).

Other MMO's have focused heavily on the endgame, the first one off the top of my head: Warhammer. Warhammer isn't doing as well as WoW, even though its polished to the same degree (graphic wise anyways). Warhammer had a complex end-game in the sense that the two factions would actually battle over realm control, and eventually sieging the capital cities. It was very well built but it had a tough time getting to that phase. I only played until about level 30 before going "meh". The PVP wasn't balanced while leveling, though this happens in almost all MMO's. I mean rogues are pretty over powered in the 10-29 bracket of PvP of WoW, but WoW has more content that isn't PvP oriented.

All in all, I think the Parent was correct in saying WoW has dumbed things down, and made it about making it to max level really easily, because now that HALF the game is end-game content, no one even bothers to read quests to level up.

Re:New MMO's (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604642)

Your statements about WoW 1.x are spot-on, but no one can PLAY WoW 1.0. No new MMO is going to be compared by its customers to the ORIGINAL wow, but rather to what they could be playing Right Now, the current version, and all the polish and content that implies. I know, it's not fair.

I recently re-subscribed to Aion, so my friend could get a trial account. Playing a new character (of the other faction from my prior abandoned character) is fun and interesting, but everything feels like it's a hybrid between "unpolished" and "hidden mechanics". I'm really glad that (so far at least) I've not seen a SINGLE spam message (unlike my experiences at release), but I still miss that little things like /inspect don't work easily, and that combat mechanics are such that I need to watch my combat log to see when my white hits are in order to properly intersperse attack skills. Ugh. (The difference seems noticeable, even with only one or two specials to use, since each seems to reset the swing timer, and hit for about as much as a white hit.)

Aion at release was even less polished than it is now -- especially when compared to Warcraft's recent Wrath expansion. I've since played new characters in both games, even leveling a new warcraft toon, and the difference is night and day. Quest tracking in WoW is easier (though added post-Aion-release), combat mechanics are more forgiving (I don't have to watch my combat log, merely my skill cooldowns), and so on. It's possible that Aion's improved a great deal since six months ago, but so many things seem like unpolished corners, despite all the neat things it also has.

Re:New MMO's (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32605774)

No new MMO is going to be compared by its customers to the ORIGINAL wow, but rather to what they could be playing Right Now, the current version, and all the polish and content that implies. I know, it's not fair.

It's entirely unfair - because Wow came out in what, 2004, 2005? So it's had a solid 5 years of development time going into it, and no other new MMO can compare. Along with the way Wow developed - it makes it a unique experience.

I had enjoyed how WoW was ever changing dependant on its environment. You could make an identical World of Warcraft Clone, so that they are equal in every aspect, but it won't fly at all, and not just because WoW has the player base, but because it doesn't have the same experience that WoW players would have actually experienced.

If I had an option to play Wow 1.0 through 1.2 again I would. But I stopped playing a few months for WotLK - I just didn't like where it was going (things getting easier, all that).

Sadly, that isn't an option. There are private servers, but they are so buggy, things like the talent trees never work properly.

Re:New MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32603258)

WoW set the precedence that MMO can function on it's end-game content rather then leveling

No, Everquest 1 was doing that. They still lost their subscriber base to WoW. Why?

SoE delivered expansions (in the range of $29.99) with lots of unfinished high end content. They "tuned" several of the high end fights to be impossible at first, to slow down the uberguilds while they slowly patched in content. At the same time, WoW was poised to launch and successfully absorbed many disgruntled EQ subscribers. There were other issues / bugs, and the lack of an auction house was terrible. But the primary problem was the high end content.

Blizzard hadn't really resorted to that behavior until the most recent patch. But now you see that raid buff that increases 5% each week in ICC. That's effectively a soft-block because the toughest encounters are virtually impossible without it. Fortunately for Blizzard:

- there's not a big name MMO ready to step in and take over.
- they don't release unfinished content in their expansions. Unbeatable at first - sure, but the encounters are working.

They did not dumb things down (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599984)

they lowered the grinding, they opened MMO to a much wider non-fanatical-hardcore audience. The only people I ever hear saying they dumbed it down, are the one which think grinding 10231312 mobs for an uber armour or grinding 21312 hours for a level is "skill". Face it, in NO MMO whatsoever there is any skill. You need skill for chess, you need skill for throwing a disk far away, you don't need skill for an MMO, you only need to read what previous tactic-of-the-month was developped by one person and use it for your own grinding, or you need to read what wiki or previous person found as tactic for a mob. There isn't much to think about. I have done all role in many MMO (except UO, all major MMO since EQ) and they are not a game of skill, they are games of patience with trickle reward.

Re:They did not dumb things down (3, Interesting)

XMode (252740) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600516)

Welcome to eve. Where if you think someone is doing better than you, kill him and take his stuff.

Re:They did not dumb things down (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600548)

And then get podded by his 100+ friends.

Re:They did not dumb things down (1)

IshmaelDS (981095) | more than 3 years ago | (#32602886)

I pirated quite successfully in Eve and never got podded. Just be aware of what's going on and you'll be fine.

Re:They did not dumb things down (1)

sebkul (1628615) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604382)

This is how/why I quit EVE Online: One day I come home from work. I did some stuff around the house, paid some bills, sat down to play EVE with a though: I turn the game on, get my miner and star mining because I had no money... it takes forever to mine that stuff so in the mean time I started to do some maintenance... when I was paying insurance for my ship I came to a conclusion. I came home from work and paid bills I then logged into a game, went to work and paid bills... maybe the game gets better after you get higher up... but for me it was either mine (boring) or do some transport runs and die 45min into your run, as you come out of some gate and get blown up in one shot... I still think the game has some of the best graphics and user interface ever.

Re:They did not dumb things down (1)

Sky Cry (872584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604068)

I'm not sure what is this "skill" you're talking about is. MMORPGs aren't FPS where you have to move your cursor to the target's head fast enough to be called skillful. Skill in RPGs involves assessing situation and making the best choice of action. If you've got a guide, good for you. Make sure you read it thoroughly while enemies are beating on you.

If you want a game with less grind and more fun quests, I can recommend Dungeons and Dragons Online. There are no "kill 10, bring 20, wait for 30 respawns, travel for 15 minutes" quests. All the quests are hand-crafted adventures in their own hand-crafted areas. DDO also has much more interesting character building - not many other MMOs have multiclassing, for example. Also you can now try it for free for unlimited time (but not all content) and see if you like it.

Re:They did not dumb things down (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604772)

Face it, in NO MMO whatsoever there is any skill. You need skill for chess, you need skill for throwing a disk far away, you don't need skill for an MMO,

If you're saying need, I would agree with you. WOW takes an interesting approach where anyone can play, but you're forced to make a tradeoff between skill and time.

A skilled player may level in 1/4th the time of a bad player. Skilled guild may finish their instance run in 1/3rd the time of a casual guild, where the casual guild may take 4 more hours for their run and still not finish the instance that week.

Everyone can play. But the better players get rewarded for being better, and the bad players don't hit a solid brick wall that makes them give up. Instead the bad players may hit a soft wall of corpse runs or slow leveling and eventually stop playing.

 

they are games of patience with trickle reward.

Agreed, all skill controls is the speed of the trickle. And there is no skill level at which it goes up from trickle to firehose-blast. Skill can get it up to maybe water fountain speed at best.

Re:New MMO's (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600016)

What "precedence" did WoW set for MMO's except make getting to max level easy, and raid content an almost given win even if a few people couldn't play their way out of a tin can?

Moddable UI? But their main feat was certainly not originality, it was probably getting all those small design decisions right and making the game hugely addictive...

Re:New MMO's (3, Interesting)

wildstoo (835450) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600300)

Caveat: I never played UO, but I bought EQ just after its launch and played for years.

Maybe WoW's precedent is that all content should be available to almost all players, not just the unemployed catasses who can afford to grind 16 hours a day.

WoW's success stems from the designers' decision to make most content accessible to the majority, rather than the minority of players. Yes, that means that some stuff is easier, takes less time and less "skill" (though i'd argue there was, if you look at it objectively, less skill involved in EQ's gameplay than in WoW).

Your argument basically boils down to the "catass" or "hardcore raider" argument; the elitist view that only those who can dedicate the majority of their time to the game deserve to see the high-end content. That attitude just won't fly in 2010. I don't see the harm in giving people easier versions of the same raid with lesser rewards. As someone who doesn't want to spend 8 hours a night raiding, that's a very good thing.

At the moment, even most "hardcore" guilds are still trying to get their first Lich King 25 Heroic Kill, a feat still only within the grasp of a tiny fraction of the playerbase. If you're not one of those people, don't complain that the raid content is "too easy" or "a given win".

EQ's "vision" didn't align with what most players actually wanted from an MMO, but thanks to being "the only game in town" for a large part of its lifespan, it maintained its popularity.

What WoW did was show the world that not only could MMOs be "casual-friendly", there was no harm in giving the players what they wanted (a lesson EQ learned only after everyone stopped playing).

Don't get me wrong, I liked EQ and had a lot of fun playing it. But ask me which MMO I'd rather play today and, nostalgia aside, it's WoW every time.

Sigh (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#32602078)

WoW got 10million people playing a SINGLE game when previously people had argued the entire industry was worth about 1 million players. It was seriously believed that SOE when launching a new title could only canabilize its own existing titles because there just weren't enough players to go around. And then Blizzard came along and released a title that can't appear on graphs with other games because the others end up in a brown streak on the bottom.

THAT is the legacy of WoW.

Yes, it was in some ways a simpler game. It streamlined the EQ type of game by removing much of its needless complexity. It added tons of quests that actually told you were you were supposed to go instead of just "kill 10 x, I don't know what x is or where it is but kill them anyway. Oh x is 100 levels above you? THOUGH SHIT".

Doom was not the first FPS, but it was the smoothest. Lucasarts was not the first to do adventures, but they did some of the best by removing the "you made a tiny mistake, you are dead, you loser" element that had made Sierra infamous. Half-Life was not the first FPS with a story but they did it the best.

And Blizzard did MMORPG better then anyone else. Doesn't mean it is the PERFECT MMO. But it is the one that simply worked in an industry were most MMO's are either incredible boring grindfests or filled with so much needless complexity only a D&D lover could stomach it.

There is room for another game, a game that takes the lessons learned from WoW and applies them. Mostly, to be your own game and not someone elses.

Easy you say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32603348)

Some of us have lives. By making it "easy" we can enjoy those lives instead of playing the game 24x7.

I'd have no objection if they created a server set that had different rules for those that have no life.

Seriously, I raid for 1.5 hours 2 nights a week and I'm done. I enjoy that time but I don't want to spend any more than that.

If blizzard increases the amount of time it takes to level, you're only going to see more stories about parents forgetting to feed their children and addict deaths from lack of sleep.

Re:New MMO's (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#32605154)

An RPG should not have winners versus losers. EQ and UO set an early bar by being competitive games, especially at higher levels. This extremely limited the marketing scope of the games, and they were essentially niche games for a subset of potential gamers. For all the faults I could throw at Blizzard with WoW, they were smart enough to realize that they could appeal to more than just the elite and the hardcore, and that grinding is not fun for the masses. They realized the game should also be for the goof ups and those with other time commitments and those who don't want to worry about itemization or minmaxing. WoW didn't just make getting to max level easy, they also made it fun to get to max level. So MMOs went from being niche games to being much more mainstream.

I know some players hate this. They see their private club being spoiled by duffers, and think that time is being siphoned away from serious development and put into fluff. But... Just play and have fun. That's what games should be about. RPGs especially should not be about us versus them or keeping scores.

Re:New MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32599638)

Except that you have to assume that it is vaporware or worthless until proven otherwise. I have played many MMOs and I have followed countless others through development only a handful actually delivers what they say that they will deliver.

Re:New MMO's (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599998)

Great times for MMO was 2000-2005.
GREAT FREE MMORPG with very nice background stories, original content and RP community.
Now it's a bunch of 13 years old US and chinese teenager wanking and insulting each other. Not that free bashing hasn't been part of what makes a mmorpg fun but what's free bashing between 10 000 000 people who don't know each other ? What used to make mmorpg great was the human sized communities like in T4c and UO.

Re:New MMO's (1)

XnR'rn (793753) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600162)

For me great MMO was Underlight. :-P But that was more people based.
For me also a great MMO was Discworld MUD. :>

Re:New MMO's (1)

sebkul (1628615) | more than 3 years ago | (#32604944)

For me simple MMOs where ruined by Star Wars Galaxies (before they re did it). When I started playing WOW my though was “this is it?”. Kill 10 x for guy in point A, move to point B then C and so on... in between maybe find something to mine but if you miss too much in A and B you can’t mine stuff in C because your skill isn’t good enough. In Galaxies I had houses, factories, and mining operations. User based cities with stores, pets and vehicles. . . WOW did the quests right (in Galaxies quests where a joke) but they took everything else away. They make it too simple. Now all the MMOs that come out are simple because developers thing that’s what people want, because 10 million users can’t be wrong... sure they can. Some of the most popular games are things like bejewel, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only market. Spam sells millions of cans a year, but that doesn't mean it's the best meat product out there. Now most of the games that come out are WOW clones. If I want to play WOW like game, I’d play WOW! . I think a combination of the two world would work. Give us good quests like in WOW, which are easy to find at your own level (I still remember missions in Anarchy Online that to get to them, I had to run through some enemies that would kill me in one shot). But also give use more content like player cities, houses, better mining, player defensible forts. Not sure what else but more than just going from A to B to C. The game should be polished too, WOW did a good job with that. Others seem to think that fixing existing bugs is a waste of time and they should add more new stuff. In Conan there are missions I can’t finish because they are bugged, but they are coming out with expansions. Stop writing new **** for a couple of months and fix some bugs.

Re:New MMO's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32603282)

Yea... theres a whole slew of games players can pay $60 for which will turn into useless coasters in 6 months when the company shutters the servers.

yay!

Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32599408)

If it doesn't come to console, I don't fucking care.

Says you (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 3 years ago | (#32622610)

If it doesn't come to PC, I don't fucking care. That's because I use the gaming device of an adult and not the one of a child.

Interplay or Bethesda's website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32599614)

If Interplay put up the website (from the article), why does it say Bethesda at the bottom of the page?

Re:Interplay or Bethesda's website? (3, Informative)

mlk (18543) | more than 3 years ago | (#32599766)

Bethesda bought Fallout® from Interplay but as part of this deal Interplay retained the licence to create a Fallout® MMO.

Fallout® belongs to Bethesda, but the MMO part is Interplay.

Re:Interplay or Bethesda's website? (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#32600934)

Because Interplay, as part of what it ended up doing to actually survive long enough to attempt the Phoenix play (rising from it's ashes, reborn...) that it's doing right now, sold the rights to everything Fallout, except for the right to make an MMO for the same and the right to possibly buy the rights to the franchise back at a later date.

As part of the stipulations ZeniMax put on things, they had until a given date to start production on the MMO or lose the right to do that. Right now ZeniMax is challenging Interplay that they didn't meet the deadline- which is actually up to some debate for a change.

Re:Interplay or Bethesda's website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32601092)

I thought I read that they had come to a settlement over the legal dispute, and Interplay's MMO is moving forward.

tubg1rl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32601720)

same worthless I type this. not going home irc.secsup.org or Lite is straining M0ch organisation, ggod to write you

Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32602636)

I'm somewhat torn.
On one hand, I can't sign up for the beta yet because my phone can't render flash websites, and I refuse to visit non-work related sites on the work computer.

On the other hand this means Fallout Online will be free of Apple cultists.

Man, I just don't know how to feel right now.

Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32603098)

I was hoping theyd continue to make kickass games for the fallout franchise.

Instead, they decide to make yet-another-boring-mmo

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...