farlas816 wrote:

Yes, but don't rule it out, think of things like gmod, that people have all different mods for, but still have their game mode servers. Also, I don' think texture replacers would be a huge deal, like how two people can play minecraft together who have different texture packs.

Thing is though is that with Gmod, it's mostly assets that are the mods themselves. If someone has an asset that isn't in their version, it pops up as a huge ERROR sign. Different maps, modes and the like require a download before they can even be played if I recall.

The difference here though is that say for example one person has a mod that adds in a whole new quest line and several new buildings. If the other person doesn't have that mod then they'll see nothing at all. And depending on how they would decide to handle going into places that require loading, it could either cause the person that's sans the mod to crash, or their friend disappears until they come out. That's even provided it doesn't cause the game itself to crash on connect because of the differing mods.

Toss in something that changes stats on weapons, armor, enemies and it becomes even more complicated. The only real mod you could do without forcing both parties to have the same mods, would be texture swaps since that doesn't affect the actual game play.

Dragunslayer wrote:

farlas816 wrote:

Yes, but don't rule it out, think of things like gmod, that people have all different mods for, but still have their game mode servers. Also, I don' think texture replacers would be a huge deal, like how two people can play minecraft together who have different texture packs.

Thing is though is that with Gmod, it's mostly assets that are the mods themselves. If someone has an asset that isn't in their version, it pops up as a huge ERROR sign. Different maps, modes and the like require a download before they can even be played if I recall.

The difference here though is that say for example one person has a mod that adds in a whole new quest line and several new buildings. If the other person doesn't have that mod then they'll see nothing at all. And depending on how they would decide to handle going into places that require loading, it could either cause the person that's sans the mod to crash, or their friend disappears until they come out. That's even provided it doesn't cause the game itself to crash on connect because of the differing mods.

Toss in something that changes stats on weapons, armor, enemies and it becomes even more complicated. The only real mod you could do without forcing both parties to have the same mods, would be texture swaps since that doesn't affect the actual game play.

Perhaps, there would be a smaller, separate world for multiplayer that would not have quest addons and such, I don't know...

I think it could be possible if they just make it co-op like you go to a terminal in the game and you send a message to your buddy across the wastes who will receive it on his/her pipboy and can join your game by accepting the message received. I think something like that would be cool sooo yeah i dunno if it should be in the next fallout but i think it would be good if they dont stuff it up. :p

Only if it was with like 1 or 2 buds or like borderlands where your friends can just pop in and out.

I remember Interplay had the rights to a Fallout MMO while Bethesda had the rights to everything else, but Interplay didn't deliver on their promises, so... Bethesda had to pay them a couple million dollars. I wish I could fail into millions of dollars.

A Fallout MMO would be great. Much better than an Elder Scrolls MMO, since there's so much more potential. It could be like EVE online, in the sense that players would create their own stories and worlds as complex as that already in the game.

Fallout 4 having online, though, I wouldn't suggest. Mainly because people would lose their damn minds if they heard it, as they would if you say "Elder Scrolls VI online," because clearly something being online is selling out in some way. It's more a PR issue than a gameplay issue.

I would like to see optional co-op in a game like this, though. I'd love to explore the world with a friend. It'd just need to be entirely divorced from everything else in the game.

It would be cool if Fallout 4 was online because you could play with your friends and survive the harsh wasteland with them and i would not like it because there could be your average 8 year old troll on Fallout 4 online lol.

could you imagine the bunny-hopping? lol

i wouldn't like multiplier in fallout 4, i think it would break the immersion of the waste with a slight exception for co-op if it is done well. however multiplier for me is basically going to be my friends shooting 3 dog in the face if he is in this one (i think he is).

Kommandant-hillbilly wrote:

could you imagine the bunny-hopping? lol

Not with Fallout 3/NV's nasty jumping...

I would like to see a co-op option in fallout 4, it could only make the game more entertaining, it could however break the game away from the immersion that you got from the original games.

See, i think that it shouldn't. Simply because, I imagine that they'd have to do what bungie did with destiny to make it an online game and destiny was terrible.

Phill&Al wrote:

See, i think that it shouldn't. Simply because, I imagine that they'd have to do what bungie did with destiny to make it an online game and destiny was terrible.

That's a bit of a leap. Destiny's problem was that it's a small environment with absolutely nothing to do and terrible mission design. Fix those problems and you've got a much better game.

Imagine Fallout 3 with co-op, nothing more added or subtracted. That's more what people are going for.

xArchAngel wrote:

I would like to see a co-op option in fallout 4, it could only make the game more entertaining, it could however break the game away from the immersion that you got from the original games.

People are always talking about immersion breaking, and really, I can't see that to much. It's not like there aren't companions with you all the time anyway...

farlas816 wrote:

Perhaps, there would be a smaller, separate world for multiplayer that would not have quest addons and such, I don't know...

Actually, now that you mention it, it WOULD be possible if the game did a check and compared mods and if you have the same then it loads those up, but it deactivates any that aren't shared when loading co-op.

To do this though would probably require a one or two things.
1. No Drop-In co-op, you'd need to do a setup prior so the game can do a comparison. The biggest downside to this though would be the potential time to compare the two versions.

2. You'd probably need two different characters, one Co-Op and one Single Player. This way, if you're running mods on Single Player that change things, give you certain perks and the like, it doesn't cause conflicts or remove them when you load them into Co-Op.

The only other option, and this would be the quickest, would be to have ALL mods automatically disabled for Co-Op. Though number two above still is an issue.

I also agree with you about it not really breaking immersion either as some have stated. We already have the ability to run around with companions. A Co-Op deal would simply be like having a player controlled companion. Now, a full fledged MMO deal...yeah, then I could see that being immersion breaking as the amount of people playing would sort of kill the feel of the game.

I'd like it to just stick with the single player,but if they added a CHOICE for co-op play for lets say you and 3 other friends or less,than that would be fine too.If an MMO was to be made,it would really have to be done right.