Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Games

Fallout Online Website Arises Amid Legal Battle 85

Posted by Soulskill from the how-refreshingly-unceremonious dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fallout Online Website Arises Amid Legal Battle More

Fallout Online Website Arises Amid Legal Battle

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zerospeaks ( 1467571 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @01:16AM (#32599210) Homepage
    Well it looks like InterPlay is trying to make a come back. GOOD! I say. Once upon a time Interplay was awesome.
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Enderandrew ( 866215 )

      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.

  • I saw this turn up on palgn.com.au under their releases and questioned the July release date.

    Fingers crossed I get into the Beta.

  • Finally, a chance to play in a post apocalyptic world... this may even wean me off of Azeroth if it's any good.
  • 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.
    • Some can sign up and some can't at the moment, speculation is that the beta will be North America or US only.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xiph ( 723935 )

        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

        • It is reall shame you can not choose fallout:bos

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mcvos ( 645701 )

          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: (Score:2)

            by Jaysyn ( 203771 )

            If you like Fallout 2 the best, you may like this. Its a MMORPG based on Fallout 2 that uses the resources from the Fallout 2 disc / installation.

            http://fonline2238.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

          • 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: (Score:2)

              by mcvos ( 645701 )

              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.

        • After FO3 there is no going back.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Omestes ( 471991 )

            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

            • 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

        • ...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

      • I signed up, in Australia.

    • 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? (Score:4, Funny)

      by thomst ( 1640045 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @04:01AM (#32599870) Homepage

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

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

  • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thrymm ( 662097 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @03:09AM (#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.

      • I think he meant 'dominance'...

      • Re:New MMO's (Score:4, Insightful)

        by delinear ( 991444 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @04:14AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @04:20AM (#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 (Score:4, Funny)

          by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @05:23AM (#32600242) Homepage Journal

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

        • 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

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gknoy ( 899301 )

            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 betwe

            • 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 t

      • They did not dumb things down (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @04:28AM (#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 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by XMode ( 252740 ) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:29AM (#32600516)

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

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Sky Cry ( 872584 )

          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, tra

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ukyoCE ( 106879 )

          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

      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by wildstoo ( 835450 )

        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 object

      • 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 simp

      • 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
    • 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: (Score:1)

        by XnR'rn ( 793753 )

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

Slashdot Top Deals

"I shall expect a chemical cure for psychopathic behavior by 10 A.M. tomorrow, or I'll have your guts for spaghetti." -- a comic panel by Cotham

Close