No Right Answer: Videogame That Should be an MMO

[Aesir23]

I think I'd try a Mass Effect MMO. I'd be wary about it since although EA seems to be trying to turn their image around, their involvement would be something to be cautious about.

An MMO made by Bethesda Game Studios (being specific since I don't mind a lot of the games published by Bethesda) is probably something that I wouldn't want to touch. Skyrim's expansive world and moddability are what make up for its multitude of issues. An MMO made by them would have the expansive, beautiful world but none of the mods.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Nope. Nope. All aboard the nope train. There are no games that would be better off as MMOs. There are, however, plenty of MMOs that would be better off as regular games. Secret World, The Old Republic, Warhammer Online, etc. etc.

I'll definitely buy a ticket, so I can ride on that train. There is no way I want Bethesda taking the Fallout franchise hostage in an attempt to rope me into playing a time sink with no end in sight.

 

[Holythirteen]

Ugh I don't want either of my favourite single-player games getting an MMO-reboot, once you do that, it just doesn't hold the same charm of the series.

Why do we need to anyway? These are the last of the single player games, everything else is already a multiplayer game or multiplayer game with some watered down single player mode thrown in.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I say neither. 'Cause the biggest thing that turns me off MMOs is having to share the game world with thousands of other dickheads and feeling like my impact on said game world is zilch.

 

[Chrinik]

Humans aren´t the newest race in council space in Mass Effect...apparently in some fluff story, a race of birdlike people has just been approved into council terretory, and between ME2 and 3 had an embassy on the Citadell, but then the Reapers came and they cut ties almost instantly, hiding on their planet thinking they can prevent the Reapers from coming by pretending to not be far enough advanced.

Whatever, just wanted to throw that out there.
I´d think those ideas would be kinda cool, however, given how most MMOs try to compete with WoW, it´ll fail.

 

[Joos]

"EA wants you to forget..."

Isn't that the truth? Best line from NRA all year.

 

[AtheistConservative]

My vote is for Pokemon as it would make the world's feel more real. As it is, you're always bumping into other trainers, make them real people with actual pokemon sets. Instead of these poor lifeless sods who stand all day in one patch of grass with perfectly healthy pokemon, sometimes you'll bump into someone with only one pokemon still awake who's just trying to make it back to town. You could also work cooperatively and help each other get through caves, or using special abilities like surf.

 

[EHKOS]

Nope. Nope. All aboard the nope train. There are no games that would be better off as MMOs. There are, however, plenty of MMOs that would be better off as regular games. Secret World, The Old Republic, Warhammer Online, etc. etc.

My thoughts. MMO's are more costly, always-online, and most of the time, require other players to complete tasks. I love the Old Republic as a video game. It's basically KOTOR III with all the lore packed into it, the amount of quests and worlds. It's amazing, until you get to the $15 monthly price tag, the requirement to make friends so you can get decent equipment, having to always be online to play it. That's why I don't play it anymore. If the server code ever leaks, and hackers/pirates/whoever get a working server emulator running, and cut out the need for other players (e.g. balance issues for flashpoints so one player could complete them) I'd play the shit out of that game.

I'm happy with the single player experience. Plus the graphics and animations always take a hit, which isn't awful, but it's another point against them.

 

[Branindain]

An EA MMO... I'd need to invent some kind of new meter that measures games in microtransactions per hour, so I could enter that game in the Guinness Book.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

HALF. LIFE.

DO IT NAO.

Seriously, players could all be rebels. It would be awesome.

 

[Wesley Brannock]

This is what pops into my mind every time I hear of a " New " Mass Effect Game.


I was open to the idea of a Mass Effect M.M.O game BEFORE Mass Effect 3 was released. However the damage that E.A Games has done is something that I WON'T forgive or forget.

Though I would say that at least for the time being I'm still open to the idea of a Fallout M.M.O game. If only for the reason that Bethesda game studio hasn't yet ruined the Fallout series for me ( I say " yet " since I don't discount the possibility of them doing so ). I will however wait for CONFIRMED INFORMATION. I don't like the idea of going off of pure rumor since it can raise hopes without merit. Now when or if I get CONFIRMED INFORMATION of a Fallout game from Bethesda I'll be all like.


I'm even open to the idea of the Fallout game being a M.M.O so long as it ISN'T considered " cannon ".

However if the Fallout M.M.O were considered " cannon ", or if it was as bad as Mass Effect 3, or if the non-M.M.O game was as bad as Mass Effect 3 then this would be my reaction.


Though I seriously doubt that will be the case.

 

[solemnwar]

A fallout MMO is impossible. Too many people in a world that is supposed to be very much dead. Fallout 3 and New Vegas had a lot of people already, nearly too many people.

Uh. The Fallout games are about humanity rebuilding after an apocalypse. It's not about a world that's dead/dying, it's about a world that's rebuilding. New Vegas takes place a couple centuries after the fall of the bombs, and in an area where the damage was limited. Not to mention the long-established new government that was slowly expanding over the last couple centuries (NCR), leading to stability, better and more food, and therefore more people.

The first two fallouts had quite a few people, especially the second one (which takes place 80 years after the first one, so humanity has had more time to rebuild).

Not that I think an MMO would be a good idea- I do not. But I'm not a big fan of MMOs to begin with, preferring single player play, so I'm not a good person to talk about that lol.

 

[Rodolphe Kourkenko]

I would like a Fallout MMO but i don't see how hundreds of players would find resources since it's a post apo world. It would be illogical or too restrictive.

For ME... I would say yes BUT after Swtor, DA2, ME3 and all the PR damages that Bioware inflicted unpon their IP, i don't see it coming. And since it would been made by EA... It's perhaps for the better.
Just look at the three games, you never saw anything creative after the first and the player was never free to explore anything in ME2 and 3, even the Citadel was reduced to almost nothing.

ME can be, perhaps, a good mmo if the creators just watch some space documentaries because ME is a space game where you never see space, it's always the same kind of star, with the same kind of planet with some fluff (which isn't even the same from a game to another) and even if some can be interesting, the player is NEVER allowed to make research or explore about it. The ME univers is too static and generic, Dead Space have vacuum levels, don't think about it in ME.

Between the two i would say Fallout. But i just hope it remain a single player game.
For ME, i don't really care...

 

[Wesley Brannock]

A fallout MMO is impossible. Too many people in a world that is supposed to be very much dead. Fallout 3 and New Vegas had a lot of people already, nearly too many people.

Uh. The Fallout games are about humanity rebuilding after an apocalypse. It's not about a world that's dead/dying, it's about a world that's rebuilding. New Vegas takes place a couple centuries after the fall of the bombs, and in an area where the damage was limited. Not to mention the long-established new government that was slowly expanding over the last couple centuries (NCR), leading to stability, better and more food, and therefore more people.

The first two fallouts had quite a few people, especially the second one (which takes place 80 years after the first one, so humanity has had more time to rebuild).

Not that I think an MMO would be a good idea- I do not. But I'm not a big fan of MMOs to begin with, preferring single player play, so I'm not a good person to talk about that lol.

Ok I mostly agree with you. The only thing I'd have to say is that IF a M.M.O were made from Fallout it would have to be it's own " thing " meaning it SHOULDN'T be cannon. A non-cannon Fallout M.M.O is something I could support so long as it is separate from the main story. Whether it should or shouldn't be made is debatable at best. At least you admit that M.M.O's isn't something that you have an interest in so I won't stress that point. I'm not even into M.M.O's myself however if they made a non-canon Fallout M.M.O I might change my mind ( depending on how well it is made ).

 

[leviadragon99]

Ehhh... I think MMO-ifying either of those properties is not the answer, I mean we saw what happened last time the studio that created Mass Effect made an MMO. Remember, they're still labouring under Evilness Associates.

The thing about the MMO, to me at least, is that it's almost impossible to design one these days that isn't about gouging as much money from the player as possible, whether it's subscription based or a cash shop psychologically pressuring you to open up your wallet and let the producers nickel-and-dime you to death, it's less about providing an enjoyable experience for the player than providing a steady cashflow.

You see this with the very design fundamentals of an MMO, wasting your time and stretching out content into a samey grind to keep you playing longer, thus either running out more time on your monthly subscription, or wearing on your patience to get some cash shop stuff to make things go faster or get rid of annoyingly walled-off content and features.

I mean I'm all for the underlying idea of an MMO, a sense of community and co-operation, a large group of players working together and exploring a large world filled with mysteries and goodies, but that aspect just seems to come second to developers these days.

Plus... Fallout, really? It's meant to be a solitary wander through a post-apocalyptic wasteland, loneliness is part of the equation, and while always-on PVP would certainly make it a suitably hostile world, the immersion in bleakness would be damaged somewhat by the ridiculous names and endless horrible chatlog.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

I would say a Pokémon MMO is probably the most likely to happen...but it might signal the fall of the franchise. *gets looks* I will explain.

The reason why it's likely to happen is that eventually the Pokémon games will become too big for their britches. By that...I mean memory space on a cartridge. Sure they gone from fitting 251 Pokémon (plus features) on a 2" by 2" cartridge to fitting 721 of them (plus a CRAPTON of features) on something the size of a postage stamp...but you can only fit so much data and compress it so far before you run out of room and can't do anymore. Heck...X&Y actually had some bad glitches pop up from the Lumiose save glitch to the Snorlax glitch. Eventually, if there are future installments, the games will eventually have to be put on much larger media...such as the Wii U or even the PC.

Unfortunately, it's at THAT point that one of the biggest selling points of the game will be lost: portability. Once the game becomes so big it can no longer be played on a handheld and must be played on the PC or even a console, not a lot of people will be interested since they can no longer take it with them wherever they wish to go. In fact, I suspect this is one of the reasons why the Gamecube games were not very well received with some gamers DESPITE having a somewhat badass protagonist in Colloseum. (I rather liked that, personally. At least we weren't playing some bright-eyed kid.)

Anyways...just my two Pokéyen on the subject...