And I'd also play this. Why hasn't anyone done this yet?Furburt said:Well, considering Waterworld is a bit of a rip off of Mad Max 2, I think a Mad Max 2 MMO would be just the ticket.
I roll The Humongous!
Heretic! Burn himPararaptor said:Isn't Waterworld regarded as one of the worst films of all time?
Could be interesting if the boating parts are RTS. You start the game with a small one man boat (top down view) and eventually work your way up to bigger boats and you need to outfit them with weapons and a crew. The parts in towns could all be 3rd person. Also the towns would be neat if it had a player driven economy.MR T3D said:where's the RTS element..?
i see none.
Dunno, in my view it looks like a hillarious griefing game where smokers and slavers kill and destroy everything else, and take controls of the builders.Terramax said:What do you guys think?
Snap! Didn't think of that.jubosu said:I dont think this would translate well with gamers though because gamers dont like water.
Really sorry...gigastrike said:At first I really thought that this game was coming out. Thanks for getting my hopes up...jerk.
It made $264,218,220 worldwide.Matt_LRR said:Waterworld was, at the time of it's release, the most expensive film ever made, at $175 million, and it's domestic box office take was around $88 million.
Sorry, what I meant was either an MMO or an RTS. If it were an RTS, you'd probably have to play as either Atollers or smokers, with slaves being used either to build stuff or make money out of by selling. Not sure how the drifters would fit in. Presumably they'd turn up to sell you really valuable items.MR T3D said:where's the RTS element..?
i see none.
Yes it did, in the end, a total which was appallingly low for the most expensive film ever made.Terramax said:It made $264,218,220 worldwide.Matt_LRR said:Waterworld was, at the time of it's release, the most expensive film ever made, at $175 million, and it's domestic box office take was around $88 million.
Yeah, that's a fair point. I wasn't disputing the film did appallingly at the box office, I was just disputing the figures as I felt yours were a bit misleading.Matt_LRR said:Yes it did, in the end, a total which was appallingly low for the most expensive film ever made.Terramax said:It made $264,218,220 worldwide.Matt_LRR said:Waterworld was, at the time of it's release, the most expensive film ever made, at $175 million, and it's domestic box office take was around $88 million.
That box office take is akin to Avatar only grossing $250mil. in the states and $750mil. worlwide. For a project that took 10 years and a half billion dollars to make, that kind of piddly ROI would be catastrophic.
bear in mind also that half the box office earnings go straight to the theatres, so the actual return to the studio would have been about $130Mil - a loss of $45Million worldwide.
-m
I did specify domestic box office, but fair enough.Terramax said:Yeah, that's a fair point. I wasn't disputing the film did appallingly at the box office, I was just disputing the figures as I felt yours were a bit misleading.Matt_LRR said:Yes it did, in the end, a total which was appallingly low for the most expensive film ever made.Terramax said:It made $264,218,220 worldwide.Matt_LRR said:Waterworld was, at the time of it's release, the most expensive film ever made, at $175 million, and it's domestic box office take was around $88 million.
That box office take is akin to Avatar only grossing $250mil. in the states and $750mil. worlwide. For a project that took 10 years and a half billion dollars to make, that kind of piddly ROI would be catastrophic.
bear in mind also that half the box office earnings go straight to the theatres, so the actual return to the studio would have been about $130Mil - a loss of $45Million worldwide.
-m