Poll: Waterworld - The MMO/ RTS - Good Idea?

Darchrow

New member
Nov 18, 2009
111
0
0
Wow really? Waterworld was one of my favorite movies, I loved postman and Mad Max, but I think I've only seen 2 of the Mad Max movies. But I doubt it'll make a good RTS a PVP orientated MMORPG might work though.
 

Meggiepants

Not a pigeon roost
Jan 19, 2010
2,536
0
0
Hmmm, well, I actually liked Waterworld, it isn't exactly something I would recommend to people, but... you know, it has that whole post apocalypse thing going for it. I'm a serious sucker for post-apocalyptic stuff. I'd probably check a game based on it out.

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!
And I'd also play this. Why hasn't anyone done this yet?
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
Sounds like an interesting idea. Slaves could be a form of currency, and the towns could have all the resources. There could be lots of NPC drifters and smokers to fight to do quests/get loot.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
MR T3D said:
where's the RTS element..?
i see none.
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.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
For those people saying "waterworld is supposed to be the worst movie ever", you're mistaken. It is "the worst box office failure ever" not the worst film. THAT honor probably goes to Battlefield Earth.


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.

It was recieved with average reviews by critics, and wasn't panned by any stretch of the imagination. It was just met with a resounding "meh".

-m
 

jubosu

New member
Aug 9, 2009
362
0
0
I thought that movie was pretty good.
I also thought Postman was good

I dont think this would translate well with gamers though because gamers dont like water.
 

gigastrike

New member
Jul 13, 2008
3,112
0
0
At first I really thought that this game was coming out. Thanks for getting my hopes up...jerk.

Yes, it sounds like a good idea. I've always liked the idea a large-scale, persistant game where multiple teams with totally different play-styles and goals combated each other.
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
Wouldn't there be, like, a whole lot of big boring open flat water areas in the game?
 

Twad

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,254
0
0
Terramax said:
What do you guys think?
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.

Could have potential for exploration (drifters looking here and there).. but at the same time; ts a water world = Boooooorrriiiinnnngg. People would cluster where stuff happens; islands and bases.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
jubosu said:
I dont think this would translate well with gamers though because gamers dont like water.
Snap! Didn't think of that.

gigastrike said:
At first I really thought that this game was coming out. Thanks for getting my hopes up...jerk.
Really sorry...

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.
It made $264,218,220 worldwide.

MR T3D said:
where's the RTS element..?
i see none.
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.
 

Marowit

New member
Nov 7, 2006
1,271
0
0
It seems like it'd be pretty bland in terms of setting...

The first thought that popped into my mind when I read waterworld and MMO was Fallen Earth. just sayin'
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Terramax said:
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.
It made $264,218,220 worldwide.
Yes it did, in the end, a total which was appallingly low for the most expensive film ever made.

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
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
I don't really see how "bland open water, people will cluster" are negatives, exactly. Just look at EVE... it's just vast emptiness with neat backgrounds of nebulas and stuff. If you want to see people you go to a station or sometimes jumpgates have people. Waterworld: The Game could have tips of skyscrapers sticking out of the water... lots and lots of sea life. I see no reason the game couldn't have submarines. Particularily if they go on the whole gills/webbed feet thing for Drifters (I know it was unique in the movie, but the game could be a century later and the gene pool spread). And realistically, if all the ice melted there would still be a fair deal of land so the game could have lots of islands of varying size as well as occasional platforms and stuff.

Also... flying boats anyone?
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Terramax said:
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.
It made $264,218,220 worldwide.
Yes it did, in the end, a total which was appallingly low for the most expensive film ever made.

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
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

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Terramax said:
Matt_LRR said:
Terramax said:
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.
It made $264,218,220 worldwide.
Yes it did, in the end, a total which was appallingly low for the most expensive film ever made.

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
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.
I did specify domestic box office, but fair enough.

-m