I love Fallout 3 and after buying the GOTY edition and playing alot, I was thinking that having an Online Co-op with a friend who plays as another Lone Wanderer could add to the fun if done right. Do you think that Fallout 3 should have online Co-op? Yes or No?

No

yeeeeahno. 
 
i don't know actually.  if it was done right, it could be interesting, but with VATS and all it'd be kinda weird to see your friend frozen in time while you walk along.

Nahhhh. The combat in the game is too dynamic and impossible to assign any kind of difficulty setting to it. I guess if you just wanted to fool around with a friend in the game's current state, you can check the PC mods for some ghetto ass co-op mod. Assuming there is one...

Negative.

" No "

No. How would VATS work? The whole point of the game is that you're a lone wanderer. I'm sure most people would struggle finding someone to commit to a 60 hour game with them. Maybe a Fallout game in the future will satisfy your interest... maybe some sort of MMO?
 

That would totally ruin the narrative and the whole experience. I would say no.

The fallout franchise never was about other people fucking your game up. 
 
Plus look at Bethsoft's record, they don't do multiplayer. What they do is stashing up portions of an rpg and sell them to you, post-launch.

"@Eliot: No. Absolutely not. As EpicSteve pointed out, how would VATS work? Also the fact that as he also stated, the point is that you are alone in a desolate nuclear wasteland.  I hate this notion that so many people have that "every game needs an online mode" or something of that extent. When that sentiment hits developers, it ruins some games. So please, no. Keep your co-op out of my Fallout 3! Thank you. "

LOL, reminds me of the movie "Airheads", where the band was called "The Lone Rangers".

I really wonder why some people think games like this should have some sort of multiplayer.
 
In short: No.

Fallout MMO, Yes. Co-Op, No!

I think co-op could totally work if were not for VATS....

no

I think it would be cool but the VATS would get annoying because every other second I'd have to freeze to watch my partner shoot. I think it would be fun to explore the wastes with a buddy but they'd have to do a few changes.

Simple Answer
 
!!! FUCK YES !!!
 
But it would have to be very basic, 
Like just joining into the normal single player game with your friend,
But add another 50-75% enemies, For each person.
I wouldn't want any more that 4 people total, Two would be perfect.
 
If they try and do something really special with multi player,  There's a good chance it will suck.
And an even better chance the single player would suffer somewhere.

I think that could be fun, roaming the wasteland together. 

"  ...with a friend who plays as another Lone Wanderer ... "

As many people have pointed out, adding another player will immediately render the desolate and harsh atmosphere of the game moot.  

no. It's very much meant to be a singleplayer experience, and i wouldn't want it any other way.

no

I think that co-op would be awesome.

It seems everyone fears losing the "Desolate Wasteland" feel, and that a partner would sabotage that. To that I ask, what about followers? Followers play a prominent roll in the game. To me, that argument is misguided. It also needs to be noted that clearly, this would be an optional mode, so people who for whatever reason don't bring along companions and just go it alone, will still have that. Some of my friends and I have thought in depth regarding co-op, and what the dev team would need to do to make it function. Here are some of the points we came up with:

• Yes, V.A.T.S would be abolished in co-op, but that's an acceptable sacrifice because you will have TWO people blasting away at the enemy, which would likely balance it. It would certainly still make combat slightly more difficult overall, but personally, I see this as a minor sacrifice.
• A Tether would be necessary, not a traditional tether like the one in OFP:DR, but a 'load-screen tether' like in the Lego Star Wars games (lol), where when a player attempts to enter a zone where a load screen will be necessary, the game will prompt the other player to accept the advance via a button press, or by coming within a certain distance of the doorway in question (to avoid exploiting the feature by having one player deep in combat being whisked away by accepting the door usage of the other player. There are places where this would be slightly annoying, especially in heavy urban areas like the New Vegas Strip where the player is constantly passing through these loading screens, but alas, sacrifices must be made.
• One of the biggest game-changers would be the use of the Pip-Boy, which would no longer pause the game, and therefore would be used in REAL TIME. This would place greater emphasis on the tactical usage of Hot Keys. Both players would need to be certain their Hot Keys complimented each other, and are combat-ready with both health items and weapons.
• A minor tweak, and one that is featured in Skyrim, is real-time conversation, meaning time doesn't magically pause when a player enters conversation. In addition, AI would have to be altered to accommodate two players in a few ways: If the NPC in conversation is harmed by the non-conversing player, then he will break conversation and react accordingly. If the other player attempts to access a restricted area, or steal an object (in sight of the NPC) the NPC will break conversation and react. This does mean that distracting a guard through conversation would be a new, and viable tactic (only if you can engage that NPC in conversation to begin with)
• Because many conversations are affected by skills and perks, the players can choose who talks to the NPCs they encounter, allowing them to invest their XP and perks in a complimentary manner (i.e. a gunman who is knowledgeable in weaponry, repair, survival etc, and a smooth-talking diplomat)
• In conversations prompted by NPCs, whichever player is closer to the NPC will engage in the conversation.
• In conversation involving objectives or other quest-related pieces, the player in the conversation will make the choices, and those choices will effect the points made below for both players.
• All XP would be allotted to both players, and both players would level up simultaneously
• Objectives would be given to both players, and when completed by one, would be completed for both.
• Karma and reputation would be shared.
• Perks involving V.A.T.S would be abolished, as would perks that affect skill increase and rate.
• Yes, in order for all of this to work, both players would need to be online simultaneously and play together. This is the only way to not sacrifice the game's depth.
• Little or no change would be made to the amount of items found in containers, as having two mouths to feed should be balanced by having two sets of hands searching.
• Players inventorys would be separate, as would their caps. Though, naturally, they'd be able to barter and exchange with each other.
• Like in Minecraft, both players must find a bed to sleep (the first player to find one will be prompted to wait for the other, and the first player to find a bed will be in charge of selecting the length of slumber
• A player will select a Wait time and the other player will be prompted to accept or reject it.

There may have been more issues and solutions, but this is all I could recall at the moment. Let me know what you think, and anything I may have missed or should be done differently.

@Eliot said:

It would be appreciated if you gave some reasons please.

I'm going to say no just because vats wouldn't work or it would be really weird. Besides that though I would love it if fallout was coop so at least I wouldn't be bored to death playing it.

I would like it. Would be nice to be able to play with friends instead of playing separately and relaying stories to each other.

I don't want an MMO or anything crazy like that, though - just support for up to maybe 4 players.

OMG Yes!

christ, man!

They would have to completely retool the combat, to almost the turn based system of the original titles, or do away with VATS entirely, which would leave you with a janky co-op shooter. I personally don't care for that. If you want to get your multiplayer Fallout on, there might be people still playing Fallout:Tactics out there somewhere in the world. Otherwise play Borderlands if you're looking for a co-op shooter that has embraced a run down looking world and the color brown.

No. The entire point of fallout is that your a lone wanderer.

As if the game isn't broken enough without adding multyplayer into the mix.

I don't think one needs to lose VATS, just put it under control of the host player ala. slow motion in FEAR 3 and let the partner line up shots based on the AP he has when it's active. I doubt this would be a compelling experience with randoms though, it'd really only be suitable for playing with a good buddy that has a similar play style.

as people have said before,Fallout 3 isn't a shooter. The shooting simply isn't good enough without VATS.

I don't necessarily agree that it breaks it because you're supposed to be alone all the time, though. In the first two Fallout games you could get Ian/Sulik very quickly. You hardly spend any time alone. Unless if they worked out some sort of story contrivance whereby the other player is not also the main character and has their own story, though, it would feel weird for me to have 2-player co-op in a fallout game. It's not like WoW or Dungeon Siege where the story doesn't matter.

Bethesda only now managed to get a decently functioning game out the door: Skyrim.
Their worlds are big and complex enough to already add a huge amount of difficulty in terms of coding and making all that stuff hold together.
Asking them to add in a MP component would magnify the issues, difficulies and complexities monumentally.
Their games have also always been about your own personal adventure in these big worlds.
You doing what you want and affecting them how you want.
Your own personal playgrounds.
Their games are designed from the ground up to be single player experiences. All of the core design desicions are based with that in mind.
 
In general the cost:benefit ratio to do something like this would not be good.
It's a bad idea on several fronts.
 
PS: also people talking about balance in Bethesda RPGs - LooooooL

PSS: what the fuck, your first post on the site and its a necro?.....
 
PSSS: wow ... it's actually 2 necros in a row by 1 post users, christ someone needs to do exorcism in this thread, with so much necromancy going on

I'm gonna say Yes. I would dig some Co-Op in some Fallout.

@MA5TER_CHAFFE: Actually, a game like that probably would be pretty great if done right. I'm not sure that Fallout 3 is the right game for it, but I like the idea. I think the shooting would have to be a little more solid, and the jank would have to be beaten down, but the added tactics could be really interesting. Imagine setting up an ambush, like in the pilot of Firefly, with your buddy up on a hill with a rifle while you negotiate with a raider. Hmm... STALKER 2 might be a good candidate for something like that.

Nope, this game is perfect!. Well not perfect, but I put this game in my number 1 spot!.