The way these companies are going, just wait for the Elder Scrolls MMO.

Ha, no reason to apologize, I believe that's why I worded it that way.


And I'm going to completely agree with That. A lot of quests in Elder Scrolls games are really not two person friendly. They'd have to completely recreate the entire setup. You can't just have quests to go somewhere and kill someone. It's only good for multiplayer if it's Go somewhere and kill Everyone.

If you it for just dungeon crawling with a buddy then gamesas already put out Hunted. But I heard that svcked.

Because it's a single player game. Not every game needs to be designed with multiplayer in mind, y'know.

Matt, it really comes down to choice, it doesn't have to interfere with how you play the game if you don't connect to Xbox Live/PSN/Steam with a friend of yours.



Yes, there'd be a bit of working, however, as someone pointed out, do what Borderlands did, I can't help but agree. Difficulty scales with how many people are in your group-session.

(I reminisce back to the annoying difficulty level of Baldurs Gate 2 in LAN with my brother, with the game being at max difficulty.)

Anyone who has played an Elder Scrolls game should know why there is no Co-Op.

Fair call. However, that is like saying Warcraft would never change from being an RTS, and becoming an MMO.

but it's not really the same game now, is it?

Exactly. I can see a future where a TES spinoff becomes multiplayer. They have done some other spinoff concepts in the past, including mobile games and uh.. battlespire. Whatever that was.

Hmm, can't say that I've actually played any of Bethesda's lesser known titles.

I would hand over a lot of money for a TES co-op segment.

oh, i cannot wait for the day that this online socializing craze ends and people remember how fun it was to do something with zero concern about what your twitter followers think of it... just sit back, relax, and play a game. no ruining stories for yourself by maintaining that facade of aloofness we all adopt when something dramatic happens, no explaining basic game mechanics to your derpy friends, and no half-assed narratives that butcher themselves to account for the possibility of 2 protagonists.

one day... one day it will be over. and for one brief moment of time, sanity will return to the world.

and then the next craze will hit... im hoping its the resurgence of renaissance-era fashion. i dont care what you think now, frilly neck doilies are STYLISH!

So, I take it you must have fun temporarily escaping from an Amish society, to talk to us all on this forum? That's very awesome of you.

people are worry about the multiplayer part will ruin their single player experience. if Beth can come up with a solutuon without hurting any other aspect of the game, then i see it as a step toward improvement

xxx has joined your game, Alsuin's minions has grown stronger.

Amish people live like early Americans, not renaissance...

There is no free lunch. Design and implementation don't come out of nowhere and for free.

At the absolute minimal, it requires dedicated coders, testers, and designers that could be working on other features.

It takes a lot more effort than people realize to properly implement multiplayer. If you thought the bugs and glitches were bad now, imagine if half the dev team was focused on MP.

Yah right it would be all that hard, really they already steamed the game might as well make it multiplayer. Throw in some pvp and id have some real fun with you people.

Skyrim Already Is Two Player Co-Op!!!


Only, the second player is controlled by a stupid AI that will often do more harm than good for you.


Why are so many people against having the Option to have a real life friend take control of that NPC that you can have follow you around, and enjoy the game with a friend?

Multi-player is usually added to increase the longevity of games, which TES games have enough content and re-play value that they dont need it. Multi-player additions just detract resources from the single player line and can ruin single player francises, i.e. splinter cell was never the same once it went multiplayer in double agent. Then you get situations like Assassins Creed Brotherhood where, after all those resources were spent on multiplayer and the single player game was short, all the multiplayer gamers did nothing but complain about it anyway (the servers were ridiculously slow and it took for ever to get into a match). Lastly it is hard enough to make a open world game like this as a single player game. Imagine the chaos and bugs if there was mulitplay/co-op.

I for one have always respected Bethesda for sticking to their single player titles, TES and Fallout. They chose to make content as the factor that keeps people playing their games as opposed to garbage tactics like multiplayer.

That's a neat idea.

Wasn't there a co-op mod for MW? Wonder how they went.

I can't agree with this. xD

But that may be because Skyrim is my first TES game.

Thank you, for generally being on the same level as me.

I think you REALLY don't realize just how much work it represent.

Lets not have "I think" debates here. Because there are a lot of them, no doubt it takes an un-estimated amount of hours of work. If it means more sales of your product at the end of the day at a price that compensates Bethesda for all of the hours put in to adding the option of small scale co-op, (While lengthening re-playability, and minimizing game retention of existing players) for many people avoiding Skyrim for this reason, we've got a winner here.

No we dont.
Not only multiplayer requires a large amount of time that would be better spent fleshing up the game (which really needs it in lots of case), but including multiplayer would also alter the design of the game (because you don't add something so costly in ressources just as a side-option) and we really don't need any MORE of the "streamlining" that multiplayer typically involve.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1239188-official-tes-multiplayerco-op-thread/