And preferably from an Official.. Why would adding (1 extra and up to 4-6 max total) other players into the same game world as you, to team up and adventure be such a bad thing?

The potential is simply amazing, when NPC followers are quite lacklustre, no offence to the AI coders (You have done a pretty amazing job).


Edit: Remember - Co-op, does not mean death match.

The play style I'm referring to is more like Red Dead Redemption, or Fable 3, not an intentional deathmatch game added to it.

The game is already extremely easy even on Master in single player. They would have to take the Borderlands approach on things and scale enemies based on the amount of players in the lobby/world.

I would assume because it would involve dividing focus between singleplayer and multiplayer, which would ultimately end up hurting the game more than helping it.

Rendering such a huge world for two players is insane. What happens if one enters a dungeon and one doesn't? What happens to all the more individual quests like the dark brotherhood?

Well, perhaps you are right, because I've played Borderlands and know what you mean.

With this game, it's just frustrating that NONE of my mates will buy Skyrim, because of that one little small thing.. The lack of co-op play. Yeah, too bad for them, but I sort of agree with them, it would be nice, and willingly worth handing out extra cash as an add-on just to increase the longevity.

Because it is a single player game.

I'd personally rather see any kind of co-op on a Fallout game rather than TES. I like being the lone hero in this game but often think about the times I would travel the Capital Wasteland with Dogmeat and my other companions.

That being said, be prepared for a huge drop in detail to make it stable if it ever happens.

I'm an Official, of what I'm an Official of is of no concern to you right now.

Having a friend would make it so there's two of the all powerful Dragonborn [which people found hard to believe there was just one], AND they just happened to be hanging out together.

I suppose its not a bad idea for future TES, but I remember reading an article back in the day stating the current engine does not optimize for multiplayer. if Beth gonna introduce multiplayer into their game, its likely they need to build a new engine from scratch for it.

I'd assume the same thing.

Frequently used arguments are:

- Multiplayer would divert resources from the single player experience during development.
- Multiplayer would be damageable to immersion. (have you ever tried reading quests and watching NPC interactions during a WoW 5-man run? Good luck with that.)
- Multiplayer might require balance decisions that go against fun in single player.

I tend to agree with all three, though I wouldn't mind a simple form of two player co-op where only one player is considered the main character, able to initiate and complete quests, while the other tags along for exploration and fighting.

If we're on the same level here, I'd say No. There is no 'division' because having an extra person in the game isn't changing the way the game works. Think for example, having split screen single player for a game. There's just an extra person tagging along.



Funnily, I've actually witnessed in Oblivion, multiple characters interacting in the same world. That wasn't official Bethesda work though, so in what I said, don't get any ideas that Bethesda has done it before, because they didn't. Anyway, excluding those more personal quests like Dark Brotherhood is fine, I can understand where you are coming from, unless it were tweaked in some clever way. For instance, difficulty was ramped for targets like in Borderlands based on the number of players, and the quest credited how many players are in the group. I'm no coding genius, just an avid gamer filled with inspiration basically.



Much like Mass Effect 3 is also a single player game, and Red Dead Redemption is a single player game, with an option to play it with more than 1 person.

Oh Also, these games are for story! Friends destroy stories.

You must choose your friends wisely then!

Limit the number of people who occupy the world with you, and the problem is solved.

Why people think that having more than a logical max of 4-6 people in the world with you at the same time is beyond me...

I've chosen my friends as wisely as I could. They're the best stock around here, that's why I keep them around. But you get a few together and stories just have no chance.

Somebody always wants to skip.

I hate games that decide they need to add multiplayer when the single player works just fine. If the multiplayer can be added on without sacrificing from the single player - and the only game where I feel personally that the game is a great single player experience and that more time/resources (due to not adding the multiplayer) would not have helped single player is GTA IV. Obviously there's room for different opinions here, but I also believe the multiplayer added enough on its own to justify it's being there.

Of course, I believe there are multiplayer games out there that are great - but those are lacking a single player component, or the single player component is not the point to the franchise in the first place. For TES (and dear God, Fallout too), these games have always been great single player games - and I feel that the addition of multiplayer would do nothing for them.

Because they didn't want to add it simply to put "check" in the multiplier box. They didn't feel it would add anything to the game.

Their games are rushed to meet a deadline, splitting the focus will only make things worse, and result in half the game being patched in at a later date.

It wouldn't particularly bother me if they implemented multiplayer, I'd just spend my money elsewhere.

Because everytime I'd use a slow time ability and my friend didn't it would create an alternate universe in the game, and I don't have enough friend to occupy all the universes.

Edit: Oops, I said friend instead of friends. Freudian slip

This is all my opinion, but I wouldn’t even want the option to play TES online. It doesn’t fit into the series at all. When I play this game I enjoy zoning out and immersing myself into the world, with another player it would just ruin the experience. Most of the quests already are super easy and straight forward, having someone else would just make them pointless. Example *Go and kill (insert name here) you travel a whole 20 minutes to get there then decide who kills said person while your friend OR you stand around with your finger up your butt* not something that really screams “MAKE ONLINE HAPPEN”. Look, I’m not saying I don’t respect your opinion nor am I trying to flame you in any way, but if you really want that online play just go pop in Borderlands and I mean no disrespect by saying that.

To finish, saying “Make TES online” would be like someone saying “Make Everquest single player” the fans just aren’t going to except it AND it doesn’t make sense.

I wouldn't even go that high. Unless we get a huge technological leap in the near future (always possible, but assuming we don't), if we want any kind of detail and large open worlds to remain it would cap at 2, MAYBE going up to 4. But even then you severely limit either the amount of detail you can put in a game or make so it has to be zoned like Borderlands.

Romer318, no offense taken at all. Your point came across as intended.

Some people believe that there should be no such thing as choice though while others agree choice is fine, which is the reason why mankind loves to debate. Without choice, and opinions, we wouldn't have a need to debate would be.



I must say, if you read my earlier comment about that unofficial thing that made it work, you might see that it can work. Honestly, myself and 2 others would be my desired and comfortable preference if co-op were to actually exist. However, I do see your point.



Sorry, I just couldn't help but grin when I read that. I try and avoid those friends of mine, and game with the ones that are easy, lol.

Bethesda's TES games are single player because multiplayer games need small, or very low-detail maps. Not only that, but the tech infrastructure that goes into the engine just to support the connectivity is huge, which reduces the developer hours that you can put into the game itself.

it's a huge undertaking to make a game mplayer, and in a TES game that is already huge, it would spell major cutbacks for the series. And seeing how people complain about the state of the (rather well done) game right now... I'd hate to see what would happen if we lost any functionality in place of multiplayer.

Yeah, your point is valid, but I hope you're realising what kind of "multi-player" we're talking about here. Not deathmatch, or player vs player gameplay. I'm referring to open world co-op play like Red Dead Redemption / GTA 4 (You could kill each other in them, but that's based on player intentions, not the purposed aim of those games experience, especially RDR).

It's a mixed bag with the gaming industry, and implementing change is always controversial, so I see where you are coming from. But just keep in mind that developers are clever at dismissing our fears, because they're creative geniuses and do some amazing work that we weren't expecting to happen.

I'm pretty familiar with how a game company works, and production schedules, and budgets etcetera. About those that complain... people will always have opinions, and you can't please everyone, even if they were drawn into the hype or not, and possibly were one that fantasised beyond what was going to happen with the game up to release content, and/or took a journalists opinion rather than forming their own first. Each to their own basically.

Some developers pull multiplayer off, while others don't. For example:
Eidos with Assassins Creed: Brotherhood. It's not co-op (Like I'm implying with Skyrim), but it was an example of a single player game with added multi-player mode that was addictive, as it was fun. It worked so well that I would have paid extra just for a standalone version of the multiplayer, as playing with friends is always a great time for me. The move for AC:B worked out fantastically. I personally can't name any that haven't worked out well, because I don't like to bag on developers, as they deserve credit for their hard work.