We know that Co-Op will have a huge resource impact on any game, not just Skyrim. But that can be relieved through a 2-player (MAX) system link (and only system link, not split-screen). And for the second player, its kind of like Baldur's Gate; the character can only have the powers (initiate dialouge, buy/sell, etc.) the host gives him. Story-wise, he can be an almost equally powerful companion.

A lot of people mentoin RDR and GTA 4, but I dont see much mention about how both of these free roams ultimately failed. The idea? Have you and your friend(s) enter the world together, at the same time. The problem? Once you do this, then what? There wasnt much to do in either of these games. While they were both very fun to roam around in at first, it got old VERY quick. RDR tackled this issue with adding mini games and death match modes to enter in Free Roam, but neither worked very well nor provided long lasting satisfaction.

I am one of the first people to say that in theory, multiplayer seems great for TES. But in reality, there isnt much room for this in a already expansive, RPG. They should be putting their focus towards the 1 player game, and not a novelty like multiplayer.

I just look back at Oblivion and Morrowind, and try to think whether they would have benefitted from Multiplayer, and I just cant see it. It would have been fun, for about 5 minutes. The games were amazing for what they were, not for what they could have been. Riding horses around the wilderness and slaying beasts starts to get old quick, and I certainly DO NOT want help from friends to complete missions. Mini games that could implemented in a TES game seem like they would be equally boring.

The multiplayer aspects of GTA 4 and RDR did not ruin the games, but they certainly were an embarassing aspect of an otherwise good game. That said I dont expect to see TES team to embarass themselves by attempting something that few people would enjoy for long periods of time.

As for the MMO comments, Im completely disgusted that anyone would mention MMO and TES in the same sentence. Keep that garbage in WOW. TES is not an MMO game, and making it so would ruin the game for me.

Being forced to play a single player ONLY game? Who is forcing you to play Skyrim?

So are yours. Empty words coming from you.

If Beth wants to make a co-op game let them make a co-op game, just keep it away from the ES.

What the hell are you even talking about? No one is forcing me to play Skyrim, but I will be playing it out of my own will. If I didn't want to play Skyrim, guess what? I wouldn't. Same way no one would be forcing you to play co-op and you wouldn't have to.



Big difference though. My opinions are shared by others and actually have sense behind them. Yours are only held by you and when anyone questions them, you just reply that they aren't "true fans" of TES and that they aren't getting the whole experience.

No.

No multiplayer, PERIOD. Its not in Skyrim, so wait another 5-6 years and maybe it will be in the next game. Dont be too hopeful.

None of this is valid. It is strange that you would assume only teens can enjoy questing with a friend . . . or that you should disparage or demean them or anyone else for enjoying that capacity in their RPG gaming. As to it being about giving a sword to some friend. . . I have explained this before. If loot and trades are what you think the drive for co-op stems from, then you have no understanding of it, nor of the people who have an interest in it. It is like saying people only want friends so that they can borrow clothes and DVDs from them. Also, Teens are not the only people who like to experience games with friends. Indeed, it tends to be teens who "hardcoe" it alone, knowing nothing of the multiplayer roots and origins of RPGs as we know them.

A good RPG offers all the things you mentioned, and can have co-op as well. Indeed, the old RPGs of dice and sheets and lists and stats, were often VERY deeply involved and story heavy. . . and were also a wonderful bonding experience for the people who played them together. They became, for a while, mighty heroes in a mythical world, and experienced great tests and intrigues, and grand adventures together.

There is no good reason, outside of engine capacity, that any good RPG should deny the ability to share the experience with a friend. This is not about MMO or massive multiplayer. It is about being able to adventure alongside a real companion in a vast world of magic and mystery, just as most people would want to have a friend along if a real such opportunity were presented.

It would not detract from story or anyting else. The Story remains the same, the depth of quests and plots remain the same. The only thing that would change in the local co-op I am talking about (Never said Online or massive multiplayer, it was never what I was talking about) is that you could have a real friend share the experience, and come along as a customizable player controlled companion, rather than the pale immitation AI companions the games currently offer.

It doesn't take a perfect world to get that into a good RPG. It REALLY doesn't. I am not saying it would be effortless, but it isn't anything like trying to get a man on the moon. . . which we have managed to do in an imperfect world.

Indeed. The same people who lump co-op seekers into the shallow hal grouping, how they bristle if the counter aspersion is made (also potentially unfair) that they are antisocial misanthrops who cannot understand the value of companionship in a simulated world. Not everyone wants to play a game in the same way, and RPGs are supposed to allow as much freedom in playing style as can be managed whilst still remaining true to the core principles and parameters of The Game World. No one is wrong for wanting to play with a friend, and no one is wrong for wanting to play alone,but there is something wrong with not wanting someone else to be ABLE to play as they like, barring things that would alter the gameworld itself like armed tanks, flying spacecraft, the appearance of The Simpsons etc.

You cannot sereiously be comparing ES to COD or HALO. That is like telling someone who wants toppings on their pizza, "We aren't about anything other than the bread, cheese and sauce. . . but you can always go to the grocery store across the street and have a salad, or a sausage." WTF. I don't like COD, and I am not into the type sci-fi in HALO. I can play it, but it isn't really my deal, and the story is not comparable to those in any halfway decent RPG. Why would I look to a game I am not even particularly interested in for my co-op experience?

It is a personal and epic experience. You can have very deep emotional, epic experiences in the company of a friend. Indeed, they are often even more meaningful thus. A lot of what is said here shows proof that many of the people who are against co-op fundementally do not understand the reasons why people support it. They assume that other people can only want the things they would play co-op for, stats, and special achievments and bunk like that, and those things are generally not much of an incentive. Only when yuo realize that it is ABOUT the experience and sharing the experience, a verisimilitudinous experience, realistic though set in a more magical and epic place and time, can one possibly understand what the average co-op advocate craves.

It is sort of like a line Gandalf uses about Sauron in the LOTR novels. "He is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the ONLY MEASURE he knows is desire, the desire for power, AND SO HE MEASURES ALL HEARTS. He cannot concieve that having his ring, we would NOT seek to use it. That we should wish to see it destroyed has not even entered his recokoning." The devout singleplayers are judging those who want co-op within the parameters of their own interests,. . . and thus utterly failing to understand what is being proposed and why.

i want some form of co op or a way to fight other players not an mmo i cant see why people would be against something like co op you dont have to play it if you dont want to but im sure thousands of others would like to

Because in a game as big as an ES title and pushing the limit of the hardware as is, I dont want them wasting dev time or disc space on co-op.

theres bound to be enough disk space they wouldnt have to sacrifice anything else for it and the devs might have enough spare time between now and the release date to do it
its not necessary but it would be cool to have it

Na, I doubt it. I'd rather them work on getting spell creation in. Adding in features from older titles that have been removed is more important than adding features that have never been in the series.

:hugs:
:trophy:

The story could have been better, and the game longer. . . but that was always the case. The time period the amount of are about the only things that aren't far better than in Fable I, and those are things the co-op didn't effect. They have two co-op options, one that is online, and the other that is local. Neither changes the essential story in anyway, they merely allow you to share you experience with a second player. The online has some bug issues, I have heard, but the couch/local is generally both safe and superb.

Sorry to abbreviate so much of your commentary. The extended version is very much worth reading. But I really just wanted to thank you for sharing your experience. As someone who sat up into the wee hours of the night/morning playing games like Baldur's Gate with friends, utterly enthralled. We were like a pair of friends transported into a world more to our liking. . . in that game, far inferior in scope, graphics and open world vastness that the ES games which came along a generation later, we experienced marvels together, took comfort and courage from one another's companionship as we made our way through dark dungeons filled with dire terrors. We solved riddles and uncovered plots, our characters uniquely attired and with special weaponry of their own making. It was a bonding experience for us, almost as much as if we had gone on a real life adventure together. It both enhanced the game, and created fond memories for the pairs of us. And as to the game immersion. . . we became the characters whilst we played together. When we spoke, it wasn't about what movie we were going to see the following weekend. . . it was about what we had learned from the priest, and what it might portend for our mission, it was about how awesome my newly acquired spell was and how our foes would quake before it, it was about conferring over what might be waiting in the dark tower keep, and how best to approach and defeat it, if it needed defeating. . . can we trust that lizard man. . . how unfortunate that we must do battle with these majestic dark elves. . . Dear God, It's and Ice Dragon!. We are surrounded by Giants. . . I am glad you are here with me, a sure ally in these troublesome times and tides. . .

We were immersed, and we were jointly engrossed, and we were sharing an awesome experience which was all the more enchanting because we were going through all of it with a good friend at our side.

You said it best. Im sorry guys and girls, as I can see you are very passionate about your co-op experience. But there are a lot of aspects that need much more focus than that in my eyes.

The fact is that co-op experiences on other games have turned in to epic failures. Like I said previously, RDR online and GTA 4 were fun online for a short period of time. It VERY quickly got boring, because those games are built for multiplayer. The are single player games that added a co-op aspect, and it was new and unique and cool for about 5 minutes. They were poorly executed, hastily released add ons to a singleplayer game.

Dont get me started on a MMORPG.....Im disgusted that people even suggest something like that. Personally, if I worked for Bethesda and TES team, Id be offended. Its a joke. This is not the game to do that to. Please dont ever do that to my ES.

Its understandable for you all to get so emotional when people dont support your ideas. Your wishing upon a star with this request. Like I said, maybe in 5-6 years when the next game comes out, Bethesda will give you what you want. I hope they do it right if they do, but I dont see how it could work.

I wanted to bring this up about RDR/GTAIV/Saints row but then I'd be told its a matter of Opinion, again all im seeing are Opinions about how co-op would be great, ignoring what Bethesda has stated about themselves, game mechanics, time and resources, focus, and anyone who says people against co-op/multiplayer are selfish can't possibly thinking about the game as a whole, not everyone wants co-op, but everyone typing here plays the singleplayer no? and everyone is going about experience they shared with their friends, and im face palming and thinking, so you want hundreds of hours, a multitude of resources and diskspace so that a friend can join in the same world, really. what about other aspects of the game? or that this concept has been over done? there is too much loss for something so simple in concept and extensive in resource use.

Wait. What? Why would Bethesda ever even consider that? Why would any Elder Scrolls fan ever consider that? We don't want the series to end...

For Fable III that is no longer a problem. If you are playing local, merely log in through a second profile, and everything you gain as second player will be saved for play through on your own game.

As to the argument between Serella and Archmage, first. . . you can always play alone, or go back and play your own game as the first player.

Also. . . if you cannot understand how someone could possibly enjoy playing as a companion unless they are a carbon copy of the first player, or unless they have equal significance to player one in EVERY aspect, then it is no wonder you fail to comprehend what motivates many of the people in this topic. I don't suppose Mother Thereasa would make much sense to Ebenezer Scrooge, so what can I say.

But for most people interested in Co-op and willing to play as the second player (generally they will trade off roles once the first game is completed. . .and in ES that might mean experiencing the game in an ENTIRELY different way, with the new first player choosing and receiving different quests, different outcomes etc. In playing Fable with my girlfiend, my game was holy and just. . . My first glimpse of The Dark Sanctum was when I played as HER second player. . .and her heroine went over to the dark side. I have also discovered new things in playing with other friends, and Fable does not boast half the quest options of ES. ) they do not mind not being "the chosen one" or lacking one or two "special attributes" which the other player has, so long as they can fully customize themselves, and become powerful and majestic characters in their own right with the abilities available to them. There are NPCs in ES who meet that standard, so of course a second player would also be able to, and then some, without being The Dragonborn 2.0.

I will approve of Co-Op in this game supporting a limited amount of people i will not approve of anything more.

Aye but who said TES co-op would allow dual questing in the first place? thats opening up another whole corridor of issues and things to be worked on....

The people working on co-op and those working on making sure spell creation works aren't the same at all. Those two objectives are hardly incompatible with each other.

i have wanted to take on my freinds characters in the arena but never had a desire for co-op in TES