Well after reading the mass of posts I would like to say...

I am for multiplayer completely. If you don't like it then don't use it, simple as that...

Really the only valid point the Anti-MP guys (gals) have is that it would cost resources. This is understandable. While most of you say, "Oh it would be a waste of resources!" if done wrong then yea it would be. However if they did it right then, no it wouldn't. It would be quite the opposite. I'm not sure why everyone automatically assumes right off the bat MP (local/online 2-4 player co-op mind you) would be executed terribly and would just turn out like Fable II. (Even though I did like the co-op cause it allowed me to play with my friends and share the story together) Does no one think Beth is capable of doing MP correctly? I think they'd do and fine job.

Now some of you just wonder how they'd do it.... (well this would be my ideal way)

So basically (if I'm on console) I'd throw my friend an invite and then a lil notice would pop up saying or something along those lines. You press okay then IT AUTOMATICALLY SAVES THE GAME! You know? Just in case you guys decide to go to the nearest village and wipe it out. So Dragon Slayer joins. He is his own character that he made with all his gear and such. Only different thing is that he doesn't have dragon shouts. The creatures in the world get a little harder. Much like the Diablo system, as soon as he decides to leave they go back to normal. Now you guys can go dungeon running and its every man for himself when it comes to loot. Honestly if your playing with a friend of yours I'd expect you both to be civil when it comes to loot.

Dying.... if you die they can add a bleedout system perhaps? Like if Dragon Slayer dies he falls to the ground in pain and from here you kinda have to fend off the attackers untill there gone. If Dragon Slayer has some potions he can get back up, if not he'd have to wait for you to revive him. If you both die you just respawn at the nearest inn cause some guy saw you both out there and deicded to save you (idk think Farcry 2)

Interaction with NPC's shouldn't be too difficult now that time doesn't freeze when you talk to them so yea. Also resting/sleeping should go something like so. You press the rest button and then a prompt will appear on Slayer's screen saying "Sushi2k wants to rest for X hours. Continue?" and yea there you go. Yes theres friendly fire so you guys can just eat at each other but you can't loot each other. You can go to the Arena and perhaps have staked matches like Sushi bets his Ebony Longsword and Slayer bets his Necromancer Hood and whoever wins gets em. Any progress made in the game (such as MQ or Guild Questlines etc.) will not affect player 2 if they have already completed em. But if they haven't then yes they can still make progress though the questline.

After 9 hours of playing Slayer decides to go to bed for the night all he does is quit and thats pretty much it.


Since Skyrim has already announced no MP apparently I'd like to see either a RDR free roam or a Arena PvP in a DLC much like what RE5 or Dead Space 2 did. That way it won't take up space on the disk for you Single Player peoples.

Honestly I really would hope they would have at least considered a Co-op of some sort. Because only thing it'd do would add 100s of more hours of me playing that game on top of the 100s I already put into it and I'm sure many others. Don't get me wrong I loved MW and OB and played both of those games religiously. But I would have loved to have some online interaction with my friends rather than "Sushi stop playing OB and come play Halo with us!" All my friends love TES series and would love if we could all interact with each other on it and maybe do some dungeons or even PvP it out. But alas no such feature is added so we must go play our freaking CoD and other heavy multiplayer games.

TL;TR?

Make a PvP Arena or RDR Free Roam mode in DLC for like 10 bucks and we'd all be happy.

I hate to be all cynical.
And don't take me the wrong way, personally I think a PvP Arena or Co-Op would be nice, BUT I think this thread is a dumping ground for Multiplayer discussion. It was already stated by Pete Hines or whoever that multiplayer would never happen. So I think that all discussion here is disregarded completely.

The Arena somewhat similar to what we saw in Oblivion would be nice if it had a PvP option (or the choice for single player as well)

I'm all for multiplayer Arena. This would essentially tuen into a FPS-style deathmatch though, so the combat, especally archary would have to reward skill much more than in past TES games. How to turn a level-based RPG into skill-based combat? Not sure, but then again I would like to do away with leveling all together in the Singleplayer too.

I think if MP is to ever be added, a PvP arena is the way to go, because it can be isolated from the single player experience while still existing within the game world; the experience outside the arena remains intact. The only issue is how to balance arena player stats vs. stats in the single player game, because some players on PC will be using console cheats.

Didn't play fable 3, but did it really have it so that random people can drop in and out of gameplay?
Thats terrible, then again when was the last time they made a good game?

Personally I would like co-op, of course it should only be invite only. Even then a hard save should be automatically made each time its initiated (maybe an option you can turn off it you want) so that no matter what happens, you have a save to fall back on.

In the Game-Reaction Scandinavian Gaming Magazine Todd Howard (SO MANY CAPS xD) said that there is not going to be any multi-player component in Skyrim, that they put their full effort on Single Player :S
Still now know how accurate the info is but it's a Magazine after all, but maybe there is still a chance, a small tiny one.

Yet he also said his main goal for the game is for players to be able to play it in any way in which the wish to (within the confines of the secondary reality and the limitations of the engine). Now, he himself may not have considered this, but this directly contradicts the notion of forced singleplayer. Many players will want to play with a friend. And the world certainly allows for this, as it has a large population, people can be friendly towards you, and AI companions are a standard feature. It is fine for the devs to say the engine cannot yet handle co-op AND all the other features they feel are important to the game. But it is madness to suggest that such a feature has no place in games of this sort.

Ability to invite friends to play alongside you: fine with that.

What a lot of people don't take into account is that any game that is open world and has a separate multiplayer feature which is also open-world always degenerates into a game where to go five steps without being attacked by another player, you'd need hacks that make you inperceptible to everyone else. However, open world games that allow you to choose to play alongside a friend normally work fine. All it needs is the ability to invite another player to join your game world. That doesn't break anything. That just allows for people who wish to quest as a group to do so and people who don't to not do so. Too many people are getting caught up in the idea of things like Halo, where you'd rarely play it again if there was no multiplayer.

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Is Halo open world?

2. Is the multiplayer set in the same area as the single player?

3. Does the campaign keep going after the end of the "main quest"?



And now ask yourself these questions:

1. Is Elder Scrolls open world

2. Would multiplayer in the Elder Scrolls revolve around a complete departure from the story in which players just mindlessly slaughter each other and fight over flags?

3. Does the game continue after the end of the main quest?



They're two completely different cases. You can't say that Halo or COD are proof that multiplayer would reduce a TES game's replay value because the multiplayer mechanic is different. You'd have to find another open world, open-ended RPG to compare with, one with multiplayer that works in the simple fashion that I mentioned.

If anything that adds replay value, since you could be sitting there thinking: "Damn, I really wish [your best friend] had Skyrim back when I did that quest. It was really epic and it was so much fun, but it would've been infinitely better if he/she'd been there with me." And you'd inevitably decide to make characters specifically for playing together.

What people need to let go of is this idea of multiplayer being a separate experience. In an RPG, multiplayer should always be the same old singleplayer you're used to, but with friends, where there's nothing changed about the gameplay or anything else, and if that guy decided to call it a night, you could carry on playing, seamlessly. Think of it as the option to enlist aid from an intelligent entity who serves as more than just a convenient distraction/meatshield. Multiplayer doesn't need to be a carefully crafted separate experience. It shouldn't, however, be open multiplayer where everyone is present and able to be heard, as the chaos of that would most definitley ruin the experience, especially seeing as you do find lots of unsavoury individuals online. You would have to be able to invite people to your game, making it no different from singleplayer other than the presence of another true intelligence (in most cases; I do accept that a small minority of internet users are virtually braindead).

I don't see multiplayer making it into Skyrim, but maybe this idea will be well remembered enough for TES VI and we'll see then. I'd much prefer they had a dedicated team working on multiplayer anyway, which requires more staff and that means waiting to see how many strong Bethesda is by the time TES VI comes around (although I'd be willing to wager that it wouldn't go too far above the number at the time of the release of Fallout 4, if there even is one).

Not if one of the "confines of the secondary reality" is that the developers have defined that secondary reality as being inhabited by one, and only one, human-controlled avatar with all other inhabitants being computer-controlled NPCs. Which has been repeatedly confirmed to be the case.

And since they've confirmed repeatedly that the game is single-player, the odds of there being any multi-player code in their custom-made new engine are pretty much "no chance," which makes forced singleplayer one of the "limitations of the engine."

You misunderstand the meaning of secondary reality. Your character is part of the game world, remember. In the secondary reality, there is no "human controlled avatar". Your postulate is foolishness, and I think you know it to be foolishness. You are putting it out there as a bizzare straw man argument, but be realistic. The only secondary reality which would prevent any form of second player is one in which the world has NO inhabitants aside from the player/character, or in which the only other inhabitants are bizzare, hostile, utterly alien creatures completely incapable of being reasoned with or in anyway made companionable.

If the secondary reality maintains that there are other persons existing, and especially if some of them are capable of being affable towards the pc, and all the more especially if the secondary world already allows the players/character to have companions in the form of AI NPCs, then having compainions is ENTIRELY ACCEPTABLE within the confines of that secondary reality and the ONLY excuse for not having a second player option is limitations of the game engine. . . well, and lack of developer effort, of course, though the latter is a poor excuse.

Why, Ainur. Why lol

Here is my opinion. Co-op would be great on a LAN (PC LAN or system link) only

1. Communication is a lot better with a person that is already there with you
2. The single player experience remains intact
3. It is a lot easier to implement over a LAN vs. via the internet

Other than over a LAN or system link, I do not support co-op

Why? Because it is my cause, and I deem it a good cause. Lol. Actually, because I have desired it much, and given it much thought, and know that it would add immeasurable joy to those who wish to experience it.

I, as you know, preffer local co-op on one console and one screen. I agree with points 1 and two, which actually are among the reasons I GREATLY preffer local to online. It is easier to implement, especially if it is single screen, and communication and the general experience is much better, much more immersive, and much more personal, when the person is actually with you. Asto the singleplayer experience. . . again, as long as all the key aspects of the game (depth of story, graphics, open world, customization, NPC interaction, lore etc.) remain intact, the singleplayer experience is preserved. The moment one goes back to playing alone, it is an excellent singleplayer experience. When one decides to play in co-op, it is the same excellent world that it was for the singleplayer, but now your character (and you) have a companion with whom to share your perils and adventures, your hopes, fears and plots. etc.

I like your new avatar/icon, by the way. I would play as that elf-wizard :wink_smile:

P.S., while I will continue to fiercely and fervently champion co-op. . . I did look at your lockedthread on spells, and I liked it and agree. I too loved spell making, as it added greatly to my sense of being a rare, great and powerful Warlock. I would love to see rituals for binding summoned, servant Daedra to Nirn, amongst other things :celebrate: bliviongate: . But that is another topic and not for this thread.

Im still trying to understand your terminology of "forced" singleplayer Ainur lol

Here's a good idea! After Skyrim is released, Bethesda could work on a small ￡5 downloadable game compatiable with Skyrim that revolves around multiplayer. In it you import your Skyrim character into the game and battle other players in 2-6 player arena-type battles across, say 6-8 arena's.

April OXM confirms no multiplayer/co-op.

/discussion

/thread

=P

I would enjoy doing only online co-op with just friends. I know if it was open free roam with many people I do not know they would mess up my world and kill everyone or just me. Running threw Skyrim dungeons with just one to three friends would be nice. Kind of like fable 3 but much much better.

I must admit I have entertained the idea, however after playing several MMO's I realized that MMO's really NEVER gives you a "feeling" of being ingame. They are basically forms of competing with other people around the world, they are pre-scripted and leave no room for creativity or ingenuity.
TES was never ment to be an MMO. TES is a virtual world full of wonder which pulls you inn and you enjoy a fantasy.
Much like a strip club. Everything there is fantasy, although some costumers have a hard time seperating the feelings they get there from the ones you have in real life.
TES, as strip clubs, is ment to be enjoyed as they are then left behind as a wonderfull memory.
You're not supposed to get addicted and forced to keep coming back to spend money.

Just my 2 cents anyway. (Btw I haven't read a sngle post in this thread so I apologize if this seems completely out of context.)

Big surprise, my thread got locked. I'll just copy and paste here the main parts.

Whether this idea is practical or not, at this stage in development, it is still unknown to me. I do know that this new idea does have a better shot at full blown multi-player, which is the first thing that pops into people's minds. Seeing how this is a RPG, I think that this idea will at least bring the two sides closer together. What gave me the idea, was that a few people mentioned how humans and animals as well, are normally in groups or packs. A friend of mine was one of those people who mentioned that detail. Another thing she had mentioned, and something I've always wondered myself is, why don't games allow you to take on the role of a totally different character in the game? How nice would it be to take a break from your semi-God Mode and become an enemy? What if you could become a wolf? What would you do?

My proposal is this. Add more role playing, to an RPG. I think Skyrim, if possible, should allow a second player at the very least to become a temporary and already existing character of choice in the game. While the main hero is playing, I think it would be interesting to be able to allow a friend to be able to control a wolf for example. He/she could join with other wolves (if a natural enemy vs. enemy conflict system is implemented -wolves attacking other creatures they encounter), assist the hero, or even attack the hero. I could even see this working for the companion characters in the game. I think it would be nice if a companion could be controlled by another player as a guest on your game. This would at least simplify the whole idea of the work load, involving a multi-player experience. I would even be happy with disabling the guest player's character's leveling and skill ability. The guest would be totally disposable and most likely an underdog compared to the hero.

I feel like this is our only option, for the time being, as any type of multi-player being put into Skyrim. Not only that, this is geared more toward making everyone happy. I really hope this is a practical approach. It only took about five minutes to be trolled however. Imagine that.

Hi there. I'm new to the WoW forums, I really love this game, but I think they should scrap the multi player aspect, and instead concentrate on making the game an improved single player experience, more like the Elder Scrolls. I will keep posting similar ideas, because you will eventually agree I am right, even though WoW is confirmed to be a multi player game.

Times change, people change.
Maybe if we continue to whine enough about it, maybe we will get it.

Invite ONLY drop in drop out co op as DLC? I'd pay (and 80% of my FL) $40 for that DLC if I could bring my character to my friends game, obtain items and level up. Help him on quests and through caves/forts. Take a spin off borderlands when someone joins, beef up the baddies a bit. This way co op is optionable and will in no way take away from singleplayer.

Multi-player, thy name is fail.




:celebration:

zen1966, I could kiss you for that post. But then [censored] would just get awkward.

I like how people want to change nearly everything in the game, yet we dare not speak of multi-player. Not even a co-opp. I can understand if you don't want your game to be a watered down, full blown online game.

I could be just as stubborn and refuse for lock picking to be changed. People complain about things like that, and it's quite hypocritical. The only difference being, your paranoid visions of Skyrim being less of a single player.

if ur refering to competetive multiplayer, the last thing i want is 12 year olds yelling at me because they win or fail.. if coop im all for it