Official Discussion of Multi-Player/Co-op in Skyrim : V - Skyrim

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:08 pm

At this point, I don't think Skyrim should have multi-player added as a feature. They've created their own engine, most likely with the goal of creating a great, single-player game. In order to make it co-op, Todd would have to divert resources away from building the truly amazing game we're all eagerly anticipating. It would just take too much time away from the core game being developed right now to create a new system and implement it into the game. Would multi-player or a co-op be awesome if properly implemented? Absolutely, and I would love to see gamesas try their hands at this at some point. But Skyrim is just not the game for that.

It'd be extremely difficult to create a co-op system that would work for the Elder Scrolls. Consider the main quest, should there be four dovakhiin wandering around? Should it just be companions with the main character (host)? Okay, what do the companions get out of it? What level do they drop in as? And as for the arena concept, it'd still take a ton of time develop and put in place. Then of course you have the problem with PC users: what about mods? Is it fair that this character has a set of god armor they got in a mod? Going back to the co-op idea, what if the host has a new texture from a mod one of the other users doesn't have?

There are just too many problems to be worked out for multi-player to be added to this game. While I'm confident gamesas could solve all of them and create a working system, I fear they'd have to sacrifice so much from the main game that it's not worth it. In this case, the additional benefits are outweighed by the additional costs.

Maybe at some point we'll get an Elder Scrolls title with some form of multi-player, but not with Skyrim.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:49 pm

BRINK IS MADE FOR MULTIPLAYER? AND ISNT BEING MADE BY BETHESDA?

And how many glorious times do i have to say, I've no issue with mutliplayer? I can see why archmage flared up so many times, because you aren't listening, Im not bringing torch and pitch forks to multiplayer, and read your last statement, it says *some people enjoy getting their friends over and hacking up monsters* yes they want their Friends to be there like you and I said, to share the experience, the friend isnt their for shix and giggles. and TES shouldnt have to tear down significant bastions and rearrange itself for Mutliplayer use Ragammuffin, I don't care about how you feel about mutliplayer, Im not arguing why its bad, its not bad in its own right, but TES shouldnt shift and reassemble into something its not. and dont even get my started on people sharing *my* experience, no one views the sky the same way, we think different things and have different perceptions, they aren't in my mind and Im not in theirs, Im playing the game, and you are reading not a glorious thing that I've typed, close mindedness? really? Thinking of only the positive aspects is what fools and shortminded people do, like I said its easy to advocate For multiplayer, doesn't mean its all good and all essential.

and when I bring up Fable, I bring up as an example that has both instances and isnt doing all that hot, why is fable 2-3s co-op so fervently done to the point that players can drop in or out and are even able to participate in the storyline (the beginning of Fable 2 3 children, both needed to continue the story) and yet the game overall isnt much to look at, especially replay value?

AINUR My methaphysical love, yes Battlespire is co-op, but it also wasn't Open world, and that doesnt change the fact the Battlespire was primarily sp only, infact I dont even think it was co-op then it was a sort of team deathmatch bit, im not even entirely sure it works I'd have heard it brought up more back in the day during its release, it being so under the covers and the MP aspect not the -focus- nor done all that well bring battlespires example a moot point.

again, again, again like seriously I don't have a problem with Co-op/Multiplayer, I own/play/and enjoy the games I have that include them, no one is saying MUTLIPLAYER SHOULD BE BANNED FOR EVER no we're saying TES doesn't need it, Shouldnt take it up because it already has something good going for it.

Why shouldn't a game evolve ? Lots of games do it all the time. Just because it could evolve into something YOU don't like your against it. Total hogwash, you're noth thinking of the greater game all you hear is the word multiplayer in a tes game and you're freaking out. Why not just see what happens ? if it's a failure then fine but at least they tried something new. To be honest I'm sick of the same old story in these games of me playing on my own battering enemies and generally being king of the universe. I want someone to play it with me and feel the things I feel. I used to be against multiplayer in games because it was all they ever seemd to bang on about. Now I see that it's a good thing gaming has become a social thing rather than some spotty geek sitting up in his room for hours on end on his own.All I'm saying is keep an open mind to these type of things it could turn out to be a good thing.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:32 pm

And Rag you should check my last post about your Brink example a game whos focus was to include a seamless mutliplayer and singleplayer WHILE MAKING THAT INTEGRAL TO THE STORY? oh and its NOT being made by Bethesda studios, a also if your going to use that then you retract all statements regarding their not being a need for an explanation for two dovakiins or demeaning the importance of the main character in any future series if your going to try to use brink as an example.

Care to tell me where I brought up Brink?

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:34 pm

some people really hate the idea, i used to want online multiplayer but I realized there were a number of things that would complicate that, but I would like to see co-op (not split screen but more like lan or what ever) the people who hate the idea of TES co-op would not have to play it. I think the only reason there has been no effort in co op implementation is because BGS guys are not that big fans of co op any ways and that fine. but Co op would not be super expensive like mmo features would be, and since there are enough people who would like to use it they should add it in.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:06 pm

I must correct myself. MARKUSB you are not listening to a word Im saying, you keep saying I don't like multiplayer and that Im freaking out, when you find a post of mine that shows this come back to me. A game Evolving isnt soely restricted to including Co-op/mutliplayer multiplayer is hardly and innovation its a focus, that isnt bethesda's.

and you bring up this supposedly derogatory terms like geek? really? I think its the other way around, the moment you see someone who doesnt think like you in terms of Multiplayer, you dismiss them and freakout.

Rag I confused you with Markus

will you accept my Cookie of forgiveness? :cookie: PLEASE?

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:23 am

I must correct myself. MARKUSB you are not listening to a word Im saying, you keep saying I don't like multiplayer and that Im freaking out, when you find a post of mine that shows this come back to me. A game Evolving isnt soely restricted to including Co-op/mutliplayer multiplayer is hardly and innovation its a focus, that isnt bethesda's.

and you bring up this supposedly derogatory terms like geek? really? I think its the other way around, the moment you see someone who doesnt think like you in terms of Multiplayer, you dismiss them and freakout.

Rag I confused you with Markus

will you accept my Cookie of forgiveness? :cookie: PLEASE?

For the love of christ will you read my post in it's entirity before making your comment. That's the second time you have claimed I said you didn't like multiplayer and this is the second time I have had to correct YOU. I said you were freaking out because Bethesda could take the game in a direction you don't like. Which is fine you dont have to like it nobody is forcing you to. but making asinine statements like "it's going to hurt the series" is nonsense. It won't hurt the series for all you know it could be a raving success. You're worried they're going to try and turn it into some MMO or something. and how do you know what Bethesdas focus is, do you work for them ? All these people who say it won't fit and it isn't bethesdas way clearly don't know how gamnes companies evolve. All I'm saying is keep an open mind and your're not listening. But whatever man I'm not going to argue with someone like you any further because it's pointless.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:17 pm

The only problem I can see with multiplayer is that it wouldnt be as immersive as single player. I mean honestly what is your riend just going to sit in the bar while you chat everyone up and look for quests? I think if it DOES have a mutiplayer it should be a seperate world then with the single player. If not I think we should ONLY to be able to invite friends. No matchmaking or game searches;

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:45 pm

Rag I confused you with Markus

will you accept my Cookie of forgiveness? :cookie: PLEASE?

Cookies are delicious.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:58 am

The day they add multiplayer or Co-Op is the day the TES will die.

Unfortunately for us gamers, TES series is the only game left for single player fun, no "buddies", no lame fetch quests and fat loot. You can cheat, you can mod, you can be whatever you wish.

I want every second to be spent on polishing the single player experience, not on net code, balancing, lag etc. There are thousands multiplayer, co op and MMO games in fantasy worlds.

If the devs can add those multiplayer options without hurting the SP part I don't mind, but knowing how the game industry works, no thanks, they better keep working on one thing and make it perfect instead of make two inferior game mods. Bet all the multiplayer lovers will play for a month or two and then jump on the next CoD/MMO title.
TES games are still one of the most popular games and it's not because of MP.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:50 pm

I personally just dont believe that TES will ever be multi-player, dont think they will ever deviate from what works for them with this game, no it wouldnt be hard to add but it would use up some game Stuff lol and that I would find unacceptable as I only like to play alone as a serious introvert, dont want any1 along that may decide to just start killing randomly as most my friends seem to be borderline lunatics.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:16 pm

I can't think of any game more fun than a TES co-op.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:29 pm

The day they add multiplayer or Co-Op is the day the TES will die.

Unfortunately for us gamers, TES series is the only game left for single player fun, no "buddies", no lame fetch quests and fat loot. You can cheat, you can mod, you can be whatever you wish.

I am sorry Clint, but that doesn't even make sense. The absence of co-op as an option is not what makes the game great. What makes it great are its in depth quests and stories, its lore, the vast open world, the simulation, the spell possibilities, the non-linear approach, and of course the customization. And any co-op OPTION that would maintain all of these things would be magnificent. A near religious experience for all those who have a desire to share the world and their experience of it with a friend. And those who don't would not have to.

There is nothing about the game world which makes it fundementally averse to this.

To suggest that it would somehow kill the series, even if all the other features reamain in place, is the worst kind of hyperbole. It is so outrageous as to be nonsensical. What sane person has ever picked up a game, looked at its list of aspects and features, and ignoring all else said, "This is the game for me! It makes CERTAIN that I can't ever play it with any of my stupid friends. . . cause man I HATE playing with those dummies!" Likewise, what sane person has ever picked up a game and said, "Oh. . . this game allows me the option of playing with a friend, if I want to. . . no. This isn't for me. I should not have such an option. Any game that will let me is automatically bad, no matter how good it is." :facepalm: :rofl: :rofl:

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:23 am

The day they add multiplayer or Co-Op is the day the TES will die.

Unfortunately for us gamers, TES series is the only game left for single player fun, no "buddies", no lame fetch quests and fat loot. You can cheat, you can mod, you can be whatever you wish.

I want every second to be spent on polishing the single player experience, not on net code, balancing, lag etc. There are thousands multiplayer, co op and MMO games in fantasy worlds.

If the devs can add those multiplayer options without hurting the SP part I don't mind, but knowing how the game industry works, no thanks, they better keep working on one thing and make it perfect instead of make two inferior game mods. Bet all the multiplayer lovers will play for a month or two and then jump on the next CoD/MMO title.
TES games are still one of the most popular games and it's not because of MP.

no it won't *rolls eyes*, you don't have to play it. I agree about the mmorpg part of your statement, fetch quests would be lame and pointed not TES. but co op would not affect players who don't want co op in any way. if you had the option to play with a friend but did not want to, you don't have to, but some one else could and they would enjoy it. again tho mmorpg would probably hurt TES, for the reason that it would cost bgs more money than what they could take in since any TES mmorpg would not be any thing like wow and thats what some of these people wan't is wow with TES qualities. but co op would not have any adverse affect.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:31 pm

To be honest I'm sick of the same old story in these games of me playing on my own battering enemies and generally being king of the universe.

There are loads of MMOs out there, but there is only one TES series.
Your making it sound like every game out there is another sandbox game.

I don't favor Multiplayer, because I never liked MMOs to begin with.
But mostly because TES has always been about the singleplayer experience.
Adding multiplayer would take away from the singleplayer experience.
Radiant AI for example, you populate a world full of these NPCs with simulated lives to improve the experience, but you don't need that anymore because the worlds is populated other players.
It would also take away from the freedom aspect, to prevent one from being a jerk to other players.

The series won't evolve but devolve.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:09 pm

I'm not big on the idea of MP in an Elder Scrolls game. I think Bethesda wanted the ES series to be a more personal experience. Like pretty much all of thier games. If they could make a 2-player co-op mode that ran smooth and without a ton of bugs, that would be cool. But i would be fine with having companions like Bethesda had in Fallout 3.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:47 pm

I think Bethesda wanted the ES series to be a more personal experience.

Totally agree.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:23 pm

As much as I would love a 2-3 player co-op in skyrim, I don't see how certain functions such as resting would work.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:08 pm

As much as I would love a 2-3 player co-op in skyrim, I don't see how certain functions such as resting would work.

If it is local co-op, my guess is that if Player 1 rests, player 2 is automatically included in that. Since you generally only rest to replenish, or to cut down waiting time on a quest, it shouldn't be too much of a hinderance. I do sometimes take a quick nap just for verisimlitude if I am sitting around in a room in the mages guild or something, but, ya know, I don't see the major hurdle.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:15 pm

I have thought about how something like this would work for the challenge of it and have spent a fair amount of time on. In theory I think it may work, but in reality...

you would need a larger world to accommodate for multiple people.

A single story and gameplay mechanics that allowed for each player interact with the world and to feel like "the big unique hero" without it becoming like your run of the mill MMO where everyone completes the same quest and there is no real importance placed on one individual.

Optimistically it could work but it would be no cake walk.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:40 am

Put in something that lets characters duel it out.

So my friend would say "hey bro my Skyrim character would totaly &$^$&$^ yours"
And i could reply " Well lets see then &$^&%$"

Don't bother balancing anything for pvp just let people battle it out for funsies...

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:56 am

Not so. Don't play with people you don't trust. Pretty simple. Also, you could have a game save that you only used for Co-Op so you wouldn't have to worry about ruining your core experience.

Its not just that. It would confound precedent. Obviously we are discussing hypothetical presumptions, in which co-op is feasible. Like I said, its more than just 'your partner runs a muck', it consists of numerous variables; whats the 'tether line', can your 'partner' accept quests, can he accept main quests? How will loot be distributed?

Sure you can logically explain these things, but can they put these balancing properties into the game without over encumbering it?

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:57 am

Its not just that. It would confound precedent. Obviously we are discussing hypothetical presumptions, in which co-op is feasible. Like I said, its more than just 'your partner runs a muck', it consists of numerous variables; whats the 'tether line', can your 'partner' accept quests, can he accept main quests? How will loot be distributed?

Sure you can logically explain these things, but can they put these balancing properties into the game without over encumbering it?

It wouldn't entirely confound precedent, thanks to Battlespire. But, regardless, this is a video game, not an unconstitutional law being debated before The Supreme Court. The game series has added and dropped any number of features over the years, just like many other game franchises before and aside from it.

I think the quest situation could be managed well enough. No to the second player accepting main quests obviously. As to side quest, there are variables. What quests become available should be based upon how the first player plays. I think the best way to approach the quest deal would be thus, if they complete the quest together, both players can receive credit for/from it. The First player still must be the one to accept quests. If joining a guild is involved, then the second player can choose to also be admitted to the guild, or can act as an independant agent aiding the first player. In things like gaining lasting friendships * ie things always being free at the Allswell ( I think that was the town name) pub if you help the invisible townspeople remove the local wizards accidental invisibility curse, etc*, both characters would recieve that if they were both playing the game at the same time etc.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:15 pm

It wouldn't entirely confound precedent, thanks to Battlespire. But, regardless, this is a video game, not an unconstitutional law being debated before The Supreme Court. The game series has added and dropped any number of features over the years, just like many other game franchises before and aside from it.

I think the quest situation could be managed well enough. No to the second player accepting main quests obviously. As to side quest, there are variables. What quests become available should be based upon how the first player plays. I think the best way to approach the quest deal would be thus, if they complete the quest together, both players can receive credit for/from it. The First player still must be the one to accept quests. If joining a guild is involved, then the second player can choose to also be admitted to the guild, or can act as an independant agent aiding the first player. In things like gaining lasting friendships * ie things always being free at the Allswell ( I think that was the town name) pub if you help the invisible townspeople remove the local wizards accidental invisibility curse, etc*, both characters would recieve that if they were both playing the game at the same time etc.

What would be the prerogative for the second player to play, other than loot? The general entertainment of interaction with a peer? I just dont see the need. Like Ive said, being able to put your characters together in the same world would be interesting, but I dont see co-op viable, or practical. Too many variables, lots of rules in a game as susceptible to bugs as is. A spin off, perhaps? Not an ES title out right though. I present a brainstorming of the problems I present, only then will co-op be more than a wanton hope.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:27 pm

What would be the prerogative for the second player to play, other than loot? The general entertainment of interaction with a peer?

Of sharing the experince of an epic world of adventure, wonder and magic with a friend. For most advocates of co-op things like stats and loot are the least consequential things involved, really. For most people who really want co-op, you could take out the "bonus achievements" and scale down the loot, and they would still want to do it. Its like most people don't make friends for the purpose of squeezing them for cash. One really has to have some understanding or at least interest in what it would be to go off on a series of great adventures through a genuine, vast world full of magic and intrigue with a friend at one's side, sharing and adding to that experience, to really understand what motivates the co-op advocate to keep advocating. The best way to try and understand would be this. . . pretend, in earnest, that a portal to a real other world akin to the one found in ES opens in your neighbourhood. You can go alone into the utter unknown

bliviongate: :cold: . . . (no promise that anyone their will like you or want to know you, no promise of anything really, but the possibility of acquiring many powers, if you survive) or you can bring a willing friend :whisper:

bliviongate: :hugs: (and we will assume that their are some of these available). Which would you prefer? Most folks would choose to be accompanied by a friend (a couple friends, really, but my focus here is on two player co-op, not more expansive multiplayer).

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:09 am

I was thinking more like a Fable 2 co-op. We don't need 6 man party's (like WOW or any other MMORPG) 2 people grouping up and doing quests together I think wouldn't change the game face at all. If you dont wanna participate in multiplayer, then don't. It is just my opinion so don't jump all over me please with your 3 page commentary.