AinurOlorin

Funny how people like you assume that everyone out there is a teenager who crave to play with his friends. I know the kids are the biggest video game market, but come on.
Good RPGs are for the story, quests, interaction with certain NPCs. You can't have that when your friend from school is breathing on your neck.

In the end we are going to get cheap quests made for 2 or more people with no restrictions for race, reputation, if you are bad/good or how far in the main quest you are. No one is going to read them anyway and just rush for the loot from some big, bad boss.
And all this is because you want to epeen some sword to some friend...

I am saying this once again in a perfect world awesome SP and awesome MP could exist, but not in our world. If we want one of them to be better we sacrifice the other. This is how the game making works, they don't have unlimited money or time to please every one. So they better do what they can best.
If I go for Battlefield I expect awesome multiplayer, if I go for Bethesda or Bioware I expect awesome single player. Don't want a cheap mix between SP and MP just to please all the crowds in the world.

This therad is still going?

It's. Never. Going. To. Happen..

For you multiplayer is exclusively a competitive thing then since all you provide as examples is Battlefield. People are asking for some COOP multiplayer in a TES game which has NOTHING to do with each other except that there more than one player at once.

what I would like to see is something like mount and blade based multiplayer, but you would have a separated account, you would be able to earn money and with it buy equipment(armor,swords...)
but i am not sure if that would be possible due to a large number of players(in mount and blade there were up to 64, and in non-classic modes up to 200)

See what bugs me is this notion that anybody who plays co-op is automatically pigeon-holed into being a shallow, immature gamer who is doesn't care about game depth and immersion. There are going to be these types of players in any game and will most likely show up in Skyrim. But to assume that all co-op advocates are like this is just putting out some random argument that isn't necessarily true.

In my mind, the quests don't really need to be altered in any way. It would have the same concept as those who play the game with an AI Follower. I understand the argument that adding co-op will divert resources and time away from SP, but that doesn't automatically prove that the game will suffer from it. As I've said before, although everyone wants to point out the games that haven't successfully balanced SP and MP, there are games that have done this and I believe TES can make a solid hybrid too. Red Dead Redemption had a great SP experience, including interesting quests, believable NPCs, and tons of room for exploration and player-based play-style (good or bad). This was all included into a game with a solid, fun MP as well, complete with competitive modes, co-op modes, and free roam.

Now I can understand those who don't want co-op, because they won't ever play it and feel it's a waste of resources, but I can't stand when you guys just pull arguments that are purely hypothetical and sometimes completely fabricated. BGS is a great developer and obviously co-op would need to be a plan started in the very early stages of development (not tacked on), but I really think if they try to create a solid hybrid experience, balancing both SP and MP, then it could really turn the corner and hit a new stride for TES games.

:rolleyes: Keep bypassing what people keep trying to say, why so fixated on them saying no? even thelast gave good points :facepalm: but because he's saying no he's auto discredited? sigh...

I'm not sure if this is a reply to my post or someone else's, but I understand why people don't want co-op. The reasons have been that it will destroy the SP experience, they don't want BGS to divert resources from SP to MP, and that BGS won't do it, because they've always made SP games.

All of us are just looking at different sides of the same issue. Those against it bring up all of co-op's failures in the past and how it ruins the experience for SP gamers. And those for it bring up how co-op has been successful and helped create a fun game. Honestly, if BGS decides to do it, they will do it well in my mind, but that's a big "if", because they are mainly a SP game developer. I'm just here trying to help people understand why I want co-op, the same way you and others are expressing your opinions on why it won't work.

Why are these threads being opened by mods? Hasn't it already been confirmed that Skyrim wont have multiplayer? What's the point of discussing it?
That's like a mod opening a discussion thread called The Official "I want Spears in Skyrim even though Todd Howard himself stated they weren't in the game" Thread
...what's the point?

Elder Scrolls was never made to be a co-op or multiplayer game. It was more about what you wanted your character to be and you to interact with the environment and not running around with friends or random people in the game. Like the post at top said it's more of a personal experience so you feel epic in the end. If you want multiplayer there's always COD or Halo.

Sure, you are a god so it will happen only because you said so.



That last sentence killed you.
Anyway, I personally think that some simple form of MP/Co-Op would work quite well.
Having some duels in arena with you friends, for example, would be great.

I think co-op would be a blast!

Frankly, I think that it is the only thing keeping TES from reaching the next plane of Nirvana in regards to achieving gaming perfection. Done in a limited fashion, it would keep Skyrim from becoming "just another MMORPG" but would allow it to expand its gameplay experience and immersion nigh infinitely.

JMHO

bliviongate:

Why does co-op always automatically go to randomly running around with friends?

While playing co-op, you could still roleplay, interact, and have just as immersed of an experience as if you were playing alone. Sounds like you are kind of joking about "there's always CoD or Halo", because of the , but that's not even an argument against co-op, because they are completely different games. If I was only concerned with co-op and not the actual game, then I'd be all over CoD and Halo. But TES games are the most fun I've ever had playing video games and playing with another person would be such a fun experience.

And as been said before, there are many games that were never MP games (GTA, Saint's Row, and Red Dead), but these games have been able to successfully add a MP component without ruining the SP experience. Of course, there have also been games that haven't successfully pulled off SP/MP hybrid games (mentioned before), but it is possible to have a great game that does both experiences and does them well.

This thread is supposed to stop newbies from starting their own, never works though.

Call of Duty and Halo are nothing like TES, for starters TES doesn't svck.


While I agree that a Co-Op would be good, Bethesda is very focused on the Singleplayer aspect that they neither have the time or the money/resources to do it. They have also stated that they would not do a multiplayer game.

^ This.

I agree. I wouldn't want them to go all out with a MMORPG, as that has been done so many times before with RPG fantasy games. But like you said, co-op would be a blast. Co-op can make even an average game more fun just by adding that human element of playing with a good friend, so adding onto a great game such as TES I really think it could take the series to a new level.

That's why I said that something simple would be good.
I also don't wish to ruing SP experience while playing TES games and in my opinion SP >>> MP for TES.
Still, if they figure out some smart and simple way to give us some sort of MP/Co-Op without ruining SP experience, then, why not?

Multiplayer should deffinitly be an option, but not a mode that will affect people who want to play single player. My question to all the people who are complaining about multiplayer, if its done clever, so you dont have to play it, then how is that a problem. I see it that the only reason why it hasnt been done before is because the technology wasnt there/ it wasnt that popular. But it is popular now, and its presence in the game I would say is a must.

Moving on to how I, and most people would like multiplayer to be.

If they do include set levels of monsters in the game, a large variety of weapons/stats of weapons, then there is so much potential. I can imagine now, sitting down inviting about 2 to about....16 mates to try take down a big bastard, that if not taken carefully, will oneshot everyone on your team, and the rewards of doing such feats could be powerful weapons, large sums of money, or reward tokens for events ect.
Im not saying lets turn TES into a MMORPG, certainally not, I wouldnt want that, but something where you have the option to work together becuase every game is going to feel slightly isolated without chatting/sharing experiences of the game with human players rather than AI.

To summerise,
Deffinate Multiplayer mode - Not like fable (too isolated) Not like wow (mmo)
Set Levels
Big Bosses, Extremely hard dungeons/caves
Good Drops from the events
Trade Between Friends (MarketPlace maybe?)
And most of all The option for the single player people, to keep it singleplayer. Then everyones happy. You increase your sales range by miles, if its about the money, which it is.

Exactly.

This is where I stand as well. People will probably be playing more SP than MP, especially the first playthrough, so by no means do I want them to damage SP gameplay. But like Lithary is saying, if BGS can put in a simple co-op without hurting SP, then what is the downside?

I would love to see an online co-op similar to Saint's Row 2. That worked perfect and seemed pretty simple.

I keep noticing, in each of these threads, somebody says "What if the person who joins your game kills an NPC, it would ruin your game!"... Well, you COULD not SAVE the game if they did that. And theres tons of other ways to get around that. Such as a seperate multiplayer world... I mean the same Skyrim map, but like a different save game with the same character.

Decided to put a little explanation in as to why I enjoy co-op stuff in a fantasy setting.

I started playing Age of Conan, an MMO, when it released. I really enjoyed it, and had loads of fun but I was mostly doing quests on my own. Occasionally grouping up to do other things. Now in AoC you level up pretty damn quickly (compared to other MMOs) and once you hit the max level (80) there was literally nothing to do other than engage other players in some PvP or do one of the two raid bosses. So, what does one who doesn't like raiding or endgame pvp do (relies too much on gear over skill, hence my dislike). I role played, made friends and eventually decided, with a friend, to create a pair of new characters.

So my friend, called "Sally" lets say, and I create new characters. We had a very, very rough idea of their background. Just a general 'they have this sort of personality' thing. Then we started playing and always did quests together, exploring the world and role playing through out it all. Obviously we had a chat box so we could type out emotes and such, which naturally helped the RP. Anyhow, so we go off and level up to 80 over time, having had plenty of RP and PvP fights along the way which we took as in-character things. It was -loads- of fun. Now we're at endgame again though and its as boring as before, only I know have more RP which is awesome. So we make another pair of characters who were completely different and play through the game again.

Despite all the quests, locations, enemies and so on being the same, our characters weren't and how they interacted with one another was vastly different than our previous characters. So, simply put, it made the game enjoyable beyond its 'normal' lifespan for me and Sally.

So lets take Skyrim. I'll play through it as a warrior, finish all the factions and main quest, do all the side quests I can find and in general just explore most places. What to do then, when there is nothing left to do? I'll start again of course. Maybe as a mage, or an archer or what have you. The quests will still be the same more or less though, maybe a different NPC will give them, and the location will be different - yet regardless, I'll have explored that other location previous before too. So the game won't be as enjoyable the second time, less so the third time and so on.

Add in co-op in Skyrim, where bother players (with one being Dovahkiin and the other not) create their characters, designate which player gets to be Dovahkiin, and off into the world you both go to role play and explore. Even though I'd know the quests, the enemies, the locations and everything else. It would be a refreshing, fun experience solely because I'm now doing it with a friend who, gameplay mechanic wise, would be considered as an 'NPC companion' just played by another person. Beat all the quests or clear out all the dungeons and get bored? Have fun terrorizing a town or something, or make new characters who again are different.

Its like reading a novel in a way. You read it the first time and learn everything. You read it the second time and nothing surprises you at all anymore. Swap out one of the companions in the novel with another, totally different character, and it becomes interesting to see what would be different. Obviously this only really applies to those who role play their way through the game, as actual NPCs and plot elements wouldn't change at all of course. Just let the players beef up enemy difficulty if they wish, so to succeed you have to work together, use tactics, etc. Becomes a new way to challenge yourself in the game.

My two septim. ^_^

Guys it doesn't work like that.

Two Worlds devs tried to make something different with their game, be able to play SP and MP and they failed. Lots of whine from players, because of a cut content, fail promises etc.
It's not that simple to implement something new and not ruin something else.

I want to see how one is going to play Thieves guild or Dark brotherhood quests with a friend, they both will sneak or what? Or devs will just remove such quests for the greater good to just be able to Co Op. Or may be instead to give us 50 SP quests, they will make them 20 suitable for Co Op.
There are so many Multiplayer or Co Op games, don't ruin the TES series.

Today gamers are so spoiled by MMOs so they want social interaction in every freaking game. Shame that they grow in numbers every year and the future is not so bright for the serious RPGs.

Yes, they could both sneak. Or they could both rush in and fail the quest. Or one could draw off the guards and the other could do the dirty work, etc. Or you could decide to not bring a friend along with you on that quest. The addition of Co-op does not dictate the eradication of quests. You don't have drag a friend everywhere, nor would it be beneficial in many circumstances. But you have the choice. That is the point.



So because I want to play with a buddy that makes me not a serious RPGer? And if a game includes a social aspect it is not a serious RPG?
... Why? ...
No one's forcing you to play with anyone, talk to anyone, or even acknowledge anyone else's existence in the game. So if you don't want to, don't. Just because you don't want social interaction doesn't mean no one does, nor that it should be taken away from others. Co-op is an option, and traditionally the TES games have been about adding as many options as possible.

co-op would be amazing ! playing with 1 - 3 other people or just one other person would be really neat. I would be able to do quest with someone and just experience tamriel in a better way.

If you want it to be untouched, why just ignore the multiplayer version, I really do not understand how just its prensence "ruins" the game, when you can play SP yourself.

Yeah, since I didn't play Fable 2 and 3, can someone explain to me how did they execute MP/Co-Op in it without (hopefully) ruining the SP experience?