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

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:11 pm

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.

I completely agree with you, no ones forcing you do play multiplayer, why not allow TES to expand into other areas with there unique RPG style.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:44 pm

I just dont get why people would think they could mess up that badly.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:08 am

Two Worlds devs tried to make something different with their game, be able to play SP and MP and they failed.

To be blunt; so? The first game was a horrid, buggy mess that I could only manage to play for a few days (tried going back since and can't stomach more than 20min). Its not really ANY surprise that they messed up things in Two Worlds II.

You're basically saying that because a company with less resources, less staff and those staff may (or may not) be less skilled than those at Beth and who have proven themselves with their last game to be a buggy nightmare... that Beth will have the results? No, it doesn't work like that. Take GTA/RDR. They have perfectly fine multiplayer stuff. They also have amazing single player campaigns. If Beth wanted to make a good co-op ability they could.

As to your whole thief/brotherhood example. You are supposed to remain undetected. So if either player goes in sword slashing or is seen, then the mission gets failed. Simple as that really. You don't need to design quests around co op. Sure it improves things for those playing co op, hardly needed though. Take RDR again, for example. In the free roam you can go into bandit camps and such and carry out specific objectives. You can do every single one of them solo if you want, its just far easier in a group, thats all.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:16 pm

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?

Fable 2 wasn't that notable. Whenever the second person would join, it would let you pick a "minion" character that has absolutely no ties to your singleplayer character, apart from having the same abilities as strength and will. The third was able to implement a bit more in-depth gameplay, but everything the second person did, as to starting and ending quests had no impact what-so-ever on his own game. Except fot the collecting quests.

Edit: Since it had no impact on the singleplayer story, or even what you did. It literally had no chance of ruining it. Although, unless you joined when the person beat the story, and you see the end without playing the whole game, but that only affects your mind, not the game itself.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:01 pm

Why not have something simmiliar to Red Dead's free roam mode with a couple of missions you could do? Completely seperate from SP and doesnt need to be explained so it doesnt spoil immersion. If you dont like it, dont play it. Its like the CoD games, you may not like them but millions of others do, so they make them. And for multiplayer stuff, before you start you create your character for multiplayer, select the usual stuff, your given equipment based on your character build and to buy better equipment you can do the co-op missions and 'RDR free roam styled hideouts'. Like a cave, dungeon or area and you get money from how well you peformed. Levelling up should work out simmiliar to SP but some skills that might make MP unfair in PvP should be bought. You could buy your equipment in towns. Thats what I think if multiplayer abilities was to be added to and Elder Scrolls game, not Skyrim specifically. :disguise:

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:00 pm

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.

What about GTA 4, Saint's Row 2, or Red Dead Redemption? These games were able to balance SP and MP and they are considered good, sometimes great games.

And I don't think TES can be compared to Two Worlds. Two Worlds was a terrible game, did you really expect them to pull off a successful second addition, not to mention a solid SP/MP hybrid game? TES on the other hand have always been very solid games, so I think it's safe to say that BGS is an overall better game developer. I think if BGS set co-op in motion from the start of development then they'd have a great chance of making a solid, enjoyable game.

As for Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood, how would it be any different from if you had an AI follower during these missions? Other than the fact that the "follower" would be much more intelligent and have an actual idea of what they need to be doing. So like Warmarshal suggested, one player could distract the guards while the other completes the task (stealing, assassination, etc). In fact, it would open up many more different ways to complete quests and play the game in general.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:24 pm

Multiplayer in a TES game would be able to introduce tactics from two fronts. Imagine being able to sneak your way through to kill a target for the Dark Brotherhood, while your friend, kept all the guards busy. Or, one person keeping all the heat, [as an mmo player would call "tanking"] while your friend picks them off with a bow, or even spells. It would make different play styles dominant, and also liven up the game, once you take the 200+ hours oblivion had, and no-life it and completely doubling the expected game time. [like I did.] Of course, we can suggest something that was actually already confirmed that won't happen, and complain and all that nonsense, or we could face the fact that it won't happen, probably ever. You can be sad or happy about it. It changes nothing.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:28 am

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. ^_^

I played AoC for 6 months and it is nothing like TES. AoC has no GOTY-worthy single player game to destroy. It was designed from the ground up as an MMO, your experience in AoC does not translate over. A player can easily squeeze 200+ hours out of Oblivion with a single character. Your friend will have been able to earn an associates degree in the time it would take you to complete everything there is to do in the game. And your friend cannot simply assume the role of an NPC companion, because NPC companions do not have the depth of the player character. Unless what you are asking is that any generic NPC companion be granted all the customization and abilities of the player character, completely disregarding the player's/Dragonborn's significance to the story and world. All so that you can socialize. In a game where the intent is for the player to be absolutely captivated within this fictional world, diluting that experience with another player who is equally capable and/or important to the game world opposes what Bethesda has set accomplish with the series. "But but but... It's fun!" Yeah? So is riding a bike, hiking, canoeing, watching a movie, live music, driving fast, sky diving and hot air ballooning, etc. Doesn't make it right for the game.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:06 pm

I played AoC for 6 months and it is nothing like TES. AoC has no GOTY-worthy single player game to destroy. It was designed from the ground up as an MMO, your experience in AoC does not translate over.

I never said they were similar games. I was merely comparing how an entertaining game gets progressively less interesting each successive playthrough as you know the quests and so forth. Add in a second player to do them with, preferably (in my case) one who role plays, and even quests that have long lost any sense of mystery or entertainment can become fun again due to the new approaches one can take now, with a second player involved.

And your friend cannot simply assume the role of an NPC companion, because NPC companions do not have the depth of the player character. Unless what you are asking is that any generic NPC companion be granted all the customization and abilities of the Dragonborn, completely disregarding the Dragonborn's significance to the story and world.

Evidently you didn't read my post all that thoroughly then. I specifically stated that when co op starts they players decide which one will be the Dragonborn, and the other play will merely be like an NPC companion - in that they have normal mage/melee/stealth abilities that most NPCs in game would have but not any dragonshouts and other "destiny character" related abilities.

All so that you can socialize. In a game where the intent is for the player to be absolutely captivated within this fictional world, diluting that experience with another player who is equally capable and/or important to the game world opposes what Bethesda has set accomplish with the series.

This is purely opinion. For you it might dilute the experience to play with someone else. For others it will enhance and/or prolong the experience. Again though, I specifically stated the players wouldn't be equal. At least in Skyrim, given the main character's uniqueness, whatever about other games in the TES series.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:51 pm

While I have the feeling Skyrim won't need multiplayer for being one of the greatest games ever made, it could add something to the game that would otherwise be missing. Co-op could be cool, especially if it was on an entire island of it own. A place for adventurers (our characters) to fight more challenging enemies and more of them too, having to join cause with others to survive. NPCs on the island could be unkillable or there could be none too. A totally free roam place for you to explore with your friends. Could be pretty great as 2st person RPG co-op games are extremely rare, so rare I can't even name one.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:36 am

I specifically stated that when co op starts they players decide which one will be the Dragonborn, and the other play will merely be like an NPC companion - in that they have normal mage/melee/stealth abilities that most NPCs in game would have but not any dragonshouts and other "destiny character" related abilities.

Who in their right mind would choose to play as a watered down NPC follower when they can get the full experience with a character in their own game?

This is purely opinion. For you it might dilute the experience to play with someone else. For others it will enhance and/or prolong the experience. Again though, I specifically stated the players wouldn't be equal. At least in Skyrim, given the main character's uniqueness, whatever about other games in the TES series.

That's fine if you want to socialize and play with someone else, just don't expect it from an Elder Scrolls game.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:42 pm

Who in their right mind would choose to play as a watered down NPC follower when they can get the full experience with a character in their own game?

That's fine if you want to socialize and play with someone else, just don't expect it from an Elder Scrolls game.

The only difference between the main character and the "follower" is the Dragonshout abilities. So I don't really think it's a watered down experience. So for those who roleplay, would roleplaying as a character other than the Dragonborn also be a watered down experience? All of your arguments against co-op are not only opinion-based, but from the looks of other posts, these concerns are only held by you.

Like GorbadPS3 said, there aren't any 1st Person Fantasy RPG co-op games. TES could be the front runner for this and many will follow, just as BGS has been a trend setter in years past.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:16 pm

Who in their right mind would choose to play as a watered down NPC follower when they can get the full experience with a character in their own game?

They would be the same as the 'main' player only without the dragonborn traits. Doesn't really seem like all that big a loss to be. Like others have probably said in argument against co op, the TES story is about having the player as the uber awesome hero guy who has to save the world. The second player will just be helping them to do so. Not everyone likes playing "godly" characters that can do everything, either. Player preference and all that.

That's fine if you want to socialize and play with someone else, just don't expect it from an Elder Scrolls game.

Big difference between expecting and wanting it. I don't expect it in the slightest, I still want it though. For those who say there are other games for co op, the only examples are shooter games or games of such a different genre (like, I don't know, racing games or something) that its a moot point. The point of wanting co op in TES, is to have a TES game with co op, not to simply have yet another co op experience.

I mean take Bioware's Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age series'. In BG you could play multiplayer. One player would be the pivotal "destiny character" and the others would take control of the various companions you can recruit throughout the game. Dragon Age has no such feature, though it would be very welcome by quite the number of gamers I imagine. Do they take away from the SP? No, because its pretty much untouched. Its just instead of a companion character having AI, another player controls it. Also theres no other games like TES really, at least to my knowledge, so saying find another game for co op is a tad arrogant.

Anyways, I still stick to the idea that ZeniMax Online studios could add in a co-op feature to single player, or create a RDR styled multiplayer free roam. Offer it as DLC and hey presto, they make monies and those who want nothing to do with multiplayer don't have to buy it, obviously. ^_^

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:33 am

I believe in the end it all boils down to how the end result is of the game. When it goes to be tested, I am sure this topic will be one of many that will arise amongst Bethesda. We surely don't want this to turn into a World of Warcraft (nothing against WOW, but it was one of the first MP's to have great success) For Skyrim to be a good MP game, it will HAVE to have questing and a co-op storyline. Like I said, parties of 2 is all you need.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:25 pm

I support multiplayer if it doesn't, in any way, detract from the single player experience or modding.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:27 am

For Skyrim to be a good MP game, it will HAVE to have questing and a co-op storyline.

I wouldn't really agree with that, personally. I know RDR is offered as an example of good MP all the time but its with good reason. You could play the multiplayer free roam and just explore the world, do some bandit hideouts (in TES dungeons and whatnot) or have shootouts/duels against each other or other players. There was no storyline yet it was a brilliant MP experience. It'd be nice to have a good co op storyline but they could easily not bother with one and still make an amazing MP experience, imo.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:52 pm

The only difference between the main character and the "follower" is the Dragonshout abilities. So I don't really think it's a watered down experience. So for those who roleplay, would roleplaying as a character other than the Dragonborn also be a watered down experience? All of your arguments against co-op are not only opinion-based, but from the looks of other posts, these concerns are only held by you.

Like GorbadPS3 said, there aren't any 1st Person Fantasy RPG co-op games. TES could be the front runner for this and many will follow, just as BGS has been a trend setter in years past.

Even then, removing the dragon shouts you are not getting the whole experience. Your OPINION is you don't think that's watered down, but you have not played the game and do not know their importance to the gameplay. All of your arguments are opinion-based, so again you're really not making a point there. These concerns are not only held by me, but anyone who has truly enjoyed TES for the games they are and not what you think they should be. And just as well, they could also be the trend setter in NOT conforming to the half-cocked belief that co-op should be in every game.

» Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:14 pm

Okay yeah I see what your saying. Think of Fable 2, it has the co-op element, but player 2 doesn't get to save his gear. That means the next time he joins with his buddy, (locally) he has to start all over. Plus, he cant purchase things. For Skyrim, I was imagining the opposite of Fable 2. The second player is allowed to purchase items, save his time in the game, and still be able to work alone.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:08 am

These concerns are not only held by me, but anyone who has truly enjoyed TES for the games they are and not what you think they should be.

You're really quite presumptuous and arrogant, to be honest. You do not speak for anyone other than yourself. Sure, offer an opinion that you believe others beside yourself think the same way, thats fine. Stating that "anyone who has truly enjoyed TES for what they are" don't want co op is so unbelievably presumptuous I'm not going to bother responding to you after this.

I enjoy TES games for what they are. I had Morrowind on Xbox, loved it and played it to death. Then I bought the GOTY edition to play the expansions. Eventually after we got a new PC I bought the PC version to try out mods and played the game for months and months, forgoing any other games. My disk cracked then (:sad:) so I bought a second PC version. I also have Oblivion on 360 and PC and played them both a fair bit.

So, in your opinion, I should share your concerns because I enjoyed MW and OB for what they were? Right. Also adding co op will not change the type of game it is, won't alter single player. So "what they should be" isn't even all that accurate. Its hardly like it will change the entire game to the point where its a different genre or some equally nonsensical anti-multiplayer statement. Apologies if this causes any offence, to yourself or others, but really - with what you said as fact, meh.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:05 am

Yeah, not EVERYONE enjoyed TES.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:22 am

They would be the same as the 'main' player only without the dragonborn traits. Doesn't really seem like all that big a loss to be. Like others have probably said in argument against co op, the TES story is about having the player as the uber awesome hero guy who has to save the world. The second player will just be helping them to do so. Not everyone likes playing "godly" characters that can do everything, either. Player preference and all that.

If being forced to played what is basically a stripped-down avatar "doesn't really seem like all that big a loss to you" then perhaps you have never actually appreciated TES for what it really is.

Big difference between expecting and wanting it. I don't expect it in the slightest, I still want it though.

Yeah, and I want a million dollars right now, and a job at BGS. But it just isn't in the cards now is it.

I mean take Bioware's Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age series'. In BG you could play multiplayer. One player would be the pivotal "destiny character" and the others would take control of the various companions you can recruit throughout the game. Dragon Age has no such feature, though it would be very welcome by quite the number of gamers I imagine. Do they take away from the SP? No, because its pretty much untouched. Its just instead of a companion character having AI, another player controls it. Also theres no other games like TES really, at least to my knowledge, so saying find another game for co op is a tad arrogant.

BioWare's games are nothing like TES. Dragon Age 2 would actually benefit from co-op because it is very linear by comparison and does not have a fraction the depth of TES.

Anyways, I still stick to the idea that ZeniMax Online studios could add in a co-op feature to single player, or create a RDR styled multiplayer free roam. Offer it as DLC and hey presto, they make monies and those who want nothing to do with multiplayer don't have to buy it, obviously. ^_^

Go ahead.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:04 am

If it were up to me, I would make it 2 players (only) and 1 person to a console to prevent the huge resource waste of the game's engine. That way we can get the most out of a single-player experience, while having a blast with a buddy in System Link.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:52 am

Even then, removing the dragon shouts you are not getting the whole experience. Your OPINION is you don't think that's watered down, but you have not played the game and do not know their importance to the gameplay. All of your arguments are opinion-based, so again you're really not making a point there. These concerns are not only held by me, but anyone who has truly enjoyed TES for the games they are and not what you think they should be. And just as well, they could also be the trend setter in NOT conforming to the half-cocked belief that co-op should be in every game.

It's your opinion that without dragon shouts you aren't getting the whole experience. However, tons of players will be roleplaying as characters other than the DragonBorn. Did you ever in Oblivion play as a character that didn't go through the entire main quest and become the Champion of Cyrodiil? Did not completing these quests lessen your experience?

Obviously all of our arguments on this forum are opinion-based, however your opinion of "followers" not being the "whole experience" isn't held by anyone but you. Are you honestly going to say that I didn't enjoy TES, because I've thought that co-op would add a lot to the game? I don't think that you have any place to say who is really enjoying TES and who isn't.

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:59 am

If being forced to played what is basically a stripped-down avatar "doesn't really seem like all that big a loss to you" then perhaps you have never actually appreciated TES for what it really is.

"Being forced" to play as a stripped-down avatar? Who would be forcing you to play co-op?

» Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:40 am

Even then, removing the dragon shouts you are not getting the whole experience.

Fine. You don't get the absolute whole experience, but the first player does. And the second player could play their own copy of Skyrim, and be their own game's Dragonborn and whatnot. The co-op would be for friends who want to play together for a while--I could show my friend a cool dungeon I found and we could go through it together.

You are trying to say that you both absolutely must be the Dragonborn to have the whole experience, and if you both are, the whole story unravels and the space-time continuum will collapse on itself etc. That is a logical trap, and an easily evadable one. The Greybeards can use Thu'um, and are not Dragonborn. Why can a second player not? And why does the second player absolutely have to use dragon shouts? There was no such thing in previous games, and my characters got along quite well without them

Your OPINION is you don't think that's watered down, but you have not played the game and do not know their importance to the gameplay. All of your arguments are opinion-based, so again you're really not making a point there. These concerns are not only held by me, but anyone who has truly enjoyed TES for the games they are and not what you think they should be. And just as well, they could also be the trend setter in NOT conforming to the half-cocked belief that co-op should be in every game.

Where to start here... You are arguing from opinion as well. You think it will water down the game to add a second player. Fine. That's your view. So simply do not play multiplayer. Problem solved. Let us degenerates who desire to play multiplayer do so in peace.

The statement that anyone who has truly enjoyed TES for the the games they are holds your some concern is outright untrue. Have you polled all of them? I have enjoyed TES for what they are, and I think a very limited multiplayer could only enhance things. If we did not wish the games were different things, we would not be pushing for different graphics, different lands, or even different stories. If what is, is perfect, let it stand and play it over and over again. I think we can all agree no game is perfect, although TES is getting close!

No one here ever stated they wished every game to be co-op. And if they did, so what? If there is a multiplayer feature, don't play it. I don't see what there is to gain from circumventing others from enjoying games the way they want to.