Official Multiplayer/Co-op Thread

The issue of multiplayer/co-op has been a hot one on this forum since Skyrim was announced. It tends to draw a lot of frustration, spam and, unfortunately, flaming. In an effort to help keep things civil on the forums, we have decided to restrict the discussion of multiplayer or co-op to this one thread. When this thread hits 200 posts, it will be locked and a new thread opened to continue the discussion. Any new multiplayer/co-op threads created in this forum, or old multiplayer threads brought back to the top, will be locked and directed here - this includes polls!

A few reminders:

• All of the forum rules still apply; flaming will not be tolerated, nor will insults directed toward specific users. This does not mean that you have to agree with everyone's opinion, but you must still respect them and their opinions enough to respond civilly.
  
• This thread is for discussing the possibility of multiplayer or co-op in the upcoming new game. If you want to discuss MMOs then use the topic in http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1119156-official-tes-multiplayer-thread/
  
• If someone does post a multiplayer thread in TES General or elsewhere, simply direct them here and report the thread to the moderators. And please, do this civilly, yelling and insulting people (especially new users) because they do not know about this thread serves no constructive purpose, and will likely result in a warning.
  
• The moderators are not privy to information that hasn't been released to the public.

Finally, multiplayer code requires a ton of effort. For example, it took two people several months to add multiplayer to Soldier of Fortune 2, a game made with an engine specifically designed for multiplayer (Quake 3). Many people seem to feel that a developer can purchase some network code and slap it on with a week's worth of work, but this just isn't the case.

Quote from Todd Howard regarding this -


http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1171245-official-discussion-of-multiplayerco-op-in-skyrim/

It would be awesome if they could make multiplayer but only the Free Roam mode in Skyrim like from the GTA and RDR and chose a class when they enter a server. and then they could earn more money because players would be sooo amazed!!! \,,/ Write what you think how Free Roam with other players would be in Skyrim!!!

I feel 2-4 player Co-op would fit the series perfectly.

EDIT: Me and my friend already have a plan. If Skyrim features co-op hes bringing over his xbox and were have a 72 hour RPG-fest, Complete with Elves, Dragons, and Cheetos.

My fervent belief, though not news to any of the regulars, remains as follows.
Local, drop in/drop out co-op would add enormously to the value of these games for legions of players, and would NOT hurt the single player aspect of the game in any way. The only argment of worth against it is a resource argument. Other than that, it is an optional feature.

Also, anyone who argues that there are "other games for co-op" is missing the point, and also making a fallacious equation. Not every game that offers co-op is a game every gamer desiring co-op wishes to play. There are many hardcoe and casual gamers who are really only interested in traditional to semi-traditional RPG style gamesm but who love co-op. In their game library you will find everything from Final Fantasy to Ultima, Sword of Vermillion to Gauntlet, NeverWinter Nights to a heap of Dungeon and Dragons games and its spin offs like Baldur's Gate, you will find Fable games and Elder Scrolls games, but never once run across Call of Duty or StreetFighter. The RPG is multiplay in its origins, and no other style of game offers the as much potential for shared exploration and adventure, as much pure value for companionship, as the RPG game does. So the talk of, "there are other games for that" is myopic garbage. What people asking for co-op want is a game like Elder Scrolls that offers the ability to expereince the alternate world alongside a real friend. . . if all they wanted was Super Mario Smash Brothers, I am sure they would not bother posting here in the first place.

Co-op is not about adding stats to the game or any of that bunk. It is about allowing you the enhancement and pleasure of experiencing an alternate world with a fully customizable friend at your side, just as you might do in your own life if you went on a great adventure. If a portal opened up in your backyard and an honest to God magical otherworld lay just beyond it, you would probably want to be able to have friends along to explore it with you. And that is essentially what a good RPG like ES is supposed to be. An RPG game should never dictate to players, "this is meant to be played alone" NOR that, "this is meant to be played with your friend, and must be done so." It is about a choice. The game should cater to good quests, good stories, good NPC interaction and good immersion. It should no more try to dictate whether or not you should or can play with a friend than it should try to dictate wheter or not you should or can play as a wizard or as a warrior, as an Elf or as an orc. Co-op is about exploring a world of great depth, magic, wonder, intrigue and yes, mosnters. . . of sweeping vistas and magnificent environments, of heavy lore and wonders and marvels. . . and being able to do it WITH a friend at ones side.

The AI companions offered are but a pitiful attempt to simulate exactly this thing, which no AI can ever truly simulate. True companionship. The ability to explore, to triumph, to face fear and danger, to unravel mysteries and to delve into the unknown in the way that most of us would want to if presented with the real things. . . with a sure friend at our side . And what game offers that already? There are few singleplayer games which offer the depth of Elder Scrolls. There are no immersive RPGs that I know of outside of Fable that offer decent couch co-op, and Fable is not nearly as expansive and intricate as Elder Scrolls, despite being a good game in its own right. I know Bethesda has ties to the game Hunted that is in development. Sure it has co-op. . . but your character choices are limited to two people, and you are forced to have the other person tag along in AI even if you are not playing co-op. Now THAT ruins a lot of the game experience, if you ask me. It forces you to partner, and limits you customization. I don't want to play as a female elf-mage, and I don't want to play as a human warrior, male or not. If that game doesn't flourish, it won't be because it offered co-op. . . it will be because it handicapped the co-op and limited the options of the players in a constraining manner. People want co-op in their RPGs, not predetermined characters. The ONLY decent argument concerning reasons not to add co-op are resource issues. All of the others fall flat.

RPGs began as multiplayer expereinces. And GOOD COUCH I.E. LOCAL CO-OP, which is the only thing I have EVER petitioned for, is drop in drop out, still allows the story to focus on the primary or first player, and in no way impedes or detracts from the singleplayer experience, save that, for those who tire of playing alone and wish to explore with a friend, for those who want to be able to share the wonders they have beheld in the game world with a real companion, for those who want the frankly incomparable experience of facing and expereincing all the challanges and wonders that a game like Elder Scrolls provides with a friend at one's side, a co-op OPTION allows this to take place . Being Optional, no person who lacks the social aptitude to get along well with others and to play co-operatively need ever be forced to play it thus. But it allows the millions who LONG for such an experience to have it. Without altering the focus, story, or general play of the game, it allows a person to have and allow a customized friend to enter their world, and to interact with it. Such a feature causes a game like this to become more than a gaming experience. . . it is an awesome bonding experience, an awesome way for friends to interact and explore and test themselves together. In a game like ES it would be trancendent. And, aside from resource, there is no good reason not to have it.

The resource argument only goes so far as well, I might add. Every aspect of a game requires some resource, and what the enemies of co-op are essentially saying is, "since we don't use it, we don't want anyone else to be able to use it either." Which is about the most callous, selfish, almost hateful and malicious form of argument I can imagine. I always play as a wizard. As such, I NEVER wear armour. I use swords, but I have not so much as donned a pear of greaves in all my thousands of hours of playing these games. I am a mystic in a loin cloth until I get my hands on viable wizard robes. And yet you would NEVER hear me argue that the devs should take armour out of the game, so as to focus more on expanding spell lists, etc. Because I know that there are people who love playing in the armour, and the setting of the world allows for it, so why should they be denied it because of my optional personal preferrences? I HATE Argonians. I am always an Elf, either Altmer or Dunmer, and I find the very look of the lizard folk a little revolting. Yet again, you won't ever hear me asking that resources be divereted from making skins for those creatures. Because I don't HAVE to play as one, and as long as that remains true, I am not interested in forbidding anyone else to play as one. Yet that is exactly what the "singleplayer only" crowd are doing to those who wish to play alongside a friend. They are killing a potential experience for us, in many cases with cold blood and full malice of forethought. The only relevant question is, can simple, local, drop in/drop out co-op be achieved without destroying some other key feature of the game. And playing alone is not in and of itself a key feature. Who the hell buys a game with the express thought of, "oh thank god, finally a game that none of my stupid friends can ever play with me!" No one thinks like that, except perhaps for an honest to god, lives under a bridge, man-eating, Literal troll.

Again, RPGs origins lie in social play. The epic lie that has been spread about them being innately singleplayer only is as foolish as it is false. An RPG, including Elder Scrolls, has no more reason to be innately singleplayer exclusive than it does to be third person perspective only, or first person perspective only. The option should be there. It would offer ENORMOUS enhancement to the game for those who wish to be able to share their experiences with a friend, and to have the psychological comfort and satisfaction that can come from having a real companion in such an expansive and immersive experience, and it WOULD NOT (if done as the form of local co-op I advocate) in anyway detract from the singleplayer oreinted aspects of the game. And, of course, it would be entirely optional. It simply would have no effect on those who opted not to use it. I don't know that it will happen, with some of the moderators and even some of the devs religiously, and frankly in some cases illogically hostile to it. But the value of it remains all the same.

P.S. Rohugh, even though I get the notion that you are hostile towards co-op (correct me if I am wrong) and maybe a tad biased against it, I still wonder if it might be better for there to be at least seperate threads for the extremely different types of co-op being proposed. PvP, MMO and Local (couch)cooperative are all extremely different from one another, and having them all included on the same thread has lead to some confusion, with many people arguing points that posters aren't even making, I.E. explaining why an MMO would not work to someone who is asking for couch two player, or limited PvP etc.

Ok I will!

*shrug* Eh.

I would rather have it like some kind of local/LAN/online splitscreen if they do it at all, ever. Something akin to Borderlands. You have to stay in the same area, that kind of thing, with a max of 2-3 players.

I will state that I would not at all be adverse to a small arena mode separate from the main game. I actually wouldn't mind if it was ten dollar DLC or anything. When you think on it, it makes perfect sense. The long tradition of the Arena in the Elder Scrolls games really hasn't been played out to an extent where it was believable due to the fact that the AI doesn't work out as well as it could. By creating an Arena mode for online competition, you could actually live out your fantasy of being in the Arena and also have an excuse to optimize for PvP that's different from PvE.

Not everyone is saying Co-op is the bane of gaming, sure its a nice addition but what needs to be understood is that it will hurt the series, this isnt something you can tack on or seamlessly include into the series, much less Skyrim at this point.

How will it hurt the series you say?

Once again people keep ignoring this. Bethesda studios is a Singleplayer Only Game Company.... Stop... Ignoring... This.

check Oblivion and morrowind with their "simplifications" in reflection of their predecessors, these changes were brought about becausee FANS roared for them, Bethesda studios didn't include these changes on a whim one day, its something they look at and plan out for better or for worse. now take this in view if they attempted to but in ANY mutliplayer aspects on the series that has been primarily Singleplayer ages, its not about times a changing or going forward. everyone road doesnt lead to the same destination.

To Implement MP aspects is diverting resources that could have been used in other areas

That MP would not be entirely reliable as it stands, because that is not Bethesda's Focus.And do you really want another entity to tinker with the series just so Multiplayer could be in?

The series has stood on its own for over a Decade now without the inclusion Mutliplayer, people buy the game for what it offers. not Multiplayer and if new people buy the series JUST because it starts Multiplayer, then obviously the series wasn't for them in the first place? yes read this properly, they didnt get the game prior because it did not have Multiplayer, it wasn't for them their own descision, not my statement.

Games with Multiplayer and singleplayer are often lacking significantly in other departments, this is recurring across all genres.

Deadspace 2 (not originally a multiplayer focus game)

Borderlands( Built with Co-op in mind, not so much on the story, and infinte random weapons with the same handful jumbled effects does not count as variety, the ARES mod for Oblivion does exactly the same, streamlined for enchantments...)
COD series. (multiplayer focus, poor singleplayer, without MP has nothing more to offer)

Halo series (same deal, once Singleplayer is done you wouldnt replay it if MP wasnt there)

Fable series (Originally a Singleplayer title probably the most emphasis on tactile things to do in SP, great emphasis on MP in 2-3, nothing left to offer in SP, no replaybility)

TW2 ( I think a portion of the game was sectioned off for Multiplayer? its just as open world as Morrowind and Oblivion were, this screwed with the singleplayers and the story)


There are no perfect game, and there definently are no games that meld Singleplayer and Mutliplayer effortlessly with replayability for SP, with either or somethings gonna give, some aspects will giveway for Co-op/multiplayer to be included. And with Beth as good as they are at what they do, do you really want them to go at something that isnt their focus ON A FLAGSHIP TITLE? because you think its cool or you want it?

No this isnt about denying advocates for multiplayer what they want because they want it, its not about wants its about the series keeping its dignity and continuing to deliever at what it does best and expanding on this for ALL of its fans, if your looking at TES and desiring a Multiplayer of anykind, you are staring at the wrong game which has placed great emphasis on the lone hero, never has their been a blatent love interest, Best friend, Long standing Companion(no the guild npc's without a name no history, or memorabilia including the factions from the expansions count, they are their to confirm your status) or someone to hold relation ships in the series, the game isnt about Companionship PERIOD neither AI's nor people. thats not what the series has been about, at its Core its been a dungeon crawler with obstacles and tribulations ONE hero must best over come with the abilities they have, whether they are at a disadvantage or advantage.

Arena - one hero to face Jagar tharns forces and overcome him singlehandedly with a spirit that fades in the end, not brought back, not continuing ever more, she fades away.

Battlespire, ONE soldier against the forces of Deadra, AND Dagon himself. (had co-op BUT isnt open world)

Redgaurd- Cyrus himself, vying out to save his sister

Morrowind - One Nerevarine, unknowingly the true Nerevarine to face Dagoth ur, BY THEMSELVES

Oblivon - You must go alone, face the forces of deadra, and close shut the Jaws of Oblivion.

Skyrim - One Dovakiin, the entire fate of Skyrim potentially all of existence, rests on Dovakiins shoulders because he is the only one capable of going toe to toe witha Dragon.


Let the series continue to deliver what its good at, and not shift into something it was never portraying itself to be, sureD&D began of social aspects, but this isnt D&D, this time around friends aren't needed to buffer the experience, thats what Graphics, sound, a good story and Gameplay are for, your friends are their because you want them to be their, its called Being Social. no one has given a reason beyond social desires as to why Co-op/multiplayer should be in all of them have been wants and personal desires. where my arguments have not been the negetives of co-op and multiplayer because we are all aware of that, and thats a point of view, just like how liking it or not liking it is, the arguments i've pressed forward are resources, the need of MP/co-op(not required) and the alteration it will do to both the game and Beths focus, if its NOT their focus its not going to be done up to par, something has to give. don't turn the series into a Social medium because you want to romp with friends. far to much is at stake for the series when so many other titles handle this well on their own. TES is singleplayer.

Kiralyn2000 made a good point in the previous thread:

I'll just re-post what I said in the other thread since it was basically closed as soon as I had post.

The ability to create a follower and level them up.

Its easy to argue for Mutliplayer and defend it at the same time.

We like multiplayer, we enjoy it with our buddies (various positives)

if you don't like multiplayer don't play it, its Optional no one is stopping you from being anti-social, but dont hinder us when we want it.


see how easy it is? what are you going to say to that your wrong!!11?

all that up their is a point of view, and all we are trying to say is, thats not what the game is about, thats not what bethesda made it for, they had over a Decade to reconsider the direction they are taking the series. if ever a mutliplayer aspect is to be included of anykind, they need to refine it on some other installment seperate from the flagship series, TES has its direction and scope, why would/should they chop it up and start from the bottom again? this isnt about Progressives / Traditionalist because MP doesnt instantly mean going forward or innovation or positive in its own right.

its keeping the game on its own focus and not turning it into something else, something it doesnt need to be when its sixy as is.

That's the biggest pile of nonsense I think I've ever read. What about brink ? that's multi-player ? I'm sick of seeing all this closed mindedness it's very disheartening and annoying. The fact is the Fallout series started out as an isometric series. Now look at it not only have the graphics improved but its also first person.No doubt many people thought as you did and they were wrong. Look at the total war series when they first came up with the concept of turn based AND realtime in one game. No doubt people thought it wasn't possible yet here we are.

JUst because YOU don't like the idea that doesn't mean its going to hurt the series. If multiplayer gets them more buyers and brings new people into the series shouldn't that be a good thing ? Of course I'm not suggesting they turn it into an MMO, but some people enjoy getting their friend over having a few sherbets and hacking up some monsters. Your post sound very selfish to me, almost like you dont want anyone else sharing your experience and certainly not with friends. The fact is even if they did include multiplayer do you honestly think you would stop buying the game ? I hardly think so. So why not just think of the positive aspects and if you dont like them that's fine you can play on your own just like you can in fable.

The only thing that makes Shepherd special is the player, he has the same abilities as everyone else in the world. I know you like to ignore facts, but just because your OPINION isn't shared by everyone doesn't mean your inadequate arguments are going over their heads.

Multi-player just wouldn't work IMO. You would need the NPCs to be unkillable, or your co-op partner could literally ruin your game. That's just one problem you would encounter. I'd also add that your only the 'chosen one' in an ES game if you choose to be. If you dont do the main quest, then your not really special. I go out of my way to not play the 'chosen one'. Out of a dozen or so characters I make, only a few ever go through the main quest. Not every character i made in Morrowind was The Nerevarine and not every character i make in Skyrim will be Dovahkiin.

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.

This seems the most sensible thing to do. With Skyrim, there is just too much detail for a mmo. Just hanging with a few friends and going out on some exclusive party quest looks like the best course of action here.

How comes there were two masterchiefs in halo then ?

Yet Battlespire is co-op, which flies a in the face of Beth being "a singleplayer only" company. I suppose it could be part of their mission statement. I live in Maryland, actually, an hour or so north of Bethesda HQ. Maybe I'll go picket! LOL. Anyway, if the devs took a list of things they plan on putting in The Next ES game, and after coming up with the full list of features they intended to implement, they decided to add co-op as well, finding that it would not cause them to have to scale back anything they intended to add in the first place, would you still argue against it on the basis of vague hypotheticals?

We have discussed Fable et al before. The flaws in Fable II and III did not come from the co-op. Feature wise, the latter pair of games had much more to offer than their predecessor. Setting changes took some of the enchantment for we more diehard sword & sorcery types, but that was a choice on the part of the devs that had nothing to do with the mechanics of co-op. Any failings in story were also unrealated to that feature. One might as well say the story was lacking because the game allowed you to spell weave, or because weapons morphed, or because you could dye your outfits. And Two Worlds? The first game wasn't co-op, but MAN was it CRAP in the story department.

As to the want/need argument. We have been there and done that. Nearly all of the games features, and at the core, the game itself are based upon wants, the wants of gamers, the wants of "fantasy" enthusiasts, the wants of the designers themselves, etc. If it is be an argument of needs then cancel all. We are all talking about wants. All the polls on here, the "which race and how many" the "what spells""what weapons" "what guilds" etc. etc. All to do with wants. And local co-op is not some outrageous, never before heard of, world altering want like guns or laser armed spaceships. And I don't see the point in going on about having co-op being a social aspect of the gaming. Its like taking the fact that having race and clothing options is about customization and saying, "those are about customization, not the gameplay." Lots of different elements make up gameplay. Different people put emphasis and appreciation on different aspects. It doesn't make anyone more wrong or more right, no more than playing as an Elf Mage makes you more wrong or right in your approach than someone who plays as an Orc mercenary.

And just because your inadequate arguments aren't shared by everyone doesn't mean the facts are going over their heads.

Then don't save your game?

If there were multiplayer, it could force you to make a hard save before the other character loaded, so you don't have an autosave kill your progress in case things go awry.
There are always alternative routes.

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.

Thats why i would never want to play with strangers online. I would only ever play with my buddy becuase he knows that he cant just kill everyone.

Also, The argument that all the stories are about you going against the odds by yourself is a pretty weak defense. Having Co-op wouldnt change the story at all, it would just change the game mechanics. If you really want to get nit-picky, i remember reading in the GI article that there are others in the world of Skyrim that can use the dragon shouts, however not near your power level (BTW, its over 9000). You could just pretend that your buddy is your apprentice or something, and you are teaching him the ways of the dragonshouts.

Also, Just because you are the ONE Dovakiin, doesnt mean that you have to be an anti-social loser. If i was off adventuring and fighting monsters, i would make damn sure that i have someone i trust backing me up.

Anyways, i didnt neccessarily "go forth alone into the gates of Oblivion", I had the annoying fan with me carrying my crap.

And thats not true. Halo 1 didn't have a focus on multiplayer because it had no xbox live. I played that story more times than I can count.
Halo Reach had a good story and has been worth replaying.

Fable 2 had co-op, but not many people bought it for that.

sorry that needs to be rewritten and it is a fault but again its a personal bit really Virule

Exactly. Halo 1 didnt have MP MP came on as an after feature in the PC release (co-op) and gave a story worthy of the Gods, when MP came around did you replay the stories for 2/3/odst/and reach? personally I didn't as long as they were I did everything that needed to be done especially since its a shooter and multiplayer took my focus compelely and utterly from SP. I paid for both aspects of the game because they were made that way, with that intention.

Halo can't be shored up with TES, once it made the step into MP in never looked back.

TES if people want to use Battlespire as an example, dabbled in it, and did not continue that route, it kept its own focus, and should continue to do so.


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.

Posts have been deleted.

Enough with the personal jabs and bickering. It's pointless. Stay on topic, or do not post.

Understood.

I like your sig, btw.