When I played Morrowind and Oblivion I had never experienced multi-player but since then I've played "Guild Wars" and at the moment I'm playing "Age of Conan". I like the fact that MW and Oblivion are moddable and I'm not sure this would be possible if it were multi-player. I except that some of my games are single player and others multi-player and happily play both.

I think it should work like this, You have your single player option, and then the multiplayer option. In multiplayer, you choose form a variety of different servers. Servers have different types. Pvp(Player vs Player) Roleplaying, ( For roleplayers like me, always wanted to roleplay with someone in oblivion), and Free (Do anything you want) After you select your server, you create your character and start out infront of a ship or a wagon. (Whatever bethesda wants) Each server is its own world, dungeons are much harder and would usually require 3 people instead of 1. Rare armor is much harder to come by, when you buy armor from merchants, it doesen't go away so other players still have things to buy.

It's amusing to me that there are so many people here that simply want to deny others the ability to play some Skyrim with their friends.

Not a single valid technical objection to small (2-4 person) co-op multiplayer has been posted so far in this thread.

ok no one is doubting that co-op would be fun but it would not work with skyrim without ruining it. just look at mmos there visual qualities are lacking to that of any single player rpg. fable 2 is a horrible response to being a doable thing for a few reasons. fable 2 visuals where cartoonish and cheap. its map was not open at all but segmented by different loading areas. PC users you have a major annoyance also. let say your computer is top of the line and runs skyrim with no errors or loading lag. your friends pc or whoever you are playing with computers barely meets the min specs. this means your game will glitch ever time your friends does. Internet connection is another thing i dont want to be sent to the main menu while in the middle of clearing out a dungeon because the friend i was playing with lost connection. I know some of you will other games dont stop you from playing when someone gets disconnected. this is because those games you connect to servers that the game company runs. do you really want bethesda wasting money and resources to running and maintaining servers instead of making quality games.

Visual quality has nothing to do with whether or not a game can support multiple players. The MMOs Aion (CryEngine) and Age of Conan had far better graphics than anything you've mentioned.



What you experienced in one game does not hold true in all multiplayer games.



False dichotomy. You present 2 options: either Bethesda pays for servers or players must run the server on the same computer that is running Skyrim (and thus subject to any instability from this computer). There is, of course, another option: 3rd party dedicated servers, owned/rented and operated by the players themselves.

I'm jumping on the "up to 4 player co-op" gameplay bandwagon. It would be fun running around Skyrim with a couple of friends, being able to chat, go exploring, loot dungeons and do quests.. I love the idea!

I went to gamestop website and it says 1 player, is this confirmed or just a placeholder? if so theres no need for this thread

well other games have dealt with this before, this isnt a real excuse, a simple way is that coop works only if both players have the same dlcs and versions, and if dont a simple message that shows the incompatibility/compatibility list.

So two friends can make an arrangement to both buy the xdungeon dlc, in order to team-explore, and this can be even better and paid more for bethesda

And another better idea is that one player is guest from the other, and it can display you a message "you cant bring your super sword becaus "jhon doe" hasnt that DLC or a simple error "you can't play whit jhon doe!"

the second idea fix the problem of the incompatibility solved quests.

Just a placeholder.

For the record, I doubt they will be including multiplayer if for no other reason than the fact that none of the past games have been multiplayer. Having said that, I really want it to be in there. The closest experience I've had to it is exploring some epic caves on my Minecraft server with friends. Sure, there's Diablo 3 coming up but that is nowhere near as immersive as a first-person RPG.

And it's amusing to me that you pretend to have read all of these pages, even though I just posted a comment a few scrolls up, even on this page, stating the fact that the popular multiplayer games use a lot of space even though the single player part is lacking. 10 hours per Fable character. 250 per Oblivion character. 550 hour per Morrowind. 20 per Assassins Creed. Need I go on? Fine, I will. About 30 per Read Dead Redemption. 20-40 per GTA4. 5 per Gears of War. The main differences with all these games? Single player=a TON OF EXTRA CONTENT! Do you really think I have nothing better to do then stomp on the dreams of you and people like you? Do you think that I overtly hate multiplayer? Sure, I hate Halo, but there are multiplayer games I like. It just wouldn't work for TES. I am sorry.

"One man speaking the truth
No one likes when it fits
So we tell soothing lies
And betray our own lips"
-Dave Mustaine
Would you prefer I lie to you and say it'll happen, so that when it doesn't, you're disappointed?

Interactive Online Play
Interactive Rooms:
these rooms will be allowed to hold up to 20 players at a time. each of these players will be in the same area of skills/level.
there will be rooms for each area of levels. ex. room 1_lvl 1-5., room 2_lvl 6-10, etc.
there will be 3 parts to each of these rooms.
Trading Area:
this area will allow players of the same lvls to trade items and gift items. there will be a limit to how much a player can recieve from gifts, and how much gold can be gifted. trading is unlimited, but must be reasonably. ex trade: silver longsword (200 gold worth) for dwarven helm (200 gold). and so on. there will be a 100 gold variation as to what can be traded.
Talking/Conversating Area:
this area is designated to join/participate in active conversation concerning the world of skyrim. the talking area will have sections such as the quest/mission area. freeplay area. skills/leveling up area. and misc. area.
Treasure Chest Area:
this area will contain a treasure chest for online players to donate their useless/unwanted items to the treasure chest so that other players may take and use them for their own personally needs. there will be a limit as to what can be taken out as well as the amount.
more advanced players cannot donate nor gift items to a lesser players. this purpose is to insure that items/artifacts are not given to lesser players for quests that they cannot complete or they cannot find. this is to protect possibility of glitching quests/activation of quests.
Online Guilds:
these guilds will be conformed to 5 players in which each player will contribute to their guild. each guild members earning/findings will be distributed equally between all guild members. ex. the player who has found the gold/earned the gold will receive half the gold while the remain portion will be properly split between the remaining players of the guild. this is not only a good way to earn gold and prosper in skyrim but also lets the guild members to bond and learn different methods of playing. the guild will have levels of specification such as: combat level (this is based on how many creatures/humans/npcs you and your guild have killed). magic( based on your guilds' level of magic use) and etc. guilds will compete with one another in order to be recognized and to earn respect from other online players.
these are all my opinions and things i would enjoy to see in skyrim
thanks for reading my post

abeytu

PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Hell no, go play rune-scape.

so sorry for thinking of some new stuff that would be a nice additive to the next elder scrolls. like i said at the bottom of my writing "these are all my opinions". i do not implement them onto anyone else. its just a game, so calm down
ps. what the hell is runescape.

Pete Hines already mentioned that there won't be a multiplayer or CO-OP feature, so I think this can be locked? If you want proof, search his tweets, don't exactly know when he said it.

These "nice" features are for overly selfish reasons and are for games that offer NOTHING after you beat the MQ/MM/Storyline. You want to beat stuff into the ground with your friend, Their are games for that, you want to run around with Standard Gametypes making TES Another Generic title, Their are Games for that. the Future of TES isn't Follow the herd off the cliff. Let the Devs chart their epic Course as the Series has been something Beyond many many games of the past, if you want a good deterrent for a Company that did its best to cater to the Fans but the game ended up being crap, because everyone whos anyone wanted some feature, check Fable 2-3.

I want to beat stuff into the ground with a friend in TES. I don't want generic gametypes like team deathmatch etc in TES because that is just plain stupid. I want Co-op. The implementation of cooperative gameplay is not equatable to falling off of a cliff. I found Fable 3 to be my favorite of the series.

I hope the developers listen to people that can give real reasons why they should or shouldn't implement co-op instead of biased people such as yourself.

Multiplayer wouldn't work unless it is arena.

Coop would be awesome, though. My best friend and I have always talked about how cool coop would be and to show each other our characters. Since, you know, he lives in a different state now.

Co-op: Yes
Arena Versus: Yes
Multiplayer (Assassin's Creed Brotherhood-like): No
MMO: No


Nuff' Said.

Exactly.
Most people who want 'multiplayer' just want co-op. I personally don't even care for an arena versus, I just want to be able to quest with a friend, either with LAN or splitscreen.

'It doesn't belong in TES'?
What belongs in TES?
Dual wielding has never been in TES, does this mean that Skyrim is not a true ES game? Or do features only belong in games once they are in?, in which case everyone will love co-op once it makes it in (if it ever does), also in which case, bandits in daedric and nerf bow and arrows absolutely do belong in TES.

'TES is meant to be a single-player game'?
Who decided what it was meant or meant not to be?
I thought TES was a hardcoe a RPG? Weren't RPGs originally intended to be played and enjoyed with friends?

And as stupid as I may sound right now, I consider co-op singleplayer. When I think of multiplayer I think of cod and halo. When I think of CO-OP multiplayer, I think of playing the singleplayer game with 2 people.

The ONLY valid argument I've seen is the one about fable 2 and 3, and RDR, and whatever other games were mentioned, how your average character in those games was substantially less than your average TES character. But then I thought about it, and realized the first red dead or fable games, that did not have multiplayer, still had shorter average character-times than TES. That's just the way those games are, regardless of multiplayer.

To me it seems that while you are calling us selfish for wanting a feature, it is truly you who are selfish. Denying other people a feature because you have no personal interest in it? Saying 'No, I don't want it because I won't use it' is one thing, but adamantly refusing to allow a feature simply because you probably won't use it, for no apparent reason, is really just a dike move.

Well, the original Fallout devs were working on a Fallout MMO, the Bethesda sued them, after giving them permission to do so. Read more here: http://kotaku.com/5717421/fallout-mmo-might-need-to-duck--cover

I agree, though, that Fallout would make a great MMO, but I think TES would as well. And I'd enjoy a TES MMO, just as long as it stays separate from TES single-player games.

So here is my two cents about coop or not. First and foremost I think it would a be a great idea to implement co-op play. Secondly it is an easy solution to resolve this whole debate. I say create the game with all the content that is needed for the first player, but with ability of co-op play as an optional feature. For those who don't want to play with anyone.... THEN you don't have to, but for those who want to play with a friend, then the option is there to add your buddy. Consoles are very power machines, they have the ability to store a lot of storage. So if creating the game with all the content is needed for the single player great story line, they should be able to have that for coop. We under estimate the power of the consoles... If PS3 can host MMO's, (DCUO, and soon to be FFXIV) why can't we have the best of both worlds.


Enuf said...

:rolleyes: And if I am baised which makes no sense on my position, how are you not? If you -read- this thread and the others like it *Bless the forums there aren't as many anymore* you would see inumerable valid points as to why its not worth the effort and why TES doesn't need it. I'm saying it DOESN'T need it, not that I hate it, Like i said there are OTHER games that do this exceptionally well, and if you Enjoy Fable 3 as much as you say then continue to romp in epicness with ITS co-op, TES doesn't need it, effectively its like this. If Skyrim had Co-op and yet you had Fable 3 who has Co-op, whats the point? variety? another game you can curb stomp hapless creatures in? and how does that add to TES? how does it make the series Stand out More as it did in Era's past?

My Stance as why The Dev's should continue to walk their own path and not get dragged down entirely by the mass of fans saying I want this, this, that and a golden goose. BGS doesn't do MP games of any kind, they've stated this as well as not looking forward to doing so in the near future. They Blow minds with Single player games were people can dip themselves in and get lost. you want another bonding measure with a Bud, There are games for that.


jeesh the snarkyness is off the scale :confused:

Every RPG outside of LOTRO has been single playernad I have no desire to change that with Skyrim.

Pete said on twitter yesterday that this is single player and no multiplayer. Enough said.

Before the announcement that you are the only known surviving Dragonborn I'd have said optional co-op (and not just online) would be great... but now that some information has been revealed I don't see how it would work. There's only one known Dragonborn, so I highly doubt this would happen. I think it could work just fine, but I'm not concerned about it.