Example: Xboxer 1 and Xboxer 2 decide to play online co-op. Xboxer 1 has the latest DLC for the game installed, and has items from that DLC on their character. Xboxer 2 does not have this DLC. How do you resolve the situation? Take the easy way and automatically disable the DLC? Now what does Xboxer 1 fight with since his weapon was the Sword of Uberness from the DLC? He's also naked, since he was wearing the Armor of Badassery from the DLC.

And neither of them has even tried to play with a PC player who's running 47 mods and using items added by all of them.

I think good CO OP and small mp (IE 4 player max or so) would ADD to the game experience.

Being able to explore the world and do things with your friends/wife would be a blast imo.

As far as "taking away" from single player. You guys do realize, that it doesn't take the ENTIRE TEAM to make every aspect fo the game correct? Having people work on MP code isn't going to magically force the animations, writers, world design, etc people to sudenly STOP working on the single player.

IT would simply be la matter of hiring peopel for it/paying them. It doesn't have to detract from single player in any way at all and in fact to me, it'd add to the game as a whole. I always thought exploring this vast open world would be fun if I could do it with a small group of foriends. Just running around, exploring dungeons, caves, and finding new cool things.

I just can't fathom how on earth people can be so adamantly against such a thing.

The loot INSIDE the containers is indeed randomly generated. Randomly generated for one person. Splitting it up would be ridiculous. And it's not just the number of spawns to fight, it is picking up the loot from that number of spawns and splitting it evenly. It just can't be done without tedious counting, which I don't think many people want to do in the heat of the moment. And yes, artifacts, so thank you for adding to my case.

DLC adds new locations, new items, etc. Often times it adds items that don't use the same models and/or textures than the Vanilla game. One person having one DLC and the other not having it would cause compatibility issues. And that STILL doesn't eliminate the fact that PC players who mod their games don't EVER have the same exact game.

Every game you've mentioned in your defense has included, to my knowledge, automatic loot dispersal. As in, you finish up killing a group of enemies, and everyone in your party gets a little chunk of loot. The game handles it. TES is a "self-serve" loot system, you pick it up yourself from enemies and physically placed containers and spawns.

And you haven't even mentioned my point about handling the game when someone opens a menu, to either collect loot or change weapons, or anything else like that.

As I've said several times, it would be a completely different game. If you want to play co-op RPGs, then go play Diablo or Dark Alliance, because you won't find Multiplayer here.

:shakehead:

Why not do as every other developers do with the DLC? Just make the people who do not have the DLC unable to play with those who have the DLC? Just like they already do when new maps is released like most shooters do.

Then you bifurcate the community and make a game that can only reach it's full potential by paying extra money for extra content that wasn't necessary to buy in the first place, but now is if you want to enjoy it with your friend who owns said DLC.

Honestly, the BEST solution would be to just offer DLC for free. It's sad that most people don't consider that anymore.


Edit: Side note: I'm going to get up to at LEAST a Master on the forums by the time Skyrim is released...

Disagree. In the dim prehistoric past, when things called "Expansions" existed and DLC were as yet unheard of, you might bifurcate the community. Not any more. How many DLC were there for Oblivion? You're looking at multiple possible combinations, including (unless I'm mistaken) DLC that are only available on some platforms and not others. That last part alone means some segment of the community gets the shaft and doesn't even have the possiblity of playing with certain other segments.

Bifurcation like having vanilla Diablo II or alternately Diablo II: Lord of Destruction would be a cakewalk by comparison. And that's only counting DLC, not mods for PC players.

Yes make em free! Atleas Shivering Isles was worthy enought to be paid for, but I do not want to pay for anything as simple as 2 sets of horse armor or anything that should have been ingame when it was released.

I think what you're saying is that the game would be split into several different pieces, instead of the literal definition of "bifurcation" being split in half. I was using the term loosely to describe splitting the community up.

Bethesda has a much more positively fiscal and ultimately finite solution to all problems arising from the addition of multi-player to their games.

They will not be adding it.

Pretty much- it'd be heavily fragmented, to be sure.

Sad part is, if "the opposition" were on the ball they'd seize on this very fact as a reason beneficial to Bethesda. Think about it- "We could play co-op, but you don't have DLC [name]." That's free peer-pressure advertising and sales is what that is...

I'm a long-time TES fan, and created an account so I could add my two cents on this topic.

I would personally love to see some degree of cooperative play in Skyrim. I've been a huge fan of TES for quite some time now, and have wrangled more than a few of my friends into it, and all of us have been fantasizing for years: "How great would it be if we could do co-op Oblivion?"

From what I can see, a lot of the arguments against the possibility are coming from people who simply want more single-player content in the game, and I can understand that. TES games are what they are because of the sheer size of the games; take that away, and you won't have a TES game.

But this is exactly why I think co-op could work in Skyrim; it's not like Bethesda would randomly decide to make Skyrim an itty-bitty game world to accommodate a new feature or two, they would find a way to make it work.

So if it's within the realm of possibility to offer a TES game with even 2-player connected co-op, I say go for it!

And if in January we find out that this is actually a reality...I think Skyrim just might be my favorite game of all time.

Looking at how other RPGs did the co-op/MMO thing, I believe that TES would fail if they added it. The reason I love the game so much is because I am ON MY OWN. I am free to make my own path and follow it where ever it leads me. Having other people with me would really kill the immersion of living in the Elder Scrolls Universe. Leave the MMOs to Blizzard. :shrug:

First of all, welcome to the forums! And here, http://media.photobucket.com/image/Have%20a%20Fishy%20Stick/PaulSouthron/Fishy%20Sticks/fishystickcf7.jpg

Secondly, it's not only that, but the feasibility of implementing MP and avoiding all of the issues. It would have to be turned into a completely different game.

Thanks!

And I disagree, I don't think it would become a completely different game along the way.

To be clear, when I think of "co-op TES," I think of a TES game where you could connect to your friends' sessions with a character on your HDD, basically connecting 2 players directly, not an MMO-style game at all (that really wouldn't be TES, after all).

And I think this is quite feasible; it has, after all, been done before. Fable allowed players to connect two games together, albeit not perfectly, but it was there without compromising the single-player experience.

My point isn't "TES == Fable!!!", simply that other games have successfully implemented the feature I am thinking of, and I am confident that the programmers at Bethesda could pull it off if they really wanted to.

Why would it not be "totally sick"? Sharing experiences with friends can often make that experience so much better. Have you ever had a class at school which you enjoy, but having a friend sitting beside you would have made the jokes funnier and the overall experience better? I can think of so many things that I only do with friends that just would not be the same alone. Granted, some things are better alone, but in, in my opinion, TES is not one of those things.

And again, I can only speak for myself, but spectating, or being spectated, is NEVER as much fun as you and your friend both participating at the same time. Go play road hockey with only one hockey stick, you'll see what I mean.

Yes, I was exaggerating when I gave examples for how "I would rather the resources be spent on something more important," because nobody would ever say they don't want a good story, or good combat. But in theory, I COULD use that argument on anything. To be honest, I haven't beaten Morrowind's MQ, and I've only played through Oblivion's MQ once. And I've played those games a lot. So for me, I would rather Bethesda spend more time on creating an open world with good combat than "wasting" time and effort on the storyline.

But how would co-op kill the storyline anyway? Or the open world? I really don't understand so can you elaborate?

Bingo. I am a firm believer that games get increasingly better as you have more people playing them. I enjoy single-player games, to be sure (I'm posting this on a TES forum, after all), but I can't think of a multiplayer game where I was having less fun playing with a friend or two compared to playing alone.

More players = more fun in my book. (And I'm not talking MMO amounts of "more players," I'm talking about connecting to your friends to play the game you both love together)

Other games have done it, but you have to remember that those other games were quite different than TES. I'm still convinced that the way TES games have been designed make it very difficult for multiplayer to be implemented successfully in TES.

It's a neat idea, but I can't see a way that it could be pulled off without drastic changes being changed to the game is designed, and at that point, it just wouldn't be TES anymore.

Many of the arguments people are bringing up, dare I say MOST of the arguments, seem, to me at least, only applicable to MMOs. I'm sure what people are saying is directed at co-op, because I don't believe they are stupid, but I personally just don't see why it would be a problem. Then again, maybe it's ME who is on the wrong page. Who knows.

I don't see why loot would be a problem. If you are playing with one friend, and he takes an item you wanted, or he's taking ALL the items you want.. He's your friend right? Either get over it and move on, or just don't play with that person anymore.

As for mods, I guess that's semi-legitimate, but how many TES playing friends do you have? I only have 3, and I imagine most people don't have too many more, but would it really be that hard to go through your mod list and make sure you both have the same mods? If not you can download them and get on with it. It's not like you're playing with a randomly matched person, and you'd have to get new mods constantly to match up with each new person your playing with. But if you do have a lot of TES playing friends, this could indeed be a hassle. All I can suggest is only play with certain friends to avoid the hassle. I don't see why being able to play with only SOME friends is worse than playing with none at all. Especially when you can always take the time to match up your mods if you really want to.

For consoles, it's simpler but less flexible. Just have your friends get the DLC when you do. If not that, then there is hopefully a split screen mode.

As for opening menus, and lockpicking, and conversations, it would have to be real time, which is something I, and many others on this forum, want regardless of co-op or not.

And co-op would certainly not turn the game into something different. Again, that's definitely a problem with MMOs, or whatever, but playing co-op with friends does nothing to change the game into something else, IMO.


So perhaps I have oversimplified your points, or missed them entirely, but I don't see any real problems.

What is there to get?

Having people working on the multiplayer code does NOT affect what some other person is doing working on the single player portion of the game. It's seperate jobs/peopl.

A lot of people have 100+ mods. And not all people want or enjoy the same mods. It would be a HUGE waste of time to go through it JUST to play MP. Would you really want to look through 100+ mods just to play MP for a bit? I wouldn't. And for console players, sure, they COULD get the DLC. That's easy. But can they always afford it? Do they WANT to spend the money on it? It's silly.

And it could be online- someone online taking all of your loot. Sure, you could stop playing with them, then you find someone else who takes it. But that's not the only issue, there's also the amount of loot available. All containers and spawns are hand-placed, not randomly generated. Loot itself is generated, based on leveled lists (at least in Oblivion-which still raises another problem, how do you deal with different leveled characters?)

So I think you've really just oversimplified your solutions, no offense. It's NOT easy to sift through 50+ mods and sync them up, especially overhauls that not everyone likes. It's NOT easy to split up the loot unless both/all players are on the same page, or there is some sort of built-in mechanic for loot distribution. Real-time menus would be nice, but it's not something that TES is known for.

The only way I see that it could be done is if they turned it into a completely different game.

Having people work on MP code doesn't automatically take away from other portions of the game, but it DOES cost more money, and can potentially take away from other parts of the game if they cannot afford all of the personnel. It's really just a waste of resources.

It is if they intend to do it that way.

Finite resources to make the game, finite number of people to work on the single player game. All attention devoted to the single player game.

Finite resources to make the game, finite number of people to work on *both* the single and multiplayer/co-op game. Half or less of the attention devoted to both single and multiplayer/co-op game.

One or the other won't get the same amount of work as it would if they made *single* OR mulitplayer/co-op separately.

This could possibly be why there is a separate studio that is working on an online/multiplayer game.

Which is still just rumor, right? I mean, there's the "elderscrollsonline.com" website that has been registered, but it is still a blank website. So it's not official yet, I guess is what I'm trying to confirm.

I don't want co-op or multi-player, but it would be cool to import one of your characters into another one of your characters worlds as a companion.

If zenimax is working on an MMO based on a popular bethesda title i guess i tculd be in the elder scrolls universe. But you probably wont be of the same importance as before. You can't really be a nerarvarine or the hero of cyrodil. maybe u can gain the titles but like in all other mmo's it doesn't really mean anything since everyone has the titles. It could really advance how guilds are worked tho. seeing as to how so many people culd be ina guidl with u. I'd rather have an arena fighting mode or how GTA has it which was wonderful in keeping u from feeling unimportant in the games world. a free open world with different games u culd play. u culd be differnet people. so i mean heck. let u pick ur armor and class type race and play in skyrim all u want. in an open world with up to 16 people. or invite someone into ur game to help u do a certain mission. u wont lose the immersion this way.