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 -

I say...if it's optional, and doesn't influence in any way the Single Player experience or the existing lore....why not?

Remember, guys....the keyword is OPTIONAL. You know, like Fast-Travel, which is also OPTIONAL.

Thank you, Rohugh.

I think a spin-off game on the series as a co-op would be fine. As long as it's not developed by BGS, so that no detraction will hinder the continuation of the single player series.

Yeah, I'm selfish like that.

Nothing selfish about wanting our beloved self-proclaimed single player only developer to remain so.

I think Zenimax Online is definitely working on a TES MMO. Fallout Online was scrapped and Zenimax Online said themselves that it will be based on a popular series by Bethesda.

Does that mean I'll play it? Probably not.

Except the effort they take making online play would severely detract from the single player game.

i hope there is lan conncetion

Regular multiplayer would probably not be a good idea. Now, for something like the Arena, multiplayer would be rather interesting. Oblivion I've found too easy, always increasing the difficulty to make a challenge, especially at the arena. Having arena matches with actual people instead of AI would I think satisfy both parties; the ones who say multiplayer would ruin it, and the ones who all want multiplayer and have no idea what that'd do to the game.

Sure, if it's a separate entity from the single player series, I agree with "why not"?

Co-op sounds fun. The realistic mechanics of doing it? I'm not sure.

I could see arena matches as being fun.

I'd personally also like to see more of a co-op or "closed door" world (as in restricting who can enter the world and limiting the number of players, maybe by using invitation only "rooms"?) possibility included. There could also be a separate "open door" MMO world which could accommodate a large amount of players.

Now, I haven't ever played an MMO. But I have read what's been said about them, pro and con.

Looking forward to learning more...

Fast Travel was optional? k read these words written by many others. Fast travel wasn't optional in the sense that you had viable alternatives such as Guild teleportation, Horse , you didn't. Fast travel was a Hobson's choice in Oblivion nothing more so please stop saying it was optional. it was neccessary to get anywhere within reason and reduction of repeditivity.

When people bark about Multiplayer, they aren't doing it in the sense that they feel it would add to the series, more like they want it so that they can romp around with their friends or whomever. with that a multiplayer aspect would only reduce the playing space for that option, altis well as annoying balancing issues, problems with exploits etc etc.

Co-op is also somewhat senseless because as it stands in oblivion, beyond whacking hapless NPC's and Monsters, there isnt much else to do, this isn't Fable 2-3, and with good reason, there aren't much options to it otherwise. it doesn't add substance to the game as a whole, its more like..believe it or not a selfish request. there are other games that do Co-op and multiplayer exceedingly well. the TES series does not need to be one of them, it is its own story and animal. if it ever is to be Multiplayer, then the hopes is that its not half-assed and tact on to a game ment to progress the universe of TES, that is to be its own game ment to cater that function of multiplayer, not added, taking away from the games whole potential.

And wasn't it stated there will be no Multiplayer features in Skyrim?

As far as I am aware of, they have never said anything at all about what they are working on. Do you have a link to that?

I remember reading it not too long ago. Let me do some digging and I'll find it for you!

If done well, But I'd still rather they focus their efforts elsewhere.

Sorry, I was wrong. http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/01/20/is-zenimax-trying-to-keep-mmo-details-out-of-interplay-court-fig/ was the article I was talking about, I guess I just misremembered exactly what was in it. I must say though, the evidence is strongly pointed in the TES direction.

I played an online game for a while, but was dissatisfied with it for various reasons, however I'm not opposed to them per say even for an Elder Scrolls game as long as it doesn't detract from the single player gaming experience that I've been obsessing over for the past ten or so years. ;^)

That having been said, the Arena concept mentioned above does seem doable, and would hearken back to the series' original concept of the first game. I have no interest in anything like that, or an MMO, but a co-op I MIGHT consider as long as it has the same game world with quests and lore that remains consistent with the series. I probably wouldn't be able to spend enough time to become a valuable member of a team especially since my gaming skills aren't very good to begin with.

Peace, +Petrose

Would be a nice argument if Fast Travel were actually optional- except it can't be disabled, and the game is developed by people working under the assumption of its availability, which calls into question just how "optional" it really is. I'm for no to multiplayer overall anyway, but especially no to multiplayer that, like Fast Travel, is "there-in-your-face-and-cannot-be-disabled" pseudo-optional. :shrug:

The "I'd rather they focus their efforts on something more worthwhile," argument, while valid and understandable, is getting stale. It is applicable to every argument on this forum.
"Do you want a better combat system?" "No, I'd rather they focus their efforts on the storyline." "Do you want a better storyline?" "No, I'd rather they focus their efforts on a more open world."

So I guess it just comes down to the majority, and on this forum it appears to be that very few people want co-op. But with every single one of my TES playing friends, I've had the same conversation, "How sick would it be if this game was co-op? Omg it would be so incredibly awesome"
And then we watch eachother play and talk about how we wish there was a co-op feature for the next few hours. Every single one of my TES playing friends.

I can't speak for everyone, but all I personally want is just a shallow mechanic that allows just TWO players to play in the same world, either in a split-screen mode, or LAN, I care not.

I don't care how shallow it is, or if it's just "tacked on". All I want is for Player 1 be able to pick up quests and go kill stuff, and Player 2 just be able to kill stuff. That's it. MAYBE some sort of way for Player 2 to be able to create, customize, and save his character, but I wouldn't even be too bothered if that was in or not.

And I don't care about "balancing issues." Does it affect anyone else if the game is too easy for myself and my friend? Isn't that exactly what the difficulty slider is for?

I'll admit I know NOTHING about coding or anything of the sort. But would it really be THAT much trouble to put in a shallow co-op split screen mode? For me, it would be worth a few less quests and a few less areas, because co-op would add SO much more replayability for me than a few dungeons and quests. But I suppose that is where we differ.

But still, my question, to someone who actually knows what they are talking about: How much time/effort would it take to add an extremely shallow LAN or split screen two player co-op?

I don't care for multiplayer, but since it would affect modding, I don't want it.

Personally, I think a tweaked version of Red Dead Redemptions Co-op system would be cool. Maybe limit the amount of players to 2-4, and have it be totally instance based but allow players to bring in their single player character.

I also think the arena design would be cool, but just that alone would leave me drooling to be able to walk out of that arena with a pal and slice n'dice up the rest of Skyrim.

I do understand that it would be a ton of work to do that but having it instance based would leave single player totally unaffected (things like mods, and issues that multi-player brings). Obviously it could take resources away from the single player experience, but who's to say they don't have enough resources to do both great.

Why would it be "totally sick" to have Co-op? what would you do? bash monsters and Npcs? do quests? is there a reason doing that alone(with spectators) isn't enough? what would it add on its own that you couldn't under your own power?

And no the *it would detract from the singleplayer game" is not applicable to every argument decent combat during a good storyline in an Open World all fit hand in hand. things get thrown in the air when you start adding more people to that. for one the open world bit gets tossed out of the window, then story, then combat(not really combat)

The problem is that it WILL effect the way the game is designed. Specifically the loot and leveling systems. What is the point of Multiplayer, anyway? I really don't get it. TES has always been a single player game, a game where you hardly even have companions. Why change that? Why ask the developers to change their game to be multiplayer friendly?

A game like TES just doesn't make sense. You could do it in a turn-based RPG, where loot is automatically distributed, but in TES? You can't do that. There is a limited number of containers and enemies, and it would be first come first serve. And normally, when someone opens a menu, the game pauses. How could you possibly handle that situation reasonably?

Also, specifically for the PC version, and even for the console version, you have DLC and mods. If a player doesn't have a certain model or texture, then they wouldn't see their friend's custom weapons and whatnot. They'd be forced to download whatever it is in order to see everything as it is.

You'd have to turn the game into something COMPLETELY different than what it is, and there's just no good reason to do that.

Xbox users cant run with mods, that eleminates that problem with mods and multiplayer/coop.

Also, you ask of why we even want multiplayer in TES? Well, have you ever player Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance or Diablo? they are not MMO, but are storylined games, with a coop mode, and sittinf next to your friend on a adventurer together and lootin caves, slaying monsters, and exchanging items can be very, and I mean very fun.′

The numbers of containers and enemy spawn isnt a issue at all as Bethesda can make the game scale the difficulty to a certain level so you both wont be overpower right away. Or you could simply.....move the difficulty slider.

But they can run DLC, which often adds new items, and is paid for. Not everyone wants to pay for it. So it does still effect console players, and does not at all eliminate the issue. PC players still exist.

And yes, I have played Dark Alliance, and it is still a completely different game than TES. They were indeed fun, but those top-down RPGs also have automatically dispersed loot.

It is an issue. You obviously haven't a clue how these games are put together. You can't change the amount of containers by adjusting a slider, they must be physically placed in their position. Spawns are also physically placed, the slider just changes their difficulty.

Aren't the enemy and container items random generated? Cause then it wouldn't cause an issue at all. Same goes for enemy spawn. They could make the game capable of automaticly multiply and adjust the number of items in containers and enemies in spawn locations. The only issues with items would be artifacts.

And DLC? I dont that the DLC would have any problems that the core game wouldn't have.

I would really rather not have multiplayer, but if it were possible to have a co-op type thing like the 'Fable' series did then it really wouldn't hurt my feelings.