Yeah technically it's not supported but mods already worked with X360 , however since the ps3 has been hacked anyone who jailbreaks their ps3 can apply their own firmware to the system , despite thsi I won't jailbreak my PS3 EVER because the problems far outweigh the pluses with a jailbreak eg access to PSN blocked etc.

What my idea i've been thinking of is that you could just go into caves and dungeons together in co-op, and perhaps since there are more of you, the enemies could be a lot more powerful and drop much better loot. Another idea I was thinking of is an arena-style thing, where you could have 1v1's, 2v2's, 3v3's, etc.

I'm so sorry but I had to post this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-He-fsZBk&NR=1

To be honest, Online Multiplayer would be a disaster, but a simple local (or even online, but not randomly matched) game with a friend would be magnificent. Not only would it increase the replayability of the game if you could play with friends, but the whole game would be a lot different 2-player. Loads of new strategies would come up, with each player taking a different role (Warrior and Cleric for example) or just have fun smashing heads together. Plus, no engine changes or anything of the sort would be needed.

How in bloody hell would you scale a cave for a level 5 and a level 50? Either the level five is going to get insainly sweet stuff right away, or the level 50 is going to be one hitting everything so fast the cave will be empty in 2.5 seconds.

Although I played Oblivion for hours upon hours, I can't get myself all to excited about Skyrim(Not as much as I want to, at least). The reason for that is what I call the "multiplayer-syndrome". It's very much like a drug, once you've tried it and had that really amazing experience, you simply can't let go. I was once a true single-player-player(hmm?), I played all kinds of good singleplayer RPG's, RTS's and whatnot. Today? Not so much.

There are a handful of games what I know are great, but I can't just bear the thought of being alone in a fiction world. I want a close friend to experience it with. It adds sooo much to my experience, realism and immersiveness.(I can't express this enough) To give you an example, I present you most of today's or recently released FPS games. 9 times out of 10 you are an lonewolf, often seperated from you squad or being a sole survivor. You are often ordered somewhere, often "meeting up with the squad here" or getting an item there before going to a rendezvouzpoint, and then a twist - and you're alone again. Personally I just hate that feeling, I want to be with the squad pawning everything we come across. Having that teamplay feeling and sense of true accomplishment that's often very appreciated.

I can mention a few games that has indeed implemented a co-op campaign gameplay. I give standing ovations to the people at Ubisoft. Rainbow six vegas, Splinter cell conviction, Hawx, all great/good games which I wouldn't had experienced if there wasn't any cooperative gamplay involved.

It's like when you were a kid, how fun was it to run out in the forest adventuring or playing by yourself? Not so much, right? At least I don't know anyone who though so. However, bring a friend(s) and oh-boy, your imagination would sparkle and time would fly-by like nothing else. This is how I see it.

Having said that, I know that TES are primarily a singleplayer experience. It would be very challenging to evolve the title to a more cooperative nature, that I'm very well aware of. However, I think it's very much worth an thorough and honest consideration.

Edit: Also, just for clarification. I'm not talking about a true Online experience with servers and what-not. I'm just talking about a cooperative gameplay, limited to, ultimately, two people/players.

An idea that I was thinking of would be an Arena Mode DLC where you and a group of other players would be set onto a large arena floor where you would have to take on waves of enemies starting out easy, like wolves, and getting progressively harder. Just think the Mad Moxie DLC for Borderlands pretty much. Then after every maybe 10 waves or so there would be a bonus round, like a bunch of deer getting let lose in the arena and getting bonus points for killing as many as your can or MUDCRAB SWARM!!! And to keep things fair, make it so you have to wear an arena raiment so all your stats are more or less equal (you can still keep your weapons though). In the arena you could make money and get unique equipment that you could then bring back to your single player game. Then just throw in some leader boards for good measure for high scores and most waves survived.

Borderlands did it. It just used the level of the host.
Besides, in Oblivion it didn't matter how good your loot was until you were a high enough level to exploit it. At a blade skill of 15, a deadric sword and an iron sword were pretty similar.
And if people want to wreck their game because they used a potential exploit, shouldn't that be their issue.

I could see a co-op system working moderately well. As long as it allowed for the players to be in separate cells, which isn't unreasonable the game would just keep track of it and load progress from the host player. Forcing two players to be in the same cell at all times, now that would get aggrivating.

And even if it doesn't work that well, it hurts no one.

Edit: Oh yeah, no MMO's, which we all know it won't.

I don't remember where i heard this but someone from bethesda (mayby Todd) said thet they rather make a unique singleplayer expirense than make half as good game with a possiple multiplayer. IM WITH THEM!

EDIT: Actually some multiplayer marketplace might work

Actually adding a co-op free roam on a preexisting map using dungeons and NPC's that already exist wouldn't take as much time as other games that involve entirely separate maps, weapons, characters and so forth.

The guy who you commented on was right, people who want to play the single player don't have to play multiplayer, it's not being forced on them. And I have a friend who personally said he isn't that interested in Skyrim for the fact alone that it has no multiplayer component but he would more seriously consider buying the game if it had one, and I can guarantee you there are more people thinking the exact same thing.

In short, you don't have to play multiplayer, and adding multiplayer will undoubtedly garner more sales.

Hopefully if this thread gets enough activity they'll consider co-op more seriously in future titles.

Yeah good luck with that.
:rofl:

Seriously, I'd start waiting for another company to make a TES look a like, or something unique in its own right but open world like we love, with co-op.
Multiplayer mixes with Bethesda like ladders.


PS. I want co-op too.

I doubt this one will have co-op, but I think local/couch co-op is something the series should put real effort into making reality for future games. If I were on my last $60 of game purchasing funds, and had a choice between the next Fable III and Skyrim, Fable's local co-op would be the factor that made me choose it, even though I think Skyrim will almost certainly be a more expansive, immersive, more highly customizable game.

Fable III had PERFECT local co-op. And while online co-op can require a lot more tinkering thatn ES proablably wants to bother with, drop in/drop out local co-op is probably well within their means, and while some are not interested, I think a majority of gamers, if you include both the hardcoes and the casuals, would absolutely LOVE IT.

The unschooled will try to tell you RPGs are meant to be single player. That is a lie. RPGs are meant to allow players to assume a role and enter a world that tends to be one of swords and sorcery, monsters and magical beings. They are no more meant to be sinlgeplayer than they are meant to be firstperson only perspective, or meant to have vampires but not werewolves etc. IN THE EARLY DAYS OF RPGS, WHEN THEY WERE PLAYED WITH DICE AND CHARTS, DMS AND TRAINSETS DOUBLING AS FORESTS AND MOUNTAINS, IT WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PLAY ALONE. The game was as much a social experience and a form of social entertainment as it was about becoming a mage or a monster hunter. The Dungeon and Dragon roots to which Elder Scrolls and most other current RPGs can be directly traced were VERY much multiplayer deals.

I advocate co-op strongly in games like this, because no other type of game can offer as much quality bonding opportunity, and no other type of game can make the lure of taking a companion along over the long in game leagues, and through the many intrigues, than can an RPG. When you are allowed to take a buddy along in couch co-op. . . it is an experience beyond compare. It is not about stats or extra achievements. It is about being able to bring a friend along on a great adventure, into a world of danger, drama, monstrosities and magic. It is about being able to share that awesome world, rather than having to shut off the game when company comes, or hand over the controller, or have someone sit on the sidelines and watch you play. You can allow the other person to join in and experience the fear, the fascination, the wonder, the horror, the achievement. . . all of it together.

A good drop in/drop out mode, like that of Fable III or the old Baldur's gate games, allows the story line to remain focused on the principle or first player. The Script does not change, the story does not change, the decisions are still made by player 1, though obiously they will confer with the second player about many decisions, just as one would if one were able to take a real friend along into a great adventure in another time or another place (and who wouldn't want to take a friend into the great adventure, into the great unknown. To quote, as I have before, one of the most famous friendships in the Literature of this genre, Frodo himself saying the following lines "I am Glad you are here with me Samwise. Here at the end of all things."). And that is what co-op in an expansive, highly customizable RPG is all about, to all the deluded co-op haters who have tried to insist falsely for years that co-op doesn't have a place in RPGs.

THE BEST PLACE FOR CO-OP IS IN AN RPG. Fighter games are for PvP. But the sharing of a simulated life experience. . . customizing a character to you specific desires, and having a friend come along as your companion in the form of a character customized to their ideal. . . it is virtually incomparable in gaming. And it is also an amazing social experience. The awesome memories that kind of adventuring with a friend can create are stellar. AND OF COURSE LOCAL CO-OP IS ALWAYS OPTIONAL. IT IS NOT MANDATORY. Those who advocate singleplayer exclusive seem not to care that they are making the game singleplayer MANDATORY even for those who do not always wish to play it that way. Not everyone scored a "does not get along well with others" on their report cards in grade school. Many people LOVE the ability to share an awesome gaming experience, using characters entirely of thier choosing and design in a vast and complicated world. To come through woe and through wonder, through conflict and conspiracy, with a real friend at one's side, both in the game and on the couch, and to be able to talk about your shared gaming experience even after the game is over. . . IT IS SOMETHING NO AI COMPANION CAN EVER MATCH OR RECREATE, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE AI IS.

This post is to all the flamers, all the co-op foes. . . I can understand the pleasure of playing alone, but there is also great pleasure to be had in playing with a friend, and RPGs are not only as good a place for it as any. . . they are, by their immersive and expansive nature, far better for it. Just ask any of the true hardcoe RPG gamers who still play it Old school, with a small group of friends, metal miniatures of wizards, elves, knights and dragons, and a couple of 30 sided dice.

Damn bro tone down your text.


What if there was an arena that you could enter and fight another player with similar skills and preset equipment? There would be no "matchmaking", it wouldn't ruin the immersion, you just go to the pits and wait until the game found a player for you to fight.

I think a good way to implement mulitplayer would be with an Elder Scrolls spin-off:

Not a numbered sequel, rather something like TES 'insert cool mulitplayer themed subtitle'

With the focus being on a small party of adventurers on some sort of a quest.
You could have a team of say 4-5. You only control you're own character directly, and if you don't have enough friends, or you'd rather play by yourself you could have AI compainions


This way we could still get the feel and style of a TES game with multiplayer, yet still keep the numbered sequels pure singleplayer.

Co-op, local co-op, or couch as they often call it, adds to immersion rather than detracts. And, in a well done, drop in/drop out co-op, where the first or "host" player is still behind the wheel so to speak, none of the awesome single player immersion and story changes. . . the only thing that is different, is that you are able to share the experience with a fully customizable friend in real time. The ONLY arguments worth having are whether or not the system can accomodate it. Everything other argument against simple drop in/ drop out couch co-op, is simply put, nothing more than rabid ideology void of logic.

What if two level 50's entered a match, one with 100% chamelion and the other with 100% damage reflect?

Rpg's are geared towards character skill, not player skill. Take away the armor so its just stats vs stats, and there is little to no point. Its just numbers vs numbers, with a human controling the other body instead of ai. Let them keep their armor so they can show it off, and you'll get matches where two level 50's both with 100% damage reflect waiting to see who gets bored first.



I've never played Borderlands, but it sounds like just another way to abuse level scaling. Sure, I play single player so it never would affect me, and I would always wonder why people payed their money if they're not actually going to play themselves, instead letting their friends kill the stuff so they can ge the gear...but I'm really yet to hear a good arguement for taking the time to add it.

Sure it could bring in some more people who would only want to play with their friends, but the game itself would only currently have things for single player. Two people could fight together, but they couldn't do anything past that. The other person would only be a slightly smarter...well, that depends on the friend...but anyway, a slightly smarter companion. There's nothing that esplicitly needs two people to do, and adding the ability to call in a friend wouldn't change the gameplay in any way.

I just don't see how adding it would add to replayability. All that would be different would be the fighting. Anything past that would be exactly the same. For the addition, I think co-op would need to be able to add something to the basic game play, and as it stands it wouldn't. So I dont' really see the need.

The only thing I would consider would be split screen. It wouldn't require internet access, the second player would get the same number of stats as the main character(the number of stats could be fiddled with changing things here or there to change class), and the second player wouldn't be allowed to use dragonshouts. Basically, the second player would just be a temporary companion for the main one. Maybe if online worked the same way, I wouldn't mind it...but I still really dont' see how it would add anything.

I think it'd be okay to get some extra help on missons. or do it GTA style where u and a few people can roam around within the same world as each other. or fable style works well too. fable style works perfectly. they come in as a secondary character to u. and u control where the XP goes. but gta style is good. too. no missions to do. just a few missions and maybe some team based stuff. it'd be more like u vs other players. fable style is players assisting u. as long as its not u and other players on an online server where u play the main character and they can actively be doing other missions then u while playing. no MMO stuff. just simple GTA and Fable style multiplayer

You place characters that are evenly matched level wise and just give the preset armor to choose from. Skyrim is going to be an action RPG like Oblivion and action RPGs require player skill to be effective anyway.

Why is this thread still going..

But what's the point? What's the point if you can't show off that sweet armor you've worked all game to get? If its just basic armor given to everyone, and they'll have around the same stats, then what's the point of it all? Why did you work so hard for, if you can't use all the things you've earned?

If an arena style online addition was added, it would have to work like this. They would have to give everyone a one-suit much like the arena in Oblivon did, so for it to be plausable. But then, once that's done, what is the point of fighting against other people if you can't use your stuff? Tha'ts what I want someone to tell me, because I can't find one.

Because it's fun to test your skill against other players.

But rpgs in themselves are largely based on character skill, not player skill. Player skill plays a part, but it is a very small one. In combat all the player needs to know is when to attack, when to block or run away, and when to use potions/fotify spells.

The reason multiplayer in games like Halo and Cod work so well is because everyone is given a base player that is the same, and then a large amount is left up to the player's skill. In rpg's on the other hand, a large amount of skill is put into the character, and less is left up to the player. That's why multiplayer vs for rpgs aren't that bit, because less is based on player skill and more is based on character skill.

And character skill can be compared simply by look at the difference in numbers, while player skill is harder to tell the difference between many times.

Skyrim is shaping up to be much more about player skill from the articles I've read. Doesn't matter, multiplayer won't be in Skyrim anyways.

I don't think it'll be ever added, much less for PC. Finding a way to handle all the mod content/automatic downloads should be a real pain in the ass.