I'm sure it's bound to be in Bethesda's grand plan somewhere but it's just not going to implemented just yet.

This stinks, this game could have been moree amazing if atleast there was an online coop mode, in which you could play the whole singleplayer game with a friend.

sorta hard to be immersed in a game when the person your playing with is tea bagging every downed foe

A DLC that costs 25$ that would let us play co-op. Who would buy it? I know I would.

:intergalactic: :bowdown:

god.


as stated, inumerously before. -everyone- griping for some multiplayer aspect is doing so not in light of the game, not ebcause they care about the series, but that they want to go around wacking things with their friends, their are games that do this already? TES doesn't need to be apart of it.

Show me a game of TES's expanse and stature that has a fully fleshed out Singleplayer AND multiplayer aspects....

everygame sporting either or, is usually lacking in singleplayer or multiplayer, namesakes like TW series, Halo Reach, COD, MW Deadpace 2, fable 2-3 and half of those games aren't even on the scale of Oblivion at the very least. you don't free roam in Fable, Two worlds, enough said, Deadspace's multiplayer is poor, Halo reach's story is short despite the fact that we already know whats going to happen afterwards, they could have soared to greater hieghts with the story. COD/MW enough said.


my point?

don't let people tell you how adding multiplayer wont divert resources from a game in development, it will. time and resources are finite, and pasting one on because people think/want to think multiplayer games are the future is not the way to go, Let Beth chart its own course on its direction, as stated gamesas is a SINGLEPLAYER GAME development company, and in my opinion under no circumstance should any other company/branch be trusted with its future installments.

in addition last thing i want is some dolt who will blow my cover by attracting a bunch of wolves or worse a giant

I think there is great money in an expansion that has a multi-player component. Spend extra time and resources on it, and make almost a second game out of it, but build on the current game system. I'd pa full price for that!

An elder scrolls MMO wouldn't be very enjoyable as they'll have to lower the graphics i'm sure. With too many people playing on crappy computers it would be a lagfest.

Co-op multiplayer would be fun though. Nothing beats killing stuff in a gorgeous environment with a friend.

Then again... i'm about 99.9999999% sure there won't be any type of multiplayer involved at all.

I'd pay more than a full price for that. Just saying.

This is one of reasons that multiplayer will never make it in TES, unless they make an MMORPG. Aside from mod issues, you have the problem with item-sharing, skill building and general griefing.

A TES MMO would be fun, but general gameplay would needed to be overhauled as a requirement.

I think almost everyone "wants to have one's cake and eat it too" and by that I mean have the amazing single player that comes with the elder scrolls while having a good multi player experience. In reality it is not that simple.

I for one would love to have multi player in The Elder Scrolls VI, just test it in Fallout first :biggrin:

It would be great that there is only a co-op, and that you arent limited to the same place that where the host is, that the other player has to be as well.
I missed that in Oblivion, and I always tried to imagine how it would be to play in co-op.
Altough the main storyline should be single player ALONE.
So that there is no ability that you see or experience any actual changes after you complete the main story or that someone ruins it for you, or you to someone else.

But I must say that Elder scrolls were always a single player experience for me, so I wouldnt like to see a co-op option in the game.

Gross generalizations are almost always false, as is yours here. I have always wanted some form of multiplayer since I had been playing the TES series with Morrowind. I want multiplayer within the TES world because I enjoy the TES world and lore. It would be nice to form a group of bandits with my friends or have some difficult dungeons that require multiple talents from various friends or to not have to be the "chosen one" in all these games and be a supporting character instead. Sure these things could be done in other games, but it isn't the TES world, which I enjoy. So don't say everyone griping about multiplayer is doing so not because they care about the series, that is faulty logic. I hope someday co-op is added, but in the meantime I will enjoy the series.

Elder Scrolls MMO=oblivion type just with hundreds and hundrerds players=my dream comes true

Todd has said that there will never be an Elder Scrolls online, at least not made by Bethesda Game Studios.
Something that I'm very glad for.

This is simply a falsity. Or rather, an irrelevant comparison, with falsity in it. Not everyone wants to just whack enemies with friends. If whacking enemies were all it was about, indeed any hack and slash game with multiplayer would do. Gauntlet would be sufficient forever. But it isn't about that for most. It 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.

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.

Having only recently joined the thread and not having time nor energy to read through the full length of this thread I'll confine my post to my personal opinions on the issue of Skyrim having multiplayer/co-op built in, I apologise if anybody has already suggested these things and so it sounds like I'm repeating what they've said. Let me start by saying I am a long time fan of The Elder Scrolls series and of the world of Tamriel. Whilst I do believe the world has the richness of lore to be made into a potentiall great mmo, this is not the direction that I personally feel would be best to take. To elaborate and explain my idea I'll have to explain a bit of background to make it easier to see for those who never played Neverwinter Nights.

The value of Neverwinter Nights was never for me, or for many others, in the single player game(though it did have a decent single player game too) but in the toolset and multiplayer platform which it created. With Neverwinter Nights you were able to not only play the single player but could also host the game online to play through it with friends. Even more importantly than this, the game had a very versatile and capable toolset for designing worlds of your own layout and capable of filling them with your own lore. This opened up the game as a platform for the large group of players who enjoy roleplaying, because players were able to gather together and build their own world; they could then host this world and form essentially their own mmo(only to a much smaller group of players). For many years this ability to create persistant worlds made Neverwinter Nights the go to video game for roleplayers to create their own video game world. In truth Neverwinter Nights is still the only real platform of this kind, mmo's just simply don't allow for the same quality of roleplay; not to mention customisation and self administration.

Neverwinter Nights is a very dated game now and suffers for it, many persistant worlds struggle to hold a regular playerbase only the hardcoe few tend to remain and even they are often semi active due to Neverwinter Nights as a platform not being able to pull in the casual roleplayers anymore(making the worlds painfully quiet at times). There haven't really been any games since Neverwinter Nights(the sequel failed dismally to live up to the ability of the first) to fill this role and so many of these persistant worlds would love a new platform to take their worlds to. This is not to mention all the Elder Scrolls fans who would like to set up worlds of their own within the Elder Scrolls universe and expand upon it with their own imagination.

I know that this might not be of interest or concern to many but I personally think that the game which Bethesda is creating, which will no doubt have an exceptional toolset, could be brilliant for this. Making their game the main video game roleplaying platform for years to come.

i just hope muliplayer come out because it's not just the fun with player it's the firendships,the fun,the keeping the other safe when he's sick,multiplayer should be a main part because without mulplayer the game will just be you running around doing stuff for just npc being with a person makes a huge difference yolu can talk with. oblivion was boring cause everyone is doing the same thing co op would be awesome,hanging out practicing,talking you know the rest

If there was an arena, I'd love to be able to be pitted against online opponents but other then that I don't want them in my game world.lol

So let me try to look at your prespective. you need friends, to enjoy the lore, scope and depth of the series....

Right, when playing the game, you will be more engrossed with your friends, and what they are doing. the whole point of being SOCIAL that is multiplayer is focusing on your friends, not whats going on in the game. if your getting bored, thats what other games are for. not beating it to death and trying to find some reprive for the game.



while I admire your linguistic flurry, your impassioned response doesn't play your case any harder than my own, yes RPG's originate in social aspects and yet, and yet people are voicing, Times are changing TES needs to move forward. as if Multiplayer is supposed to be the be all end all future of games. and in your first paragraph I can give you the same response I gave the former, you aren't focusing on all of theese appluadable aspects of the game when your friends are their, saying it will amount to more than you and your friends offing monsters is a silly statement, it won't its you and your friends enjoying each others company while offing monsters, yes that is selfish because their are OTHER GAMES that offer this, the Devs of Bethesda studios have stated they are a single player game company, so not only do you want their to Try their virgin to multiplayergaming hands at turning the series into something it isnt OR trusting that to another company who knows jack ***** about TES, but you want them to do this so that you can be with your friends in a series that has ALWAYS been about the -Hero- and his participation in shaping or breaking the world of Nirn. right.

Never have I said Multiplayer games need to die, and that they are an abomination, my points are Resources are finite, where one is improved another one is lacking, this is fact, no more no less. games that sport both tend to lack in on or the other, no game has both aspects flawlessly and richly incorporated. TES is NOT Fable Fable is a tunnel runner with zones, fable has side attractions that make Co-op for it Viable and essential because beyond that the game offers NO replaybility. in Skyrim, Oblivion, Daggerfall, Morrowind there will always be areas of the game you've never come across, and things you did not do, that alone offers far more replayability then fable could ever offer.

It is pretty hard to find a good single-player game these days. Virtually every game with multiplayer has a sub-par single-player experience. Oh well, sympathy for the people who do not have access to internet connections capable of multiplayer :violin: . Even then... I prefer single-player RPG's because other people tend to ruin my ability to suspend disbelief. Just like telling someone that you are video taping them effects their behavior and experience of an event.

Multi-player is pretty spotty too, unless I happen to find a group of people dedicated to playing the same thing at the same time in the same manner... in other words about once a month at most. I used to play WoW (it can at least somewhat function even on the [censored]tiest of connections), but even on a high population server it was really hard to wrangle up a group of people (unless I had a rediculously large volume of free time) and even harder to find a group without 1/2 of them watching tv/porm instead of paying attention to what they are doing.

The few people who happen to have group of dedicated players, who they enjoy playing games with, to run through a game is really small and would only benefit THEM. A good single player game benefits anyone who plays the game and perhaps they may wish to bring their friends along, but that is because they are ENJOYING THE GAME and want to spread the love. Stop trying to dilute enjoyable games. (I never cared for NVN, because like every game of its age and type, including TES, had super clunky controls and graphics making it impossible for me to find any enjoyment in them.)

The ultimate reason I do not want multiplayer in TES is I do not want to pay for a bunch of features I will never use. That is quite simple.

EDIT: I guess I was beaten to it

TES is a single player game. It's not going to have multiplayer. Not in Morrowind, not in Oblivion, not in Skyrim, and not in TES:VI.

Summer has such a gorgeous Avatar Icon, doesn't she. No kidding, its what an Elf Lady should look like.

I will say though, I wonder if there should not be two threads for multiplayer. One for online multiplayer, and one for simple Local Co-op, as they really are two entirely different requests, with entirely different aspects and ramifications.

As to that last reply about ES being "a singleplayer game." Well, obviously, so long as they only offer singleplaying. But there is nothing inherent in the games or in the style of game that makes it HAVE to be singleplayer, other than the fact that it FAILS to offer any form of co-op. Even the massively rewarding, but minimally intrusive (upon storyline, features etc) LOCAL, DROP IN DROP OUT CO_OP. Drop in Drop out Local co-op Would NOT ruin the singleplayer aspects of TES. It would have no effect on the story, because the script and writing department is seperate from the tech department. What is more, if done in the normal way of optional local co-op, the main story and quest would still be entirely focused upon the princaple player. The feature would merely allow a player to have the great pleasure of being accompanied by a customized friend in the game world/experience, and would allow a friend to be an acctive, immeresed and further immersing part of that world, rather than a mere stand by spectator to someone else's game.

The only valid argument against allowing a local co-op OPTION is the resource and engine capacity argument, and that argument grows less and less plausible with every increase in technology and with every newer and more powerful engine and console. Any other argument is truly baseless, and is no different, no less selfishly provincial, no less asinine, than it would be for a person who plays only as a mage to say that all the armour and armour attributes should be removed from the game to allow for a greater focus on magic using characters, or a career barbarian player to argue that the spell menu should be dropped in favour of more melee combat options.

Outside of tech related resource/engine capacity arguments, any argument against the inclusion of something as entirely optional and as potentially enhancing to the overall emotional experience of gameplay as a basic, drop in/drop out local second player option, is an argument to LIMIT and RESTRICT reasonable player options, with no good motivation. If the addition of this type of co-op does not change the story, plot, quest length, spell lists, number of side quests etc. (and there is NO real reason why such a form of co-op would have to do any of those things), then its addition can only be a positive and an enhancement, and all who do not wish to play with it, all those who lack the social aptitude to appreciate being able to share an immersive gaming experience of this sort with a friend, all those who would actually, if given the chance to really enter a new world of magic, and intrigue, and epic quests and fearful monsters, would actually choose to enter it alone rather than take a friend along for luck, laughs and a familiar and dependable ally in the face of the great unknown, all those people will still have the OPTION of NOT using co-op and playing single player.

If a good RPG is really about having as many options available as the game can reasonably support within the confines of that game world, than to NOT offer the ability to have a friend play at one's side instead of some raggedy AI companion making a poor attempt to be a lame facsimilie of a real companion, is definitely a massive shortcoming.

Being able to have a friend come along with one in local co-op would in no way alter the essentials of the ES gaming world. Introducing machine guns would alter the essentials of the gaming world. Removing the Daedra, or making blatant changes to the lore, or taking away the spell options or customization options, those things woud alter and ruin the essential aspects of the world. Adding the ability to play within the world's parameters with a friend for an enhanced gaming experience. . . it would only enhance the overall positives. And it would NOT be mandatory, but the oppressive cabal of "singleplayer only" totalitarians don't want to admit that.

That is not exactly true. Indeed, there are huge flaws in it. It is not about focusing on your friends, any more than it would be about focusing on your friends if you embarked on a real adventure together. It is about SHARING the experience. It is about experiencing the marvels, the horrors, the wonders, the intrigues with a companion. It is exactly the experience that the AI companions offered by the game are meant to emulate, but which they can, of course, NEVER adequately recreate. Good couch co-op is both a social bonding experience, AND hugely enhances the game experience. Unless you are playing with a complete clown, it adds to immersion rather than decreasing it. . . rather like how mass hallucinations are supposedly more convinceing because of the reinforcement that comes from other people believing in and sharing the same delusion.

If you were really going to be tossed into The Elder Scrolls universe. . . with no promise that you would survive, no promise that anyone would like you etc. . . Don't you think most people would want to be able to take one of their friends? I am not saying it should be co-op mandatory. That would be ridiculous. I have vastly enjoyed the game in singleplaying, but too often I have been made to lament the fact that I could not have a friend along. That having one of my friends or relatives play with me was not an option, no matter how much I wanted their in game company, no matter how much they wanted to play alongside me. . . even if I just wanted to share how awesome the gameworld, the only way for me to do it would be to completely hand over the game controls. Its very dissapointing. It is NOT a good thing. It may be an outcome of limited engine capacity, and that is at least understandable. But you will note, a lot of the enemies of co-op are not saying "we just don't think the engine can handle it." No, they are off on a host of nonsensical quips about how the ability to play with a friend IF YOU CHOOSE to, will somehow warp some fundemental aspect of the game. . . what bullocks!

But to my original point of dissent with you, co-op in an RPG is NOT about seeing what your friend is doing, per se. It is about sharing an epic experience. It is about having a familliar face on the long road of quests and triumphs, tribulations and terrors, enchantments and entanglements. :foodndrink: :whisper: :hugs: A good RPG like Elder Scrolls is a World simulating experience. And few there are who wish to be alone in the world at all times.

Your post says no different from your last, so my statement stands as is. must you be so negetively verbose towards those in opposition of your view? Singleplayer only totalitarians, really? lol. its no conspiracy, you keep going on about how friends would add to the immersion, and thats simply false, its just you two, or three getting engrossed in what each others doing. the series was never about a team or a duo, its about a Hero, and individual playing their hand in the world. nothing more, in every retrospect adding mutiplayer of any kind, is drastically altering the flavor of the series, period whether it be an inexperienced Dev company in either the series or the mechanics of Multiplayer jabbing at the next installment purely so people can have another generic multiplayer aspect and circumventing that time and resources from more meaningful aspects to the GAME and its Lore.

Don't hate Multiplayer, its fantastic for games that need it and have nothing to offer otherwise. the TES series isnt one of those games.