Actually, no, it's about you and your friend focusing on the game.

Also, why are people saying that only local co-op should be allowed? I have friends on Live that I wouldn't mind doing some co-op with. There is no point in keeping it strictly local, except by maybe placating the irrationally anti-multiplayer people that start screaming "OMG NO MMO's!" and stuff like that.

You can twist and turn that statement all you want :rolleyes:

Not twisting, just seems that you don't understand what goes on when to people play games with each other.

heheh don't bring your assumptions of me into this discussion friend, I play the whole spectrum of Co-op and multiplayer games with friends and random peeps alike, as have you. don't make it seem like this is for the game more so then your own desire to play this game with your friends at its expense :intergalactic:

Yes, but as you stated, you don't focus on the game. Which is the point of playing the game, whether with or without additional people. Even on FPS's, with full-fledged multiplayer, you focus on the game for the most part, not the people you're playing with. Unless you plan on losing a lot, I guess.


And even Fable, I spent very little time doing co-op. And no one wants anything taken from the game, just added. Adding co-op would add drastically to the sales, so there is no argument for resources being taken away from other aspects of the game. At least come up with some valid arguments instead of being afraid of change.

but! now you can say, I am focusing on the people in the game by shooting them down, because thats the goal of the game? but in addition I can trash talk and laugh and they will hear (or not) my triumpic calls or madding curses as I drop like a fly .

why am I adovcating this aspect so much?

because mods can be side swiped, Consoles can't/arent getting mods so then it would be consoles get Multiplayer while comps don't which would start a whole other chapter of issues.

The Engine can't handle it is a statement I've never seen brought up, and where the IC elvengardens and Market district at the time could run 8-9 npc's going about out of combat (which was pushing it) I don't see where advancements could not have been made to provide use in Co-op.

And because no matter how you turn in, any co-op/multiplayer feature added into the game is altering it, period :teehee: you play with your friends because you want your friends their, it has nothing to do with the game prosperity or adding for the good of the series, its you want to play with your friends. and I'd rather not getting any more potentially half-assed aspects of the game in the finishing product. if you want Multiplayer in TES then in all regards no matter what time you started playing Bethesda's TES line of games, there is a chance you don't understand or appreciate the games setting and intent.


We have more than enough Multiplayer games, some great, some crap. TES isn't about multiplaying or partnership and if you look back its recurring, there is no love interest, no best friends, no permanent comrads or instances where an objective needs more than one person to overcome, its up to the player to overcome these obstacles as best they can whether their equipment/class/inginuity is at an advantage or not., I'll even bring Uriels snippet were he says YOU ALONE must face the comming threat, and shut close the jaws of Oblivion. if thats not enough to vocalize my point then we're at a loss


Im not downplaying anyones reasons for wanting Multiplayer, and no one should mines either,...but this is the internet who am I kidding?


and with regards to resources with that statement im not sure you have a significant understanding as to how games are developed, Oblivion made a crap load of sales since its release, Beth gained the resources to make greater games AFTER its developement. your also ignoring the fact that Beth is a Singleplayer only development company, and to tack on a multiplayer does induce a negetive turn sincee either the Company itself tries to include something that isnt the focus of the series, or give a company that has nothing to do with the series a hand in it as well. you spent very little time in Fable's Co-op, so why are you trying to get TES into that basket as well? sales happen after, after we're stuck with some have baked or detrimental inclusion that a many people will not use.


see thats the thing about Singleplayer. EVERYONE who gets the game will use it. thats what they paid for. with multiplayer/Singleplayer there is always a chance either or wont be used. and that is wasted money.

To your first point, if other people ruin your experience then you would still be able to play alone. Always an option. I addressed the suspension of disbelief earlier. Playing with someone, especially if its only one other person in a local co-op experience (which is the most rewarding type of co-op, in the purely social and emotional aspects) ADDS immersion and verisimilutude more often than not. Unless you are playing the game with a jerk. In which case. . . don't play with that person.

I agree entirely that a good singleplayer game often causes people to want to play with friends. . . to share the awesome gaming experience. . . and being able to do exactly that is ENORMOUSLY rewarding. If a game is only enjoyable because it has co-op then it isn't a good game, and the co-op alone probably won't save it. But even the best singleplayer games can be greatly improved by co-op for any who desire to share the experience, which many people tend to do.

It isn't as hard to find gamer friends for most people as you posit. Most people have relatives, or neighbours, roommates or spouses, girlfriends, lovers, friends whom they hang with regularly etc. and for most gamers that circle includes at least some other gamers, or at least people who are willing to both play the game and immerse themselves in it. As to having to have those people available for a month. . . that propblem was solved at least as far back as the old Baldur's Gate games by the Drop-in Drop Out Feature. In a game like Elder Scrolls, with its numerous save slots, you could save a game with a friend, have them drop out when they leave, and save a seperate file afterwards. You have a wealth of options to address the issue of not having a permanent co-op partner, so that doesn't even rate as a viable problem, to my mind.

And to your last point. . . I am glad you said it. It gets to the heart of a lot of the conflict. Let me say this. . . if Bethesda were to do a poll, and find that say 70% of players play as full mages and don't use the armour and fighting skills. . . and therefore decided to remove the latter features from the game/ How would you feel? Or if they did the reverse and took out all the spell options, the magical abilities, the spell alters ALL of it. Should I go on? If feature are going to be removed just because some people aren't interested in them, regardless of whether there are other people who deeply appreciate them, and regardless to whether they can viably fit or work within the gameworld. . . a whole lot of things that you love, or that I love could easily dissapear. So I don't think the standard of, " well, I don't really use it so they might as well remove it," is one that you really want to promote.

I hope there isn't Multiplayer or Co-Op in Skyrim.

Reason? To facilitate such a system, the character classes of the Elder Scrolls would have to be redesigned in such a way that they would be unrecognizable.

Gone would be custom spells.

Gone would be the more interesting poisons.

Gone would be the powerful enchants.

The Elder Scrolls is a single player experience and is constructed accordingly. The invasion of Multiplayer into that experience would only hamper that experience, not enhance it. Unless you'd be fine with Bethesda including it then not making any effort to balance it. In which case, enjoy going up against One Shot Kill Spells and Griefers. Paralysis is such a fun spell isn't it? Not so much when you're the one being paralyzed, though...

Oh look. That guy as Mehrunes Razor. Might want to avoid getting stabbed with that.

Hmm? Someone with 100% Chameleon sniping you with AoE Arrows? That's a shame.

The Atronoch Birthsign becomes the bane to your existence.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Always have more fun sharing an experience with a friend. I'd love to see co-op, although I get the vibe that TES will not see it until it is more of a standard option. There are increasingly more titles with co-op through the game story line, I expect this trend to continue. I have a feeling that co-op will have to be prevalent in the RPG market for TES to finally pick up the feature.

In the mean time a couple of my friends and I will talk on skype while each playing the same single player game... yeah we are nerds. But it is fun to share the experience in some form or another, if the game does not support co-op.

I think people are trying to make this more complicated than it really is. The ability to play with a partner, or a few partners would not take anything away from the single player game (except maybe that those AWESOME boots that your friend stole). After reading through this most people would like to see an ability to play with a friend, not random matchmaking lobbies while praying not to get partnered with a total D bag.

You seem to be willfully misunderstanding me. It is not about voyerism. It is not about seeing what the other person is doing like some spectator or spy. It is not about competing, though I know there are some people who are unable to engage with others without trying to show them up. It is about companionship. That old line from Frodo to Sam, "I am glad you are here with me. . . here at the end of all things." You can be a hero without being alone. You can play alone and enjoy that, but you should also be able to share the awesome experience with a friend. If a game has nothing to add but multiplayer, it probably isn't a game worth playing. That is a moot point. The Point here is that even a great game can be more rewarding, or at least offer a different kind of enjoyment, when it allows players to share their game experience with a friend when and if they so choose. You can say there is no way people could possibly enjoy playing TES with friends, but you would be entirely wrong, and you know it as well as I do.

Adding a couch co-op option would not alter anything about the series, provided the engine could handle it, aside from ADDING a wonderful feature and opportunity for those who have friends whom they can enjoy gaming with. It is perfect for it. Indeed, the RPG offers more for players to enjoy in co-op than any other game. It's long, epic, vast nature, makes the companionship of a friend all the more valuable, all the more appreciable and all the more enjoyable.

You think those old school Dungeon and Dragons players were not immeresed in their games? Don't fool yourself. Some of those people were more serious about their gameplay than most console gamers will ever understand. Bordered on cults, some of em did. . .and still do from what I hear. Bust in at some warhammer gaming store when they are in a gaming session, see if the fact that more than one person is involved is causing them to break immersion.

It is fine if you don't want to play with friends, but do not suggest the false notion that it is somehow impossible for gamers to enjoy playing a game like ES with a friend, or that such an expeirence is somehow cheaper than gaming alone, or that the "feel" of the series could possibly suffer from allowing the ability for players to enjoy the game with their friends. The feel of Elder Scrolls is in the lore, and the graphics, the races and their history, the spells and the guilds, The Aedra and The Daedra, long quests and the creatures, the customization and the wide open countrysides. Singleplayer is not a "feature", and its not a "special feeling." Its a damned restriction. If it isn't optional, if it is mandatory, then it is a restriction, and not a restriction that is required for the world to retain its "feel". Having a friend along is not going to turn ES into the Mario brothers any more than it will turn it into Fallout or GrandTheft Auto. It is not an alteration on the world, merely an alteration that allows you to explore the world with a real companion, instead of some AI goon doing their damndest to simulate a real companion. . . and failing miserably, for what AI lackey could ever match a real friend sharing the awesome experience of the game.

Please forgive any rudeness in my tone, but what the hell does any of the above have to do with local (couch) co-op?! Co-op stands for COOPERATIVE! I think you are willfully confusing it with multiplay PvP, which I have expressed no interest in.

If I am playing with a friend, I should hope they would not try to put me in a temporary coma with a parylisis spell or stab me with Mehrunes Dagon's razor. Why would they? If you are worried that your friends would do that to you, you might want to look into some new friends. Besides, if my friend is the second player. . . there is a good chance that doing my character in might end the game for everybody.

Many of us here are merely talking about the option to have a friend enter the game to play alongside us as a companion, and to share the awesome game world that the Elderscrolls games offer, WITH the enchantments, the custom spells, etc. Now, if the engine can't handle it, that is one thing. But the engines keep growing stronger and capable of more, so you will forgive me if I find it boorish and troll-like when people make abonimable statements about wanting the series to "never" offer co-op, even if the engine capacity increases enough to support every improvement one could desire AND co-op.

No, just no.

Not every game needs it, not every game should have it.

GC, you are turning a simple co-op thread into a WoW PvP thread. It isn't nearly that complicated. If there are technical constraints that's one thing, but the arguments you put out or for an entirely different idea.

That's fine, but here's a question:

How would you deal with Modded Games?

Elder Scroll Games have shipped with Construction Kits since Morrowind. Bethesda is very supportive of the Mod Community and by the end of a Elder Scrolls game's life cycle, the Mods available general push the engine above and beyond what it is initially designed to be capable of supporting (Thus requiring Script Extenders for some Mods).

Local Co-Op sounds fine and dandy on paper, but you're forgetting TES is a Multi-Platform affair. If there was to be Co-Op, then it's hardly fair for Console Players to get access to such a feature without the PC clientele also being included. And then you run into not simply "troll-like abominable statements", but simple design incompatibility.

How can Jimmy, playing his copy of Skyrim on Xbox, play with his friend John who is on the PC, if John is running a Gameplay Changing Mod that requires Script Extension that Jimmy has no access to? Do you simply segregate the communities? If so, how do you solve the problem of Co-Op between PC users not running the same mods?

The Elder Scrolls design philosophy is simply not compatible with Online Play of any variety. That's not Trolling, that's simply stating the facts.

Name one other game that has cross platform co-op. The networks are even different. Good luck getting Live and PSN to cooperate.

Final Fantasy XI seemed to handle the Xbox/PC players rather well.

But again, even if they were separate networks, how would you deal with PC Modding for the PC Demographic?

Furthermore, even disregarding PC and the Modding Community in general, how would you handle loot rules in Console Co-Op? Is it whoever gets there first? What about the Dragonborn mechanics? Is it simply disabled for the other player or are you both Dragonborn? If so, how would that affect Quest Progression? Would it be possible to "break" the game if someone snagged a Main Quest related item and then dropped for whatever reason? Would Co-Op simply be a separate world entirely?

EDIT: My attempt is not to troll the idea of Multiplayer, but I honestly do wonder if people who are gung-ho for it understand all the difficulties in design such a venture would be, using the previous TES title as a baseline for Skyrim. I just honestly don't see it being a feasible idea.

You're turning discussion points into an argument against the idea without giving anyone a chance to throw out ideas on implementation. The question here is "wouldn't it be cool" and you're just saying no because of things that havent even entered the discussion.

Also once again, you're playing with a friend, someone you know and are talking too via headset or sitting next to on the couch, simply asking would be a good start. No one is trying to turn TES into WoW (ok maybe some people are but no the two you are specifically responding to). You are getting way ahead of the rest of the argument.

*Shrugs*

Like I said, it's not my intention to troll the idea. I was merely pointing out the gameplay and technical issues Multiplayer would have to overcome. The fact no one had yet brought those issues up does not mean they did not exist.

If I wound up raining on the parade I apologize and will remove myself from the discussion.

Again with your passionate response , I lost count the amount of instances in that response where you brought up friends.

And am I getting a brush that you're insinuating that I dislike online games? If so you're mistaken.

And again you ignore the fact that the TES series have never been about anyone beyond one sole individual having sweeping effects on the world.

If you want another social medium THAT is all your looking for don't sugar coat it, there are a myriad of sixy games that do this. Never did I say it impossible to enjoy a game with a friend of course you can, that's your friend and obviously the game you enjoy. But you are not ignoring your friend, they are there for a reason. You shouldn't need a friend to play any TES game never did I imply multiplayer games are bad, and yes co-op is adding to the game, while other parts of it suffers, and of course D&D was a multiple person affair, otherwise Its be no different from daydreaming. We are in a new time unfortunately where our minds do not need to work as much and where games serve as a reprive from the hustle and bustle of the real world don't faux some divine truth that having a friend will immerse you into the game further, that's near backwards thinking if you really look at what your saying.

I don't see the logic in, if I am with my friends who are of my real life in skyrim, I will be more immersed in skyrim.


Notice I'm actually discussing enjoyably I might add rather than saying lolz! U lose skyrimz is SP pointless thread is pointless. Or whatever you've come to expect on the Internet these days or human nature for that matter.

I'd just like you to know that I completely and utterly agree with you and your arguments for including multiplayer into future TES games. I find it highly unlikely for it to happen, simply because of how even now, only incredibly expensive computer systems can handle Oblivion on maximum setting. The game was made 5 years ago, so I suppose that is saying a lot. Skyrim will be featuring an all new world with much improved graphics and animations.

The point is that I believe that a multiplayer TES game can happen today, only if they modified Morrowind. Modern technology is constantly growing, and the only way I would enjoy playing in Tamriel with my friend is if the game actually worked lag free...with my buddy on the other side of the province. Oblivion's game engine couldn't handle more than 15 NPCs, let alone yet another PC constantly moving through rooms and transferring items to and from their inventory.

Multiplayer TES seems like a longshot, but it can work if the game itself is so old that modern software can more-than handle it. I completely agree that coop can give players a chance to share the grand world with a friend, but it will take a lot to make that happen. Skyrim coop...THAT I would like to see!

Just curious, any examples of an RPG that has done co-op well that you enjoy?



A few things things I find interesting about this discussion... Thanks for reading I know it got a bit lengthy!

First off Bethesda has a long way to go if as a company they're going to start making multiplayer titles. They'll need a lot of new staff and network code is not easy especially if they're trying to capture the size and scope of TES. It's a BIG component of their game engine and you cant just tack something like this on! More than likely, their engine would need an entire redesign from nearly the ground up in order to provide an experience as smooth as their competition provides (WoW, Guild Wars, etc). Its clear that Bethesda has already made a large investment in their niche of the market (single player RPGs) and have invested heavily in an engine that will provide the basis for future TES and Fallout titles. In other words, as a company they've bet that they can grow this market and continue to do well creating single player games. As a side note D&D is an inherently multiplayer game and I think that its interesting the same people that criticize the CRPG's for straying from D&D holy path (abandoning dice rolls, etc) also criticize any multiplayer CRPG component. I mean NWN was considered a true D&D based CRPG and it was heavily multiplayer.

Secondly to elaborate a bit on Bethesda's game market - co-op TES would be an interesting exercise but such a game would need to be meticulously planned and Bethesda already has found a successful formula and a great niche. Until that niche evaporates or console online RPGs prove themselves (so far, shooters are the only really successful console online games) to be a deeper market, I think we won't see a TES multiplayer RPG. The push to "consolize" games has come as a result of piracy, and the online only RPG model is inherently resistant to this.

Lastly, what would the objective of such a TES game be? It seems to me early on the entire point of CRPGs (text based) was to eliminate the need for multiple players and thus the inherent unreliability of a game that requires so much human input. A computerized dungeon master and party members meant someone could boot up their PC at 3AM and play D&D, how wonderful! Early multiplayer PC games had each person on one side of the keyboard but no game was multiplayer only - what if Timmy's friend wasn't around to play or worse yet, what if Timmy didn't have a friend? Thankfully with the invention of the internet this has become largely a thing of the past and now games give you temporary friends to play with. My question is, what aspect of the game would be improved by extra human input? Companion AI of course, is the direct substitute for extra human participation in a game, but I think the novelty of fighting alongside your buddy in Oblivion as it stands would quickly grow old. The encounters would need to be readjusted for multiple players, how do you handle drops, how is player vs player handled etc. Even the most basic of multiplayer implementations brings along with it the questions every online enabled RPG must ask. Its why RPGs are either fully online, or completely offline, generally a blend is never as successful.

Sell me on a TES MMO, but TES with an online component, no thanks. Just another MMO WoW-clone in the TES universe? again no thanks...

Please No Multiplayer/Co-op in Skyrim. I hope the "Elder Scrolls" series and the "Fallout" series in future also truly remains a fully fledged single player game only. Too many games are trying to go the multiplayer way and we SP gamers end up with a half baked game.

Look what happened to TW2 they tried to cater to the multiplayer crowd and ended up messing/downgrading the single player aspect. TW was a much better game even though it lacked polish.

I feel bad for some of you, who never got to experience GOOD co op rpg games both online and IRL (Pen and paper rpgs).

Going through an RPG is fun, it's a blast, it's why most of us are here on these forums. However experiencing that with another REAL person playing together, exploring, doing quests, is extremely fun.

NWN
Baldur's Gate

None of you played these games online? They were both a blast, and Baldur's gate is hailed as one of the BEST rpgs of all time. If it can do co op mp back then and still have great single player, I fail to see why you guys think having simple Co op (not pvp, not MMO, just SIMPLE co op) would be soooooooo bad.

I think that the TES community is really becoming very stubborn, not wanting any siingle aspect or addition to TES to change, if that was the case we'd still be playing Arena.

Responses in red.



There are reasons no game but the occasional MMO will have cross platform online.

1. MS and Sony want you to buy games on their systems. If you want a game for the PS3 but want to play a game with your friend who only has a 360... you very well might buy the game for the 360 instead. So what advantage would MS have in that situation to let you play with your friend from your PS3? None. They would rather hope that people will buy more games on their system then allow cross platform gaming.

2. As I said before, MS did experiment with PC/360 cross platform gaming... and it didn't go well. Its technically possible of course, but its just so much easier to aim with a mouse then it is a controller and the result was 360 users getting beat up on by the PC gamers. That doesn't look good for MS and could even drive hardcoe gotta be the best type gamers to change platforms. Again, cross platform gaming might mean less sales so MS shut the program down. Heres a link to back that up btw... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ms-killed-pc-xbox-cross-platform-play

3. And yes... the networks are different, and would likely require a large cooperation between MS and Sony to make cross platform co-op possible. Of course neither company is going to do that unless there is going to be a big payoff, which there wouldn't be.

--------

So really, its pointless to even talk about cross platform play. Its not going to happen... not now, and probably not ever.

That still doesn't mean that MP wouldn't work in Skyrim. This community reminds me of the Battlefield community... over there people freak out that theres going to be a single player campaign and feel that its going to hurt the "main" game, which is MP. Here, people are so scared that MP would destroy Skyrim to they come up with every irrational (and even idiotic at times) reason they can think of to talk it down. Obviously it wouldn't, but people are so gloom and doom these days its impossible to talk sense to anyone.

Its all moot I guess since Bethesda is determined to stay in the 1990's with their "design philosophy" and ignore that MP is extreamly popular these days... or they are just saving it for the Elder Scrolls MMO we all know they are making.