[asako]

Hm, I think I'll steer this in the speculative direction for a little while. Was browsing through the US Patent Office's listings, and noticed that ZeniMax Media recently (November) trademarked two logos in relation to Zenimax Online. Could this mean that they're getting ready to talk about whatever it is they've been working on?

[saharen beauty]

[post deleted]

Apologies, read LN's post wrong.

[Genevieve]

If modders can make Skyrim into an MMO then Bethesda can make it into a four player co-op game. No excuses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFiAPOcCig

[Dean]

would like to see a TeS realeased with multi player, but my odd little idea is to retain the single player game with a multiplayer hub city to trade, socialise, dual and possably recruit help more like the darksouls invaders they would be temporary guests in your world.

this way you retain that feeling TeS gives of shapeing your own destiny

some quests can be made for multiplayer in the way of difficulty for extra content and possably expand and restrict crafting as well by making race and class specfic items, you want your Brenton in the good Elven armor find an elf to make it, the best bows from the bosmer or a restoration heavy alchemist would have access to better healing pots while an assasin was has access to better poison, alteration waterbreathing ect.. to give real meaning to hub city and trade.

[Tiff Clark]

I actually used to espouse something rather similar during the Morrowind days. However back then PCs were the primary design platform, and PC gamers made up the majority of the audiance. Neither of these are true any more, and it doesn't make sense for Bethesda to do so much work when it would only be available to a fraction of the community.

Others seem to be doing it It's obviously something a lot of the TES community wants (can't go by the forums here). I don't think they want a MMO with like hundreds of players, but a dozen or two players at a time could be a lot of fun if it's on a persistent server where everyone can buy their own house etc.

I think Bethesda are dropping the ball on this. If modders can pull this off in the future then they have no excuse.

[Sarah Knight]

Hm, I think I'll steer this in the speculative direction for a little while. Was browsing through the US Patent Office's listings, and noticed that ZeniMax Media recently (November) trademarked two logos in relation to Zenimax Online. Could this mean that they're getting ready to talk about whatever it is they've been working on?

I hope so, but then "Skyrim" was trademarked long before the game was finally announced.

Others seem to be doing it It's obviously something a lot of the TES community wants (can't go by the forums here). I don't think they want a MMO with like hundreds of players, but a dozen or two players at a time could be a lot of fun if it's on a persistent server where everyone can buy their own house etc.

I think Bethesda are dropping the ball on this. If modders can pull this off in the future then they have no excuse.

Others, as in multiplayer mod projects?

I applaud the ingenuity of those modding groups that attempt this, but I don’t see how this counters my argument. I’m saying that adding multiplayer would be extremely difficult, and take a considerable amount of resources to accomplish – even if scaled down like you suggest. It hardly seems worthwhile to put a tremendous amount of effort into a feature only PC gamers can benefit from, and only PC gamers who download mods will get much out of. I’m not saying there isn’t interest in a multiplayer game, I’m saying that you plan doesn’t seem financially feasible.

[Beulah Bell]

I see Bethesda patching/breaking the ability for this in the future, Wouldn't multiplayer somehow violate TOS rights or something like that? Also, if this was going to be done and Bethesda wanted to do it (which they probably don't) I definitely see this getting broken.

Didnt Bethesda sew MorrOblivion mod?
Ported oblivion into morrowind world

[Kara Payne]

A good multiplayer with maximum 3 friends would be awesome.

i would like to just see a lan/wan setup, on invite only. I left mmo's because of the idiots out there and would never play Skyrim in an *open mmo* style. but a lan setup for a few freinds would be awsome and give me a reason to play more often.

[RAww DInsaww]

ok well what about the next elder scrolls game(Vallenwood,Elswere,etc.) it could have a muiltplayer on it i see no harm in trying something new because think about it a new game a new game engine a new chance to install multiplayer so why not. it wood make the next game so much better

[Kayleigh Williams]

great idea's
I particularly like the idea of a gladiator arena, where you earn gold, buystuff in armouries and advance... perhaps to end in an eventual show down? (but with this engine I can see that being a really big mess sadly)

Though the PvM option would be more... feasable/doable whereas a multiplayer open world.... thats an mmorpg or co-op rpg would surely take some SERIOUS power or coding... I just figure the complexity would be too great for current era consoles and computers...


THOUGH IF MODERN GEAR IS STRONG ENOUGH... why has a company not done it... you could make ...billions... every single medievil mmo ever played/still played... the playerbase (minus a few) would all flock and stay loyal to it... but it would have to be MASSIVE... as realistic and big and in depth as the real world... but in fantasy where one can not die for real...

that thoughts unsettling in many ways... what would humanity/ gamers become?

EDIT:- excuse some of the incoherency, i'm a little tired.. but do consider and think of the gladiatorial arena players! that sounds cool =] id play it

[+++CAZZY]

Beside the obvious hardware problem of creating a world in which multiple players could adventure, or even a dungeon for starters there is a big gameplay problem that Skyrim have right now - the menu. The game pauses when player enters the menu, and even if that wasn't enough the game pauses when player enters the favorite quick choice option - and unpausing the game at that point would make it nearly impossible to play.

what about if using this idea:
"Is it possible however to just add Co-op as a DLC however the only thing you can do in Co-op is dungeons? You know just choose who you wana play with and what dungeons to do maybe add some new ones just for Co-op. Or maybe add some quests (on DLC) that you get on your own but need to do Co-op inoder to complete."

youre only aloud to use ur favrites and it doesnt pause the game. and since this is just a cave(or castle whatever) the area to load wont be anyweher near the size of skyrim.

this could also solve that issue that only PC players would get the most out of it. this way everyone can get the most out of it I think

[Bloomer]

what about if using this idea:
"Is it possible however to just add Co-op as a DLC however the only thing you can do in Co-op is dungeons? You know just choose who you wana play with and what dungeons to do maybe add some new ones just for Co-op. Or maybe add some quests (on DLC) that you get on your own but need to do Co-op inoder to complete."

youre only aloud to use ur favrites and it doesnt pause the game. and since this is just a cave(or castle whatever) the area to load wont be anyweher near the size of skyrim.

this could also solve that issue that only PC players would get the most out of it. this way everyone can get the most out of it I think

Unpausing the game won't fix the problem. There are situations like when player runs out of health and pause the game to refill it with 5 potions - this would require to change the game style, so the player that has low health would have to run behind a pillar to use potions or change weapons or spells. Adding quick slots for health, magika and stamina wouldn't work well since TES has diffrent kinds of potions.

[SamanthaLove]

If gamesas wants to go multiplayer it should do a diffrent game set into the TES universe but it shouldn't set everything into one release. To do so would mean a very big and buggy game so better keep the features separate with diffrent teams and setting so they can provide the best quality both for single and multiplayer. After Skyrim they have the money and fame to do it.

[Lawrence Armijo]

Implamenting multiplayer would take developer resources, a lot of developer resources, and these then become developer resouces that can't be spent on other features.

First, you need the basic multiplayer code. I don't know how difficult this is, but it's still work that needs to be done.

Second, you need the rest of the engine to support multiplayer. This is difficult, and in the case of the Elder Scrolls it prevents Bethesda from streamlineing the game engine for single player. Currently the game only ever needs to worry about one player, the scripting system only ever has to worry about one player, and objects don't need to be tracked across multiple computers. Terrain, NPCs, and objects also only need to be loaded around one player, and if the system needs to juggle more balls it would really ramp up the hardware requirements.

Third, you need this to work smoothly. Multiplayer isn't something you slap on and it works great, and I suspect in a game like Skyrim it's particularly difficult to get everything running smoothly.

And finally you have the potential for design and balancing issues. Are locations large enough for four people to run around them? How should difficulty be scaled? How does the AI deal with the increased difficulty of two or more fully developed characters? Some of this needs to be considered anyway for companions, but they aren't nearly as formidable as a player both in terms of stats and intelligence.


As I mention in the opening post it's a real shame I can no longer find the Soldier of Fortune 2 portmortem online because it does an excellent job of discussing just how time-consuming it was for them to implament multiplayer. And this was with a game engine specifically built for multiplayer, so they didn't even have most of the hurdles Bethesda would. If Bethesda wanted their next engine to include multiplayer they'd have to put a fair amount of resources towards this, which would mean those resouces aren't being spent on other features. Perhaps if Skyrim had multiplayer we wouldn't have radiant quests. Or maybe they would have had to hire more programmers at the expense of designers or artists.

Now Bethesda may decide one day that this is worth pursuing. However I've been following their comments on this matter for a while and they've made it very clear, in my opinion, that they aren't interested in dividing their focus. If we do see another multiplayer Elder Scrolls game I suspect it will be a spin-off developed by one of their sister companies, and not part of the core series. (Note, there's precedence for this. The last multiplayer Elder Scrolls title was Shadowkey, developed by Vir2L.)

Hi Hungry Donner. It's fascinating that you use Soldier of Fortune 2 to talk about the time-consuming to do a MP, Coop. I posted a lot in the old topic. Yes, it's true that MP, COOP ask time, ressources and programmers. But there is more than Soldier of Fortune 2 to do some similitude. Soldier of Fortune is almost Quake-like game. TES is more Neverwinter Nights than a Quake or a Doom-like, Why they don't look, or we, for those who did Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate like references and questions ??

There is not only Soldier of Fortune 2 for MP and COOP. There is Neverwinter Nights, Boderlands ( it's RPG, don't forget ), Diablo series. You can do the story in single mode, and COOP mode. The story, locations and scripting is almost the same. We don't talk about a MMO that a story ,computer or a console should track 1 000 or 10 000 players. We talk only two, maybee four. The host, the one who create the game, well, the world of the COOP mode will be saved on is console.

I think that we try to find things, to make it more difficult than it appears like :
it cost a lot of money to do MP , and they didn't spend money to create an irrelevant quest like bring me back 10 bear skins and I'm happy ???
if we are two in the worlds, how it can be saved. The host will save it.
And if the host loose it. Well, the host and the COOP one will have both saved on their console. The COOP has just to save to game to have it on his hard drive.
...and if both loose it. really ??? Do you try not to find lice, by chance ? ( not you, but the community )

Yes, we can say that is consuming time, hardware and stuff. But I have the feeling that, if Bethesda does a coop game, it will " kill " computers or consoles because the MP ask to much hardware. Please...yes it ask hardware but not like the end of the world. Look, it's only a feeling...

For the graphic or game world. There is not only the Bethesda engine graphic that exist. And if they can do a world like they did, they can modify the code to accept another player.
If you can't have a in-game companion ( like Lydia ) , yes I would say that the world and graphic engine is not made for that. But, in Skyrim, you can have a companion. A warrior, sorcerer, thief. I don't find that relevant that if you have companion, human companion, the world of Skyrim won't turn.

Yes again, I agree with you that, maybee radiant quest could be cut a bit because they do MP. Look, radiant quest, it is an asset ? really ?

Side quest, radiant quest, yes, might be interesting. If the side quest does something really cool. A side quest in Skyrim. Saadia, the redguard, do you tell the warrior that she is Whiterun or not. Cool, you decide a faith of someone. But...after, it does what ?. In the next TES, we will know something about this case ???


In skyrim, side quest give what ?? nothing. Money, quest book filled, and time to swing your sword or doing magika to kill bear and ghost and spiders...but it doesn't give nothing really. Even XP. Only the expertise that you have chosen.

An exemple of side quest, for Skyrim, but making it interesting is, Mass Effect side quest. What you do in chapter one is reflected in the second...and the second in the third. Now, side quest become interesting.
But the story of TES is so far and away, that, after playing Mass Effect and his all side quest, I beleive in TES I loose my time and breath to do a quest just for doing a quest. That's is my opinion....please.

Exemple, in Skyrim, doing side quest to kill 10 bears to make an old woman happy. Ok...yes...and ???

About the main story. Borderlands, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate... The main story is amazing, and you can do it in single and coop mode. With unexpected turnovers ( Neverwinter Nights is a good exemple with Aribeth ) and stuning situation ( Baldur's Gate ).

And, time to innovate. One of you is the Dragonborn and the other one, is your friend. You do, both, the story. But, the main quest is drove by the dragonborn. After the story is done, switch the role and it's your turn to be the dragonborn and it's you, who drives and do something else...

For the AI. Look, not because I want to reduce Bethesda programmers skills but, for an AI, we've seen a bit better. And it's not because you are two in game that the AI will be lost and mixed. More, if you have a companion in the game, the AI companion I talk, and this companion does something wrong, it's you who is wanted. Hum...it's not me...who did it.

I think, in 2012, people expect a little more, even if we don't hear them, than the usual. Single player, yes. Since the year 70's, companies do single player. Because in that time, hardware was not the same as today.

I see that people doesn't want it because they scared that, they will loose a good game, and a story. I don't think so. Do I play, yes I play. My friend too. But we play on our own side. We we talk together while we play. But we can't, together, have an adventure side by side, friend with friend. MMO ?? It's is not an adventure game. It is only a farming game to do a indestructible character and starting another one without spirit, story and goal.

I don't run down anyone. But, as long as Bethesda has not made the jump, doing a TES SINGLE and COOP. The eternel question will always come back on the floor with the same arguments, the same opinions, the same references.

Why ???

Because the didn't...

[Damian Parsons]

Hi Hungry Donner. It's fascinating that you use Soldier of Fortune 2 to talk about the time-consuming to do a MP, Coop. I posted a lot in the old topic. Yes, it's true that MP, COOP ask time, ressources and programmers. But there is more than Soldier of Fortune 2 to do some similitude. Soldier of Fortune is almost Quake-like game. TES is more Neverwinter Nights than a Quake or a Doom-like, Why they don't look, or we, for those who did Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate like references and questions ??

It's worth noting that the Soldier of Fortune 2 example was something brought up by the mods (I not longer remember if I was the first one or if it was someone else). Bethesda has never pointed in that direction to explain why they don't do this.

I use Solider of Fortune 2 as an example because they used an engine specifically built for multiplayer and it still took them a tremendous amount of time to create and test their multiplayer mode. Bethesda would not start with that advantage, so they'd have all of the work Raven had to go through and they'd have to create the multiplayer code and they'd have to conform the entire engine to this and they're dealing with a much broader game world.

[helliehexx]

After my experience playing with someone very close to me in Dead Island [no random players!] in which it lasted months and months of scary fun, I do believe co-op is the future for games. I find it spices up moments when you both cover each others back, share loot, decide tactics, each others roles, you don't feel alone which I hate about singleplayer games. I really hope next elderscrolls adds in co-op. Like Dead Isle, you didn't have to go co-op, so all the single players got their wish. Same with previous games in different genres such as NWN1, bg2, guildwars, Saints Row the third etc... All of these were made more enjoyable for me by playing it with people you know very well.

Problem is, does co-op mean losing other features? I don't want an even more watered down elderscrolls game I guess..

[meg knight]

Singleplayer WILL suffer with the addition of multiplayer.

.....Why not just make a new Version of Skyrim just for Muliplayer.. Two versions means single player is untouched..Beths makes double the cash and players get double the fun.


Easy fix to your little problems.

[Lyd]

.....Why not just make a new Version of Skyrim just for Muliplayer.. Two versions means single player is untouched..Beths makes double the cash and players get double the fun.


Easy fix to your little problems.

no.

[Juan Cerda]

I don't understand how some people don't like the idea of Skyrim multyplayer
i mean think about it, and i mean think really hard until it hurts:P
how EPIC would it be to like start a clan take over a castle and then go attackt like other players and then the will get mad and the will come to attack your castle
how fricking epic would it be to be fighting with a other player and just after you defeated him there shows up a dragon
like give me a break, it would be epicness after epicness.

There is a game for this already... its called Mountain Blade and its very cheap as well


Sorry for doublepost

[Guinevere Wood]

How about simply being able to send items to a friends game? Sorry if this has already been brought up; not going to read the whole thread.

[DeeD]

Pointless as you can get any item with the console.

[Matt Bigelow]

Not everyone is playing on a PC you know...

[Latino HeaT]

How about simply being able to send items to a friends game? Sorry if this has already been brought up; not going to read the whole thread.

"Too long did not read" - classic.
TES isn't the kind of game that equipment plays a great role. Transferring items would only lead to people making one blacksmith character line in an MMO guild (e.g. Lineage II) who would supply all the other characters with the best armor, and then this skill would be removed all together in multiplayer version.

Item trading is an idea for a game like Diablo that has thousands of randomly generated leveled crap, and unique sets, which run the economy of that game - if in Diablo the player could at one point stop looking for loot with better equipment than the whole game would lose it meaning - 99 level character would have all he can hope for and the content of the game would end.
The Elder Scroll games have an maximal level armor on the other hand, and when you gain it depends on the character you play, and having it won't end the game.

[ashleigh bryden]

"Too long did not read" - classic.
TES isn't the kind of game that equipment plays a great role. Transferring items would only lead to people making one blacksmith character line in an MMO guild (e.g. Lineage II) who would supply all the other characters with the best armor, and then this skill would be removed all together in multiplayer version.

Item trading is an idea for a game like Diablo that has thousands of randomly generated leveled crap, and unique sets, which run the economy of that game - if in Diablo the player could at one point stop looking for loot with better equipment than the whole game would lose it meaning - 99 level character would have all he can hope for and the content of the game would end.
The Elder Scroll games have an maximal level armor on the other hand, and when you gain it depends on the character you play, and having it won't end the game.

"too long did not read" is classic because many of us have other things to do. Anyway, I see your point; I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Shirley BEltran]

or they could make it as an add on type thing and the people that want it could download it and the others could if they wanted too or leave it be... i say that the ones that dont want it dont have to get it, but they shouldnt make a difference on the ones that do, they wouldnt have to buy the disk or download the content if they didnt want co-op