Single player, thank you very much. Don`t want more delay time to add in Co-Op features. Already have Age of Conan, UO, and TW2 from my multiplayer needs and would not want the Single player development skimped on because of implementing more systems. TW2 is already like that.

I really don't want co-op as I tend to game by myself, and I especially wouldn't want any achievements to be co-op or multiplayer only.

There will be some form of multiplayer. Bethesda cares more about profit than a couple hundred forumites, of whom probably only a couple dozen are fanatical enough to damage their profits by boycotting the game.

Right, well I don't think there will be considering they've never made a game with any form of multiplayer before except for Battlespire, which was a big flop.

Im against all kind of multiplayer EXCEPT Counter Strike.

Why competing to be the best online, when you are frickin Dragonborn offline?!

Or is it dragonbone?! Oh my god i don't actually know?!

But you get the point of my post.

Yet it is a point which I believe is fallacious. It is a false argument. Based on current engine capacity, both Oblivion and Morrowind could have drop in/drop out local co-op whilst maintaining every ounce of length, sidequest etc. that those games offered. You certainly can have the best of both worlds. Among other things, I would think it would be understood that the storyline would still be singleplayer/first player dominant. The second player (whether present only for a drop in game, or saved under a second profile on the same console or to a memory device) would be able to customize their clothing, weapons, race and spells, and would be able to interact with the NPCs and join guilds (whether they could attain dual guild leadership or else lead guilds the first player might have opted out of would be the Developers choice), but the decisions and quest acceptance could still be left primarily with the first Player. The second player could always play their own save game as first player and have the former first player be their drop in drop out companion. Again, in this matter, a system similar to that in Fable III would work best, i.e. a local drop in drop out co-op in which the second player is fully interactive and customizable, but in which the first player is still dominant in certain regards.


The notion that the Elder Srolls with co-op would be automatically and inevitably be any less the ElderSrolls or any less awesome is unfounded and even unlikely. The technological ability exists to have a game with every single feature existant in Obliovion/Morrowind (even to have much more than either of those games) and to still offer a sufficient and enjoyable drop in/drop out co-op option. And you can fix the problems of those games, have, for instance, more replayable missions (goblin attacks on the Counties and the like), better continuity/verisimilitude (A Bruma Mages guild that can be refurbished and re-inhabited once the enemies of the guild are defeated, acknowledgement by all of The New Archmage, and the ability for guild leaders to alter laws of their guilds etc.) AND still have the basic drop in/drop out co-op option. It Can be done. There is no denying that the technology exists.

The absence of co-op does not add anything to The Elder Scrolls. It merely subtracts. It may not be a detraction to the minds of all, but it is a shortcoming in the minds of enough that it can legitimately be considered a shortcoming. For many, its absence leaves in the category of good a game that would otherwise be astoundingly great and perhaps beyond all current comparison.

The one place I disagree with you is on the notion that couch co-op ( the other person sitting by you) is immersion breaking. If anything I find that it GREATLY enhances immersion. It is like one of those group hypnosis or group hallucinations one reads about, wherein the reinforement of the experience by others also experiencing it heightens the sense of its realism. Online the second player seems almost like an AI companion. Tis better, to my mind, when player 2 is right there with you, experiencing all the same things you are, sharing the chills, the triumohs, the sense of discovery. . . it allows you to sidebar in character without needing the ingame keyboard. lol

None of these things are necessary. They might be requisite for you, but I don't think the average person who wants to play co-op requires them. Shared screen third person works fine for me, frankly. As far as I can tell, most of us are fine with the quests being exactly as they are when geared to just one player. Its like when another poster brought up who enemies would attack first and would they respawn more quickly, suggesting that these would pose serious problems. Well. . .. who do they attack first when you take along an AI companion? Do they rewpawn more rapidly then? And if having a second player makes some of your battles a tad less difficult. . .. doesn't that make sense? If you are attacked by a monster or a psychopath while hiking through the woods. . . don't you have a better chance of surviving if you have an able bodied friend along? Is your attacker going to gain extra strength or spawn a doppleganger in response to your having a reinforcement?

You would not dump level scaling. Scaling would be based on the first character. . . If there even is scaling, haven't most of us here been grouching for ages about how hated the level scaling was in Oblivion? A lot of the special changes being suggested simply would not be required for basic, drop in drop out, couch co-op.

Please post in a font that is less horrible to look at. That aside, it's not really a matter of technology. There has been multiplayer of some form pretty much as long as there has been videogames. How that is best implemented depends on the type of game, but if you plan to have two or more people playing in the same game at the same time, the game must be designed with this in mind from the beginning. Otherwise it would be extremely tacked-on. The interface, for example, is one problem. You can't have it pause the game every time you open your inventory, or else between several people it will be forcibly paused half the time. How do they change this? Redesign the inventory entirely? What about a dungeon with rough terrain, that requires levitation or something, and not everyone has it? Do you hand out levitation for free to everyone, force the other players to stand around doing nothing, or not make any dungeons like that at all? What if everything were designed mostly normally, and extra players were stuck in the role of companion, lacking the same freedom and abilities as the protagonist? Aside from probably not being as much fun, it still creates major balance issues when your helper can behave as they wish or follow literal commands.

Designing a game with multiplayer in mind is going to have a major impact on singleplayer. Many PC players complained about the unwieldy interface in Oblivion, which was designed more for television screens and consoles. It's the same deal. You cannot divide your focus between two things without somehow losing some of that focus on one, or maintain it without an additional drain on resources. Any argument that multiplayer "has no impact" on singleplayer or "doesn't take many resources" is utterly baseless. Can you name a single non-MMO game that has a significant focus on multiplayer, and has nearly much content as a singleplayer-only game like TES? Even one? "Content" taken to mean measurable in-game "things", such as maps, models, sounds, animations, and so on. Even if it's not a significant focus, and the multiplayer option is small and simple, you cannot retain the same singleplayer focus. You have to either contend with things like the balancing and interface of the main game, or create new ones for a completely separate multiplayer option. That final option, of a small mode complete separated, is the only feasible way to NOT impact singleplayer, and not only do you have the least satisfying multiplayer possible, but you are still hindering singleplayer with the resources that have to be diverted to it.

That the technology exists is irrelevant. Of course it exists. The point is that you cannot have something for nothing. Any multiplayer at all, will at the very least, draw resources away from singleplayer. To argue that is to basically argue against physics. A tiny amount for multiplayer is bad, because then you have a crappy mode that doesn't satisfy the multiplayer crowd and annoys the singleplayer crowd because you wasted those resources on basically nothing. As you go up the scale, you are inevitably going to pull away more resources and more focus. The people who don't want multiplayer, don't want it because it is literally impossible to implement without some drawback to the singleplayer experience they came for in the first place. It's not a complicated argument.

WHat??? I am sorry but this sounds like an entirely dogmatic argument, all vitriol and no logic. It would destroy whatn TES sets to accomplish??? And how is that, my friend. If the game has all the same features as it would without co-op, but allows for a simple drop in companion system, where the second player is essentially an entirely customizable and more interactive of the AI companions that Oblivion and Fallout provide, how exactly will that destroy the gaming experience? The answer is it won't. And if you hate companionship that much, would you not still be able to play in single mode. As I have said before, the ONLY argument of any merit against co-op are the tech. concerns, and those are increasingly mitigated by advances in console and engine abilities. Any other arguments, about a co-op option, especially the type of localized co-op I have been reffering to, ruining the game are completely unreasonable.

it's fine as long as it has no negative effect on single player use.
meaning, don't dumb down the game to accomodate multi player.

Good grief. Really? You most certainly CAN deliver exactly the Morrowind and Oblivion experience with a co-op option. The game remains essentially the same, it just allows a second player instead of just an AI companion, and the second player can choose their clothing, their weapons, their spells as they advance in level etc. The person would be a companion, by choice, in a shared adventure experience. They would not hijack your game and none of the out of the way considerations that some here have discussed would ever even come into play. It is just such pure and ugly hyperbole to suggest that the addition of a single feature of this nature would somehow undo everything the Elderscrolls is. The goal of the series is to be an awesome RPG not to be religiously singleplayer.

None of these things are certain. The developers would need to make a list of things they wanted to accomplish prior to development, and put co-op on that list. I would all but guaruntee that, given time and effort, they could CERTAINLY achieve all of their intended game goals, giving exactly the game that would have been released as a single player game. .. but with a heavenly co-op local option. It can be done. I think we all know that it can be done, if only the will exists to do it.

Multiplayer? In MY Elder Scrolls?

No thank you. :disguise:

That is not a false argument no matter what you may wish to believe. Development resources are limited. And it would take considerable resources to implement it properly. The resources it would take to develop it properly would distract from the single player game, at all times, unless Bethesda massively increases it's development budgets. This is not an opinion, it is basic fact.

Besides that: why do you think there are no games that combine the scope and extensiveness of the TES single player with a co-op that is equally entertaining? It really just isn't as simple as you seem to want it to be.


I can understand that sentiment. But it is just your opinion, not fact.

I hear very few people complain that they think less of TES because there is no co-op. What I do hear is that there are many people hoping to see Bethesda do a MMO somewhere in the future.

[edit]

It will consume man-hours. Man-hours which could have been spent elsewhere.

Unless Bethesda increase the available man-hours (meaning increasing the development budget and either hiring more staff or stretching development time) those man-hours will have to be taken from elsewhere. So yes, then it would come at a cost for the single player game. There simply is no sense in denying that.

[edit2]
You may keep good hopes that Bethesda (and the larger Zenimax group) will stay on the current trend of growth. If they maintain that growth then thee development budgets could very well soar high enough for Beth to be able to incorporate co-op (etc) in their single player franchises, without there being a detrimental effect on the single player game. So there is hope if you wish to have co-op, but for the time being it's still just too soon. Also, the economical climate just isn't right at the moment for Bethesda to take risks by overstretching it's development resources.

Which luckily BGS will never do.

Zenimax Online might, but not Bethesda.

I must admit that well I've been playing Oblivion, Morrowind, and more so Fallout 3, I've thought it'd be cool to play with a friend, just 1, and not via a match making lobby. So I'm interested in the idea of co-op if IF it can be done well and with no sacrifice to the core single player experience. So over all I'd say no to co-op and just keep it as a pipe dream.

Although for what it's worth, all I'd want for co-op would be the ability to explore, dungeon dive, and maybe duel with a friend, oh and a few misc. side quests. I don't want to be completing the MQ or guilds and what not.

What several are you talking about? What part of drop in drop out local co-op for a second player is not being recognized. When I say the tech exists, it exists at a level which would entirely allow, in a co-op mode, for the same thorough, lengthy involved game available to the 1st player in single mode. And you could not levitate in Obliovion anyway, but the answer with only one other player is you either opt not to levitate or the game allows you to levitate player two as well. What would you do with your AI companion or someone you were escorting? The co-op does not have to draw options away from singleplayer anymore than having a mages guild ruins the fighters guild, or having the option to play as an elf undoes the ability to play as a human or an orc. You could eridicate half the current features of the existing games, and guess what, as much as many might cry, some players would still be perfectly happy. The question is, can you have co-op, even in a limited capacity, and still have essentially the same world/game that Elder Scrolls has offered, in terms of quests, customization etc., and the answer is yes. Simply put, its yes.

ok, my wife wants this.
she want to be a Wood Elf.
A male Nord and a female Wood Elf. I guess it could work.

crap, what have I done?

Where exactly would they be spent, Houseparty? If the Bethesda designers plot out, ahead of time, all of the features and abilities which they intend for the game to have, including co-op, and they successfully implement those things, what "elsewhere"feature is it that you think will go missing. If the "other" feature that is left out is some unspecified ,as yet amorphous extra "something" some amazing Je Ne Sais Quoi that the developers will only be able to imagine if the stringently refuse to implement co-op. . . then its a feature that is probably going to remain unknown and unenacted whether co-op is in or not. A game with all that Morrowind and with all that Oblivion offered can be made with co-op as an option. A game with all that those two offered and better next gen graphics, with all the most significant drawbacks and inconsistencies of those games remedied, can ALSO be achieved with co-op, the technology and capacity exists in spades. You are not dealing in tangibles, You are intentionally invoking an unspecified "perfect" singleplayer expereince that Elder Scrolls will only be able to achieve if they do not include co-op, but that experience is a strawman. If an entire list of features for the perfect singleplay experience were met, and the developers decided that they would also add co-op, I get the strong feeling that you would still say, "well, instead of adding co-op, can't you all brainstorm over some other great features that would enhance singleplay?"

Considering I've had to take turns with my friend while playing though both Oblivion and Morrowind, I say damn all the "dedicated fans" (give me a break, I like TES just as much as you) who are against co-op.


If I can have companions, I should be able to have my friend control him, period, the only issue is whether or not Bethesda decided (game is really far along in the dev process) whether or not they wanted to invest time in multiplayer.

:foodndrink:

I hear you. And I utterly empathize. An earlier poster said it well, if you can have the AI companion, there is no reason you should not be able to have a real companion in the form of a second player. They would be customizable, would level, and be able to have some level of interaction (e.g. at least gain membership to guilds, could speak to NPCs but not activate key quests etc.) , but their presence would not change the essential structure of the plots, quests and game overall.

I don't really understand it. Most people seem to not want co-op. I've read hundreds of people saying they don't want it. But they always give reasons like, "I SAY NO TO MULTIPLAYER!" or that it would svck, or any number of non-answers. The only answer I've read that sort of is a real reason is that by adding a new feature like that, any development time spent on it would detract from adding more single player content, therefore, it should not be added. I could understand that as being a real reason but REALLY?? Think being able to play a modable game like the elder scrolls with a few other people would be like the holy grail for RPers everywhere. Like...the next evolution of tabletop D&D sort of thing. Basically I think it would be SERIOUSLY well spent money.

What about an online feature, nothing MMO related, where it's like an arena. Kinda like Call of Duty mixed with a kind of Monster Hunter type thing. You have separate leveling, weapons, items and armor than in the regular game mode. You have to do randomly genaratedly quests to keep up your gold and stats. The quests can give you armor, weapons or monster hides to craft into armor or weapons. The main reason your stuff is not shared with the main game mode is that if you lose your opponent gets to loot your corpse and take any thing thay want.

There's really not much to understand. Multiplayer consumes development resources and necessitates style changes in the gameplay that some people dislike. Those two things are a big fat negative for people who aren't interested in the multiplayer, which of course is not going to be a positive to counter them if you're not interested in it.