That would be an assumption. There is no data to prove that there would me more people interested in TES gameplay with a co-op function then there would be without without a co-op function. A similar assumption could be made that the people who are interested in TES co-op would have gotten the game anyhow because they like TES gameplay anyhow, with or without co-op.
Also, don't underestimate the amount of work it is to program, test, banance, test, etc, a properly implemented co-op inter weaved with single player in games as extensive as TES.
Not a fully pledged properly implemented co-op no. What we've seen were half-assed multiplayer hacks.
:tops: I am going to rise above your disparaging personal insults and attempts at psychoanolysis, Houseparty, and focus on the topic of the thread.
I keep hearing about Elder Scrolls being the game to go to for an awesome singleplayer experience. Those who say this seem not to realize that the very things which make it an awesome singleplayer experience are what would make it a phenomenal co-op experience for any inclined to play co-op. It is exactly the expansiveness and the intrigue of Elder Scrolls that would make co-op so emotionally rewarding in the game. The type of grand, sweeping, world spanning, sprawling epic and adventure and intricacy which it offers is exactly the type experience in which a friend playing alongside, a sure companion, could be best appreciated. What was it Frodo said to Sam? "I am glad you are here with me. . . here at the end of all things."
Anyway, I am not going to try to sell the co-op experience itself in this post. That it has value and merit is without question. That vast masses of people would enjoy it (even, I daresay, some of the naysayers here were it properly implemented) is also a certainty. Would every ES player put use or love it? Probably not, but that is as irrelevant as whether or not every ES player will want to play as an orc. The only real question, the only serious one, is can it be done without sacrificing other major aspects of this game series, and I strongly believe the answer is yes, and I believe that many of those who say "No" are doing so out of something that borders on a despotic theology concerning the game and how it should or should not be played.
First, to be clear, the story would not suffer. Co-op, at least in a basic drop in/ drop out local format, akin to that of Fable III, where the singleplayer storyline is still dominant but the world allows for the involvement and interaction of a secons player, is almost exclusively a programming matter. It is a programming matter, and has no more effect ( and in some cases less effect) on story, plot and questlines in the game than the programming which allows the player the option of playing as an elf, human or an orc, or to cast spells, or to have a wide array of weapons to choose from, OR TO TAKE UP TO SEVERAL AI TAG ALONGS FROM THE VARIOUS GUILDS, not to mention the AI companions which are offered to one prior to mastery of any of the guilds. And this is an important point, because one of the things that the opponents of co-op seem most fond of throwing up as a counter argument, is that a co--op OPTION will somehow destroy the immersive story, derail the deep plots, curtail the quest lengths etc[/size][/b]
:shakehead: . [b][size="3"]It is a red herring argument, it is a dellusion, it is foolishness. I am not saying the people making the arguement are foolish, not by any means, but I am saying that the counterargument given regarding those things is a study in nonsense. And please, in replying to this, do not go veering off with comments on the dammage onlinie multiplay and ten other different types of co-op would cause, I am ONLY talking about A DROP IN DROP OUT LOCAL CO-OP FEATURE. And there is simply no reason that a second player, even a fully customizable second player akin to the one provided in Fable III, when limited from overtaking the 1st player in game dominance or otherwise hijacking the game, would in anyway be detrimental to plots, quest or the overall storytelling of the game. Indeed, the ONLY differences (storywise) between a legitimate local second player and the type AI companions provided in the likes of Oblivion and Fallout, are that the second player would be customizable, could better inetract and coordinate with you (since you can tell the person sitting beside you what it is you are planning to do), and might prove a more helpful ally overall in the long run. . . oh yes, and of course that they would yeild the emotional satisfaction of having adventured, quested, and solved mysteries with an honest to God comrade at arms, rather than with a pitiful simulated facsimilie thereof. Yet the main storyline, the questlines. . . they simply would not need to change. And the gamestory certainly would not need to be truncated, shortened or in any other way diluted.
Now, the programming details are a more relevant concern, but by no means a deal breaker. Making a new engine co-op ready might take some work, but this sort of programming is hardly some unheard of escoteric field of sorcerous study that only three people on Earth can do, and which costs a minimum of ten million dollars to implement. It might require additional costs in the tens of thousands. It might cause a few extra months of game development THE FIRST TIME AROUND (once the feature became a standard aspect of the engine and platform, the extra costs and time would dramatically decrease, as only tweaking would be required not overhaul). I also ocassionally hear worthless complaints like "How would the menu screens be managed?" I think that, just as studies suggest that too much texting has diluted peoples social skills, so to singleplayer gaming has damaged the ability of some to wrap their minds around co-operative play. If you are playing WITH someone, the sensible thing is for you to both pause occasionally (maybe at a coordinated silmutaneos time?) to do things like customizing and inventory. It isn't rocket science, nor is it something any even half-way reasonable pair of gaming companions will begrudge one another. When you want to play alone, play alone, when you want the pleasure of having a friend/relative etc. play with you, you make certain obvious allowences. But yes, programming and mechanics issues do exist, but the depth of difficulty related to them is often exaggerated by the enemies of co-op. And let us be clear, this boils down to a feature that legions would enjoy immensely, that many others would enjoy but could take or leave, and which a strident group vehemently opposes. . . but there are certain selfish and even illogical aspects to some of the opposition. To say that co-op in any form is an unnecessary distraction from the core game. . . . well what isn't? If Elder Scrolls were stripped down to the desires of a single unified minority/majority faction of core gamers (minorty as in a minority of overall players, but majority as in the single largest of a number of sub-factions) then any number of features might dissappear. You might end up with a game in which you could only play as a Nord or an Argonian, and in which at least two and maybe three of the major guilds might entirely dissapear. There might never have been a glimpse of Oblivion nor of ANY Daedra. And just forget about levitation. You see, all of these things requrire development time, some of them require story and plot resources, and they might all be dropped to better cater to a certain core. . . but where the devil would that leave everyone else?
I don't mind that there are people who are not interested in co-op. What bothers me is the false arguments, the hyperbole and the illusions that some of its opponents hide behind. It is not impossible to do, it could be done in a way that would not detract from the stories or the quest, that indeed would only add an element to them. . . . and it is no less a viable game option than being able to play as any one of several different races, or having different skills and occupations etc. There is no reason why it would be detrimental to gameplay etc. And as to it stealing resources from the perfect singleplayer experience. . . first, the goal should be the perfect RPG Gaming experience, but that said. . . what perfect expereince is being talked about. It seems to me to be this imaginary creature, the pursuit of which is only brought out to use as a reason to dispense with the implementation of co-op. Its almost like saying "if only the government would stop wasting their efforts in protecting stupid endagered eagles, they would be able to devote the resources needed to finally discover Rocs and HippoGriffins!" what "perfect singleplayer expereince" is it that co-op implementation would detain us from achieving? Would you know it if you saw it? And if it were realized and co-op were a part of its reality. . . would you still complain?
» Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:04 pm 
