To wit, hidden valley of Elrond Half-Elven, my earlier comment, "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?" By setting out their goals for the game ahead of time, co-op included, they could make the best possible RPG experience, within the limits of their abilities, and still offer a co-op option i.e. dropping a second player into that awesome singleplayer experience, and changing nothing of quest or depth of story, save that you now have a companion.

On a seperate note, which I am almost loathe to addres. . . it seems that "wall of text" is a demeaning way to reffer to any argument thought out enough to encompass more than two paragraphs. As to the text, it seems when there is indeed a "text wall" a slightly enlarged font would be easier to read. I have seen all sorts of fonts and colour patterns in these forums. Generally, as long as I can still read it without great difficulty, I don't let it bother me, and I don't harangue them about it so as not to seem petty. But, to each his or her own.

I do agree, co-op could be cool. You could play the game together with someone and share the experience. Someone you know, not a stranger like in multiplayer. It would be a lot of fun. If they could do it without sacrificing any of the single player game, I would be more inclined to want it. I'm not convinced it can be, though. At least not yet. I don't personally understand the coding they do to create the game, but there seems to be some difficulty involved. I just want Skyrim to be a rockin' good game, so I want them to concentrate on what they know. Even rebuilt, and turbo charged, Gamebryo still has the same engine block. Maybe the game after Skyrim will have a brand new engine, and maybe next-gen, and then we'll be in a whole new world.

I'll try to explain my opinion. I'm a little hesitant about "co-op" because I don't like it's big brother "multiplayer", which I feel would change the character of the games. They're really beautiful games. Works of art to me. Multiplayer is shallow, and even at it's best is only a pale shadow of a good RPG. I'm a little worried that if co-op were brought in, then it's big bully of a brother would be next. It would have an influence, that, in my opinion, would harm TES. It's not rational, I know, but there it is.

Everyone's "perfect experience" is relative to them, and all those "perfect experiences" clash with swords drawn on the forum. We're all a bunch of jealous lovers, and we love these games. Don't expect lovers to think rationally.

Add: Sorry about the comment. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to the whole multiplayer thing.

If co-op really was all that easy to implent, then why is it not a standard in most Single player games? And why in the world didn't Naughty Dog make Uncharted 2 fully co-op compatible? Co-op should be MUCH easier to implent in a linear action game like Uncharted 2 after all, right? What ever people want to admit it or not, co-op costs time and money which could have been spend on making a even better single player game and Beth would also need to have co-op in mind when they design the gameworld, quests and write the story etc. So how could it not affect the single player? Ever tried to play Gears of War in single player? I tell you, it's not really all that damn funny though i don't doubt it would probably be a lot more enjoyable in co-op but sadly, that's just not my thing.

I thank you for this reply. And I agree with a lot of what you have said here, and completely understand the small amount that I don't agree with. I, like you, am not into massive multiplayer. I seldom even play it, and my xbox isn't consistently on live as I haven't the wi-fi and I uses the phone jack in my room where my box is. All that said, I love being able to play a great game with a friend, and all the more if that game is a sweeping, huge epic with oceanic depths of intrigue, and miles and miles of game beautiful game terrain (in game terms lol) to wander arcross. My clamouring for couch co-op, to be perfectly honest, will only become more fervid as the singleplayer version of these games become more astounding. . . because the more awesome that world is for my solo character, the more profound my desire to share that world and experience with a friend becomes. I have played games with co-op where I loved the experience and only wished the world was more vast, the customization more thorough. I have played alone in awsome worlds and thought "this is exactly the type game I have longed to explore with a friend." and yet not had the option of doing so. I always took the excuse in the past that the engines just were not up to providing both an epic, longrunning, quest filled, lore heavy game AND supporting a second player. But now increasingly, as the engines become more and more advanced, and the technology and technicians have more and more tools and skills, that argument seems ever less plausible. I recently played through Fable III and found in it two-thirds of the things that naysayers once told me would never be, 1) a fairly sizable and reasonably beautiful (graphic and design wise) world, and one of if not the most perfect, highly custumizable drop in/drop out couch co-op system I have seen. It did not have the longest play imaginable, but, contrary to the hype, neither did its singleplayer predecessor (infact, Fable I was far smaller in terms of the game world (faaaaar smaller) and offered less custom options for the one player you did have). And now all doubt is dead. Progammers know how to arrange a near flawless drop in drop out mechanism in the next gen consoles. They did a fairly good job in the old Baldurs Gate Games, but it exist in next gen, without the ugly arial view and with far greater capacity.

I don't want to see Elder Scrolls lose any of what they have offered. I don't want them to start trying to revamp the game to cater to a bunch of players, or twist the storylines. . . I want them to take the same basic game type they have given with Morrowind and Oblivion, improve the graphics to stay in step with the times, give a little more in the way of replayable missions, and yes, make it possible for my friend, instead of looking at me play the game and saying "aww, that looks cool" to sit down, turn on the second controller, choose a race and the ways of fighter, mage or thief, and come along with me on my great adventure, as a magician in a famed genre novel once told an endangered unicorn, "Take me with you, for luck, for laughs, for the unknown." Being that your screenname is Rivendell, I am guessing you won't miss this refference. "Mr. Gandalf. . . he has some sense; and when you saiid 'go alone' he said 'No! take someone as you can trust.'" Or a Merry told Frodo, "We're you're friends Frodo. . . It all depends on what you want. You can trust us to stick with you through thick and thin to the bitter end. . . but you cannot trust us to let you face trouble alone and go off without a word."
Now I have no interest in turning ES into LOTR, whatever similarities they may have and whatever moderate homage one might owe the other. Nor is it my intent to be a sap. But where epics and great sweeping sagas are concerned, the road can oft turn very lonely, and a companion, a REAL companion, can be a wonderful thing can have, heightening the wonder and the drama of the experience, and enhancing the experience overall through the sheer act of sharing it. I hope that ability will one day feature in the Elder Scrolls game, not because I want people to be cheated out of a great singleplayer experience, but because I would like the option of sharing that great experience with a friend from time to time.

Multiplayer sounds good to me, Obviously there would be compromises because of it, but Multiplayer Arena fights anyone?

Because it's a feature that doesn't need to be in the game, as it adds nothing to the core gameplay. Therefore, we don't want Bethesda wasting resources (time, money, coders, etc.) on a feature that most would deem worthless. They need to concentrate ALL of their resources on the gameplay features that will actually MATTER, and that will drive the entire experience of playing the game.

To be perfectly honest, I would be willing to take a small hit to the single player experience, if that is what it took to get co-op in. However, I see no reason why a hit need be taken. To me, (and 100% of my real-life friends who play RPGs, co-op would make us [censored] our pants in ecstasy.) It wouldn't just make the game a little bit more fun....like 10% more fun to play...It would make it like 500% more fun to play, for many people. I'll tell you right now I'd pay $1,000 without batting an eye for even Oblivion being coop, let alone Skyrim.

It'd be like the ultimate roleplaying experience.

Just imagine being able to run full conversion mods of the world however you wanted. Create your own game universe, give your friends mansions in your kingdom. It's like the next evolution of tabletop RPG gaming with the modder as the DM.

They should just build in support for network games in to the engine (so not in to the game). And let the community make something of it.

The reason why multiplayer Oblivion never really worked is because the engine doesn't support it at all.

If the community makes a multiplayer mod the following will happen:

+ Bethesda will be clear that even though the engine supports it the game was never made to be multiplayer and that they will not support any multi player mods.

+ When playing a mod made by the community people are much more likely to accept problems and flaws in the game then if its made by the developer.

+ Bethesda doesn't have to change anything in their game to make multiplayer possible. The game should be a great singleplayer experience like the ones before them so if quests don't work in multiplayer then its not their problem.

+ It will be a great way to test the actual interest in a multiplayer version of TES. If the multi player mod is successful Bethesda could consider adding it themselves either in Skyrim or in the next TES game.

Looks like a win win situation for both Bethesda and the community to me

End of argument for the ill informed who underestimate the work involved with properly implementing a co-op.

edit]


This I would support.

An arena would be too imbalanced IMO. It's too easy for someone to cast a paralyze spell and just start wailing on you. TES wasn't meant for that kind of multiplayer, and it would take a drastic change in game style/mechanics to cater to the multiplayer. Then there'd be the whole "Host Advantage" stuff, and if not that, then there would have to be servers, which in term means they'd have to deal with upkeep. Maintaining a multiplayer is much different than maintaining a single player game.

TES was just plain not built to implement multiplayer. The "local muliplayer/co-op" that some are talking about right now seems plausible, but probably not easily implemented. There would have to be serious drawbacks on other parts of the game to account for multiplayer/co-op. We have to remember that this game is being developed for 3 different platforms, each with different specs than others, and they may or may not be drastically different than others. The game has to be optimized for each system, and the PC section has a LARGE spectrum of different specs. Not to mention that the 360 and PS3 are no longer "new" as many PC's can surpass their specs quite easily. Hell, my laptop runs all the multi-platform games better than my 360 or my dad's PS3.

Now optimizing these games for these systems mean they often have to take something out so the system can run the game efficiently. Some things I can think of are the Distance that various areas of the game are displayed (some systems can't take much, and what general gamer would want to play a game where they experience a lot of pop-ins and limited view?), or changing the UI to account for different control schemes (I've heard many people complain that the Oblivion UI was built for consoles and wasn't very intuitive for PC gamers.)

The distance problem could be fixed by sectioning off the game, so not there's not a large environment or consistent loading that needs to be done, with loading being done between sections (as seen in Fable). But TES has grown a reputation of having a vast open landscape, with no real loading screens as you wander the wilderness, just a whole bunch of passive loading in the background. I doubt they'll be changing that bit anytime soon.

Each system plays the game differently, but the game designers have to work to provide the same gameplay in each.


So what does it take to create Skyrim and adding in multiplayer at various stages of it's development?

• First Stage: Planning and brainstorming begins.
  
  They'd have to plan out some of the main features they want. They want an invetory system, stats, skill equipment, character customization, large open landscapes, NPC's, monsters, Dialogue, combat, etc, etc.
  
  (Adding the idea of multiplayer in now is the best time to do it. Here, you can decide the basic concepts of how the mutliplayer would be displayed, depending if it's local or through online. If it's local, how should the screen be divided up for the best experience. How should stats be tracked for both/all players? Should the players be confined to the same area, or are they allowed to free roam throughout the entire landscape? If it's confined, how big of an area must they be confined in? Can different players be in different cells at the same time [such as one outside and one inside]? Stuff like this has to be considered early on, so as to give the Engine developers and idea of what to expect.)
  
  
  
• Second Stage: Engine building begins.
  
  With this in mind, they can now tell the programmers what they expect the engine to handle/be capable of. (Since this is an engine built from within the company and not outsourced/already built, the programmers are able to get notice of what their engine is expected to do and build around those expectations.) They can begin on building the engine to incorporate all the planned features.
  
  While this is happening, the other teams start to build their concept art and work on the content that will make up the game. (During the engine making stage, there is more need for programmers and less need for anything else really, which means the others can branch off onto different games. Since Skyrim has been in development since Oblivion, it's safe to assume that much of the manpower went to Fallout 3.)
  
  (Adding the idea of multiplayer during this process is still possible, though more demanding than if it had been planned early on. Not all the coding has been finalized yet, so implementing it now would be easier.)
  
  
  
• Third Stage: Content Creation Begins.
  
  Years and months have passed and the basic engine is done. Extra features can still be added, but drastic ones would take up time and resources as code has to be rewritten to account for it. This is generally not a problem as much of the general gameplay had been planned for in the First Stage, and can easily be accounted for.
  
  Work on the Construction Set is being done, and Fallout 3 is finished. Manpower drifts back into Skyrim, and more content is planned. A lot of concept work in this Stage. Some work done on ingame visuals. (Textures and Meshes and stuff like that.)
  
  (Adding in multiplayer at this stage would require rewrites and tweaks. The engine wasn't built to handle multiple player characters roaming around, and all the decisions made on multiplayer gameplay have to be made now instead of in the First Stage, which means more time and resources consumed. Release date possibly delayed by months.)
  
  
  
• Fourth Stage: Content Implementation Begins.
  
  All aspects of the engine are generally finalized. Small addons and tweaks are still possible with minimal damage being done. Some Programmers are deviated towards bug testing.
  
  The Construction Set is finished. Content is now being created within the game. Play-testing is now possible. Soundtracks are worked on, search for Voice Actors begin, extensive work on in-game visuals. Pretty much the world is being created now.
  
  (Adding in multiplayer at this stage would require MAJOR rewrites and tweaks. Too much is unaccountable at this stage, and the game will definitely miss it's intended release date. Time spent on bug testing is spent on reworking the engine for multiplayer. A lot of resources and manpower must be diverted, and other areas will begin to suffer, maybe not greatly, but it will probably be noticeable. Release date WILL BE delayed for some months.)
  
  (Additionally, during this stage in development more decisions have to be made as gameplay can actually be witnessed. If one PC activates a conversation with an NPC, do we force the other PC to stop in their tracks? If they are allowed to continue roaming, are they allowed to activate conversation with another npc at the same time? What happens if both PC's try to activate the same NPC? Is friendly fire a feature? If so, is it optional? Stuff like this has to be considered as well, particularly at this stage as gameplay can now be seen, and these are small coding tweaks.)
  
  
  
• Fifth Stage: Polishing and Bug Testing.
  
  Engine is completely finalized, small tweaks to balance gameplay are done at this time. More Programmers are moved towards bug testing.
  
  Visual Content is generally finished. Soundtracks are generally finalized. Voice Acting has been underway or it now begins.
  
  Game Marketing begins, Release date possibly announced.
  
  (Adding multiplayer at this stage is crazy. It might work if you're lucky, but it will most likely be poorly implemented and other areas will suffer if they are to meet their deadline. If not, it just means more resources have to be diverted, and a delayed release by a year at most.)
  
  
  
• Final Stage: Home-Stretch
  
  If not already announced, the Release Date will be announced at the beginning of this stage.
  
  All teams work for longer hours and in over-drive to complete and polish all aspects of the game. Poor planning and organization of time will show here as employees are forced to work around the clock to catch up before the release date. Everything is completed, and any new additions are scrapped at this point to meet the deadline. If deemed important enough, the deadline will be delayed to implement these final additions.
  
  (Adding mutliplayer here is impossible without delaying the release date and eating up much needed resources that have probably already been spent. If we haven't seen it by now, it ain't happening. Period.)

Before you guys judge, this is an EXTREMELY over-simplified process of making a game. Making a game is much more complex than this, and many of the stages can be mixed around, such as bug-testing. That can (and probably is) done throughout the entire process, from beginning of the game to the end. And the Planning can (and usually does) go on past the First Stage. Each studio/company makes games differently, and the process to make a game is different between each game. The process I've listed doesn't even include the work needed to optimize the game on each system. So please understand that this is just a simplified version to help explain my point.

It's not as easy as you think to add a game feature half way through the process, and IT DOES eat up resources that might be better spent elsewhere.

So my actual point is this: If they planned for it from the beginning, then hurray! But if not, I'd rather they spent their time refining the single-player game.



****Side Note****
Sorry for the big block of text guys, I had a lot on my mind. I tried to keep it organized to ease the reading. Surprisingly enough, I actually had a lot more to say, but I felt that this post was getting way to long, so I'll end it here.
But yah, I can't claim to be an expert on Game Design, not in the least. I just started college for crying out loud, but I do understand that a lot of work goes into making a game, and none of it is easy. So sympathize with the game designers, they don't have it as easy as you would think.
And I might be a few posts behind as I started this thing 2 hours ago. Hehe. :tongue:

It really bothers me when people talk about it not "needing" to be in the game. Nothing "needs" to be in the game. There doesn't eve "need" to be a game if you want to take that route. And having the game, you don't "need" to have upwards of 7 race choices, you don't "need" to have all the guilds, you don't "need" to have all the magic and clothing options, or the AI companions, or the lore, and so on and so forth. The whole business is about what people enjoy and what makes sense in the games. Machine guns wouldn't make sense. New spells and Daedra/Aedra involvement would. Co-op, especially in couch, makes perfect sense in a sprawling adventure game, and would be vastly enjoyable to many. The only question is if and how it could be implemented without detracting from other main features of the game. Most would not deem it worthless, either, that is just a cheap way of demeaning everyone who has desires regarding the game that don't mesh with your own. I could say Argonians are a worthless waste of a playable game race, as I find them both unpleasant to look at and unappealing to play, but that doesn't make my calling them worthless right, nor does it negate the loads of people who love playing as them.

Man! The Following to you, Ahem! : :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :goodjob: :foodndrink: :hugs:

That depends on the specificty of the question asked. Co-op and multiplay can both have a HOST of meanings, you know it and I know it, and not all of them would effect the games in the same ways. Some would have a relatively limited effect, even negligible, some would effect it on a massive scale, lets not act like they are all equal as a way of maintianing the argument as an unbreachable wall.

I absolutely agree with the pro-co-op talk. I also understand why a lot of people are against it.

Co op is an investment, of time, resources, and manpower. (all of which are the same entity in game production studios). However, if bethesda could at the very least, import multiplayer code, that would allow modders to do something with it. Oblivion has had reverse engineering mods for co-op in limbo for
a very mature child's lifetime. And the modders still can't pull it together (I do not blame them). A game engine with absolutely no mp code and as complex as oblivion, no.

Bethesda, check out this thread. Assuming that even happens.

There are many people saying they would pay 10 times the games worth to have co-op. I would.


This is why:

We are not talking about multiplayer, battle arena's, or massively multiplayer gaming. Two people. Max. That's all we want. Roaming the landscape with a significant other. It's a dream that has NEVER, been met. By any company. Two worlds 1 and 2 are broken, and offer segmented sections of a world.


Never has a whole interactive world been made co-op, not with any depth anyway. (Saints row 2 is not depth).


And that depth, is very much the very thing that would be hard to implement. So the chances of that happening, are about, zero.

However, if someone could sneak some multiplayer backbone in there, modders will lap it up. And co-op will be very possible.

I still enjoy singleplayer elder scrolls games, but running around in exactly the same world, with a friend, would be groundbreaking.

Great post. It would be groundbreaking. The basics would be far from unprecedented and the implementation far from impossible or unheard of, yet it would be a new gold if not platinum standard in both RPGs and co-op play. Everything you said about the awesomeness of wandering a deeply interactive world like that found in Elder Scrolls Morrowind and Oblivion WITH a traveling companion. Within certain limitations it can certainly be done. And yes, I and many of my friends would indeed pay more than the normal asking price to lay hands upon it. More on this later. Love the post,.

You're not going to get a friendly reception advocating multiplayer in the elder scrolls forums. Just saying... and for the record, NO.

Not only this, I think there's one other oversight a lot of people are making.... As this doesn't necessarily apply to the console players, it would be nigh impossible to have co-op or multi player on the PC. I, for one, am going to have mods. Lots of them, in all likelihood. As are a ton of other people. But, say, I have this really sick sword that I modded myself, and enter this "arena" or whatever... Now, I don't have said sword, because you don't have the mod I have. I just appear to be swinging a big question mark in your face. Co-op equals no addition of mods. Which, considering the past ES games, that'd equal stupid.

Not many on the PC would willingly give up mods to see co-op come into play. On the consoles, hey, who cares. They're willingly missing out on a world of fun vs. the PC anyway.

Some of the responses from people who are anti co-op being implemented reminds me of like black students in the 60s trying to go to college in the deep south. Like, "We don't take kindly to you people 'round these parts!" "I needs no explainin why I JUST HATES ME SOME MULTIPLAYER!!"

I think there's really only one valid argument against co-op, and that is that it could somehow detract from the single player experience...therefore...I think that this question of whether or not it would is the only one worth debating.

It isn't about a friendly reception, nor is it supposed to be. And I am advocating two player couch co-op, not any other varient of multiplayer. I am inclined to ask though, what is the purpose of this statement, and why should the response be hostile. This is a game. And this forum is for people who play the game, or are interested in the game, to converse about, amongst other things, things they might like to see in future installments. There are many people, most not even represented in forums, who, loving the gaming experience offered in Elder Scrolls as they do, harbour a deep desire to share that experience with a friend in a companion style co-op mode. It is fine for you to be uninterested in such an option. What is not fine is to demean or treat other players as patently "wrong" or foolish for desiring such an option. It is no more improper and no more illogical for people to desire co-op in Elder Scrolls than are the desires of the many hardcoe ES gamers in these forums who wish to play as Sloads, or who like the option of playing as Argonians, or who desire Aedra Quests, or more detailed Daedric Shrines, or the return of levitation spells, or the ability to fly, or dart throwing or any of the other host of game features that people express a desire for every day on these forums without receiving vitriolic flack for advocating. And for the record, there are a great many for whom the ineffably magnificfent experience of sharing a sweeping, broad world, intricately layered, highly customizable world like that of Elder Scrolls with a real friend in real time would give far more value and pleasure than all of those other mentioned features combined and supplemented with a thousand dollar bonus gift.

It is beyond obnoxious :poke: and deeply offensive for anyone to say that a feature, especially one as basic and as commonly mentioned as co-operative play, is useless or without value in a game, simply because it is a feature you are not personally interested in. That is not a logical argument, and certainly it is not a good one. Arguments about resources and technological limitations at least have some merit, but not as much as those pushing them would have others believe, because even those obstacles are far from insurmountable, and they become less and less significant as time progresses. Yet at least the tech and resource arguments have some basis in logic. "I hate co-op and ES doesn't need it" is not a logical argument. Really it is just an outburst, and the latter half is entirely subjective. Of Course TES doesn't need it. . . it doesn't need multiple race choices, it doesn't need guilds, it doesn't need side quests, it doesn't need a vast array of weapons and an even more vast array of spells, it doesn't even need to exist. The question is, what features can it accomodate to appeal to the widest array of gamers, and to please the widest range of those who have followed, bought and supported the game, while remaining true to the general spirit of the Elder Scrolls game world. And let me be clear Not having a basic drop in/ drop out co-op mode has NOTHING to do with remaining true to the general spirit of The Elder Scrolls gaming world, and would not seriously effect it save to expand the playing pleasure and value of the game for hundreds of thousands of people and more. Turning the game into an FPS, making it futuristic, severely re-writing the lore without careful explanation, taking away the lore and the books and the Daedra and the quests and the guilds, these things would alter the spirit of the game world.. . . making it so that a friend can go along with the first player in the very same gaming world to experience the same types of encounters and quests. . . no, that certainly does not malign the spirit of Elder Scrolls, especially when the co-op mode would be ENTIRELY OPTIONAL and one could always play alone if it pleased them. Just because a feature has not yet been implemented does not mean it would go against the general spirit of the game. An actual second player option would be little more than an improvement and expansion upon the existing AI companions. To say that it would violate the spirit of the game would be like saying having spells to summon Winged Twilights, Valkynaz and Ogrim would violate the spirit of the games simply because those specific Daedra have not had summon spells offered for them previously, even though many other types of Daedra could be summoned.

It has become increasingly clear that, for some of the enemies of co-op, it is not even entirely about whether or not the game offers it or what that would mean logistically. . . it is simply about winning, about drowing out and subjecating all who have the nerve to hold different desires and opinions regarding the games than they themselves hold. And from the rude, belligerent comments that some of the anti-co-op group have made, I have to wonder if the reason some of them have no use for co-operative play is due to the type of hampered social skills that equate to an inability to play well with others. That does not go for all who are not interested in co-op, but for those who seem to revel in the notion of seeing it denied to those who desire it, and to those who act as though any who wish to have it are somehow deranged. . . . draw your own conclusion.

I am strongly against multiplayer in the TES. There are not 2, 3, 4, or 5,000,000 chosen ones.

however, I might be content with a small (2-3) adventure party setup.

If they somehow made it possible for Skyrim to have LAN parties, then I'm all in for it. I think having a party of you and your friends would be amazing, especially questing through Skyrim, and having multiple classes at your disposal to handle whatever task is at hand. But I can just see too many complications what with the hugeness of TES games, and that most of your actions are permanent (the biggest issue being guilds).

You don't have to be chosen to be a valuable companion, nor to enhance the gaming experience for the two persons playing the game, nor to interact and make the game overall more enjoyable, and certainly not to assuage the loneliness of the long questing and wondering alone. Neither Gandalf nor Sam were "chosen" to bear the ring. That said Gandalf was actually more consequential, in his way, to the war of the ring via his 2000 years toiling towards the defeat of Sauron, than was Frodo. And he was certainly more powerful. Sam kept Frodo's bacon out of the fire many times. . . and was, most importantly, an essential and valuable travelling companion. In the Potter Series Harry is "the chosen one" but that does not make Hermoine or Ron irrelevant. There are lots of "chosen figures" in legend and myth, and most of them have famous companions without whom their quests and adventures would have been less sucessful. . . and doubtless far more tiresome and lonely.

The more I think about it, the more I desire to have co-op in this game. It would truly be the first cooperative open RPG of its kind, and would not only appeal to hardcoe roleplayers, but casual gamers as well. I bet none of you saw that coming.

I am 100% certain that the reason most opponents of the OP don't want co-op is the fact that they have NO FRIENDS to play with. Sorry that you don't have anyone to co-op with, but don't rain on our parade please. This is a good idea, and has never been done before.

Overall, this would be a huge step forward in gaming, so I hope Bethesda at least puts in the framework for some co-op so modders can take care of it

Haters gonna hate...

I thought the development stage was almost finished?
So unless BGS has already developed it (which i highly doubt as they never seem to be interested in making TES anything but a single player game), I really don`t see them spending more time and resources on adding a Co-Op mode to be honest.

It doesn't matter if the added co-op. If just one little thing was missing that people wanted they would immediately blame it on Bethesda for wasting their time and resources on co-op. The little thing that would be missing probably wouldn't have been in the game anyway.

With that said, I would love a 2-4 player co-op feature. I would be happy with just a 2 player co-op feature. In Oblivion, I've done everything I could think possible and I can hardly pick it up for more than 30 minutes at a time anymore. However, if I could bring in a friend the re-playability would instantly shoot up for me. Don't get me wrong, I've put in countless hours into Oblivion. I could put in countless more with co-op.

That's just my opinion, though. I'll be buying Skyrim regardless because TES series is practically the only reason I'm into gaming. <3TES