I looked back on a thread I put up about co-op as a means as an online lobby for only you and someone else, a bit like fable 2/3 and how they done it, to the extent of having your friend as a companion. But then I came to the conclusion it is not needed as in both Morrowind and Oblivion it didn't matter. And the engine I have great belief they can get this game right now, not so many bugs this time (there is going to be bugs when its this big to be honest) and it apparently looks amazing so lets all have some hope in BSG.

The hostilty to co-op and/or multiplayer is due to the fact that this has been tossed out and about over and over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum. In Skyrim. In Oblivion. In Morrowind. In Redguard. In Battlespire (despite having an online capability....which didn't work that well in general). In Daggerfall. Arena was =intended= to be just that; an Arena with online or networked play...which the tech of the time didn't support, and so we got the game as it was. And the reasons for not having it have remained the same:

(1) Taking into account the fundamental design structures that almost all of the games have had, gamesas would have to build and maintain a server farm to hold the game world. With the expense of maintaining, upgrading, code patching, damage repairing, cheater chasing, and all the other fun things that every other MMORPG has to deal with. Which tends to be very expensive....so much so that future games simply don't get written, as all the resources are gobbled up by the initial game.

(2) The RPG elements were established by Ted Peterson and Ken Rolston; all of which have been balanced for -single player gaming-. Single player rules do not work in co-op or multiplayer. So you toss the years of documents and formulas, or you stick to what works.

(3) Network code =MUST= be worked in at the very beginning. As in at the design document stage. You can not purchase Uncle Bud's Nifty NIC Machine and plug it in as an afterthought and get anything but crashes and broken gameplay. If it ain't there right now, it will not be there.

(4) You design the game for the -most- capable platform, not the least. In this case, the good old PC. It is far easier to turn things off for a console release, than it is to write a PC enhanced module to plug into the game for those who don't use a PS3 or 360.

(5) Since Daggerfall (not sure about Arena), gamesas has used a cell structure to the game world. Hence the pauses for pre-loading nearby cells into memory as you move into a new cell. The only way for co-op to work is to either force the two player characters to cross into and out of the same cell at the same time, or make the cells small enough that you can have several loaded into active memory, making it possible for the characters to not be glued to each other (although highly doubtful they could ever be out of sight of each other).

On a personal note, is it not possible to leave =one= single player CRPG for those of us who don't want a 'social experience'?

This is only true for MMO games. For 2 player co-op a couple of reasonably capable desktop PCs would be perfectly able to support such a feature. It might even be possible to support 4 player co-op on LAN, though this is much less likely.


That depends on what kind of co-op we're talking about. If there is only one companion player, and they simply take control of an AI companion - with an AI companion's abilities and limitations, then the RPG elements would be exactly the same as for the singleplayer game. Of course, this might be too limited to be marketable, and it does suppose that it is possible in Skyrim, as in Fallout 3, to recruit a companion. If it is then the balancing has already been done.


This, I am sure, is very much the case. I don't believe for a moment that Bethesda have included the code necessary to synchronise the NPC behaviour or physics on two machines, let alone more. But that isn't to say they couldn't have, if they had wanted to.


In Oblivion (and Fallout 3) there are several cells loaded into memory at the same time. The cells are way too small for it to work any other way. In fact the player is at the (approximate) centre of a group of 36 cells. It is possible that any co-op companions could be allowed to travel around independently of the primary character, but it's true that would greatly increase the complexity of synchronising the game on the different players' machines.


Mass Effect 3? Dragon Age 2? The Witcher 2?

Anyway, relax. Either Bethesda have already put it in, or they're never going to. Either way it's out of our hands. But there's no harm in debating the desirability or practicality of such a feature, just for the interest of the debate .

True. But with co-op and console, you get into issues of split screen or ganged game units with independant monitors. Effects widescreen vs. NTSC would have on split screen. Sound control issues. etc.



Except that this would require them to redesign the game so that an AI is capable of being a 'player character' to begin with.....requiring them to either design or code the AI subroutines, or pay $$$$$ for one of the commercial AI game sdk's. Rebalance -all- the quests so that one =or= two active characters could solve them....and place limiters to prevent the actual PC from letting the AI do all the hard work. Again destroying game balance. AI bots can make a fun game (UnReal Tournament 2004, for example), but even in the shooters, bots can be maneuvered to do the dirty work, and this in games that are straight run and gun. Adding RPG elements to that mix ups the complexity several orders of magnitude.

True. Adding at least a year to the development cycle. Plus you get into the issue of how much bandwidth you'd need to synch all this. It might -require- a broadband connection to do it successfully.....

I doubt the synching would be the issue; memory pool size would be, particularly on consoles that can't be upgraded. And we both know that the co-op crowd wouldn't be satisfied unless they could part ways and hit from different directions......which could very easily exceed the primary character's cell load. So you would almost -have- to have independant cell pools for multiple player characters. On limited memory devices. Or else force the condition that dual player characters =must= occupy the same active cell. If the primary leaves it, the secondary is moved as well, no matter what it happening. And the bugs that could generate could be legion.....s

Yeah, I'm waiting on Witcher 2...... 8D But none of the above have the scope, the lore, the character of TES.

Oh, I'm relaxed. It was this or jump straight into the mature content threads, and I did that with Oblivion, so we start -here- this go around.......
Although I will suggest to all who think this kind of tech is 'easy', that you should get one of the freeware game engines (Crystal Space is a good one) and see just what it is you are suggesting. Cheat a little, even; get the basic GURPS manual and use those formulas and gameplay concepts. Script in Python. How hard can it be....?

I admittedly extracted 3 and 4 to address the others which were more pertinent to me.

To your first point, the reason that the pleas, pettitions and arguments for co-op keep coming up should be obvious enough. . . . those who have paused to consider what the game would be like if they could take a friend along as a companion realize how greatly the gaming experience would be enhanced for many, and thus have never given up the desire. We keep hoping, we keep pushing, and will continue to do so, even if it is a quest with little hope ( though certainly it should not be scant of hope and should one day become a reality). The repitition of the argument is no reason to greet it with hostility. Perhaps, instead of deriding it outright, you and others should consider the possible merits of it and the reasons why it remains a constantly advocated feature even in the face of excessively belligerent opposition. To ask why people would keep asking for a thing they greatly desire but have been denied is almost illogical. Would you ask people pursuing civil rights or voting rights, or even much simpler things, why they keep petitioning if they don't get it the first time? And why is this one feature singled out for such hostility? Do you give the same grief to people who want more in game authority for those who have achieved Guild Master status, or for those who wamt Sloads or some other such obscure race to be playable in the game?

To your first numbered point, tis moot in regards to this thread. I am speaking, as I have said before, only of drop in/ drop out local co-op in the vein of that seen in Fable III. Any arguments about MMORPGs and the like, and of the difficulties involved with them, are totally irrelevant here, as they were NEVER the topic of this conversation.

To your second point. . . a drop in/ drop out second player option would not significantly alter story line, or any other aspect of the single player mode. Both of the latter Fables and many other games that offer local co-op play exactly the same in both single and two player mode, save for the fact that in one format there is only you, and in the other there is a friend along. The game remains tailored to the first player, it is just that companionship is allowed, the experience can be shared, and player two gets to see and encounter all the wonders and horrors encountered by player 1. The storyline would not need to be replotted or resturctured. No more change to the story would be requried than is called upon when one of the AI companions offered in Oblivion is brought along, or a summoned creature. Indeed, it would be less problamatic, as a second player wouldn't run off attacking things against your wishes the way the AI sometimes does.

They don't need to be out of sight of one another if you are playing a couch co-op game. The whole point in playing that way is in having a companion.

And as to your last question, the simple answer is, as the game would still retain the single play option, you would still have your singleplayer experience. No one will force you to call upon any friend, relative, lover or acquaintance and play your game nor share your world with said individual. The co-op OPTION only means that any of the many who would love to do so can.

Well since they are using a different engine for the first time in a while I doubt they would go as far as co-op or even do any co-op whatsoever. If they even tried on a new engine I have no faith that Bethesda would do co-op well ever in my time. So the possibility of co-op I believe is nearly impossible but what the heck Bethesda surprise me!

A new engine actually makes me think it would be slightly MORE likely to be co-op rather than the reverse. I think co-op is unlikely, but if they ever did add it I really didn't think it would be on Gamebryo.

here you are wrong. you have two options. disable plugins when you are going to play multiplayer. and have a vanilla character ready for it anyway most people play the game vanilla first and then mod it. the other option if theres competitive multiplayer then you can do just as dark messiah and have pre prepared characters ready mages fighters archers assassins all ready for being picked up and fighting in arena.

Why do people act like mods make co-op a no go? Just....use the same mods. It's not rocket science.

Hi, I was going to post this on a newer topic post but it was closed before I finished typing it so forgive me if I'm just repeating what someone else said, I havn't had time to read this whole topic yet.

I have been thinking about the idea of multiplayer for a while now and here is my opinion. I think the only multiplayer aspect of the game should be an arena where you fight other players. Similar to the arena in Oblivian where you first join as a low rank then when you accumulate enough wins you advance to the next rank. The game should randomly choose your opponent out of people of similar rank and level as you. This is the only part of the game that I believe should have multiplayer and require internet access, and the only rewards from doing this is the fun of it and prestige of being a high rank. This is so the game can be equally fun and playable for people who either don’t have internet access or don’t enjoy multiplayer. Also any sort of cheating or mods should automatically disable the character they’re used on from the arena, but other than that you can bring anything you get from the offline world into the arena. I also think this would help motivate people to explore all they can and be as creative as possible with spellmaking and enchanting in order to try and get an edge over the other players. It also might be fun to have some SMALL team deathmatch type games (3v3 or 4v4 at most) just because everyone loves to play with their friends. I don't know how well this would work in the context of TES but it'd certainly be fun to try to make interesting combinations considering the amount of variation from player to player (for the team games). However I think the idea of a 1v1 arena with progressive rankings and leaderboards would be a great addition to the game, adding a whole new competitive aspect and opening up the series to a new type of player. The most important part would be to make sure that not competing in the arena doesn't detract from the single player game and that when choosing who you fight the computer ensures they are of both similar character level and ranking within the arena so you don't end up fighting someone who has enourmosly mroe pvp experience than you or whos gear is unfairly better. But anyways just my two cents, i'm very interested in everyone elses thoughts on this, and multiplayer in general.

meh co-op would be nice but i won't use it probably , so if it happens I'm cool with it, if not I'm also cool with it.

just hope the CS (construction set) is noob user friendly

I vote yes to co op and maybe some pvp, here is why. - If you don't like it Does NOT affect you! just don't play multyplayer then....but for the rest of us who want options and like to play with our friends it should be their.

You do not have to play online if you don't want to or at least they should design it that way. Maybe they should do something similar to demon's souls a great rpg, and the online was excellent.

A small co-op element might be nice, if it didn't feel tacked-on.

It might be fun to show some of my noob friends whose boss in a PvP arena! :lmao:

Personally I am not particularly interested in the arena fights against friends. Then it is just the equivalent of a mini ingame DOA or something. I do not begrudge you your desire for it, and I am fine with it if it can be done without cancelling other things, but my true hope and desire is for a drop in/ drop out couch co-op. To have a friend be able to be a true companion on the great quest, amidst the turmoils of guilds and the horrors of who knows where. . . it is just an awesome experience, one too seldom offered but glorious when given. I really would pay $100, even $150 for a full fledged TES with a couch co-op option. My friends and I might not play anything else for a year or more, so it would be worth such a large investment to me. What else is there for me to say.

Bioware will implement Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 and 2011 will be a very hard year for Bethesda if they choose a path without any multiplayer (co-op) options. Mass Effect 1&2 is already more popular and sells more than Fallout 3/Elder Scrolls.

Bethesda is not your dad or mum. Guys at Bethesda don't make this game to make you feel good. They're a company whose one and only aim is to profit. And they'll take every possible way to make sure they can.

Nah, no coop. It always seem to compromise the story for RPG's.

Yeh. Usually when a series goes co-op, it ends up getting more streamlined/dummed down. As much as I think it would be cool to have co-op, there's too much to do in order to make it work. Things such as interface issues for split screening, cell loading, stat tracking, and others come to mind. Too many people are under the assumption that making video games is easy, probably due to some kind of influence from the general public giving them the idea that games are for kids and the immature. Though this might not apply to the current day and age, but I can still imagine my parents telling me that 10-15 years ago. There's a lot of work to making a game, people need to realize that it's not as easy as they think.

Oh, and as a side note. Love the signature Bloodmoon. You should include Maiq in there somewhere. xD

Whats with the annoying size of text? I gave up reading it half way through.. but no, co-op would take way too many resources to develop and take away from the singleplayer experience

well, what about lan compabiliity at least?

there was even a version in oblivion by amateurs

Wow, I can't believe so many people are just so bull headed about ANY change at all.

I have allways thought, limited co op would be a blast to play. Just having a couple of friends popping in and then exploring the world together and having ifun.

For people who play games with their wives/husbands this would be a blast.

I don't see why so many people just HATE the idea of having optional mulitplayer in it. I'm not talking mmorpg anything, just 1-4 players max drop-in and drop out multiplayer to have fun with some friends.

-Sigh-
I'll link back to my first post on why any sort of multiplayer is harder to implement than many people here make it out to be.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1150059-the-engine-and-possible-co-op/page__view__findpost__p__16850166

Adding any sort of mutliplayer, especially now at this stage of the development, is NOT a simple "side-feature" addition. It has to be integrated throughout the game. With each additional player, there's more things that need to be calculated. Things that singleplayer games take for granted would have to be reconsidered just to add a second player, let alone more.

As long as it doesn't turn into another MMO, I'm fine with it. Co-op will be a nice feature for those who have consoles(I personally don't), just let them have fun.About the Arena battles/matches of some sort, it could be cool, if they menage to implement it well.Some people fear that the game will lose it's charm with the multyplayer and I agree to a degree.Co-op could be cool for those owning consoles so yeah, let them have fun.I don't really see whats the big deal.

Not interested in c0-op or a multiplayer option. Plenty of other games out there that do it, in a much better way than what Bethesda could implement in 10 months. Better to stick to their strengths and deliver a great single player adventure. Maybe for TES6?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lffwR5-U0YE

As far as i know Bethesda doesn't have any experience in multiplayer. For that reason and only that, I say no to co-op. Let them release one or two small titles with multiplayer to get to know the genre. I don't want TES -their flagship game- to be a test subject.

And by co-op it should be 2-4 players co-op max. Roleplaying doesn't mix well with multiplayer. More players and you might as well call it MMO or medieval call of duty.

On the other hand there could be minor multiplayer sections here and there. The whole arena matches could be online against real people but fully embedded in the game world (meaning no matchmaking screens etc). The game automatically matches you with another player of your skill and the winner continues in the quest to become the grand champion.