4-5 programmers? your slightly delusional arnt you? writing code and squashing bugs for something as complex as multiplayer online is a huge endeavor bugs alone would take almost a year to sort out, Now i write alot of code (Comp Sci Major) in c++ C# and Python, c++ is what 90% of games are written in to get a working online multiplayer component isnt a 4-5 person job it isn't even a 10-15 person job the amount of engineers needed to get working multiplayer component up to the standards of modern gaming would take a HUGE amount of man hours and engineers especially when starting from scratch, BGS is a little over 100 people that means if you tasked 20 people for online multiplayer (probably about right maybe more for test) you would be taking 20% of the studio to work on your component.... tell me single player (the core of the whole experience) wouldn't suffer from that.




and you tell me how big Treyarch's Multiplayer devision is? and how big is the studio as a whole? oh thats right they have ....250 people thats more than DOUBLE BGS's size

Yet it is those very differences which make the reward of co-op in an RPG so much more rewarding than in an FPS. You are really taking a friend along as a compainion into a world/life expereince in an RPG, not just having a second gun in a shoot out. Mysteries shall be unravaled together, secluded realms inspected, great achievements made etc.

As to balance problems mentioned by another poster, I doubt they would present nearly the difficulty being suggested. If spells are that polar opposite in effect, the second player would simply not be able to cast that spell whilst the first players was functioning, just like you cannot cast certain ranged spells underwater. I dare say a number of you make a great deal more of the potential problems of co-op implementation than there actually is to them. Also, I will add that the notion of "making the singleplayer experience better" is a red herring argument. The "perfect singleplayer experience" is an island on the distant horizon. . . an island that floats away from the pursuer at a constant rate. The developers could add co-op whilst still exploring the perfect game experience. A game that is perfect in co-op will be no less perfect for a single player, save that it might at times be a tad lonlier. Also the developers pursuit should be the perfect Game, not just the perfect singleplayer experience ( as if such a thing exists), and the perfect game allows the option of co-op for the legions who desire it, just as it allows you to play as a mage if you don't want to be a barbarian, or as a human if you don't like the notion of playing as an orc. To say the effort of making the game have a local co-op option would waste resources better used towards a better gaming experience is little different from me saying, "I like playing as a mage, and so they should dispense with things like Fighter's guild quests so they can focus on a better gaming experience and Mages GUild quest etc." Or, "I like playing as an elf, so they should not put a load of energy into creating skins and the like for stupid argonians and orcs etc. on this new engine, and should instead invest those resources into the following. . . " In short, when looked at objectively, it is seldom considerate to push for limitations on the options of others based upon the fact that you yourself have no desire to excercise those particular options.

Also, it would be best to be more conservative in claiming what a majority of players want or don't want. Elder Scrolls, like most other popular videogames from Fable series to Halo and beyond, have millions of players, only the most minute fraction of which ever poll and post on these forum sites (namely, hardcoe players with a deep connection/interest in the games who come to praise, deride, or push their desires unto the current game or future installments). If a poll of all people who had ever played or bought an Elder Scrolls game were given and the issue of multiplayer were brought up, the majority would likely want it, as most gamers tend to like the option of playing with friends. "No co-op" is a phrase almost never uttered by any except for hardcoe RPG players ( and even amongst us it is far from a universally agreed upon position), some of whom only say it out of dogmatic ridgitity and would be hard pressed to give any solid reasons if asked.

Also, could we dispense with this false equivalancy comment of "there are other games out there for co-op", no Not like Elder Scrolls there aren't There is no game I know of that is quite like Elder Scrolls yet allows for co-op play. Yes there are other RPGs which do, mostly on older engines. And of course, there are the latter Fable games, which are great in their own right, but different in some ways from Elder Scrolls, and certainly not as extensive. Co-op in Elder Scrolls would, at present, be a unique gaming experience. Unique and wonderful. I will not hold my breath for it. . . but I would love to see it. It would be as near as any game has yet come to The Gaming Promised Land. :celebration:

I'm very divided over multiplayer.

Me and a good friend are both obsessed with TES, and we've spent many an hour talking about it, and from one side it would be awesome to play with him.

But from the other side, most games with co-op tend to become co-op games. What I mean by this is that most features and quests become geared towards having more than one person, and I don't want that.

It would be very hard to implement multiplayer and retain the feel of the game, so I think overall it would be better to leave it out.

I would, however, like to see a way for you to pit your character against friends. Some kind of arena battle system, maybe. That way the main game has the same feel it always has, but would settle arguments between friends about who's character would win a fight.

Co-op, if done well, would be an extremely fun addition to the game.

While it is not the biggest priority to me, I've definitely always wanted to play an Elder Scrolls game with some of my friends that love the series as well.

Many people seem to be against this, but it would definitely add to replay value.

Haters gonna hate!

The point that a lot of people are trying to make is that the absence of multiplayer is one of the reasons WHY The Elder Scrolls is different from other games, that you can't have the best of both worlds and get the focus on the singleplayer experience and co-op at the same time, and that they'd rather keep it that way and maintain a game unlike others instead of adding multiplayer and getting one like everything else.

As far as I'm concerned, co-op would actually be pretty cool... as long as it doesn't take away from the single player experience. I'm willing to bet they have a companion system built into Skyrim, so it really wouldn't be a major stretch to have your buddy play with you, as opposed to a NPC companion. Hell, as long as they don't make it some crap MMO, I'll be happy. Did I mention I hate MMOs?

I would like to see a co-op feature put into the game.

If you want to play the game in single player, go right ahead, no one at all is forcing you to play with someone else. But the option to have a friend play with you, would be a great addition even if it breaks the lore/immersion.

Yes, yes, only as long as it doesn't detract from the single player experience as well. (The arguments against optional co-op are so predictable...)

To invite a friend or two to enjoy my world with me, maybe kill some stuff together, maybe kill eachother. It would add a lot of fun I think.
But this is Bethesda, it will NEVER happen...

And its an all new engine developed in house, so I don't think that means a modified unreal engine....


For the record, multiplayer != MMO
And an MMO would svck indeed

I'd like the option for both couch and online Co-Op, limited to two-four players. I love the old party based RPG's and the TES universe would be fun to have multi player adventures in. I'd prefer online since I can still role play without the inevitable immersion breaking aspect of some one sat beside me. I will never understand why people are so against it, just because its there it doesnt mean it's a mandatory aspect of game play.

Exactly my thoughts.

It gives some people the option, and for those who use the option it would greatly enhance gameplay (we hope)

Coop...mmm....I really, really, really don't want it, but I guess as long as it wouldn't take too much development time away from single player I could live with it. Besides, not everybody would be working on coop, just certain people.

But how would it work for those using mods?

I can see only one way in which co-op would work and I don’t expect Beth to put the time in to make that happen.

First I want to say I’m one of those oldschool PC types that would normally bash Oblivion but I loved Oblivion especially with mods. For it to work you need to think pre-Oblivion where you had a lot of conflicting factions that one guy couldn’t join. So first you have to have a lot of missions that one PC could not do.

Second it would have to be online because split-screen is an eyesore to many and sharing a 3rd person cams is worse. If its online you need to be able to share the story with either 1-3 other people and you need a way to allocate quest to certain players and schedule co-op adventurers.

Third you need adventurers that are made with co-op in mind. You would have to completely alter the quest structure. This is the hardest part.

Fourth. You have to dump lvl scaling. That would be a mess when the lvls fluctuate.

Do that and you have the chance at something special because the game plays a lot like an MMO anyway.

Mods does throw a wrench in the system, but it could work in a few ways...
1. Mods don't load for Co-op
2. Mods for the main player (assuming someone is jumping into someone elses world) are loaded by both players
3. All mods used by all players are loaded by all players (definetly glitchy, bad idea)
4. Whoever "creates" the game gets to choose different options when the game becomes Co-op, one such option could be a list of acceptable mods.

Maybe something like that?

Well we actually had multiplayer for a TES game. Battlespire. I am guessing it didn't do to well because it was to hard to use at the time. I forget what the details entailed, but now that it would be free on PC and PS3 and on the 360 would be free if using split screen or system link while using Live Gold if using Xbox Live.

So would this co-op be just paring up and helping each other, or would we actually be able to battle each other? If the Single player aspect was done first, then I would like multiplayer afterwards. It has been proven time and time again, the single player aspect suffers because of multiplayer. So if the Single player doesn't suffer, then I would say yes to co-op but seeing how bethesda failed misreably with Battlespire, I believe they should just concentrate on the single player experiance. If anyone wants multiplayer, then other games are avaliable for that.

Not always, but usually. A lot of games have gotten it right, but usually only after practice...

Still, they have had enough time to work on it, and thats time for testing maybe?
And even if they did, it would be a small and miniscule, and likely crappy, piece of the game, Bethesda would never harm the single player aspect...

Indeed, Mod's would present a problem. But I'm sure it could be worked out, maybe some lobby system that could incorporate something akin to the Oblivion mod manager. It could search for mods in common and only activate them.

For example:

Player 1's active mod list:

FCOM
Rens hair pack
Open Cities
Deadly Reflex

Players 2's active mod list:

OOO
Open Cities
Underworld armour
Lost elf race pack

Mods active for the multiplayer game:

OOO (since its a part of FCOM)
Open Cities



In my opinion, it's do-able. Maybe with some difficulty and head scratching, but our modding community is surpassed by none.

Then theres mods that could be considered client side, such as graphic and texture improvement mods which have no effect on actual game play mechanics, these shouldnt be taken into account when trying to match up mods.

Now that I think of it, I'm almost positive i've seen something like this in another game. Its going to be nagging at me for days until I remember what game that was..

To be honest, I'd rather like them to focus in the single player... TES has never had multiplayer and it would be pretty damn hard to make a decent one so the game it self would be worst D:

I Think that the Multiplayer aspect of TES: Skyrim should be held tightly, for example maybe not playing alongside eeachother slaying dragons and trolls but maybe perhaps some sort of online marketplace (Grand Exchange - Runescape) that would profit all player be they multiplayer or single player.


Opinions?

Gold.

There is no multiplayer aspect. A marketplace is a cool idea, but any multiplayer beyond that would completely destroy what BGS is set to accomplish with Skyrim and TES in general. TES has never been and will never be about multiplayer. It's about fantastic single player RP, story and experience.

I was going to post this in the Skyrim - Multiplayer thread but since it got locked i'm just gonna post it here instead. :shrug:

I think one of the reasons Oblivion (and many other good single player games) work so well is because the developers don't have to worry about multiplayer. What often happens when developers decide to add some kind of multiplayer to a good single player game is that the single player part suffers greatly and most of the time, the multiplayer part isn't exactly something to brag about either. If Oblivion had been a multiplayer game, it would have been a completely different game. You can't deliver the same experience games like Morrowind and Oblivion gives you through a MMO or even Co-op. The very construction that makes these games so damn good prevent this because they are build around you and only you. What i'm trying to say is, think about it. It would no longer be The Elder Scrolls. And i don't care about the people who don't want to buy the game because it lacks multiplayer and neither should Bethesda. If they can't accept that, the game isn't for them anyway. Bethesda can't please all and shouldn't try.

Sadly it's like talking to a wall with these kids who keep on screaming for their candy, who seem to think that developing a co-op would be no major task and that it wouldn't detract from the single player game.

Bethesda does not have unlimited development resources, they can't just keep opening up cans of devs whenever they feel like adding another feature. And developing a properly implemented co-op takes many many many man-hours, it is not a walk-in-the-park task. So, there is not one single doubt that developing such a co-op would in terms of available man-hours for development detract from the main single player experience. Simpel basic facts.

Why are you looking down on people who like the Co-op idea, calling them kids isn't any better, everyone has the right to post their thoughts.

I'm not looking down on anyone.

When I say "these kids who keep on screaming for their candy": I mean nothing more than the utter fixation on some want that people have, which they won't drop no matter what you say or do to the contrary, like the fixation that kids have when they keep on screeming for their candy.

There is nothing wrong with multi player. As I said, I enjoy many games that have multi player, even co-op. But implementing it would certainly impose limitations and it consumes resources, which would detract from the TES single player experience.

i think its obvious that if they put coop into it, thats something they would have to use alot of time and planning to do, which would lead to a less good game in general. so i hope not.

It isn't all that obvious, I think. Certainly it would take time, resources and planning. Whether it would take a lot would depend on what kind of co-op we're talking about, and how far it could be limited while still being worth doing.

For instance, let's make the reasonable assumption that Bethesda have decided to include AI controlled companions, just as they did for Fallout. Certainly that was a feature that went down well in that game, and companion mods for Morrowind and Oblivion have been very popular. Bethesda put in a limit of one companion at a time in Fallout, presumably so they didn't have to bother with balance issues - we just accept that fights are a bit easier with a companion, a bit harder without.

Now, let's assume that one could 'open up' an AI controlled companion to co-op play (an option only available with no mods installed). A friend (with any official DLC that you had) could fire up Skyrim, but instead of loading up their own game they could opt instead to take control of your companion. They would only be able to do what the AI controlled companion would do; they wouldn't be able to start conversations with NPCs, they wouldn't be able to take on quests of their own. They would be able to fight, loot corpses, equip their own choice of weapons, pick pockets, steal, open doors, use furniture etc. In addition, they'd be able to use in-game chat (text or voice) to the main player.

This would take comparatively little time, resources or planning since the single-player gameplay wouldn't actually be altered. True, the code for synchronising the two games would have to be put in place, but this would be a purely technical problem, not a gameplay, design or content problem. And, as I pointed out earlier, there's a good chance that the code-base side of things is actually quietening down as the content generation (quests, models, texturing, dungeon building etc.) is in full swing.

Will Bethesda do this? No. Could they? Probably. I don't see that a limited form of co-op like this would have any major impact on the single-player game. Would people want to play it? Yes, but possibly not enough for Bethesda to consider it.