Multiplayer in Skyrim!!!

[Berzerker]

The games are already buggy as hell with what they all ready put into it. I don't want to think about what a multiplayer would be like, that said my personal opinion? No the ES are clearly intended as single adventure games it's like asking for a multi player in Zelda.

[Iaius Amaius Heron]

There are enough multiplayer games out there. It's nice to know somebody is still looking out for us singles.

[Gurney]

No to add-on co-op or multiplayer modes that detract from great single-player games.

Yes to a great stand-alone MMO, a la FFXI.

[JJKG]

I think they should get around to co-op in the future, perhaps when new consoles come out, however, I agree with what many people have already said; don't put it in if it's gonna cut down on content and increase bugs etc. I have no doubt that it would be very fun, but would it be worth the possible reduction in content or quality.

[Septimizer]

4-player co-op would not damage the game at all, if anything it would add to the experience, doing quests together for e.g. a quest leader would take quest orders and give back news, reward would be shared around the 2-4 players. Personally I think if they done this they should increase difficulty with every added player (like Halo). C'mon Bethesda you should implement this to future games?

EDIT: However if this meant cutting down on content I would not want this, but the next game will almost definitely be released on next-gen consoles so games will be an easier job for developers (Better hardware, would be easier to render graphics etc.)

[azuarc]

My answer is no, does not belong in TES. But what's the difference between the first two choices, other than that one is the cool black guy way of saying affirmative?

[kailay]

Spoiler:

[DarkEastwood]

I think if they reintroduced the arena and could do offline multiplayer to face eachother with different accounts. I think that'd work but other than that I don't think it'd be that great.

EDIT: Just thought of another idea. If any of you have played Pikmin 2, there's another mode that has nothing to do with the story or takes anything from single player. It'd be like there's different "challenges" that 2-4 players can do where you have to clear a cave, kill a bandit leader, infiltrate a castle, or perform a big heist. And there could be 25-50 of these and different difficulties. And obviously presets to prevent super strong characters just quickly clearing the challenge. It'd be about teamwork and skill. Thoughts on either of these?

[Sloady]

4-player co-op would not damage the game at all, if anything it would add to the experience, doing quests together for e.g. a quest leader would take quest orders and give back news, reward would be shared around the 2-4 players. Personally I think if they done this they should increase difficulty with every added player (like Halo). C'mon Bethesda you should implement this to future games?

EDIT: However if this meant cutting down on content I would not want this, but the next game will almost definitely be released on next-gen consoles so games will be an easier job for developers (Better hardware, would be easier to render graphics etc.)

...

You really don't get how game design works?

The first thing they'll do on a new console is design a new engine to take advantage of it. They'll rebuild the AI, both for people and for story. Next, they actually have to start building the world, and this is before we even get started on dungeons. I'm talking designing trees, animations for trees, water, animations for water, wind, animations for wind, grass, animations for grass, etc. etc. etc. EVERYTHING in the world has to be designed.

Next, they build their textures for these things. This is a little easier, but in a game as big as TES, this can take months to get the whole world done. Knowing Beth, they'll build all their textures at once, and use them for texture packs. This'll be when they start building the cities, and setting people aside to start making the world we see.

As this is being done, combat starts being animated, maths gets worked out, features start being imagined and put in. Later, dungeons will start being built, along with creatures to populate these dungeons. People will start being built, dialogue recorded, etc. etc.

At the end of it all, games like TES have huge amounts of content, but there are huge amounts left out. They just don't have enough time to do everything they want. And in the end, that's the bottom line. These games are so huge, but Beth have bigger ambitions. And no amount of hardware is going to cut down on the work you've got to put in to make a game as immersive, fun and amazing as any TES game. And until Beth have the manpower to build their perfect singular player game, they won't even think about adding multiplayer into it.

[Mithrandir]

No no no no no no no no no no!!!!!! Mulitiplayer would be very bad for TES it would go the same way as all MP games, no focus on SP and more on MP it would lose depth and just be a ruination. PLEASE Bethesda Keep TES SP! I'm have no firends and no XBL gold so The elder scrolls is a safe haven for me and one of the few games I really love for its SP focus only.

If they could make MP and keep the SP deep and engrossing it would be fine, I understand that people would like MP, but so many game Devs NEVER do this SP disappears and MP takes over. I'm sure those without friends or XBL gold would agree.

Completely agree. When developers make Multiplayer games, they focus more on that than the single player. They pretty much treat the single player aspect of the game like drawn out practice for multiplayer.
Need an example? Every CoD game since CoD4. (I despise the CoD series)

[trueguitarist95]

If they could implement a co-op type thing, that doesn't cut down the SP or any content, where a friend or two could join in your world then that would be cool. But if it means cutting down any content or any focus on the SP experience, then no. Maybe in the start menu, there could be a multiplayer section that has options such as allowing other players to kill anyone besides an enemy and basically settings about players interfering with your world. I highly doubt it will ever happen, but it would be kinda cool.

[SunBurntIcarus]

I don't know about anyone else but Multiplayer would ruin TES for me. Imagine playing a quest and suddenly getting a pop-up asking if you would like to join a friends game. To me that would ruin the spirit of the game. "Live another life, in another world" I think....
What if your friend joined and he decided to troll your game? Someone you didn't want dead he killed.
Or if your friend starts talking about t-bagging some other characters in Cod or something. Once again I believe that would ruin the atmosphere of the game.
I could go on and on but if bethesda can make a TES game that has multiplayer without the obvious screw-ups then I am all in. Perhaps an online-arena?

[cheap pocketman]

Perhaps an online-arena?

^This^
I loved the Arena in Oblivion and this could be implemented as DLC very nicely...not saying they should but I would love to see it. It doesn't take any thing away from the rest of the game and I might be mistaken but so far I haven't encountered an arena in Skyrim (I assume they are not in it?) and it would be fun...kind of like trump cards or something, you compare characters by fighting to the death in an enclosed environment. I think it would be awesome.

[Wolfie]

But then you would have those guys that use the exsploits to make swords that do 493494384387 dmg and amour rating od that.

[stormbringer]

Some games just DO NOT need multiplayer, and this is one series that doesn't. Look at two really popular games over the past few years, Batman Arkham Asylum, and Arkham City. Those game thrived and did very well despite the lack of a multiplayer. There are just way too many issues that would happen if there was co-op. How would the quest system work? Would only the person who opened the chest get the items? Would it be split amongst the group? WHAT ABOUT QUEST ITEMS? Here is a perfect scenario. You and a group of 3 friends go into Dungeon X. You plunge to it's lowest depths. You open the chest guarded by a fierce enemy. A QUEST ITEM is in it. Who gets it? What if the person that opens it has already finished that quest? Does the quest only show up for those without the item? What about inactive players? People who will join a game in session and not play just to get EXP and quests completed.

[Modryn]

I must say, a lot of stuff being said in this thread in regards to the anti-MP crowd are a bit off. I've played co-op games with my friend almost for the past 3-4 years now, so I'm confident when I say I have a bit of experience in that genre. A lot of the "how would this work" concerns have very obvious answers to them and have been done/solved in the massive amount of co-op games out there already.

With that said, they can't be applied to TES series because TES series is a SP genre. Not a MP one. If any form of MP were to be added the entire base of the game would change. If any of those elements were added, the game would simply not feel like a SP game. Borderlands, Dead Island, even Diablo are good examples. You can play solo, but they're obviously aimed towards co-op gameplay. And if you look at those games, you get an idea of how an Elder Scrolls game would end up. The world wouldn't be open, not really. The world would be divided into zones, kind of like how Oblivion had the "loading area" as you were running through a forest, except this time a full blown load screen which would last several seconds, if not minutes. You'd have less content and well thought out quests. Forget long detailed quests with good background stories. Instead you get 1 very generic NPC giving you a wall of text that goes on about something you don't really care about, you do the task come back, read another wall of text, get your reward and repeat until you reach the end of the story.

It COULD be done different and it could be done right, but Bethesda would need a large funding (loads of money! (+1 if you get the reference)), a lot of time... a LOT of time and better technology.

With that, I'm done. It's 2:03 AM here so excuse me if my post is rubbish.

[AddictedtoMorrowind]

A problem with multiplayer is the cheats that some people can use and the exploits to make them super powerful.

[Ronok]

Multiplayer in Skyrim?

Oh... right... I dont think Ill be seeing an Elder Scrolls MMO anytime soon...

Beyond that no... or make it work like a less terrisad version of Two Worlds MP works...

[dtmwerks]

I wouldn't mind having a 3-4 max co-op thing. But you would HAVE to have your own account, no guests kinda thing, and if one player becomes thane of whiterun and does a quest, the other person can't do it. The multiplayer world would be MEANT for co-op, in that everything would be stronger, but you CAN play by yourself obviously. You could also set it so that you can "find" quests by yourself, but you can't do them without your partner, or perhaps set the type of quests that will only start when both of you are there, such as MQ and guild quests.

If it was like this, then I'd feel it's a more permanent thing and acceptable, whereas in games like fable, it just felt added on and very tacky. I guess since I'm on the PC, I wouldn't mind since you're going to play with other PC users with their own computer/account and don't have to be "stuck" with you. I would not endorse having a guest system for xbox and ps3, because it was terrible for fable and I almost feel like there's no solution for sharing one screen between two people. Split screen isn't an option for a game like skyrim too, so you're just bumping into invisible barriers cause you're straying too far from your friend and the like.

edit: i change my mind to max 2. I don't want to go into cramped dungeons and hallways with 4 people all bumping into each other, trying to cast fireballs and arrows over each others shoulders, and just being an all around clusterf***

[Wolfie]

I wouldn't mind having a 3-4 max co-op thing. But you would HAVE to have your own account, no guests kinda thing, and if one player becomes thane of whiterun and does a quest, the other person can't do it. The multiplayer world would be MEANT for co-op, in that everything would be stronger, but you CAN play by yourself obviously. You could also set it so that you can "find" quests by yourself, but you can't do them without your partner, or perhaps set the type of quests that will only start when both of you are there, such as MQ and guild quests.

If it was like this, then I'd feel it's a more permanent thing and acceptable, whereas in games like fable, it just felt added on and very tacky. I guess since I'm on the PC, I wouldn't mind since you're going to play with other PC users with their own computer/account and don't have to be "stuck" with you. I would not endorse having a guest system for xbox and ps3, because it was terrible for fable and I almost feel like there's no solution for sharing one screen between two people. Split screen isn't an option for a game like skyrim too, so you're just bumping into invisible barriers cause you're straying too far from your friend and the like.

What you said here would require them to make a whole new area ad new content just for MP in other words taking away form SP, while awsome idea, I will say o

How ever... if for any reasson they finshed a game ahead of time, then by all means work on that, i would not mind.
but that will never happen

[dtmwerks]

I don't think it'd be too hard to implement, just rewards given to both players, and a lock option for certain quests that require both players to be present. Other than that, you free roam, meet up, go on quests, go seperate ways. Enemy scaling isn't too hard either and is alraedy there anyway.

I suppose they might feel they need to make certain quests tailored for multiplayer? If that's the case, I would rather them work on SP, but a lot of the time me and my friend wonder at how awesome it would be if we were both in the same virtual world. Two completely different roleplayers complimenting each other. One could smith, the other could enchant, etc.

However, canon and the main questline might be annoying to tailor that to two people. Also certain lines might have to be added to address multiple main characters. Then again, other games simply pretend there's only one of you just to make it simplier.

[Fiar]

No, not at all.

I would rather Bethesda, put all of their time in making a great game. Even if it's single-player only like it has been, along with DLC and xpacs; then them taking time to develop Multiplayer and take emphasis away on what has hooked many of us into this series.

[Theificka]

It could work if it was balanced enough;

If there were 3 people in one world, the potential in tactics and overall enjoyment would be nice, although, the system could have even more glitches than it does now, and I don't like the idea of someone coming into my world just to destroy all the NPCs.

So the only solution would be that 3 people (Preferably your close online friends) all start in one world, just fresh and new, and then you need all those three people just to play that world, but you are able to stray from your team, you don't have to all go into one certain dungeon, and the radiant story could make it work where you need the cooperation of your friends to do this one thing (Not just that you have to pull both levers for you to continue, such as an opponent that would be hard to defeat if one was alone)

[Evil-i]

I think single-player RPGs have something personally immersive and special going on, and I don't want to see that spoiled. Surely, there must already be more than enough multi-player games out there to suit any taste.

[Spiney]

Leave multiplayer for the modders to make.