Would you have wanted skyrim to be Multiplayer?

[OblivionDuruza]

Co-op features might have been nice, but for me, Skyrim is first and foremost a single player experience. Just to clarify, by co-op, I mean, drop in, drop out multiplayer on the same console, with a limit of 2 or 4 players, not anything near or similar to an MMORPG.

[MARS]

I'm tired of textwalling about this subject so I'll just say this. Adding multiplayer would take out all of the immersion for me. If I want to play something with a friend I'll play a game that is designed as such. An RPG with the scope and concept of Skyrim (or any main TES title) is not designed as such.

[Imperfect Three]

Dear god no, I absolutely loathe multiplayer RPgs. Skyrim is already buggy enough as a single-player game I can't imagine the problems multiplayer, even just co-op would cause.
Plus there are only two types of co-op Bethesda could implement and each of them is terrible in it's own way.
They could do Fable III style co-op where you have to follow your friend around doing their 'Bidding' the whole time with no say in the matter or it could be open-world like Saints Row: The Third. If it were to be open-world co-op how do you know your friend in Solitude isn't slaughtering the town and ruining all future quests there?
Long Story short, co-op would ruin the Elder Scrolls as a series. I play RPGs to get away from multiplayer problems not to have more of them. Imagine playing Skyrim with the people from say.. Call of Duty or Battlefield 3. 'nuff said.

[Stormborn]

No. In my opinion there should be no multiplayers games. If you must have multiplayer then the game needs to built from the ground up that way and the same for single player. The problem is that to many games are built for both and the experience suffers.

[Spiney]

Multiplayer would have detracted from the single player, something we all hate.

And we wouldn't want to the single to be any worse would we?

[Yomnom]

in a game like TES, I'd rather adventure alone or with in game companions, when they are done properly...
But something like an arena mode could be fun. Maybe Bethesda could pull that off?

[Hark Varoi]

I would like to be able to play co-op with a friend who also plays. But definitely not MMO, it would kill the fun.

[SithisIsMyCopilot]

I think it would be nice if a second player could take control of your follower, that would be nice.

[ArgonianDunmer]

I dunno, maybe a second player would be fun, but they'd probably cramp my stealthy style

If they were a companion, then maybe, but then, how would level-ups, skills and perks work? I don't think that removing those elements would be good for an RPG point of view, it'd become more of an action game in a fantasy setting without that, so maybe a 'customisable' companion/s would be a handy feature?

[Gideon Dragontongue]

I personally, instead of making it multiplayer, would either add some sort of arena mode, or spend the time that Bethesda would have spent on multiplayer on really incredible AI for your companions instead.

[soda popinski]

The engine already has to account for what far-off entities, like dragons, are doing, which takes up a lot of computing power. Add in an actual person, who I'm sure would take 10,000x as much computing power as a electronic dragon, and that would wreck it.

[DikaSmausha]

Maybe some co-op, but nothing else. There would be some restrictions, but I think it would be cool.

[Gideon Dragontongue]

Yeah, co-op is in my opinion way more fun than MMO.

[Witchery]

I think it would be nice if a second player could take control of your follower, that would be nice.

This would be cool. Probably about as far as I'm willing to let it go, though . . . an MMO/online multiplayer Skyrim would kill the fun for me.

[TomDD]

NO! I would honestly blow my Xbox up if Bethesda made a mainstream TES game multiplayer!!!

...Maybe that's a little extreme...

In all honesty a COMPLETELY separate mode which is basically the Arena from Oblivion where 2 players fight together over PSN or Xbox Live (and the PC of course ) but this has NOTHING to do with your single player and effects nothing AT ALL. You get NO reward so players without online wouldn't be penalised because games like that [&@%!] me off REALLY BAD!!!!! But of course you do use your players made during single player...

Another option could be it being no way related, so you have to create a new character to play online and you get new equipment/maps by winning, but I'd still hate it...

[Syrkin]

I wouldn't want an MMO style Multiplayer, but a Co-op would be fun. I'd like to get my gaming buddies together, and be able to play, like we used to with RPGs. Balance could be an issue, but Diablo made monsters have hit points x number of people in the group, etc, other games have quests only count for a host, etc.

It's all handleable, and doesn't HAVE to be MP. As compared to the major bonuses that come from doing MP in Mass Effect 3, that would be wholly inappropriate.

[Da_BossMaN69]

If done I really hope they would model it in a way Free Roam was done in Red Dead, that was pure genius.

It added the side missions one could do during the course of regular gameplay but also added the fun of the unexpected, for example one minute you're clearing out a bandit camp or hunting one of the legendary animals, and all of the sudden someone comes out of nowhere to try and gun you down. It adds the chaotic element that I feel is missing in the game world.

I mean random events, dragons, and radiant quests have helped introduce that slightly, but not to the full potential additional players would add. It imo would make the game much more interesting.

Limits would have to be established of course as to how to keep it controlled for each individual player, re spawning NPC's could be one way, maybe one player is a host and the actions of the other players don't add into the game, unless permitted by the host, how this would be accomplished is unknown but it could work I feel.

So in all honesty, Yes, but only if handled correctly.

[Anderband]

Heres how I think it could work: (lengthy brainstorm)

Spoiler:

When you start a new game, you have a single player and multi player option(online only). If you choose multi player, then the "host" of the game is the main character/dragonborn, and the second player would be created in the same way, and is controlled by someone who is permitted to join the game. When this person is not playing/logged in, the second character spawns in a particular house or shack and is a sleeping, essential NPC.

The game could only be saved by the host. The game could be played however you want. You could even be enemies! The two players would appear as a certain color dot on the compass. Both allowed one follower, who can be orderd "hostile" towards the other player. When player two dies, he remains dead until the game is reloaded. If the host choosed not to reload, I guess he's toast!

One thing I can think of at the moment that would kill this is the stealth and illusion skills. Illusion would more or less be flat out un-usable against your companion

Stealth might work. The other player would be seen on the compass. This dot would be invisible if the player is in stealth mode and out of sight. His stealth skill/perks would determine if footsteps could be heard/how loud they are

edit: after typing all this, I realize the balancing problems (one player hogging all the kills, the other lagging behind in level) It wouldn't be as co-op friendly as I would like, although it would still be cool as a vs

[Mattbott]

no

if it's just about meeting other characters in the pub to look at each others armour, or some sort of comparatively levelled arena system i don't think the game would be messed up, but tbh these suggestions are very limited so why bother - even a dedicated co op mode would not be worth it imo

i have played TES games whilst chatting to a friend also playing a TES game.. there - a social experience and no worries about sharing loot or your connection booting one of you out

play a mp game if you want to play mp, TES is a sp game

i agree red dead redemption got it down perfectly - great SP with a fun mp element - this formula could work with TES but even then the mp would be pretty limited and would have to take place outside the sp experience imo, so again why bother playing generic mp if its eating away valuable sp hours

and Beth could make so much money of an mmorpg

[Mefris Elmek]

I personally, instead of making it multiplayer, would either add some sort of arena mode.

I would love an Arena mode.In fact,the only multiplayer i would want in TES is still an Arena mode

[roleplayer242426]

While it'd be nice for roleplaying, it'd kill every other aspect of the game. 'Fraid not.

[Witchery]

While it'd be nice for roleplaying, it'd kill every other aspect of the game. 'Fraid not.

What?! That would KILL roleplaying.

[Hissien]

While it'd be nice for roleplaying, it'd kill every other aspect of the game. 'Fraid not.

What?! That would KILL roleplaying.

Yes. Having a character that can respond with original responses would kill roleplaying......./end sarcasm

Tell that to the guys in the rp section of the forum.

[Witchery]

While it'd be nice for roleplaying, it'd kill every other aspect of the game. 'Fraid not.

What?! That would KILL roleplaying.

Yes. Having a character that can respond with original responses would kill roleplaying......./end sarcasm

Tell that to the guys in the rp section of the forum.

Original responses? Don't you mean doing their own thing? Grinding their smithing skills while you're trying to talk to Eorlund about Aela's Shield?

[Hissien]

Oh come now, I could sync up with you over ps3 online and you would be doing your own rp thing!