Poll: Coop in Skyrim, good?

[Insanity72]

I don't get it when people cry about this. If all it adds is the option to add another player how can we possibly say no? It's not going to change a damn thing to do with the single-player.

It's more to do with the fact that if Bethesda incorporated it into the game, it takes away resources that could be used to further enhance the game.

If it's a mod, then no one gives a damn.

 

[Fishyash]

If they could mod it, then it would be awesome.

I don't really know how many resources it would take to simply put 1 more person able to join the game...

But I am assuming you can mod that in anyways, so no point in wasting time on multiplayer really.

But I would love skyrim to have co-op, but only if it was done in a way that didn't detract from the single player. It's really dissapointing knowing that most games are lacking in one yet perfect in the other.

 

[gizunt]

Fixed that, Thanks for letting me know. Can't believe I made a mistake like this.
Referring to Jamash' correction.

 

[Slash Dementia]

I would actually like this. It would be nice to have a friend joining up with you and adventuring--I've always loved that idea. Sure, if Bethesda were to have made it, it might have detracted from the single player experience, but it might not have. I mean, Two Worlds did it, and I actually enjoyed that.

I have no problem with it being single player at all, I'm just saying that if it were an option, I'd use it from time to time.

 

[Something Amyss]

But I want to go back to my point, why is offline co-op suddenly hated? Why is the idea of playing in the same room suddenly rare?

It's hated?

Since when?

Rare, yes, mostly because it's not in the game industry's best interest, but hated?

 

[Kukakkau]

I'd like this maybe with 2 people at most since 4 players on one dragon would be far too easy.

Or if they changed enemies to make them tougher you could have a party type system with people as other roles (actually make targetted heal spells useful etc)

Also everyone saying "NO I like playing solo" - you do realise the thread is about having the option to do co-op, you don't have to play co-op

 

[Imre Csete]

No thank you, the only good CO-OP games are those which had been built for it since day 1. And that would require fundamental changes in the TES formula.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

Short answer: NO!

Long answer: No, by all means, no! Not even remotely. How dare you even think of this? You should be ashamed! Really! If TES would be a religion you just commited heresy!
The game is already streamlined (aka dumbed down) enough. They barely scratched the surface in some areas...
If they take the manpower away from the single player campaign the whole setting would suffer immensly. Besides, the publisher isn't very good at multiplayer games. (Brink anyone?) So they would make usual beginners mistakes that will break the game even more (considering the bugs and glitches thus far) The should provide an on/off button for the hardcore gamers. Just like the Wild Wasteland Perk from Fallout New Vegas.

 

[QtheMuse]

I find it hilarious people actually think someone will mod in a multiplayer for Skyrim, yeah that's never going to happen, ever. Writing netcode for skyrim would take a team of people.

 

[shadowmagus]

My fiancee and I were having this discussion. We play a lot of games together, just the two of us. It's our bonding time, it's how we spend time in each others company. Sitting next to each other, commenting, playing, enjoying ourselves is part of our gaming experience. While we are both playing Skyrim, we would like the option to go into each others world play together.

No, I don't want there to be a million dragonborn, or even a third one running around. I would just like the option to play with my fiancee. I'm not enjoying the game any less, far from it. I just think the option, be it developed by Bethesda or the community, would be nice

 

[kasperbbs]

I would rather they focused on fixing some of the games issues and expansions instead of this. At least i wouldnt want someone joining my game and killing all my quest npcs just for giggles.

 

[Brinnmilo]

Yeah sure, they would have to really ramp up the difficulty though.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I don't get it when people cry about this. If all it adds is the option to add another player how can we possibly say no? It's not going to change a damn thing to do with the single-player.

So much this.

It'd be like people complaining about getting offered free sauce with their pie.
Simply asking isn't going to ruin your pie, and you can always say no.
Stop crying about something that you could ignore anyway, and let the rest of us enjoy our Skyrim with mates!

I'm not sure about 4 players, that could get a bit messy, but 2 or 3 would work just fine.
Use something like a Borderlands system for travelling between areas/into dungeons.
The fact the game won't pause for inventory just means you have to pick your tactics ahead of battle, adding more depth to the game!

[sub]... Yes... I'm hungry...[/sub]

Name one thing about the game, anything, that wouldnt have to change in some way to accomodate multiplayer. There isnt one. Adding multiplayer to a game like Skyrim means overhauling EVERYTHING. The best way to do it would probably be to scrap the whole game and start over. And this is only looking at it in terms of features, never mind the technical challenges. If you think you can have a coop version of Skyrim, it's only because you haven't thought it through. You can have a coop RPG, but you're fooling yourself if you will think it will be anything like Skyrim.

That said, this is why the lord invented the spinoff.

 

[CaspianRoach]

Name one thing about the game, anything, that wouldnt have to change in some way to accomodate multiplayer. There isnt one. Adding multiplayer to a game like Skyrim means overhauling EVERYTHING.

Pretty much this. You can't just take the game that was designed with a single player in mind and make it multiplayer. All the quests were made for singleplayer. If one player starts the quest that gives him an item and kills the questgiver, the other player would be left without the item and the quest. All the waypoint events would break because they're placed with a single dovahkiin in mind. Looting the items and reading the books in multiplayer would be really annoying and boring. Crafting even more so. Not to mention the problems with two players being in different zones. The amount of events it would break is immense. If you don't see it, you just don't know how the games work.

There is a solution to all this though and it is to made second player a 'dummy' who can't interact with NPCs, can't change zones on his own, can't loot or activate anything. But who would want to play such a shit role? Combat in Skyrim is not that good to be enjoyed on its own.

Plus there's the problem of two people playing a game which is heavily dialogue/reading oriented: "One of them will skip the text lines or will be distracting you as you read or will be commenting on every second spoken line". There's a reason why all coop RPGs have really simple and basic quests with a one-line description, like "Bring 5 rocks", "Kill 8 boars". (Dead Island, Borderlands, Diablo, all MMORPGs). Two people can't read a book. It's something to be enjoyed alone.

 

[CaspianRoach]

Split the loot up the exact same way is it split up in nearly every single other multipley game. By that I mean let the players decide how it is divided among them. Quest rewards everybody would obviously get their own.

Have you played Skyrim? All the good items are dropped/given only once and in a single instance. Do you really want to fight or argue about every piece of good loot? What if you both want that sword? Do you really want the game to drive a wedge between you and your friend?

I dont know what events you are talking about that it could break.

Move along then, you've obviously never scripted/designed a game or a program, because a second player would break pretty much everything that is in the game right now. It's easier to just make a new game than to re-write EVERYTHING to make it bug-free multiplayer compatible AND a good multiplayer experience.

 

[CaspianRoach]

I know that it would be easier to just make a new game then change everything now. What I was getting at was that IF skyrim had multiplayer nothing would really change. Im not talking about the actions required to create the multiplayer.

Then it would be a completely different game. Long branching dialogues and multiplayer do not mix well. If skyrim had the multiplayer from the beginning it would mean two things: quests would be simpler and boring and the game would be smaller because of the time developers spent making netcode work.
Trust me you don't want to play the game Skyrim is now with a friend. Either you or him will be annoyed because one of you chose a different quest branch, reads slower, does not care for the other player's preferred playstyle or just can't wait for one player to do something the other one wouldn't. Seriously, if you have never encounter this problem, it means you create that problem for your friend, and he is just too modest to tell it to you bluntly. The game would need to be heavily streamlined and simplified to be enjoyable.

 

[CaspianRoach]

You can say that all you want but you have been proven wrong many times already by other games.

Like what? Diablo, MMORPGs and the like? As I said, the quests in these games are handed out by the single click on the "Accept quest" button and in 99% of cases have no branching and can be summarized in a single line. And yeah, these games break in co-op, too. Not as much but they do. Ever tried wandering off while your partner kills quest mobs or completes an objective? In a best case scenario the objective is given to you even if you sit idly in the city (which is a bad design decision in itself), in another case the quest is on a respawn timer and in the worst case you've screwed your save until game reload/forever. For example, killing Diablo, I think, in D2 with a coop partner who've never visited act4 would prevent him from getting multiple quests in that act. That was a real bummer. And that was in a much simpler game designed with multiplayer in mind from the beginning. Imagine how much of these checks would have to be added in Skyrim. You can't ever think all the exceptions possible for your script. You will definitely miss a few. A few that might break the game and botch your save.

With a single player you need to check, say, two possible variations of player visiting an area. 1-player is on a quest tied to this area, 2-player is in the area with no quests for it active. With two players the list of checks grows: 1-1st player is on a quest and 2nd is on a quest; 2-1st on a quest, 2nd not on a quest; 3-1st not on a quest, 2nd not on a quest; 4-1st on a quest, 2nd not in the area; 5-1st not on a quest, 2nd is not in the area. Every variation should have a valid and not gamebreaking scenario/outcome. Every quest that is made without the second player in the zone/on the quest should be respawnable and resettable. And if you somehow overlook and forget to reset one variable then too bad, 2nd player is fucked. And what if 2nd player zones in to 1st one in the middle of the quest? Bad things happen.

It's really easy to do all these things in MMORPGs and the like because all the quests there are of the one or the two types and have pre-written sets of rules and frames that deal with these situations. To transfer this system to a single-player rpg would mean to rewrite all the scripting. And you would lose a lot in the proccess. For example, would you really want to wait until your buddy shows up before the NPC starts his quest animation/speech? And if it'd start instantly the moment you arrive your partner will feel cheated off a piece of lore and dialogue.
I've done some scripting for a few games and participated in developing of some applications so I know exactly what are you talking about and it would just not work. It would not work on a AAA level the developers strive to achieve. And if it harms single-player experience in the process (the difference between multiplayer and singleplayer quests is glaringly obvious) then it is just not something worth even thinking about. And if you think of having two different quest and event versions for singleplayer/multiplayer it's just wrong. First, it's double the work, second it's really clumsy to fix and develop and third, transitions between the two versions in case of people joining midquest would bring horrible consequences.

What I'm trying to say is: "Would Bethesda game developed with a multiplayer experience in mind be a good one?" "-Yes."
"Would Skyrim as a product it is now be a good multiplayer experience with a few mods tackled on?" "-Hell no."

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I don't get it when people cry about this. If all it adds is the option to add another player how can we possibly say no? It's not going to change a damn thing to do with the single-player.

It's more to do with the fact that if Bethesda incorporated it into the game, it takes away resources that could be used to further enhance the game.

If it's a mod, then no one gives a damn.

I don't see how it would take away anything. It just requires a little net code. They don't have to make anything co-op specific, just add another player.

 

[lordlillen]

some really needs to find the guy who keeps shooting everyone in the knee, i mean i would do it myself but i took an arrow in the knee.

OT: yes i would love to play skyrim Co-op with my brother.

 

[Alma Mare]

Hell no. Too many games have been screwed up lately by having MP/Coop content forced in them. It's all cute in the first 3 months and one year down the line you're screwed out of partners to play with.

As for a Mod, that'd be better, but people have been trying since Oblivion and a workable version has never been reached.