Skyrim Multiplayer

[Samurai Silhouette]

If they did it right, then why not?
I'm not going to consider bitching about "BAWWWWWW it'll detract from the single player quality!" because that's not even part of the question.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Plus, you could turn on each other too, just to see who would win and such!

Anywho, what's your opinion on this, Escapists?

I see an army of trolls, (no not the frost kind) invading Skyrim, killing all in its path. For the LULZ.

The amount of time and effort required to stop them and prevent it from ever happening would seriously cut into Bethesda's bug and glitch hunting efforts, a much more worthy goal.

I agree with you, if you mean a Red Dead Redemption style multiplayer, with loads of other players.

However, what I'm getting at is inviting a few people on (so people wont just come on and mess your stuff up).

You do relise that Bethesda is going to release a modding kit for Skyrim? And that some people are going to break the game completely? And that the troll army WOULD be inevitable unless

1) Bethesda create a multiplayer framework over the top of Skyrim's core game that can not be altered, with matchmaking services that would need to be built as well as servers etc. Taking allot of time and effort.

2) They kill the modding community.



1) Would cut into bug hunt time and 2) would kill off a sizable portion of the fanbase that has a longevity that multiplayer would not be able to fill.

 

[Darkwhite]

I'd quite like to make it LAN only Co-op, I get the feeling there would be too many idiots playing to just to "troll."

 

[Worgen]

I'm sure someone will mod multiplayer into it, so as long as you got the pc version, it will probably eventually be playable with other people. But I wouldn't want bethesda to waste time putting it into the game.

 

[runic knight]

It would have to be like this. They join your your game, are "hired" like your hireling (so you would have to send your current friend home). They have all their stuff and skills, and would gain exp and new items, but would not be able complete quests from their game. They'd be like
a traveler who learned from the greybeards or something (to justify how they could use shouts).

It would be fun coordinating attacks and the like but I doubt the game is challenging enough to warrant it. Still, a possibility if people get over the initial fear of multiplay ruining the game, though mmo sort might.

 

[IKSA]

NOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo.....

I want singleplayer games (good ones) like deus ex, skyrim and half-life multiplayer would just ruin fucking everything I don't want multiplayer to everything because its also in many cases pointless and completly meaningless.

 

[kortin]

Co-op would be awesome. Any sort of multiplayer other than that is a no-no.

 

[Desaari]

Since Bethesda is releasing not just a set of modding tools, but the very development tools they used to create Skyrim [http://www.bethblog.com/2011/12/01/skyrim-what-were-working-on/], I suspect some particularly zealous fans may produce a co-op mod at some point in the future. And I can't wait.

 

[chadachada123]

Saying that co-op is inherently bad is asinine.

It should be explored as an option. Who wouldn't like THE IDEA of playing Fallout or Skyrim with friends? Even Yahtzee would agree that it'd be nice to have THE OPTION TO.

 

[chadachada123]

Questing is more fun by yourself. Fun part about Fallout and Skyrim is the fact that its you vs. the screwed up world you see. You have another person tagging along, it takes away from the feeling of being alone and getting caught up in the intrigue. The fact that Dead Space 2 has a multiplayer really pissed me off, its not needed.

That's just it though, Dead Space 2 has a MULTI-player. It does not have co-op. Co-op for these types of games has not been explored nearly enough. Dead Island's co-op was awesome, and made the bugs much more bearable since they were with friends.

 

[jelock]

Surprised noone has just said "Go watch this weeks Jimquisition..."

 

[Schmittler]

I agree completely. I don't understand what the hate is for cooperative play. It's not hurting your experience, so why make it a big deal?

Perhaps it doesn't get tied to the story at all, maybe you can just have a free roam option with a completely new character or something. I don't see how that would hurt the Single Player game in any way considering it would be optional.

 

[Matthew Valkanov]

I know this comment could lead to my being burnt at the stake if any hardcore TES fans knew where I lived, but I've always wanted a first person fighting game mode. Not a multiplayer, not a co-op, but a simple duelling mode. Of course you would have to balance the hell out of it and remove quite a few powers(the slow-time ones for example), but I'd love to challenge one of my friends to a one on one, Skyrim-style.

 

[AngleWyrm]

Go play Age of Conan. All the MMO sword swinging you could want, and you can beat on team mates and grief random players.

Or if you want to play with team mates, then you might try League of Legends.

"I'de like a bicycle because the sales people say they are really cool. But can we make it with four wheels and an engine, so I don't have to peddle it?"

 

[bean burrito]

Consider how long that Skyrim took to develop on it's own. Fallout 3 was released in october 2008, and Skyrim just came out. This was a long arduous development cycle, and to attempt to add on a co-op in any kind of relevant matter (i.e. one where it's not simply stapled on, and actually well integrated into the game) would most likely mean either a much longer development time, or starting off making a very different game than Skyrim set off to be from the very beginning.

And personally, I have difficulty feeling immersed in a co-op game. L4D has done a decent job doing this, but that doesn't have much of a story to speak of.

 

[The Lunatic]

Replacing a companion with a fellow player would be pretty awesome.

Mostly for the removal of the rather silly AI.

But, in terms of gameplay, it'd be very nice to have an actual buddy to venture around with.

 

[AppleShrapnel]

No... it'd ultimately be pretty pointless, methinks.

Unless your character is badly built and/or equipped, you can tackle pretty much anything without more than a companion and maybe a summon at your side. Two self-reliant player characters working together could kill every killable npc and essentially break the game with no trouble.

It'd only work with stupid-silly scaling, of some kind. And as much as nearly everyone hated level scaling in Fallout 3 and Oblivion... eh, I dunno.

Skyrim was built as a single-player game from the ground up, so tacking on any form of multiplayer is just plain wrong to begin with; there'd need to be a thoroughly massive balancing effort to make anywhere near viable...

TL;DR- No... just no. /:|

 

[chadachada123]

Questing is more fun by yourself. Fun part about Fallout and Skyrim is the fact that its you vs. the screwed up world you see. You have another person tagging along, it takes away from the feeling of being alone and getting caught up in the intrigue. The fact that Dead Space 2 has a multiplayer really pissed me off, its not needed.

That's just it though, Dead Space 2 has a MULTI-player. It does not have co-op. Co-op for these types of games has not been explored nearly enough. Dead Island's co-op was awesome, and made the bugs much more bearable since they were with friends.

With you spelling MULTI-player like this, makes me see you as a huge asshole. You know I would have to say your wrong, some games don't need co-op or anything else. Don't think Dead Island really counts because it feels like a game that would have co-op.

Wow, way to assume something about someone else based on a couple of letters being capitalized, prick. I only meant that multiplayer in the general sense usually means several people, not just 2 or 3 or 4.

I think Dead Island absolutely counts. I loved the game by itself, and I loved playing it with friends. I agree that tacked-on anything is bad, but Skyrim wouldn't be worse just because it had the option to play with friends.

You're basically saying "I wouldn't have fun, so no one else should even have the option to." You're like the people that claim that Battlefield shouldn't ship with a single-player because it "doesn't need it."

Need to understand that there is a reason you spelled it like that. You want an example, you got it. You look at this and then tell me your reaction, a game doesn't need CO-OP to be fun at all. Need to spell it with giant letters, do you think I am calling you stupid because you don't understand. You can come back at me with whatever you want, but you spelled it like that because you thought I didn't understand, don't fucking lie. I think the last part of your sentence has nothing to do with anything, don't assume anything about anyone, it makes you look like an ass.

Cool story bro. Believe what lets you sleep at night.

I'm sure you knew what multiplayer meant, that multiplayer includes competitive (ala Dead Space 2) and co-op (ala Dead Island). I was merely showing that you can't use Dead Space as a reason for co-op being inherently bad, since they are completely different sectors of multiplayer.

 

[Switchblade 327]

No.

Wow, way to assume something about someone else based on a couple of letters being capitalized, prick. I only meant that multiplayer in the general sense usually means several people, not just 2 or 3 or 4

Multiplayer refers to any game/game mode having more than one player. You know, multi, as in multiple, as in more than one. When people say multiplayer, they aren't talking about more than 4 people, they're talking about more than one person, because two is all you need to have more than one.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

No thanks. The Elder Scrolls is one of those games set up to be played alone, and co-op would ruin that.
Plus, it wold make the game WAY too easy.