Skyrim Multiplayer

[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.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

Well, the fact that, in most other threads where "multiplayer" is brought up, everyone immediately brings up MMOs and competitive 8-player multiplayer, brought me to point that out.

I stand by my first statement, that USUALLY multiplayer is used to mean competitive or massively multiplayer, not co-op multiplayer. I wasn't speaking as if I was being absolutely technically correct, here, only generally.

 

[CodeOrange]

Pfft, with an RPG as deep as Skyrim with gameplay mechanics that are as smooth and fluent as the best FPS, I'm pretty sure that Skyrim would do great as a multiplayer game.

Sarcasm aside, people would still think it's good no matter how bad it is. Even if it pulls a FthreeAR and removes the immersion due to human contact. And we all know, immersion is the only thing Skyrim has going for it. Sheesh, do gamers have low standards...

Actually, the game would be impossible in multiplayer as you will no longer be able to chug potions like a madman because the game would no longer pause. After all, that's the only viable tactic to defeat enemies stronger than you outside of exploiting the shoddy ai.

 

[Erttheking]

Don't think that It'll work that well.

 

[Conza]

*EDIT* (I think Multiplayer is giving the wrong impression..... I think, the term, co-op might be better).
Now before you have me drawn and quartered, I don't mean an elder scrolls mmo (though if they did do an mmo, I reckon they should do one all across tamriel.... how they'd make that beast, I can't fathom...).

No, what I mean is Skyrim but with a few friends to do quests with, or just faff around.
So it could be done over xbox live (and the formats versions of long distance multiplayer) and your friend(s) could load up one of their characters and join you with certain quests/dragon slaying/townsfolk slaying/mudcrab slaying/you get my drift.
With it being it being optional and those who want to play with friends can, and those who want to ride solo, can still do so.

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

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

*EDIT*
I don't mean, "BIG, IN-YOUR-FACE PLAY ME!" Multiplayer. Just optional co-op for those who are interested. Y'know, for fun (or if you can't finish a quest and wouldn't mind a hand). Have a laugh with friends, while questing, etc.

Well do you think this could be a mod? And if it could be cross platform? Then it would be really great. But also, it seems to be that Co-op would be restricted to two people, but yeah, not a bad idea if it's doable.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well I must say it would be fun to run around with a friend. But I'd say only in a separate mode the single player story wouldn't be nearly as good with a second person running around as well (especially if you were both Dragonborn). Just two mercs doing different quests or exploring. You aren't that special, you don't save the world, you just muck around and maybe solve (or cause) a few problems in the world.

Thing is, this would take away time, money, and energy from the single player, which I would not want to see. So for now, I'm content with it only being single-player.

 

[Buizel91]

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.

Where did he says it "needs" it?

He is saying it would be a bit more fun (not that Skyrim isn't fun already), What's so bad about being able to do quests with friends? CO-OP sounds like a pretty good idea to me (i'm talking like 2 player CO-OP not like 4 or an entire party's worth...)

Seriously there is no need to get worked up about someone asking a question, a simple yes no along with why you picked yes or no would be enough, no need to bite someone's head off.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I would like the idea of co-op in Skyrim if there was a system in place for what you earn to be taken back to your single player world and it would also be fun with a friend to adventure the massive world together.

 

[Versuvius]

Have it 2 player coop so you can get around pants on head retarded Lydia pushing you off cliffs, triggering traps and sucking goat testicles in the brain department

 

[Zeh Don]

Let me put it this way:
All the money, time and effort spent on a Multiplayer Mode of any kinda - Co-Op or otherwise - and any concessions made to accommodate said Multiplayer Mode results in les time, money and effort spent on the Single Player mode.

"Well, hire more guys to build a multiplayer mode, and leave the single player guys to do their thing!"

'fraid not. The money used to pay those people is money the company is not spending on the Single Player mode, which will remain the draw card. However you dice it, Multiplayer is going to result in a Single Player game that is simply worse than it would have been if the resources wasted on the Multiplayer Mode were put to better use on the Single Player component.

Not every game needs multiplayer. Not every game needs to be "enjoyed with f(r)iends". Not every game needs to cater to everyone.
Some games are better when you play on your own. Some games are better because other people aren't there. Some games are better when doing what they do best, rather than appealing to the Online Gamer crowd.

 

[Silver Patriot]

I personally feel that Co-Op would be better for Skyrim. I hate having all of these ridiculously powerful enchantments and not being able to show them off. Plus I like working in groups, I am not much of a solo person.

 

[Fugitive Panda]

I just knew this thread was going to be full of shallow, knee-jerk reactions.

Yes, shoe-horned multiplayer is one of the many bugbears of the industry, and needs to go away, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the concept altogether. Believe it or not, multiplayer can actually IMPROVE a game! Imagine that!

Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet, now would've been the perfect time. A game like Skyrim, full of exploration and character development and customization is just asking for the experience to be shared. SHARED. Not in the form of a crappy one-off versus mode or some other thoughtless BS, but actually integrated into the game, that would provide new, more interesting content even for the single player. I can think of many ways this could be done, but no one else seems even bother.

 

[GoodApprentice]

Two-man mutliplay would be a neat option. I would happily tag along as my friend's companion or vise versa. One player could host and dictate the quest paths and his/her buddy could jump right into the passive companion slot and still remain true to the game's story and atmosphere. An actual, thinking Lydia would rock balls.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't see the need for a multiplayer element in The Elder Scrolls. I think gaming needs at least one really big, powerful singleplayer experience. Too many games are bowing down to multiplayer where, at best, it's good and at worst it brings down the game. Most though are ignored after the first week of play. Of course all of these multiplayer options are almost always online only which takes away the human contact part of multiplayer (which is what I thought was the whole point of it was to begin with).

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Yes it's a single player experience that should be enjoyed alone but i would enjoy just messing around with friends.