Elder Scrolls V - Part 4

[Benstamania]

I think what Spidey-Bat is saying is, and I've read numerous interviews with Todd Howard where he's said the same thing, is that if they try and include multiplayer in their games that's time spent that they could have used on making a better single player experience. If that's the case, if it's really going to take so much time away from working on the single player experience that it gives us a game of significantly lesser quality then I'm with Spidey-Bat and Todd Howard, they should put their efforts into single player, even if it's just ironing out the (many, many) bugs.

Personally I'd love drop-in. Saints Row 2, among other games, have a great feature where you can jump right into your buddies game. In Skyrim it would be just like having a follower, except they could talk and show more initiative. I'd also like to leap into my friend's game and see how their world is doing. It would be pretty cool, but I can take it or leave it.

On the subject of bugs, I encountered a particularly frustrating one today during a Companion's quest that won't let me finish it. Now it seems like I can't do any more of the Companion quests until it's done, but I can't finish it because of the bug. How irritating, especially after I waited so long to join the Companions.

Which is why if they do add in MP.. why not do it in a DLC.. You know, since the game is already done. They could easily put it in there no problem and it wouldn't break the game.

 

[The Squirrel]

I'm perfectly happy with having a single player focused franchise on the market.

 

[Master Chief]

^^ when you get a gaming PC, the only mod you should get is the one i mentioned, the RFCW. It's THE mod...coz you now can travel back and forth from CW to NV! it basically made FO3 a DLC for NV.



This is essentially the other side of the coin for all the good things in Skyrim, you get far too many quests/options...this also happened in Oblivion.basically, at first you're glad because all of the quests/ options, later on , after a few playthrough, you will feel overwhelmed by those things

FO3 has not enough quests, Oblivion and Skyrim got too many.The ideal situation would be- in my opinion of course- slightly more quests/options than FO3, but definitely less than what we have on Oblivion/Skyrim.

lol grenade hot key and visor HUDs gets me more excited than taking a subway between Vegas and Washington.

It's not the quests so much that keep me from wanting to play it but it's the way they're designed... almost every single quest points you to a place that's far away. I know the game is supposed to be epic but damn! For someone who doesn't fast travel it's a pain in the ass.

 

[Benstamania]

*sigh*

I swear some of you guys think the game will instantly turn into corner campers and tea baggin' if they allow two player drop in/out co-op.

If there is one company that can do that and do it well in an RPG (outside of BioWare) then it would be Bethesda. What would be ruined if they simply added that? And in DLC... after the main game is complete and beaten by almost everyone. You could play the single player... because the MP would be the same damn thing... just with an added friend.

Or.. get this, you wouldn't even have to PLAY it in co-op mode!

I'm not saying ES should turn into a MP game.. but if they added 2 player co-op... it wouldn't hurt the franchise. Now.. if they took ES6 and made it an MMO... Then I could understand the anger.

 

[James]

Which is why if they do add in MP.. why not do it in a DLC.. You know, since the game is already done. They could easily put it in there no problem and it wouldn't break the game.

I agree, I'd like to see it happen. That said, the game *still* has a lot of bugs, bugs that mean you can't even do entire quest lines like the one I mentioned above. Personally, if my choice is between fixing my single player game or having multiplayer, I'll fix my single player.

I would love drop-in, co-op, whatever...but not at the cost of quality in my single player game.

 

[The Squirrel]

As far as I know, unless Bethesda changes their mind, they're on my side of not wanting MP.

If they change their mind, then fine. But the argument is kind of over until they do.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I'd buy two. One for me and another because you're being a goof in regards to OPTIONAL FEATURES.

Time spent on making MP is time not spent on improving single player which is what the series is about. TES is a single player experience first and foremost. Putting in MP is unnecessary and just a waste since none of the games are designed for it.

If they want to make an MP game, make an off-shoot series with it. Keep the main series the way it should be: single player.

 

[Master Chief]

*sigh*

I swear some of you guys think the game will instantly turn into corner campers and tea baggin' if they allow two player drop in/out co-op.

If there is one company that can do that and do it well in an RPG (outside of BioWare) then it would be Bethesda. What would be ruined if they simply added that? And in DLC... after the main game is complete and beaten by almost everyone. You could play the single player... because the MP would be the same damn thing... just with an added friend.

Or.. get this, you wouldn't even have to PLAY it in co-op mode!

I'm not saying ES should turn into a MP game.. but if they added 2 player co-op... it wouldn't hurt the franchise. Now.. if they took ES6 and made it an MMO... Then I could understand the anger.

A little part of me is happy that Todd Howard doesn't want to implement multiplayer. It's like players nowadays can't fathom having to play alone. I can see the appeal of co-op in these games but I couldn't care less, especially since so much time is spent in menus that freeze the game world. At least when I play.

lol anyways they're a developer that has never dabbled in multiplayer, what the heck makes you think they're the ones who can make it work? Hahah.

 

[Benstamania]

Again, I'm not demanding that they put in Co-Op.. I'm simply saying if they do it for the DLC it won't ruin the game. It's already done... all this time they could have honed their MP craft.

If it stays SP I'll be happy.. but if it goes MP (2 player co-op) I'm not going to refuse to buy it or cross my arms and pout. The only "bad" game Bethesda gave me was Oblivion.. and I wouldn't even call it bad... More boring than anything.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Like others have said, i just dont think MP is needed. I dont think it would hurt anything if they did add it, its just completely unnecessary. If they were to add some kind of MP then that means they took focus off of something(anything) else and I'm not willing to compromise that. I would rather them spend time on crafting fluffier bunnies than wasting even a second on putting in some kind of MP.

There are plenty of MP games out there, TES doesn't need to be one.

 

[Benstamania]

Why though? I seriously want to know why people would think that putting in DLC Co-op AFTER the game has been out for MONTHS that it would mean Bethesda skimped on other things?

I can bet you that when I play the MP in ME3 I'm not going to think "Man.. I bet if they would have ignored this horde mode type of MP we could have got MOAR!"

Skyrim is done... I suppose they have some glitches to fix but other than that..if they give us co-op it's not going to ruin, or cause us to miss out on an already completed game.

That's what's so goofy to me...

Is co-op unneeded? Yeah, it's NOT needed... but it's not going to change the already released Skyrim if Bethesda decided to give us co-op so we can kill dragons with a buddy.

 

[Soapy]

lol anyways they're a developer that has never dabbled in multiplayer,

Wrong. They made Skynet and Battlespire, both of which had multiplayer.

Putting in MP is unnecessary and just a waste since none of the games are designed for it..

Battlespire is an Elder Scrolls game, by the way.

 

[Master Chief]

Wrong. They made Skynet and Battlespire, both of which had multiplayer.



Battlespire is an Elder Scrolls game, by the way.

I'll look into those.

Why though? I seriously want to know why people would think that putting in DLC Co-op AFTER the game has been out for MONTHS that it would mean Bethesda skimped on other things?

I can bet you that when I play the MP in ME3 I'm not going to think "Man.. I bet if they would have ignored this horde mode type of MP we could have got MOAR!"

Skyrim is done... I suppose they have some glitches to fix but other than that..if they give us co-op it's not going to ruin, or cause us to miss out on an already completed game.

That's what's so goofy to me...

Is co-op unneeded? Yeah, it's NOT needed... but it's not going to change the already released Skyrim if Bethesda decided to give us co-op so we can kill dragons with a buddy.

lol coz I'd rather have a quality expansion pack to the game instead of co-op. And after they're done with their DLC for Skyrim I'd rather they move onto Fallout 4.

If you really want co-op so bad...

 

[Soapy]

And this argument that multiplayer will "take away from" or somehow "cheapen" the experience is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bull****. Would you say the same for Uncharted? What about Assassin's Creed? Portal? Mass Effect? Grand Theft Auto? I could keep going...

 

[James]

Why though? I seriously want to know why people would think that putting in DLC Co-op AFTER the game has been out for MONTHS that it would mean Bethesda skimped on other things?

I can bet you that when I play the MP in ME3 I'm not going to think "Man.. I bet if they would have ignored this horde mode type of MP we could have got MOAR!"

Skyrim is done... I suppose they have some glitches to fix but other than that..if they give us co-op it's not going to ruin, or cause us to miss out on an already completed game.

That's what's so goofy to me...

Is co-op unneeded? Yeah, it's NOT needed... but it's not going to change the already released Skyrim if Bethesda decided to give us co-op so we can kill dragons with a buddy.

You said it yourself. "Some glitches" is kind of an understatement, the game is chock full of bugs that cause parts of it to be literally unplayable. That doesn't qualify it as a "completed" game. Even Bethesda themselves know the game was released unfinished, which is why they're releasing patches all the time.

The majority of people, at least in this thread, would rather Bethesda continue putting their time into improving the quality of the single player than working on multiplayer. It's not an anti-multiplayer argument, if the game was actually finished and fully playable then everyone would be happy (or at the very least indifferent) towards co-op.

And this argument that multiplayer will "take away from" or somehow "cheapen" the experience is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bull****. Would you say the same for Uncharted? What about Assassin's Creed? Portal? Mass Effect? Grand Theft Auto? I could keep going.

You misunderstand. Of course having multiplayer won't cheapen the single player, but working on having a co-op option is time spent that Bethesda could have used improving the single player. As I said earlier, I'd love co-op in Skyrim, but not at the cost of better single player.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Battlespire is an Elder Scrolls game, by the way.

Morrowind set the standard for the series, IMO.

And this argument that multiplayer will "take away from" or somehow "cheapen" the experience is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bull****. Would you say the same for Uncharted? What about Assassin's Creed? Portal? Mass Effect? Grand Theft Auto? I could keep going...

Elder Scrolls is different. Uncharted, AC, ME, and GTA the main story is more involved and it has a linear progression. You also regularly interact with a group of NPCs. None of them are like Elder Scrolls where you're dropped into the world and allowed to do whatever you want. I think if you have MP added to it, you're going to have to take away some freedom from the main player.

 

[James]

I think if you have MP added to it, you're going to have to take away some freedom from the main player.

If they did the Fable/Saints Row drop-in style co-op it would work fine, I think. Your friend literally brings their own character into your saved game. It would be just like playing single player, except your mate would be tagging along.

Of course, if your friends are anything like mine you'd never want to actually save that game after co-op because they'd probably kill your wife and steal all your stuff.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Why though? I seriously want to know why people would think that putting in DLC Co-op AFTER the game has been out for MONTHS that it would mean Bethesda skimped on other things?

I can bet you that when I play the MP in ME3 I'm not going to think "Man.. I bet if they would have ignored this horde mode type of MP we could have got MOAR!"

Skyrim is done... I suppose they have some glitches to fix but other than that..if they give us co-op it's not going to ruin, or cause us to miss out on an already completed game.

That's what's so goofy to me...

Is co-op unneeded? Yeah, it's NOT needed... but it's not going to change the already released Skyrim if Bethesda decided to give us co-op so we can kill dragons with a buddy.

The rule for games development is for every one thing you do, thats another you can't do. Be it due to time, money or a combo of the two. Its just how it works. Even if you split the team, something WILL get cut.

I mean you're right, if they were to split the team and do a MP DLC then so be it, nothing would really change, but that means that something, even if its an incredibly miniscule detail, couldn't get ideal focus and I'm not willing to compromise that for some multi player in a game that absolutely does NOT need it. It can't possibly be stressed enough that MP DOESNT NEED TO BE IN EVERY SINGLE GAME.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

And this argument that multiplayer will "take away from" or somehow "cheapen" the experience is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bull****. Would you say the same for Uncharted? What about Assassin's Creed? Portal? Mass Effect? Grand Theft Auto? I could keep going...

Id make the case that when both AC and Uncharted started focussing more heavily on the MP, their SP campaigns suffered. I felt both AC:B and UC2 were better than their predecessors and i absolutely blame that fact on the increased push on their MP. UC2's sp was incredible, but would of been doubly so had it of never added MP.

But like Spidey-Bat said, those are tough comparisons due to how linear they are, even something like AC isn't nearly as expansive as TES.


But it still comes back to the point that this game doesn't need MP. As Spidey-Bat said, there are plenty others games that feature a mp.

 

[The Squirrel]

Id make the case that when both AC and Uncharted started focussing more heavily on the MP, their SP campaigns suffered. I felt both AC:B and UC2 were better than their predecessors and i absolutely blame that fact on the increased push on their MP. UC2's sp was incredible, but would of been doubly so had it of never added MP.

But like Spidey-Bat said, those are tough comparisons due to how linear they are, even something like AC isn't nearly as expansive as TES.

Uncharted 3 really suffered from an even bigger focus on the MP, and the team splitting to work on The Last of Us.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Uncharted 3 really suffered from an even bigger focus on the MP, and the team splitting to work on The Last of Us.

Exactly. We got a shorter and less satisfying campaign than the previous title.

 

[James]

Meanwhile, poor James has discovered that to continue the Companions story quests he needs to finish one radiant quest. Alas, the first radiant quest has a terrible bug which means it can't be finished, so no Companions quests for me.

This sucks, I waited for ages before starting the Companions stuff with my 'main' character and now I can't even play them. I sure hope they patch it soon.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Bethesda has a hard enough time releasing a single player game that doesn't brick when you turn it on, I think them attempting to add a second player into Skyrim would literally set my 360 on fire.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

If they did the Fable/Saints Row drop-in style co-op it would work fine, I think. Your friend literally brings their own character into your saved game. It would be just like playing single player, except your mate would be tagging along.

Of course, if your friends are anything like mine you'd never want to actually save that game after co-op because they'd probably kill your wife and steal all your stuff.

Then what's the point if you're not going to save your progress? And like I said, you make MP, you're going to have to take some freedoms away from the main player but also limit the secondary player. Can they take your items into their game? What if they kill nonessential quest-related NPCs and you end up locked in or out of a quest because of it? What if they do a quest and now you can't? It just brings up more issues than it's worth.

And as Pat and Squirrel have pointed out, Uncharted 3 is exhibit A of why single player games should always focus on single player. UC2 was awesome. UC3 isn't a bad game but it feels like utter crap compared to its predecessor. UC3 was shorter, the plot less focused, the historical aspects ignored most of the game, and had ridiculous difficulty spikes. Plus you have a rushed action chapter on a plane only to spend the next 10-15 min wandering in a desert for no reason.

I don't want to sound like Spock harping on how bad Bethesda is with bugs, but Geo brings up a good point as well. They've been slow on patches for a single-player game and you want them to incorporate multiplayer in a type of game that has never had it before? Not sure if serious.

 

[James]

Then what's the point if you're not going to save your progress? .

I was just making a joke because my friends are jerks to play with, but the point, I suppose, would be fun. If you played co-op with a sensible person who just did quests with you and wasn't a butt-head, you could probably save your game happily. Alternatively you could make a second save file for multiplayer.

That said, I'm certainly not disagreeing with you on the "more trouble than it's worth" thing. It would take a lot of time, time that would be better spent improving the many, many things that still need fixing in the single player.