Elder Scrolls V - Part 4

[Paladin-Hoss]

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.

What's the bug? and are you playing on the PC or console?

...And all this talk about multiplayer....i thought they already had a Skyrim multiplayer,it's called world of warcraft

Jk

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

LOL i get more excited seeing Veronica vs Enclave soldiers...Cass in a shootout against those PL hillbillies and having a beer with Sydney afterward or Fawkes vs the nightkins! and don't forget seeing Charon shares a beer with Raoul! can't help it...it's the comicbook fan in me

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.

...And sometimes, you think you're finally there, there's a hunk of rock between you and your destination, and since you can't climb, you have to go around another 100 miles

 

[James]

What's the bug? and are you playing on the PC or console?

I'm on console so unfortunately there's no fixing it unless they do it in a patch. The bug specifically is, I'm supposed to intimidate Commander Mora (or Mara?) in Dragon's Bridge. Naturally to do this it requires I start a conversation with him, but every time I try the conversation screen won't activate, nothing happens.

I have met that character before, I wiped out the Brotherhood for him. So now whenever I try and speak to him he just repeats some line about how great I did, but won't actually enter conversation. It sucks because I'm locked out of doing anything else with the Companions until Bethesda fixes it.

Fortunately I have three other characters to mess around with, but it's pretty frustrating.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I think this conversation could largely be avoided by the fact that we all know they are never going to 'add' co-op' in DLC. This was based off an entirely speculative, opinion piece on 'what if DLC was multiplayer?!?' and had no actual merit.

Also, the technical and design implications of simply 'adding in co-op' are so complicated, especially when creating content for a game that was already engineered and designed from the ground up as a single player game, that it would be easier for bethesda to make a new game with co-op than add it into Skyrim.


Regarding the whole MP in future games thing though, yeah, that'd be great, and if you're one of those people who HATES the option and views it as some kind of market trending COD wannabe stuff, then you're a chump. It'd be an additional strain on the hardware, sure, but for next gen? Perhaps no so much.

And as has been pointed out, everyone now is just waiting for DLC, having finished mains quests etc. If there was a co-op mode, there is more incentive to keep playing, then it's just dipping into a fantasy world with a friend, with there always new things on offer. That level of replayability I think is a perfectly apt counter to the 'loss of focus on singleplayer' argument.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

I'm on console so unfortunately there's no fixing it unless they do it in a patch. The bug specifically is, I'm supposed to intimidate Commander Mora (or Mara?) in Dragon's Bridge. Naturally to do this it requires I start a conversation with him, but every time I try the conversation screen won't activate, nothing happens.

I have met that character before, I wiped out the Brotherhood for him. So now whenever I try and speak to him he just repeats some line about how great I did, but won't actually enter conversation. It sucks because I'm locked out of doing anything else with the Companions until Bethesda fixes it.

Fortunately I have three other characters to mess around with, but it's pretty frustrating.

`

This solution always worked on FO3 and NV...after you talk to him, leave the area. don't visit him again after a cell reset...usually 3-4 in-game days, then try again.This bug might have been caused by you not talking to him after wiping out the brotherhood, and since he's now scripted for two quests, there's a conflict.

Good luck!

 

[ProjectPat2280]

and if you're one of those people who HATES the option and views it as some kind of market trending COD wannabe stuff, then you're a chump. It'd be an additional strain on the hardware, sure, but for next gen? Perhaps no so much.
.

I think the exact same thing can be said if you are one of those people constantly yelling for multiplayer or co-op in every game that gets announced.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I'm not calling for co-op in every game, I simply don't see it as a bad thing, if it were announced.

Sure, I think there are some games that were desperately calling for co-op or would be enhanced by it, like Bulletstorm for instance. But since this was a hypothetical discussion about IF Bethesda introduced co-op, along those lines, IF they introduced it, I wouldn't be complaining and heralding doom like everyone else, I'd be excited and keen to see what they do.

I'm not clamouring for it in this game though, I'm simply not narrow-mindedly ruling it out as a potential benefit. If that was what Bethesda actually WANTED to do, i'd rather them go with the game they WANT to make instead of the game they think would be safer. Same applies though, if they don't WANT to focus on multiplayer then I don't want them to.

I've heard so much crap from people about the Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. If the developers want to try something different and introduce a new gameplay feature, I'm going to gladly experience as a part of the game they want people to play. I hate it when gamers seem to think they know better simply based on what appeals to them, rather than what the games creators actual intentions are.

If we're talking about Activision or someone who has proven they prioritise money and financial success over creating a valid, artful piece of media then that's fine since the cynicism is warranted due to precedence. Other devs like Bioware and Bethesda have no such precedence, hence I wouldn't rule them out.

Now try and tell me my thoughts on the subject aren't thought out. I've thought about this a lot more than any knee jerk reaction. I mean mentioning COD as a comparison point for MP gaming is either showing extreme ignorance or wilful contempt.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

In some form of another, the single player experience will be lessened by adding multiplayer. The only game where this didn't happen was Uncharted 2 and it's sequel (which focused more on MP) was ****.

 

[Matt]

Uncharted 3 was fantastic. Also, Mass Effect 3 is employing multiplayer and it is shaping up to be fantastic. Red Dead Redemption had multiplayer and I wouldn't say the single player suffered nor did GTA IV. It can be done, multiplayer and single player in the same game. The problem is when studios make a game designed around multiplayer and tack on single player as an afterthought (like the COD franchise).

That being said, I would be shocked if we ever see a main entry into the Elder Scrolls franchise with multiplayer. But I'd also be shocked if we do not see an Elder Scrolls MMORPG within the next five years.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

In some form of another, the single player experience will be lessened by adding multiplayer. The only game where this didn't happen was Uncharted 2 and it's sequel (which focused more on MP) was ****.

The campaign of Uncharted 3 wasn't quite as strong as Uncharted 2 but it was still miles above most single player game's in terms of narrative and I can see now way at all in which the weakness of U3's story could be blamed on the MP.

You post only strengthens my feelings and irritation towards knee jerk posters. You would write that entire game off as 's**t'? It's that type of gamer that makes the industry look bad. The type that yells and complains over games being 'awful' because it hasn't matched what their expectations were.

To be honest, your thoughts on this topic no longer interest me. If you would write a game off like that, a game of high quality, as evidence for the 'doom' of MP, then it's clear to me you are incapable of having any rational or reasoned discussion. You like what you like, you hate what you hate and you clearly don't care for any conversation that clashes with those ideas.

 

[Master Chief]

These games being listed as examples of great single player experiences with multiplayer don't even have half the content that's in a Bethesda game.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

There's a lot more to a video game than the 'content' and that's where the resources go. Skyrim was a great game, sure, but there are plenty of things it DIDN'T had, that it didn't even necessarily need to have.

What do you classify as 'content'? Did it have any of the vast and complicated narrative and story complexity of Mass Effect? Or the sheer attention to detail and beautiful cinematic presentation of a Naughty Dog game?

You can't simply use content or size of a game world to mark it's quality or the complexity of it's game design. Sure it was a big world, but at the end of the day, a lot of that content was basic, fetch quest level stuff and the dungeons and caves were by and large very similar in scope and design, not to mention the bugs that weren't ironed out. What it had in scope and size and content, it lacked the polish of other A level games.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The campaign of Uncharted 3 wasn't quite as strong as Uncharted 2 but it was still miles above most single player game's in terms of narrative and I can see now way at all in which the weakness of U3's story could be blamed on the MP.

You post only strengthens my feelings and irritation towards knee jerk posters. You would write that entire game off as 's**t'? It's that type of gamer that makes the industry look bad. The type that yells and complains over games being 'awful' because it hasn't matched what their expectations were.

To be honest, your thoughts on this topic no longer interest me. If you would write a game off like that, a game of high quality, as evidence for the 'doom' of MP, then it's clear to me you are incapable of having any rational or reasoned discussion. You like what you like, you hate what you hate and you clearly don't care for any conversation that clashes with those ideas.

I hated UC3 because I was really disappointed with it. Everything I liked about UC2 they found some way to make it worse in UC# and I believe most of that is due to them focusing on the multiplayer. Even something as simple as cheats and skins to use in single player replays were absent. Most people I've talked to about it agreed that it wasn't good and some feel as strongly as me about it.

I explained on the previous page (1st and 3rd paragraphs) some valid reasons why I don't think a multiplayer TES game is a good idea. I'm not going to type it again every post.

If my posts don't interest you, don't read them. I won't bother continuing this if you're just going to dismiss my opinion as being irrational just because I'm against a feature being added to the game.

If Bethesda wants to make a MP game set in the the TES universe, make it a spin-off. Keep the main series a single-player RPG.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm not calling for co-op in every game, I simply don't see it as a bad thing, if it were announced.

Sure, I think there are some games that were desperately calling for co-op or would be enhanced by it, like Bulletstorm for instance. But since this was a hypothetical discussion about IF Bethesda introduced co-op, along those lines, IF they introduced it, I wouldn't be complaining and heralding doom like everyone else, I'd be excited and keen to see what they do.

I'm not clamouring for it in this game though, I'm simply not narrow-mindedly ruling it out as a potential benefit. If that was what Bethesda actually WANTED to do, i'd rather them go with the game they WANT to make instead of the game they think would be safer. Same applies though, if they don't WANT to focus on multiplayer then I don't want them to.

I've heard so much crap from people about the Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. If the developers want to try something different and introduce a new gameplay feature, I'm going to gladly experience as a part of the game they want people to play. I hate it when gamers seem to think they know better simply based on what appeals to them, rather than what the games creators actual intentions are.

If we're talking about Activision or someone who has proven they prioritise money and financial success over creating a valid, artful piece of media then that's fine since the cynicism is warranted due to precedence. Other devs like Bioware and Bethesda have no such precedence, hence I wouldn't rule them out.

Now try and tell me my thoughts on the subject aren't thought out. I've thought about this a lot more than any knee jerk reaction. I mean mentioning COD as a comparison point for MP gaming is either showing extreme ignorance or wilful contempt.

Uncharted 3 was fantastic. Also, Mass Effect 3 is employing multiplayer and it is shaping up to be fantastic. Red Dead Redemption had multiplayer and I wouldn't say the single player suffered nor did GTA IV. It can be done, multiplayer and single player in the same game. The problem is when studios make a game designed around multiplayer and tack on single player as an afterthought (like the COD franchise).

That being said, I would be shocked if we ever see a main entry into the Elder Scrolls franchise with multiplayer. But I'd also be shocked if we do not see an Elder Scrolls MMORPG within the next five years.

I agree guys. MP shouldn't be a kiss of death just because of the COD and Battlefield games relying more on it than their SP campaigns. Every game's single player is not gonna suffer for that.

At the same time, I don't see an Elder Scrolls MP component coming anytime soon, and Bethesda's sister company, Zenimax, not Bethesda, would would be the ones making an Elder Scrolls MMORPG if that were to ever happen, as Bethesda said themselves.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I explained on the previous page (1st and 3rd paragraphs) some valid reasons why I don't think a multiplayer TES game is a good idea. I'm not going to type it again every post.

I'm not talkin explicitly about TES and neither were you in the post i took issue with. You demonised the idea of adding MP to single player games, saying it would always suffer (with the exception of U2)

 

[James]

`

This solution always worked on FO3 and NV...after you talk to him, leave the area. don't visit him again after a cell reset...usually 3-4 in-game days, then try again.This bug might have been caused by you not talking to him after wiping out the brotherhood, and since he's now scripted for two quests, there's a conflict.

Good luck!

Thanks, I'll give it a whirl!

 

[Master Chief]

lol n/m, I take back what I said. Even though I think their MP is mediocre, those games are decent examples of how a SP experience won't necessarily be ruined by PvP or co-op. Dead Space 2 is another one. Anyone saying MP in general will ruin SP is being ridiculous lol even though that is true when it comes to Bethesda games. Geo put it best:

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.

With Bethesda games I'd rather leave co-op to the modding community thaaanks.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Also, it's not weird to pawn off Multiplayer duties to another company, which usually has mixed results.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

With Bethesda games I'd rather leave co-op to the modding community thaaanks.

We're not allowed to talk about that version of Skyrim here.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

We're not allowed to talk about that version of Skyrim here.

Because most of you people can't do it without a backhanded comment towards the console versions.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ this.

 

[Havok83]

We're not allowed to talk about that version of Skyrim here.

is that for real or just a joke?

 

[Matt]

These games being listed as examples of great single player experiences with multiplayer don't even have half the content that's in a Bethesda game.

Not every game has to be. Bethesda makes huge and immersive games. The whole point of them is to get sucked into a world in which anything is possible. Not every game needs to be that way. If I'm looking for pure fun, I will take Uncharted over Skyrim any day of the week. Not all games need to be huge and packed to the rims with content. Sometimes just having a really good, small game is better.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Because most of you people can't do it without a backhanded comment towards the console versions.

I've been using a smiley whenever I mention the PC version which means it's a joke. I would assume that's obvious.

is that for real or just a joke?

It varies day to day.

 

[James]

My mage is a bastard. Some guy in Riverwood was racist toward him so rather than kill the guy, the mage assassinated his brother. Tut tut.

 

[Venomfan]

i always thought co-op would be so cool for morrowind but then i came to a realization. my friend that i play with makes a character who goes around and murders every person in the game he finds, i play as a good character. if we played together he would kill all the people i want to get quests from.

how could you get around this? i mean when i play i often kill someone by accident and then reload, you can't really do that in co-op