The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim V5: But there is one they fear - Dragon porn!
55,644 replies, posted
It may be neat to think about what may be, but it's just wishful thinking. Skyrim is not, by any stretch of the imagination ready for co-op.
[QUOTE=Teh Zip File;33128883]They could, you know... only play with each other in the first place? That argument can apply to every single coop RPG game ever.[/QUOTE]
Who actually wants to be forced to keep the same pace with someone else in a game like this?
[QUOTE=spekter;33128869]What would that achieve? You've still got the whole levelling problem to deal with.[/QUOTE]
You'd both start off at level 1 and play through the game. Experience would have to be shared and enemies would have to be buffed up. When I play co-op games (borderlands or dead island) I already know who I'm going to play with and we agree only to play with each other
[QUOTE=ryfry99;33128919]You'd both start off at level 1 and play through the game. Experience would have to be shared and enemies would have to be buffed up. When I play co-op games (borderlands or dead island) I already know who I'm going to play with and we agree only to play with each other[/QUOTE]
Yeah but you're essentially forced to play at the same pace and that kind of restriction is going to piss people off fast. I've not once seen a GOOD XP sharing system.
[QUOTE=spekter;33128941]Yeah but you're essentially forced to play at the same pace and that kind of restriction is going to piss people off fast. I've not once seen a GOOD XP sharing system.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm fine with it and borderlands xp sharing was pretty good.
For me its either an MMORPG with gets boring fast or pure singleplayer when it comes to a RPG.
I just can't stand 2 player RPG's.
craft random hat for the first time: receive dragonborn, obviously a sign
[QUOTE=ryfry99;33128963]Well I'm fine with it and borderlands xp sharing was pretty good.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately not everyone is like that though, the problems are too vast putting MP into a game such as this. I wasn't fortunate enough to play COOP on Borderlands so no idea how that went down, kinda got boring quick for me on SP anyway.
I prefer Elder Scrolls to be a purely awesome single player experience.
I can't believe that guy even put multiplayer in as an argument between the two.
[QUOTE=J!NX;33128894]just get a mod if you want MP[/QUOTE]
It won't happen for at least a year.
Here is a neat bit of info I found. Don't click it if you don't want anything spoiled though.
[sp]The main story ends with you getting an Elder Scroll from a Dwemer ruin to combat Alduin.[/sp]
BATTLESPIRE HAD MULTIPLAYER.
Is it time to fusrohdoh yet
The real reason Bethesda doesn't do MP is because all the games are set as you being the only major hero. When they say you're the last dragonborn, they mean you're the [B]LAST[/B] dragonborn.
Plus it would interfere too much with the story.
[QUOTE=spekter;33128696]Player A is level 32, Player B is level 12. See? Instant flaw.
People need to stop being such dreamers about this thing, when given any thought or discussion of the serious kind, these ideas are terrible.[/QUOTE]
It's really simple to fucking fix this.
Have players share levels
Player A is 32, therefore player B is 32.
But knowing Bethesda, they just want singleplayer.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;33129173]The real reason Bethesda doesn't do MP is because all the games are set as you being the only major hero. When they say you're the last dragonborn, they mean you're the [B]LAST[/B] dragonborn.
Plus it would interfere too much with the story.[/QUOTE]
oh god my immersion please bethesda don't add an optional feature
I would imagine the actual reason is the issues of time constraints concerning netcode, balance, etc etc.
[editline]5th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=spekter;33128696]Player A is level 32, Player B is level 12. See? Instant flaw.
People need to stop being such dreamers about this thing, when given any thought or discussion of the serious kind, these ideas are terrible.[/QUOTE]
Imagine this:
Player A and B run into a terrible monster in their journeys! Player A sees it as a level 32 monster while player B sees it as a level 12 monster. Meaning Player A isn't stomping all over the underpowered monsters just as Player B isn't getting whomped by overpowered monsters. Enemy health is synced by percentage not by the numerical value so while Player A is damaging for 500 health and player B is damaging for 50 health, they're both carving about the same chunk out of the enemy health bar as one another and nobody feels they're useless/too useful.
I believe Dead Island implemented a system similar to this.
[QUOTE=Goofa;33129245]oh god my immersion please bethesda don't add an optional feature
I would imagine the actual reason is the issues of time constraints concerning netcode, balance, etc etc.
[editline]5th November 2011[/editline]
Imagine this:
Player A and B run into a terrible monster in their journeys! Player A sees it as a level 32 monster while player B sees it as a level 12 monster. Meaning Player A isn't stomping all over the underpowered monsters just as Player B isn't getting whomped by overpowered monsters. Enemy health is synced by percentage not by the numerical value so while Player A is damaging for 500 health and player B is damaging for 50 health, they're both carving about the same chunk out of the enemy health bar as one another and nobody feels they're useless/too useful.
I believe Dead Island implemented a system similar to this.[/QUOTE]
That makes good sense actually.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;33129226]It's really simple to fucking fix this.
Have players share levels
Player A is 32, therefore player B is 32.
But knowing Bethesda, they just want singleplayer.[/QUOTE]
Thats essentially cheating though.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;33129173]The real reason Bethesda doesn't do MP is because all the games are set as you being the only major hero. When they say you're the last dragonborn, they mean you're the [B]LAST[/B] dragonborn.
Plus it would interfere too much with the story.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't mind them adding DLC that adds coop.
I think the main reason with multiplayer is the same for Mass Effect 3 before we learned that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was not the single player, but with friends.
People are afriad it will ruin the experience, but the problem is that people do not realize that it will be [B][I][U]OPTIONAL[/U][/I][/B] and you DON'T have to play it.
If you hate Multiplayer for Skyrim(and if it came with multiplayer), THEN DON'T PLAY IT.
[sp] If I came off too harsh, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to say my opinion with the most clarity as possible :( [/sp]
I don't know, mainly make it pure SP, but add MP as a purely secondary thing that doesn't touch the game, period.
Still, I like my SP.
[editline]4th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33129347]I wouldn't mind them adding DLC that adds coop.[/QUOTE]
That would be a good move, actually.
yeah but who says the MP has to be based around the mainquest with both players being dragonborn etc?
Co-op sidequests would be the shit
edit: hell it'd be cool for even more roleplay aspects, imagine a breaking bad type co-op play through, except with skooma not meth
or a co-op leveling/storyline race
see who caps the level and does the most quests the fastest.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;33129375]I think the main reason with multiplayer is the same for Mass Effect 3 before we learned that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was not the single player, but with friends.
People are afriad it will ruin the experience, but the problem is that people do not realize that it will be [B][I][U]OPTIONAL[/U][/I][/B] and you DON'T have to play it.
If you hate Multiplayer for Skyrim(and if it came with multiplayer), THEN DON'T PLAY IT.
[sp] If I came off too harsh, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to say my opinion with the most clarity as possible :( [/sp][/QUOTE] I think the main reason people were against ME3 multiplayer was because they felt that it would take away from work that could go towards the single-player, and that it could result in it being worse than any of the other games. Just for an example, compare the first Bioshock's single-player to Bioshock 2.
I'd say to have the co-op story separate from the SP story like in Portal 2, but that would end up being a load of content.
I wouldn't mind a CO-OP DLC, in all honesty, would really be worth the money.
Seperate storyline and all.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;33129375]I think the main reason with multiplayer is the same for Mass Effect 3 before we learned that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was not the single player, but with friends.
People are afriad it will ruin the experience, but the problem is that people do not realize that it will be [B][I][U]OPTIONAL[/U][/I][/B] and you DON'T have to play it.
If you hate Multiplayer for Skyrim(and if it came with multiplayer), THEN DON'T PLAY IT.
[sp] If I came off too harsh, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to say my opinion with the most clarity as possible :( [/sp][/QUOTE]
The devs would lose time and money crafting MP/COOP, thats the main problem or at least thats what should be identified as one of the problems.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Fussy!;33129751]Am I the only one that noticed that they removed the "Holy shit, it's fucking Mordor!" line from Thunder Run?[/QUOTE]
Wrong thread? :v:
[QUOTE=spekter;33129729]The devs would lose time and money crafting MP/COOP, thats the main problem or at least thats what should be identified as one of the problems.[/QUOTE]
Like the post above yours, it can be a DLC.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
