Elder Scrolls V - Page 3

Not "this user." I like my singleplayer games.


I don't agree. If I am playing an RPG, I want the story to be good, and if they need to "tone it down" to add co-op, that's just cutting the nose to spite the face.


I played Fable 2 start to finish by myself, and it was fine. I can't imagine how much it would've been better with someone else. Especially since the game did have co-op.


That really sounds horrible, especially since I controlled all the characters myself, and it added a little bit of tactical depth to a game that really needed it.


And a large portion of players DON'T want co-op, so why do they have to be the ones to bend? Why can't some games just come out in good old singleplayer.


Wait, didn't you just say earlier in your post that co-op can affect the single player?

Some games work very well for co-op. Action-based games mostly. Some games don't. But honestly RPG and co-op has always been a really bad fit. Baldur's Gate released in 1996 had a co-op mode. But it just wasn't very good and never caught on. Because co-op had all these weird quirks to fit the story-based gaming into the experience. Or they could have just watered down all the story stuff, but that wouldn't have been the same game.

the single player does not have to change. plenty of games have nice single player experiences, and watered down story/cutscenes for coop.... i really dont think the coop has to be watered down, but if they have to do that, thats fine.

should gears have a controllable ai character instead of coop support? would you be happy if you could quasi order him around with the d-pad? (which was pretty bad in mass effect by the way)

what about halo? does single player suffer because coop is available? is playing with the AI better than playing with a friend?

the worst part of fable 2 was the quasi-implementation of coop.

the best part of too human was the good implementation of coop, even if the lobby system was slightly cumbersome and the story was toned down a bit on the coop side.

most of the best experiences i've had in games in recent memory was in coop.

again, if you like single player, that doesnt have to change, and you're not forced to play coop.

it's like complaining there are cookies AND pie when you dont like pie but you love cookies..... you still get cookies.

The problem is that I get less cookies if some of the bakers are spending their time baking pies. And I don't get to buy a double batch of cookies. I have to buy the cookie/pie sampler platter.

I'm not bashing people who like good coop games, nor am I denying that lots of people want those games. I'm saying that I personally don't want to spend my money on such games.

no, i completely agree.

i'm only asking that the bakery hire more bakers, those skilled in cookies and those skilled in pies.... so that we can all have delicious deserts i do not wish any ill will to the cookie eaters, nor do i wish to force them to have less cookies, or cookies that don't taste as well as they should.... hell, i'll most likely eat a few cookies before i even dive into a little pie with friends.

I beat Gears singleplayer. Great game. Had no desire to play it co-op.

ME's partner system sucked but that doesn't automatically mean co-op would've been better. It means Bioware should've fixed their partner system. A lot of things were bad with ME.


Like I said, some games work better with co-op than others. Action games in particular I named. Some games don't. I don't want to see co-op be crammed into those games. I beat Halo 3 by myself BTW.


This analogy is stretched to **** so I am not going to use it. Money is not unlimited, staff is not unlimited, resources are not unlimited. If singleplayer would suffer at all from co-op I would hope developers would be very prudent about using it, and not just tack on a crappy co-op system because it's what is popular nowadays.

And hey, singleplayer games have been suffering since the dawn of multiplayer because developers have decided having a crappy multi mode tacked on is more important than putting more resources into SP. So our concerns are not theoretical.

your concerns are valid, but to say that the single player experience is lacking because dev time went into multiplayer is conjecture.

sure, staff, money, time, etc..... not unlimited.... but there is a big difference in resource availability when you're talking about bethesda, bungie, epic, bioware, etc... these aren't rinky-dink design houses.

If anything, with Gears of War 2, it was the multiplayer that suffered. What the hell happened there.

I hope Betheseda doesn't add co-op just because it's popular. Bioware isn't doing it with Dragon Age because they know it doesn't work with everything. If they considered BG's co-op a smashing success it would be in Dragon Age.

Pen-and-paper RPGs were created to be a group/co-op experience, albeit with a human leading the process rather than software. However, I think that developers are getting closer and closer to that model, especially Bioware with the ideas that drove Neverwinter Nights. I think the problem is that CRPGs (mostly thinking Western RPGs) went in two directions: 1) level grinders a la Diablo and MMORPGs; 2) rich, immersive, story-drive single-player RPGs like the Elder Scrolls series, Fallout 3, the Baldur's Gate PC games (forget about any rudimentary co-op), Mass Effect, and Dragon Age Origins.

I think it's very possible that developers will be able to use the computational power of current consoles and PCs to create an incredibly rich multiplayer RPG experience that's complimentary to the single player experience in the same game. Whether it's a single person controlling a party when playing single player and then "loaning" a party member to friends when they join which would work in a drop in/drop out fashion, whether it's fully segregated and requires all parties to participate beginning-to-end, or whether it pools together the capabilities of each person's single player characters into a party, it can certainly be made to work.

Now I don't know if developers are actively working on that or if they're content staying with the current shallow (which is not at odds with "fun"; I'm LOVING co-op Borderlands right now!) co-op experiences that are obviously selling games left and right. Either way I enjoy my single player games and I enjoy my co-op games. I love the stuff that's coming out these days!

Thanks.
$60 that are going elsewhere. :-)
Preferably a single-player, do-it-your-way rpg.
(With flying!)

In general, I can see Bethesda adding some coop to ESV in the form of a companion or two but the core value of the series, as they themselves stress over and over, is that the player is *the* hero, not "generic elf wizard 1067".

Or, like Bioware said of Mass Effect, a movie where the player is both director and lead actor. It's *your* game, *your* experience, *your* chance to be the hero.

In general I rather like the way Lionhead handled coop in Fable II; one of the players comes in as a companion, not as another coequal hero. Bethesda could have implemented something similar by letting player 2 control Fawkes or the Star Paladin or a generic companion.

If ESV follows the guild-based model of previous games, it could allow the lead gamer to be the Champion and other players to be guild-mates. Add in a bit of automatic difficulty-tweaking and limit coop to side-quests and it still would be an ES game with coop. But any move towards MMO would be to leave behind the series' core values.

They might do it but it would be...unwise...

is this an elder scrolls v thread or a general co-op thread?

I don't think ES5 will be a coop game. It would dillute the story. A multiplayer arena/bring your own character could be done without even touching the storyline though. Imagine yourself playing for a few hours and then just heading to the arena to test your mettle. Upon entering you are asked if you would like to connect to xbox live. Seamless. That would be sick.

I can only see a co-op mode working in an enviroment like Saints Row 2. That game made great use of co-op.

now that would be very cool for the arena. would make betting on matches alot better and you would really be earning your gold instead of just 3 minitaur lords.

another good multiplayer aspect would be a oblivion gate match. hold the other team off to protect the globe at the top or be on the opposing team to get the globe.

Whatever they have planned, I'm betting it's going to be good. JoeB

no doubt.

the entire point of a game like Fallout and elder scrolls is to explore the world and do what YOU want. Once you go COOP, suddenly its not what you want to do, it's what everyone wants to do. Forget about taking your time and checking every nook and cranny for lost treasures, loot, weapons etc. Co-op becomes a rushed situation where one person will always want to do something else. Co-op works great for action oriented games, but has NO place in massive RPG's that are like bethesda's usual games, which are respected for being phenomenal single player experiences done old skool...and done well. They aren't the only ones left that do it the old skool way, and get my money every single time because of it.

stop playing coop with d-bags.

Agreed. I only play co-op with my friends--in particular one of my childhood best friends--and we're both meticulous about looking in every nook-and-cranny before moving on. We've been doing this in Borderlands which is obviously a very shallow level grinder, but if a game with anything resembling the depth of Oblivion/Fallout 3 were to come out with co-op, I would imagine we'd do it there, too. We're not sprinting through the game just to see what's next. We're playing the game to explore the world together and basically just to "hang out" together on Live since we live half a country away from one another these days.

It's all about who you have available to play co-op with, I think. No way I'd do co-op in a game like these with someone who just wanted to move on to the next fight constantly...

Maybe that is the stumbling block that developers have with games like this. Why make a co op game that wont be used like GoW or Halo or COD series? I would think that the investment would outway the potential profit margin on something of this scale no???

My friend and I are the same way - live on different coasts but co-op when we can and play games slowly. Many times we've talked about wishing Oblivion was co-op. It'd be fantastic to explore that world together, do some dungeon crawling, etc. Awesome stuff.

Ever since Morrowind my friend and I have wanted to play these games in co-op. It would be so nice to explore these vast areas with another non-AI controlled explorer.

I don't get it, is that map new? I've seen that map before.

ES5 =Skyrim

talked about at VGA

Complete with a teaser trailer that shows pretty much nothing....

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/vg...scrolls/708368

Nice to hear the theme song revisited though!

-JR

I have to say that I'm pretty excited by this. Pretty much anything Todd Howard brings out, I'm going to have to play. I'm in the middle of playing Fallout 3 right now. I played Fallout 3 back when it came out, but got sidetracked and ended up playing other games, and now I've finally decided to get back to playing Fallout.

I'm absolutely loving Fallout 3 right now, and I can't wait to see what they have in store for ES V. When Oblivion came out, I played it for awhile, but at a certain point I got stuck in the game, and basically stopped playing it. Honestly, I think the world of Fallout 3 is more exciting to me than Oblivion. I love the post-apocalyptic setting.

Still, when I was first playing Oblivion, I was amazed by it. I'm sure Skyrim will be even better. I can't wait to see the first screenshots and gameplay videos.

LOL, NO THANKS

No more Bethsada games until they get a new engine. Fool me once...

Do you know for sure if they are using the same engine?

I am really excited myself as I loved Oblivion. Still one of my top five games of this generation. It will be nice to actually see some footage of the game to get a better idea of what it will look like.