speaking on MP/co-op...

i cant wait for MMOs, F2P a la carte, and DLC fanaticism to die down as well. (DLC isnt so bad though

what happened to just buying a game, and thats that. dont call me till you have enough content for an expansion pack or a full sequel...

these a la carte F2P MMOs are the worst... i bought LotRO collectors ed., i bought champions online, and many other MMOs that "arent" WoW, that couldnt keep subs up so they went F2P/// well, i paid for a full priced box that is now free, most times you get a slight advantage once converted. but when will these devs realize that we would be more likey to buy a game that we had full ownership of and when they created enough for DLC/x-pack we would pay more.

its over complicated...

i'm so god damned glad in this confusing era of game butchering, that a complete NO BS game can be made that will light that path for fellow devs, to show them, THIS is what WE want!! no more fracking around with tidbits...

cheers to true devs who are creating something that benefits the customer more than anyone else!!!

+1

Why all the hate on multiplayer?

Look, I love my singleplayer TES experience as much as the next guy, but there's no sound reason for all this anti-multiplayer zeal.

If Bethesda cannot possibly develop an Elder Scrolls game that features a co-op which does not interfere with the singleplayer mode, then fine; this isn't Army of Two, after all, and I'd prefer that, if there is multiplayer, it be kept an option.

Still, that does not excuse something like a PvP arena--I'm not saying BGS is terrible for not doing it, but I don't see how that could possibly interfere with the singleplayer experience. Like fast travel, if you don't like it, don't use it. Personally, I believe it would be the most fun, constructive and effective way for players to compare character builds, as well as facilitate bonding within the community I would also like to adventure alongside my other TES-playing friends, but I would not lament the lack of one such opportunity.



Really, folks, you guys know it's not multiplayer, and this has been confirmed for many months. Stop beating a dead horse.

Edit: OP, I'm not speaking specifically about you, in case it came off that way; I make the mention because of the way your topic comes off. This appears to be some manner of celebration that Skyrim is not multiplayer, which I think is rather pointless.

is it so frikin hard to just type out develop? people are so lazy...

He's not?
He's commenting on the game development trends of late, I agree with him too.

Multiplayer is a bad thing to design a game around. It leads to repetitive and diluted game play.

why do people care about co-op that much anyways?if they would focus on multiplayer or co-op,they would focus less on the other parts of their games and they'd be more criticized on how game isn't X and Y unlike previous titles.

Wise words my friend.

Right, that's why I made the edit; it's mostly in response to the OP's title--it comes off as rather cheery that there is no multiplayer, and is likely to attract people who are overzealous about that, is my point.



I understand and agree, though; it makes sense for there not to be multiplayer, considering the amount of people that worked on this game for several years. We wouldn't want all that hard work to be divided further than it already was, because then we're just dividing the quality of the game.

I'm just saying that I'm all for it if it could be done well, and that it really bothers me when people are, well, nonsensical about it.

I got so lost in the OP. But I think multiplayer would be so sick in this game. Going on quests with friends, exploring together, taking on dragons, etc. I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this next part but even team death match would be awesome. In random parts of the world having lets say 5 on 5, when you die you die, no re spawns. using magic, combat, archery, or anything you want. That would be so bad ass.

MW3 is the game you're after...

Don't worry, you're safe--flaming is not tolerated here, not by a long shot

Also, I happen to agree with you. As I've said, I love my TES as much as the next guy (and I do mean that I love it...it has done a lot for my life), but I can't tell you the number of fantasies I've had about a canon TES game that combines everything we love about our franchise with a multiplayer as solid and replayable as Battlefield. Mages and assassins and warriors all on the same battlefield, wreaking TES-level destruction upon one another? AMAZING, I say.

But hey, it's cool the way it is, too

Call of Duty is the worst gaming franchise of all times IMO. So no.


Yeah that sounds AMAZING!

multiplayer cannot work in this game. thats all there is to it, wish want beg cry, its not going to happen due to the mechanics of the game. it has no set mechanics to create a semblance of balance between 2 people, ranged characters would be at a severe disadvantage versus melee, basically it would be a prettier version of wow... im serious.






and i personally hope they never change the game to fit multiplayer into it

+1 here. usually working on multiplayer=lower content .And let's face it,we'd rather take more content instead of multi

Last I remember, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood's singleplayer had more content than the first two games and multiplayer--more weapons/items/equipment/armor, more side quests, a whole legion of assassins, optional unlockable cheats, replayable missions, about a dozen training courses you could set records in and compare with your friends, unlockable skins/armors, more DLC, and for anyone who used the UPlay store, many more items.

That's just the singleplayer, which, last I remember, was not an experience that was interfered with by its award-winning multiplayer. Oh, and the series is supposed to be pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7PMf5cATeI

Edit: Point being that it can be done, and again, like fast travel, if you don't like it, don't use it

A multiplayer component to a game with a singleplayer story mode is never forced. Some games, typically shooters, have stronger multiplayer than singleplayer for obvious reasons, but even that mold's been broken--remember Goldeneye, Perfect Dark and the first Halo? There are also games with a stronger or equally fantastic singleplayer, like the aforementioned Assassin's Creed and Uncharted.

Again, I love the way it is--if I worked for GameInformer, I'm absolutely positive I'd give it a 10/10 and complain that I couldn't give it an 11/10. But that does not change the fact that a PvP multiplayer arena would be a wonderful addition to the series, so long as the same love and effort was poured into it as everything else.

As long as the ,to me, completely useless multiplayer doesn't interfere with my singleplayer experience ,I don't really care. There are resources spent I would prefer to be spend elsewhere. but that's life. That said, thanks again Bethesda for still giving us the wonderful singlepalyer experience.

That's exactly my point It can be done, and if it is done, surely it would remain optional and would be given the same care and attention as the rest of the game that we love as much as we do

Pretty much. Outside of development strain, one reason I feel that this is met with so much opposition is that by nature, multiplayer (pvp) takes a degree of skill and focus. Many players that come for single player experience either lack these, or simply would rather not focus on them while playing. I'm a highly competitive player, but even for someone like me it's nice to get lost in something that isn't nearly as demanding of me. At some point in the future I assure you we will at LEAST receive some kind of PvP option, if you look at the direction of games as a whole, multiplayer is becoming an almost mandatory aspect of the gaming experience.

That said, I'm not sad or surprised by Skyrims lack of multiplayer. It's something that will come in time, and when that time comes, I will melt your face off in glorious combat