This game would be infinitely better with simple co-op.

#41nucacola11Posted 11/24/2012 12:28:38 PM
Ssliasil posted...
Umm...Why wouldnt you want Co-Op in this game?

Someone explain to me how that, in any way, would make this game worse?

There isnt one...never will be, people are just butt hurt for no reason.

"Wouldnt make sense with two Dragonborn!"

Well, the play who hosts the game can be dragonborn and use shouts, while the other replaces the follower and cannot use shouts...makes complete sense to me.


its because of the way the game works
im a mage and i pause to switch my spells A LOT, do you think my friend would like sitting there while i scroll down, miss it, and scroll back up?
#42Godly_GoofPosted 11/24/2012 12:29:54 PM
lil55dude posted...


You completely missed the point of my post. But thankfully your response brings up exactly the point I'm making. There is no "maybe" - if there were no dragonborn and neither of you were DB, it wouldn't be Skyrim. You couldn;t do most of the quests anymore, because most of them are given to you on the pretense that you are dragonborn.

The other point that slipped thrugh was that I was driving home how boring it would be. No developer in their right mind would create something that potentially boring. Like you said, I may not like it..... but..... well.... just about everyone BUT you would hate it. Bad, horrible, horribly bad idea.

My post is talking about literally slapping MP into Skyrim as it is NOW and RIGHT NOW. Not "well you would do it like this and we wouldn't be dragonborns and the game would be like this instead - etc etc etc" <--- that, what you're talking about, IS NOT SKYRIM. It's a non-existent version streamlined and designed around MP. This fantasy version does not exist and will never exist.


Your missing my point as well. Single player Skyrim exists no one is talking about taking the game we all love an completely axing it. I'm saying a dlc that adds a co-op mode completely separate from the single player game. You are still in Skyrim but play as two different people. I used two followers as an example. They add dlc all the time. They change lore all the time. Adding an OPTIONAL dlc that adds a co-op mode. I was saying the characters are different in response to the people saying it wouldn't work if one was an OP DB and the other wasn't. I'm not Saying that's how it should work. That was just an idea.


adding "optional DLC" says to me two things 1) This could have added more content rather than something optional that prolly took longer to develop than the additional content would be. 2) They wasted time doing this rather than finally fixing all the issues in this game and prolly adding a lot more and not to mention finally fixing PS3 DLC? BULLS***! *flips table*
---
"All things are about Jesus Homer .......... Except this."
#43jodiebigballsPosted 11/24/2012 12:33:24 PM
Minamo posted...
gunsndroses posted...
The whole "there can't be two Dragonborn" argument is invalid, especially with the upcoming release of Dragonborn, whereas there is indeed another Dragonborn.

I have always been torn on this issue.

On one hand, adding co-op in would mean that Bethesda needs to take away resources from the development of singleplayer, which, at TES games' hearts, is the most important thing. There's no way around it- even devs like Bethesda have budgets, so simply building up both wouldn't cut it. To simplify, adding co-op would mean a **** single-player.


No it wouldn't. Who gave you that obnoxious idea? It might make the game perform worse, but adding co-op never has a negative effect on singleplayer content unless the developer themselves are bad. Look at every single co-op game released before this console generation.


*remembers when COD single player was more than just a reason to release the multiplayer*

Yeah your point is completely invalid.......
---
Live Fast, Die Young.....Leave A Good Looking Corpse
#44clone11Posted 11/24/2012 12:34:29 PM
Clearly no one understands that there isn't just some sort of "add co-op" button. You add it to Skyrim as it now, and I doubt it would work or be any fun. It'd probably be similar to the co-op San Andreas had (see awful for reference).

Or you would have to change the game to account for co-op and the game stops being Skyrim.

So no, I don't think there's any situation in which Skyrim would be better with co-op.

There is, however, an Elder Scroll MMO coming out, that is actually built so people can play together. And there's plenty of other games with co-op as well. Go play one of those.

Or get the PC version and use the multiplayer mod, though I've heard it's pretty bad.
---
"You persist too long after your own defeat. Come then, warrior. Have your resolution."
#45lil55dudePosted 11/24/2012 12:35:42 PM
Godly_Goof posted...
lil55dude posted...


You completely missed the point of my post. But thankfully your response brings up exactly the point I'm making. There is no "maybe" - if there were no dragonborn and neither of you were DB, it wouldn't be Skyrim. You couldn;t do most of the quests anymore, because most of them are given to you on the pretense that you are dragonborn.

The other point that slipped thrugh was that I was driving home how boring it would be. No developer in their right mind would create something that potentially boring. Like you said, I may not like it..... but..... well.... just about everyone BUT you would hate it. Bad, horrible, horribly bad idea.

My post is talking about literally slapping MP into Skyrim as it is NOW and RIGHT NOW. Not "well you would do it like this and we wouldn't be dragonborns and the game would be like this instead - etc etc etc" <--- that, what you're talking about, IS NOT SKYRIM. It's a non-existent version streamlined and designed around MP. This fantasy version does not exist and will never exist.


Your missing my point as well. Single player Skyrim exists no one is talking about taking the game we all love an completely axing it. I'm saying a dlc that adds a co-op mode completely separate from the single player game. You are still in Skyrim but play as two different people. I used two followers as an example. They add dlc all the time. They change lore all the time. Adding an OPTIONAL dlc that adds a co-op mode. I was saying the characters are different in response to the people saying it wouldn't work if one was an OP DB and the other wasn't. I'm not Saying that's how it should work. That was just an idea.


adding "optional DLC" says to me two things 1) This could have added more content rather than something optional that prolly took longer to develop than the additional content would be. 2) They wasted time doing this rather than finally fixing all the issues in this game and prolly adding a lot more and not to mention finally fixing PS3 DLC? BULLS***! *flips table*


They've already added 2 optional dlcs and are about to release a 3rd instead of those things. So I don't quite see your point.
---
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"
#46Godly_GoofPosted 11/24/2012 12:42:42 PM
lil55dude posted...
Godly_Goof posted...
lil55dude posted...


You completely missed the point of my post. But thankfully your response brings up exactly the point I'm making. There is no "maybe" - if there were no dragonborn and neither of you were DB, it wouldn't be Skyrim. You couldn;t do most of the quests anymore, because most of them are given to you on the pretense that you are dragonborn.

The other point that slipped thrugh was that I was driving home how boring it would be. No developer in their right mind would create something that potentially boring. Like you said, I may not like it..... but..... well.... just about everyone BUT you would hate it. Bad, horrible, horribly bad idea.

My post is talking about literally slapping MP into Skyrim as it is NOW and RIGHT NOW. Not "well you would do it like this and we wouldn't be dragonborns and the game would be like this instead - etc etc etc" <--- that, what you're talking about, IS NOT SKYRIM. It's a non-existent version streamlined and designed around MP. This fantasy version does not exist and will never exist.


Your missing my point as well. Single player Skyrim exists no one is talking about taking the game we all love an completely axing it. I'm saying a dlc that adds a co-op mode completely separate from the single player game. You are still in Skyrim but play as two different people. I used two followers as an example. They add dlc all the time. They change lore all the time. Adding an OPTIONAL dlc that adds a co-op mode. I was saying the characters are different in response to the people saying it wouldn't work if one was an OP DB and the other wasn't. I'm not Saying that's how it should work. That was just an idea.


adding "optional DLC" says to me two things 1) This could have added more content rather than something optional that prolly took longer to develop than the additional content would be. 2) They wasted time doing this rather than finally fixing all the issues in this game and prolly adding a lot more and not to mention finally fixing PS3 DLC? BULLS***! *flips table*


They've already added 2 optional dlcs and are about to release a 3rd instead of those things. So I don't quite see your point.


but optional content is optional content. Adding an optional .... Well option. Seems like a tremendous waste.
---
"All things are about Jesus Homer .......... Except this."
#47SunsetPhantomPosted 11/24/2012 12:43:50 PM
I'm sure the TC is enjoying this.
---
http://tinyurl.com/86tj7l6
They say the Devil's visage can make sane men mad
#48lil55dudePosted 11/24/2012 12:43:52 PM
clone11 posted...
Clearly no one understands that there isn't just some sort of "add co-op" button. You add it to Skyrim as it now, and I doubt it would work or be any fun. It'd probably be similar to the co-op San Andreas had (see awful for reference).

Or you would have to change the game to account for co-op and the game stops being Skyrim.

So no, I don't think there's any situation in which Skyrim would be better with co-op.

There is, however, an Elder Scroll MMO coming out, that is actually built so people can play together. And there's plenty of other games with co-op as well. Go play one of those.

Or get the PC version and use the multiplayer mod, though I've heard it's pretty bad.


I can't speak to how well it could be implemented or if it's even feasible. Your correct about SA though.

It just bothers me when people outright say something would suck simply because they wouldn't like it or utilize it. The point I'm trying to make is if they could do it and it didn't affect those who didn't want co-op in anyway shape or form, why it would bother them so much if we all get what we want in the end.

Clearly Bethesda knows what they are doing and if they have in fact looked at co-op and said no to it, then I'm sure it was for good reason.
---
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"
#49lil55dudePosted 11/24/2012 12:49:58 PM(edited)
Godly_Goof posted...
lil55dude posted...
Godly_Goof posted...
lil55dude posted...


You completely missed the point of my post. But thankfully your response brings up exactly the point I'm making. There is no "maybe" - if there were no dragonborn and neither of you were DB, it wouldn't be Skyrim. You couldn;t do most of the quests anymore, because most of them are given to you on the pretense that you are dragonborn.

The other point that slipped thrugh was that I was driving home how boring it would be. No developer in their right mind would create something that potentially boring. Like you said, I may not like it..... but..... well.... just about everyone BUT you would hate it. Bad, horrible, horribly bad idea.

My post is talking about literally slapping MP into Skyrim as it is NOW and RIGHT NOW. Not "well you would do it like this and we wouldn't be dragonborns and the game would be like this instead - etc etc etc" <--- that, what you're talking about, IS NOT SKYRIM. It's a non-existent version streamlined and designed around MP. This fantasy version does not exist and will never exist.


Your missing my point as well. Single player Skyrim exists no one is talking about taking the game we all love an completely axing it. I'm saying a dlc that adds a co-op mode completely separate from the single player game. You are still in Skyrim but play as two different people. I used two followers as an example. They add dlc all the time. They change lore all the time. Adding an OPTIONAL dlc that adds a co-op mode. I was saying the characters are different in response to the people saying it wouldn't work if one was an OP DB and the other wasn't. I'm not Saying that's how it should work. That was just an idea.


adding "optional DLC" says to me two things 1) This could have added more content rather than something optional that prolly took longer to develop than the additional content would be. 2) They wasted time doing this rather than finally fixing all the issues in this game and prolly adding a lot more and not to mention finally fixing PS3 DLC? BULLS***! *flips table*


They've already added 2 optional dlcs and are about to release a 3rd instead of those things. So I don't quite see your point.


but optional content is optional content. Adding an optional .... Well option. Seems like a tremendous waste.


Dawn guard, hearthfire, and dragonborn are all optional. Hell, daedric armor is an option. It's not forced on you is that a waste as well?
---
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"
#50LordOfCinderPosted 11/24/2012 12:52:23 PM
I think a Borderlands style drop in and out co-op mode would work without any problems in an ES game. They could always pull a Dark Souls and make it so that you have to summon a Dragonborn from another dimension to your world, like summoning a daedra.

I thought it was dumb at first, but now I don't think that way anymore. Whatever the case, I don't really care as I'm more of a single player person myself, but some co-op action is something I don't mind.