Well that's highly irritating (Re: TES:O and lore)

#231rx54Posted 1/30/2013 5:07:40 PM(edited)
The_Beer_Scotch posted...
rx54 posted...
The_Beer_Scotch posted...
rx54 posted...
The logic of loremasters:
> Complain the idea of any multiplayer or co-op ever being in any Elder Scrolls game would be absolutely terrible
> Fully multiplayer Elder Scrolls game coming out and the multiplayer is magically no longer a problem, the lore is


The idea of multiplayer in the single player tes games would detract from the experience in my opinion.

Multiplayer in a spin off is different.

Your troll attempt is horrible, and irrelevant.


So talking about peoples prior opinions on multiplayer tes games is irrelevant in a topic about a multiplayer tes game?

Okay.
I was pointing out some inconsistencies with what everybody used to always say about multiplayer previously on this board and what is happening right now.

That's not a "troll attempt" because it is something that actually happened.
How am I trolling by reciting what other people have done?
That doesn't make sense....

You guys are just getting overly hostile because of times I have actually been a douche.


Point out where I said that any spin off multiplayer tes game would be horrible.

Actually, find a topic we "loremasters" have argued against multiplayer, that wasn't a suggestion for a co op dlc that would be horrible due to ghr game engine not being designed to incorporate that, meanjng it would end up being tacked on and horrible, like any multiplayer mod for the oc has been.

Its irrelevant because we "loremasters" have all been looking forward to tesonline (being a game actually made to be multiplayer, its a different situation from forcing multiplayer on the single player game).

And your cooking comparison...

If I don't like the food but its cooked correctly its edible.

If I don't like the food but its cooked incorrectly, I could get sick or even die from eating it. How is that not a difference? :p

By your logic... If I like using sniper rifles in online shooters, but you don't, and then they introduce one hit kill sniper rifkes that are over powered.... you can't complain about sniper rifles being too powerful because you already said you didn't like the normal sniper rifles, so your logic fails.

>.>


I don't even know what just happened but my point with the analogy was that under the assumptions everyone hates multiplayer they should logically hate this too because of that, so that is problem number 1.

Problem number 2 was the lore.

So what I meant was with problem 1 & 2 combined that would be like a food you didn't like (1) cooked the wrong way (2).

If problem 2 is solved, the lore, or the food being cooked the wrong way whatever, you still do not like the food anyway aka the multiplayer.

I was saying what is the point of solving problem number 2 when problem number 1 will still exist and make the game horrible under the condition everyone did hate multiplayer.

Which I got from seeing long time posters on the Skyrim boards, perhaps not lore masters but long time posters shooting down every topic ever regarding multiplayer.
Which now I somewhat see the point it is not a main series game, but even if there was multiplayer in the main series nobody would force you to get involved in it if you did not like it.

If we are sticking with food analogies lets call multiplayer pickles on the burger of what is single player.
If people don't like the pickles they don't have to eat them, the people who do could.
You aren't forced to play multiplayer in games with single player.
#232The_Beer_ScotchPosted 1/30/2013 5:16:35 PM
rx54 posted...
mandalore2385 posted...
@rx54...
The problem isn't the multiplayer because ESO is a spinoff. What we're worried about is the lore of the SERIES as a whole and how it might affect future games in the TES Main series.


I suppose this makes sense.
I'd still be interested to see how this would blow over if it happened in one of the main games of the series.

One thing though
RebelElite791 posted...
Multiplayer in the main series =/= multiplayer in an offshoot MMO. That DOES NOT EFFECT us in any way if we choose not to play it. Changing lore, however, DOES.


The bold would apply to the same thing if they did put multiplayer in a main game of the series, because obviously it would still have single player and nobody would force you to play the multiplayer.

I've never understood the harm multiplayer would create, I think it would benefit everyone.
If you like multiplayer, you can play it. If you don't like it, just don't play it.

Logically that should make everybody happy.


Think of a car. If you lose 30% of your fuel tank to fit in an optional gas tank, you would not be happy with that car if you didn't use gas. And you'd only have 70% of the fuel capacity that thd car could have had.

But I have already exllained why multiplayer is fine in a multiplayer game, and a horrible idea in a game ALREADY PROGRAMMED AS A SINGLE PLAYER GAME THAT COULD NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ALTERED IN A DLC is not so fine.
---
To be announced
#233rx54Posted 1/30/2013 5:19:27 PM(edited)
konokonohamaru posted...
rx54 posted...

I've never understood the harm multiplayer would create, I think it would benefit everyone.
If you like multiplayer, you can play it. If you don't like it, just don't play it.

Logically that should make everybody happy.


The common argument is that multiplayer development takes time away from single player development. To me, that is an ok argument, but it is not really why I react so negatively to multiplayer.

To me, the problem with multiplayer is that it either signals a change in Bethesda's mentality, or it signals a change in the market demand for games, neither of which I would be happy with.

If there's no change in the demand for games, then Beth going multiplayer signals a strategy of going after a broader and more casual audience in order to achieve more profits. I worry about the slippery slope of further casualization of the series... which has already been going on for a while.

If there's no change in Beth's mentality, then that means the demand for multiplayer has become so great that Beth just cannot ignore it any longer. I don't welcome this development because I am not the type of person who likes multiplayer, and I often find my tastes to be very different from the kinds of people who do enjoy multiplayer. If gamers who are not like me become such a driving force of the marketplace, there are going to be fewer and fewer games that cater to my taste. It's already happening in fact.

Hopefully this helps you understand why someone like me reacts so negatively to multiplayer in TES.


I do see your point, but with most games there is a separate department dedicated to developing the multiplayer than the single player so this would not effect things as much as you think they would.

The only thing I could think of to battle what I just said here is that you could say the total amount of money funding the games development would not all be going directly to single player to make it the best it could be, which could draw from the experience because some of the funding that would have went to single player went to multiplayer instead.

Under the circumstances single player and multiplayer are developed in separate departments there should not be too much of a change.
The single player department would continue to put all they could into single player and the multiplayer department/division whatever would put all they could into multiplayer.

You can tell this is how things often are just from the credits of many games.
It would be uncommon for the exact same people to create both multiplayer and single player.
Assassins Creed for example I believe have completely separate divisions developing the single player and multiplayer. That games story is going down hill though, but that is because the original writer and creator of the entire Assassins Creed story left Ubisoft after the completion of Brotherhood, he left for THQ.
That makes me laugh now after what happened, bet he regrets his decision.

Anyways, different games are effected differently by integration of multiplayer.
Alot of the times it works, alot of the times it doesn't.
I'm not exactly sure what the determining factor for success for multiplayer integration is but I actually kind of have derailed or shifted the topic with this subject now...

I don't think I have much more to say about this as long as nobody else does...
---
Nobody is as funny as Greg Giraldo & Louis CK
Dubstep - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTLjEqj5Xk
#234The_Beer_ScotchPosted 1/30/2013 5:22:12 PM
With the pickle analogy then... sure I couldntake the oickles out. But the juice would have alreadybaltered the taste.
---
To be announced
#235rx54Posted 1/30/2013 5:32:19 PM(edited)
The_Beer_Scotch posted...
With the pickle analogy then... sure I couldntake the oickles out. But the juice would have alreadybaltered the taste.


arghdshjhsfkaslfk;a

Stop making me think.
This is making me hungry.

And it's more like the pickles are an option to put on.

I hate Call of Duty but as an example, you never have to play it's multiplayer if you do not want to.
I certainly do not, I do not want those pickles on my burger.
If I wanted them though, I could choose to play multiplayer.

Your over analyzing is destroying my analogies.

I hope I have perfected it though.
Single player = burger
Multiplayer = pickles

The pickles are not already placed on the burger to be taken off, they are an option there that could be put on if ever desired.

You could play Assassins Creed and never touch the multiplayer if you didn't want.
Aka eat the burger and never decide to put pickles on it.

Now stahp
---
Nobody is as funny as Greg Giraldo & Louis CK
Dubstep - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTLjEqj5Xk
#236konokonohamaruPosted 1/30/2013 5:35:08 PM
@rx54

You addressed the issue of whether multiplayer takes development resources away from single player.

But that wasn't the point of my post. My point was actually that I don't like seeing multiplayer because it signals a change, either in Bethesday's mentality or in the gaming market, both of which I dislike. (see my post for elaboration)

Just trying to get you to understand why so many people don't like the idea of multiplayer
#237clone11Posted 1/30/2013 5:43:23 PM
rx54 posted...
The_Beer_Scotch posted...
With the pickle analogy then... sure I couldntake the oickles out. But the juice would have alreadybaltered the taste.


arghdshjhsfkaslfk;a

Stop making me think.
This is making me hungry.

And it's more like the pickles are an option to put on.

I hate Call of Duty but as an example, you never have to play it's multiplayer if you do not want to.
I certainly do not, I do not want those pickles on my burger.
If I wanted them though, I could choose to play multiplayer.

Your over analyzing is destroying my analogies.

I hope I have perfected it though.
Single player = burger
Multiplayer = pickles

The pickles are not already placed on the burger to be taken off, they are an option there that could be put on if ever desired.

You could play Assassins Creed and never touch the multiplayer if you didn't want.
Aka eat the burger and never decide to put pickles on it.

Now stahp


Call of Duty is a horrible example. When you pay for the game and get to the end of a single-player that can be completed in four hours because most of the focus of the development time went into the multiplayer, you see just how much the multiplayer does affect the singleplayer aspect of a game.

Even if you do two separate teams for each, like Assassin's Creed, you still only have a limited amount of money and resources at your disposal. If you think Assassin's Creed's singleplayer hasn't been affected by the inclusion of multiplayer, then you must not have played the glitch ridden release of AC3. I firmly belief the lack of Q&A on that game is largely due to resources being diverted to create the multiplayer. In fact, that entire game feels rushed as it is.

Except dat navel combat. :3

I'm ranting though, the point isn't that we'd be forced to play multiplayer if they added it to the main series of TES games, we know we wouldn't. The point is that the inclusion of multiplayer would likely negatively affect the single-player aspect of the game. Money used to create a multiplayer system in TES:VI would be better spent hiring more unique voice actors for characters. Or perhaps more bug testers, since glitches are such a huge problem for people in these games.

I apologize for the length of my post.
---
"Bravery is by far the kindest word for stupidity..."
#238rx54Posted 1/30/2013 5:48:18 PM
konokonohamaru posted...
@rx54

You addressed the issue of whether multiplayer takes development resources away from single player.

But that wasn't the point of my post. My point was actually that I don't like seeing multiplayer because it signals a change, either in Bethesday's mentality or in the gaming market, both of which I dislike. (see my post for elaboration)

Just trying to get you to understand why so many people don't like the idea of multiplayer


I get it but I was somewhat stating what my problem would be with multiplayer if I ever had one.

Assassin's Creed for example I believe would have maintained it's good single player story even after the integration of multiplayer IF the original creator of the story stayed with Ubisoft.

The story of Assassin's Creed did not go downhill because multiplayer was introduced, but because the creator of the story parted from Ubisoft half way through it.

Imagine if a famous author died half way through writing one of their books, and another author had to come in and guess what was supposed to happen and finish off the story.
That is why it's story is going to crap.

My whole thing is, I believe it would be perfectly possible for multiplayer to be integrated while maintaining a good single player experience without sacrifice.
It is possible is all I mean.

If single player could remain unchanged with an addition of multiplayer there is no reason not to do it. If it would destroy or harm single player, then don't do it.

I strongly believe if the creator of Assassin's Creed did not leave, that would be a perfect example of a game that started with no multiplayer, and then introduced it and remained the same.

I do understand your point, I was just stating some of my thoughts.
I believe if single player would be unaffected, go for it.
Simple as that for me.
---
Nobody is as funny as Greg Giraldo & Louis CK
Dubstep - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTLjEqj5Xk
#239rx54Posted 1/30/2013 5:53:12 PM(edited)
clone11 posted...
rx54 posted...
The_Beer_Scotch posted...
With the pickle analogy then... sure I couldntake the oickles out. But the juice would have alreadybaltered the taste.


arghdshjhsfkaslfk;a

Stop making me think.
This is making me hungry.

And it's more like the pickles are an option to put on.

I hate Call of Duty but as an example, you never have to play it's multiplayer if you do not want to.
I certainly do not, I do not want those pickles on my burger.
If I wanted them though, I could choose to play multiplayer.

Your over analyzing is destroying my analogies.

I hope I have perfected it though.
Single player = burger
Multiplayer = pickles

The pickles are not already placed on the burger to be taken off, they are an option there that could be put on if ever desired.

You could play Assassins Creed and never touch the multiplayer if you didn't want.
Aka eat the burger and never decide to put pickles on it.

Now stahp


Call of Duty is a horrible example. When you pay for the game and get to the end of a single-player that can be completed in four hours because most of the focus of the development time went into the multiplayer, you see just how much the multiplayer does affect the singleplayer aspect of a game.

Even if you do two separate teams for each, like Assassin's Creed, you still only have a limited amount of money and resources at your disposal. If you think Assassin's Creed's singleplayer hasn't been affected by the inclusion of multiplayer, then you must not have played the glitch ridden release of AC3. I firmly belief the lack of Q&A on that game is largely due to resources being diverted to create the multiplayer. In fact, that entire game feels rushed as it is.

Except dat navel combat. :3

I'm ranting though, the point isn't that we'd be forced to play multiplayer if they added it to the main series of TES games, we know we wouldn't. The point is that the inclusion of multiplayer would likely negatively affect the single-player aspect of the game. Money used to create a multiplayer system in TES:VI would be better spent hiring more unique voice actors for characters. Or perhaps more bug testers, since glitches are such a huge problem for people in these games.

I apologize for the length of my post.


I suppose I suppose I suppose....

Despite all of this though it has been pulled off by some games without any damage.
Dead Space 3 coming up for example has a co-op story type thing and I highly doubt that will ruin the series. I believe a F.E.A.R game had basically what sounds like the exact same thing Dead Space 3 is doing, I never played it though.
---
Nobody is as funny as Greg Giraldo & Louis CK
Dubstep - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTLjEqj5Xk
#240clone11Posted 1/30/2013 5:57:50 PM
rx54 posted...
clone11 posted...
rx54 posted...
The_Beer_Scotch posted...
With the pickle analogy then... sure I couldntake the oickles out. But the juice would have alreadybaltered the taste.


arghdshjhsfkaslfk;a

Stop making me think.
This is making me hungry.

And it's more like the pickles are an option to put on.

I hate Call of Duty but as an example, you never have to play it's multiplayer if you do not want to.
I certainly do not, I do not want those pickles on my burger.
If I wanted them though, I could choose to play multiplayer.

Your over analyzing is destroying my analogies.

I hope I have perfected it though.
Single player = burger
Multiplayer = pickles

The pickles are not already placed on the burger to be taken off, they are an option there that could be put on if ever desired.

You could play Assassins Creed and never touch the multiplayer if you didn't want.
Aka eat the burger and never decide to put pickles on it.

Now stahp


Call of Duty is a horrible example. When you pay for the game and get to the end of a single-player that can be completed in four hours because most of the focus of the development time went into the multiplayer, you see just how much the multiplayer does affect the singleplayer aspect of a game.

Even if you do two separate teams for each, like Assassin's Creed, you still only have a limited amount of money and resources at your disposal. If you think Assassin's Creed's singleplayer hasn't been affected by the inclusion of multiplayer, then you must not have played the glitch ridden release of AC3. I firmly belief the lack of Q&A on that game is largely due to resources being diverted to create the multiplayer. In fact, that entire game feels rushed as it is.

Except dat navel combat. :3

I'm ranting though, the point isn't that we'd be forced to play multiplayer if they added it to the main series of TES games, we know we wouldn't. The point is that the inclusion of multiplayer would likely negatively affect the single-player aspect of the game. Money used to create a multiplayer system in TES:VI would be better spent hiring more unique voice actors for characters. Or perhaps more bug testers, since glitches are such a huge problem for people in these games.

I apologize for the length of my post.


I suppose I suppose I suppose....

Despite all of this though it has been pulled off by some games without any damage.
Dead Space 3 coming up for example has a co-op story type thing and I highly doubt that will ruin the series. I believe a F.E.A.R game had basically what sounds like the exact same thing Dead Space 3 is doing, I never played it though.


Oh, yeah. Can it be done and be done right? Of course.

Mostly depends on the game. Dead Space and F.E.A.R. are largely linear, making it far easier to program. With TES, I just don't see it as a possibility. Too many variables. An MMO was a good idea though, even though I personally don't think it was done for the right reasons or that it will turn out to be anything special.
---
"Bravery is by far the kindest word for stupidity..."