Why Skyrim should have Multiplayer.....

#1Perma-n00bPosted 9/26/2013 3:59:11 AM
Two words: replay value. Imagine crawling through ur favorite dungeon with a buddy! sharing loot! I mean sure the loot system is pointless and the game would probably crash twice as much but there is no excuse to not include multiplayer now-a-days. I mean what fun is a game unless I can tell someone their gear is suxor, or 360noskopezroflstomp some noob with the bound bow. Oh yeah patch in head shots too.
#2silverhunter16Posted 9/26/2013 4:59:19 AM
There's enough bugs in Skyrim without a multiplayer system, I imagine it would just be worse with it.
---
The dead are more polite than the living. They listen to everything you say without interrupting.
#3DevoidLightPosted 9/26/2013 5:19:28 AM
Switching gear or spells would be a pain in the ass. Either it would force both players to pause or you would be defenseless while switching. Also there are a number of slow time abilities that would get really annoying for the other player. Although I admit Legendary multiplayer would be amazing otherwise. A support/healing build would be viable, and perhaps even better than two warriors. A dual casted healing spell with occasional casts of Courage or whatever the higher version is and that warrior in front would be literally invincible while the healer still has magicka.
#4Evil_SandwichPosted 9/26/2013 5:29:26 AM
Maybe if they added an Arena type mode with restricted gear like Monster Hunter.

Otherwise it'd be too broken because people would just use resto-looped iron daggers that do 1233456789865430 dmg and one-shot pwn all.
#5Sniping_TurtlePosted 9/26/2013 5:51:10 AM
roffels, moar liek Derk Saols ripe of, amiwrit?

DERK SAOLS NUMMER WON!
---
http://i.imgur.com/zHLma5j.jpg
You're next...
#6iDontCareBearPosted 9/26/2013 6:58:10 AM
Evil_Sandwich posted...
Maybe if they added an Arena type mode with restricted gear like Monster Hunter.

Otherwise it'd be too broken because people would just use resto-looped iron daggers that do 1233456789865430 dmg and one-shot pwn all.


1233456789865430 dmg? That's it? lol A co-op would of at least been cool. Here's to ESO!
---
"rx54; r = R. x = stylized Y. flip the 5 and 4. 4 = A. turn the 5 on its side and cut it in half = stylized N. rx54 = Ryan."
- LooksForSkooma
#7Perma-n00b(Topic Creator)Posted 9/26/2013 7:28:55 AM
Sniping_Turtle posted...
roffels, moar liek Derk Saols ripe of, amiwrit?

DERK SAOLS NUMMER WON!


I like the cut of ur gib sir :-).
#8SuperFlikPosted 9/26/2013 8:00:17 AM
You know why I bought Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Assassin's Creed III and going to buy Assassin's Creed IV: The Wind Waker?

Sure as hell wasn't for the multiplayer.
---
Zelos Wilder: "Demon Fang! Demon Fang! Demon Fang!
Damn, I must be a genius! Double Demon Fang!"
#9harleyknightPosted 9/26/2013 8:56:06 AM
Take out the slowtime effects and equip your gear before combat. That's what they did in RDR and it worked there. Though I would hate the online multiplayer like RDR. It was a great concept but there are way to many a$$h0le$ in there. It never occurred to them to make it "friendly fire isn't".
---
Anyone who chooses graphics over story... deserves neither.
#10wanderzPosted 9/26/2013 9:37:34 AM
i would say multiplayer like borderlands and many other games before it would be cool.

maybe up to 8 or 16 players max on the hosts 'server' at a time.. by invitation or friends list only.
with very few or NO multiplayer achievements, i hate those.

the time slow things could either be very localized (maybe only affecting the targets you are aiming at) or be removed during multplayer.
---
i tried being serious once, in 1989.. didn't particularly care for it.. so don't expect it to happen again.