Should Skyrim have multiplayer?

[KajiitAssassin227]

Hey everybody I just wanted to know if anybody else thought that multiplayer in skyrim would be one of the very few things that could make this amazing game even better. You cannot possibly say that you have not at one point, either while playing the game or talking about your characters with friends, thought to yourself, "It would be really awesome if I could play through the story with some friends." I know I have. Many times. Think about it: add the gameplay of Skyrim (Graphics, many quests, character creation, weapon/armor choices, level up, map, NPCs, constant dragon attacks at random and inconvenient times, etc. but maybe make the map bigger to fit more people) and mix it up with the MMO part of games like WoW (Thousands of players on at once, hopefully with little to no lag) and add a little bit of the ability to create your own servers, courtesy of minecraft, and it may just be me, but that sounds like a really fun game. Reply if you agree, but please, NO TROLLS.

 

[Kuurus]

I am sure many would enjoy it, but I don't think it would make it a better game. And yes, I absolutely can say that I have never thought that to myself I've done the MMO thing. I did them for a long time, and I prefer single player games now. There is also the technical side of it. It would take significant changes to make it work as currently, the game pauses every time you access a menu, including in combat. I am relatively certain without even asking anyone at Bethesda, that it is not anything they are working on.

 

[Niflheimr]

The Elder Scrolls is a RPG game and it's better say that way. All the money and resources that would be wasted on making a MMORPG should and must be used to improve the next TES and make more bug-free.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

In an industry surrounded by multiplayer games, that in turn have a lackluster single player, I'd rather Bethesda not go down this route.

 

[KajiitAssassin227]

In an industry surrounded by multiplayer games, that in turn have a lackluster single player, I'd rather Bethesda not go down this route.

Ya, I guess if you look at the technical side of it, it would take away from the game, but I did forget to mention in the original post that I kind of wish that there was a Cooperative story mode, which kind of moves things around more and changes some stuff to fit more people, but still has a max amount of 4 people in one campaign game. again, there are some technicalities in that, but if you have heard of the game Dead Island, then it would be kind of like what they do with that game.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

Yea, and even with all the hype, Dead Island wasn't that great. Became boring in a matter of a week for me.

 

[KajiitAssassin227]

Again, true, but I wasn't saying I liked Dead Island better, I just thought that the online cooperative mode was a nice touch, and given the right tweaks to the storyline and characters, etc., it could also give a little more to skyrim.

 

[Dagmar]

IMO Bethesda doesn't have the resources to produce a decent MMORPG. MMORPG's are exponentially more difficult to code and quality test. Look at the poor job they did with Skyrim in terms of quality control and mulltiply that by about 10 to 50 times and that is how bad any MMORPG that Bethesda produced would most likely be like.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

They did a poor job? I suppose if you are so great at coding, they should hire you. Other game developers screw up too, Rockstar is another one who make glitchy games. And nowhere near the size that Bethesda produces.

 

[KajiitAssassin227]

I agree, while I admit that they did somewhat mess up on the controls, I still don't think your one to judge.

 

[Oblivious]

I think that if they were to include multiplayer in Skyrim it should be an arena that players can do battle in. Like the arena in Oblivion where you could fight NPC's.

 

[Dagmar]

....I suppose if you are so great at coding, they should hire you....

Yeah that's not an intellectually disingenuous retort.

The indisputable fact remains that on release the game had hundreds of bugs. That's not an exaggeration. It's documented in the history pages of the various wiki pages.

It would be one thing if almost all of them were silly things like Dragons flying backwards and flying horses but even up until patch 1.4 there were glaringly obvious quest breaking and even game breaking bugs like the conflicts between the Imperial and Stormcloak faction quests and the main questline that competent beta testing would have uncovered and the bugs that trapped players in the Twilight Sepulcher forever. That's more than "somewhat messing up on the controls" (which is also not even relevant since that was by design and an obvious conciliation towards game console users).

You don't have to wear blinders to appreciate the game and like it, and there's nothing inconsistent with enjoying the game and being critical of Bethesda for not testing the game thoroughly and properly. It's capable of doing better but it really is hard to do that when you hamstring your development and testing teams just so you can meet an over-hyped 11-11-11 release date.

Notwithstanding any of that the fact remains that it is much more difficult to code and quality control test an MMORPG and Bethesda has no meaningful experience developing MMORPGs. If Bethesda were to handicap a development team for an MMORPG the way it did with Skyrim you could expect an exponentially larger amount of bugs and performance issues and even if it didn't you could expect it to have a lot of growing pains releasing its first MMORPG, especially because if it did it would most likely be on an extremely ambitious scale.

 

[Jersey Dagmar]

I feel that a game as massive as this, no matter how many times it's tested you'll still encounter game breaking glitches. It happened in Red Dead Redemption. And Rockstar has pretty much given up on fixing that game.

Nothing is perfect, and quite frankly, Bethesda is known for having buggy games. So, it's a buyer beware thing. No one is forcing you to shell out the 60 dollars. Sorry.

I have yet to encounter anything that has cause my game to 'break' so to speak. A few annoyances here and there. Nothing major.

And Bethesda I'm sure had higher ups that wanted that game out ASAP. Wanted it out at that date so they could make the money for release as well as Christmas. Once again, buyer beware. No one cocked a gun at your head making you buy.

 

[XbSuper]

I don't think it would be a good idea to add multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, I've thought about it, and in theory, it sounds great to have a co-op option. But I think it would just create way more bugs than there already are, as well as take up space on the disc, taking away from other aspects of the game.

 

[Su8tle]

It's nice to have a game soley devoted to the solo player. Not everyone likes being called 'fag' by 12 year olds when ever you get online.

 

[KajiitAssassin227]

Yeah that's not an intellectually disingenuous retort.

The indisputable fact remains that on release the game had hundreds of bugs. That's not an exaggeration. It's documented in the history pages of the various wiki pages.

It would be one thing if almost all of them were silly things like Dragons flying backwards and flying horses but even up until patch 1.4 there were glaringly obvious quest breaking and even game breaking bugs like the conflicts between the Imperial and Stormcloak faction quests and the main questline that competent beta testing would have uncovered and the bugs that trapped players in the Twilight Sepulcher forever. That's more than "somewhat messing up on the controls" (which is also not even relevant since that was by design and an obvious conciliation towards game console users).

You don't have to wear blinders to appreciate the game and like it, and there's nothing inconsistent with enjoying the game and being critical of Bethesda for not testing the game thoroughly and properly. It's capable of doing better but it really is hard to do that when you hamstring your development and testing teams just so you can meet an over-hyped 11-11-11 release date.

Notwithstanding any of that the fact remains that it is much more difficult to code and quality control test an MMORPG and Bethesda has no meaningful experience developing MMORPGs. If Bethesda were to handicap a development team for an MMORPG the way it did with Skyrim you could expect an exponentially larger amount of bugs and performance issues and even if it didn't you could expect it to have a lot of growing pains releasing its first MMORPG, especially because if it did it would most likely be on an extremely ambitious scale.

While I agree that I have seen pictures of wierd glitches and bugs in videos, none of that has ever happened to me, so I'm sorry if I acted like I knew everything, I was just voicing my opinion, but with a game as huge as skyrim, you buy the game knowing that there will be bugs, and the pressure from all the people wanting skyrim to come ASAP probably made Bethesda rush through it, and again, you say COMPETANT beta testing, well, why don't you try to screw around with the coding and fix those bugs. Good luck.

 

[Lee]

I think it's better left without multi player too. For me Skyrim is a place to relax in and play a nice steady game. Why would I want to play a game where I'm getting owned by some saddo plays the game all day, every day online killing me the second my character re-spawned?

 

[Jaeger]

Is there a MMORPG with good graphics? My brother tried to get me into WoW and I YouTube some videos and I was like...er...no. Looked liked '90's graphics. People attack each other by going up to each other with lame swing, swing, swing. Is this because of Internet communication speeds? Will Internet 2 (google it) or cloud computing solve this? Now I did play Red Dead Redemption that was an open sandbox world but the max people that could play in a particular world was 16. Some of those were griefers who hide out with a sniper rifle and kill you when you log in. Oh joy.

I believe you need PS4, xbox720, Internet 2 and cloud computing for it to look good, advance combat, etc.

 

[Halkin]

Is there a MMORPG with good graphics? My brother tried to get me into WoW and I YouTube some videos and I was like...er...no. Looked liked '90's graphics. People attack each other by going up to each other with lame swing, swing, swing. Is this because of Internet communication speeds? Will Internet 2 (google it) or cloud computing solve this? Now I did play Red Dead Redemption that was an open sandbox world but the max people that could play in a particular world was 16. Some of those were griefers who hide out with a sniper rifle and kill you when you log in. Oh joy.

I believe you need PS4, xbox720, Internet 2 and cloud computing for it to look good, advance combat, etc.

try eve online, i consider it to have good graphics anyway. its also a seriously long standing mmo that i've lost a lot of years to. as for bugs eve is a prime example, its had several game changers over the years. but on topic i'd rather keep the elders scroll world in single player.

 

[Skullrattla]

I agree with Dagmar on Bethesda, but that doesn't make me think that Skyrim SHOULDN'T have multiplayer, if it was done by people who know what they're doing.

Why not??? I mean, why do people say no to this? If you think about what could be done with Skyrim's game areas and characters, discarding the existing quests....

As has been suggested, limited number teams (4-8 perhaps) could go on co-operative raids. People could join in using their character from a saved game. Wouldn’t that be cool??? New quests could be made for multiplayer. Traps requiring teamwork to disable, and of course BIG EPIC BATTLES. If you need to pause to look into your inventory, that's your problem, come prepared and hotkeyed. Your character would just stand there if you pause. You could go invisible while doing that. There could be an option to play with friendly fire turned off so other players can't kill you, and you can't kill others, or competitive level-matched arenas for the hardcore.

You could trade and swap items with others, etc. . .

I say bring it on. But I'm not holding my breath.

PS I am talking here about a totally seperate part of the game, using Skyrim's assets. Maybe even a totally separate game. Not some update that attempts to turn the existing game with all its quests into an MM game. That isn’t possible .

The multiplayer could be tied into a future solo game like Skyrim in this way: You choose to either play solo or go online when you fire up the game, but there is a shared area between the two game modes, which can be your home in the world. Your character levels up in both worlds, with appropriate adjustments . When you're in your home you can transfer items acquired between the two game worlds. So you can go multiplayer and find/win/trade items with other people , (looting and pickpocketing disabled!) then go to your home base, and store the items in a special container, where they will be available to your character when playing solo. The idea is from Dungeon Defenders , a game that has both modes done quite well.

It can be taken further, with deeper interaction between offline and online worlds, always at the user's discretion. There could be teleporters in the solo game world where you can go online and join in an online co-op quest or competitive "arena". There could be pet or thrall breeding grounds in the online world where you could breed different kinds of customized creatures as followers in exchange for ingredients and/or gold, and bring them back into the solo game. The additions could easily be lore-friendly, imagination isn’t exactly in short supply.

There could be optional quests in the solo game requiring you to team up with others in the online world, who have all come to do the same quest in their solo games, to achieve some objective, with results feeding back into everybody's solo game.

The game could come in 2 DVDs.... people will pay for it.