This would be the most awesome game with co-op ever!

If they are saying they can't put it in because of time and cost restrictions, then I can understand. But one thing that drives me crazy is when developers say they left co-op out because it would wreck the story; There are very few games ever that would have suffered story-wise from co-op.

And yes, this would be the most awesome game ever with co-op

The Problem is. When you make a real story coop story game its hard to make it also so that you can play it alone.

I do want an amazing experience upgraded from Oblivion, and if Oblivion was anything less due to the implementation of multiplayer, I might not of put over 250 hours into it. So I can totally understand their point, besides how many games have come out lately with co-op that have been less then stellar experiences. Games like Sacred 2 may have been to the quality of an elder scrolls game, but instead we received coop, which was fun, but there was a LOT of complaining due to the camera, the trade system and other things, of course this is speculation only. Another thing is what if they had to reduce the amount of NPCs in the world due to having more than 1 player and networking restrictions, or maybe have the players tethered together like "Mercenaries 2" where it won't let you go too far from the other player. A best case scenario would be if they could implement it like an MMO, where players can be grouped and go where they please, whether it be across the map from one another, or side by side in the same dungeon. I do agree with Nick stating half of me wants multiplayer in the series, but the other half of me wants a GRAND experience, and if that means cutting out MP, then so be it.

Maybe in the future we can get a spin off of an Elder Scrolls game with multiplayer.

As much as I'd love co-op in an Elder Scrolls game, the sheer amount of time I spend screwing around or hunting for crafting reagents might make me an insufferable pain of a partner.

Perhaps the oft-rumored Elder Scrolls MMO will solve this problem.

@Kradath - That's actually a very good point I hadn't thought of. But I don't mind being a tag along in a great game, I don't really need the perfect co-op story.

The somewhat slow pace for the Elder Scrolls series wouldn't be great for co-op. It works fine as a single-player game.

I definitely agree - for co-op to work you'd have to change the traditionally slow pace of the Elder Scrolls games. You couldn't give players the freedom to screw around as much - but like Mike said - if its an MMO type thing where everyone is just off doing their own thing in the same world...that might work.

@coopbob Are you and I the same person? Because I was going to say the exact same thing!

I think the game that infuriated me the most was Rainbow Six Vegas 2. The story didn't make sense in the first place, so why couldn't we just have 4 players in campaign? A feature available in the first game?

It's one thing to say that it's hard to make games, I completely understand that. But to say there is no co-op for story purposes is the weakest excuse there is.

me and my bro have both spent 100's of hours in oblivion and we even have 6 copies of the game. co-op might make our heads explode if they could even make it where someone could control a companion or something.

@CoopBob I totally agree to you there. I'd have no problem of being a ghost in ME oder DA or whatever great game, never mentioned, never talked to, just watching the game and being part of the combat side of this game.

We're gonna have some nasty arguments here. Again.

For my money, the "go anywhere, do anything, anytime" aspect of the TES games would work both ways. With, say, Mass Effect co-op, the tagalong would be stuck watching conversations and loitering on the Normandy while the host advanced the story and scanned f&#king planets for hours. (Ok, so that part is lame for the host too.) TES doesn't force you to pick flowers or stalk the townspeople-- if you just want to do quests or delve dungeons, there's nothing to stop you. Come to think of it, "nothing to stop you" is the driving principle of Bethesda's open-world RPG's. Heck, the PC version has command line inputs that let you kill or resurrect anything at any time, give yourself loot, advance or complete quests without doing anything, walk through walls, you name it. If that doesn't break the game, co-op wouldn't come close.

There would be hurdles, to be sure. To avoid bugs with quests, faction quests in particular, Player 2 would pretty much have to be barred from quest progress or from holding plot items. (I considered the alternatives. It's the best way.) Sleeping or waiting would have to be a joint operation. The biggest issue-- the plight of the Level 2 nobody with a friends list full of Level 25 death factories-- would demand something contrived, like scaling Player 2's level and gear to match the host's level. I can't think of a good solution to that one. Still, I'd say the deliberately loose structure of the TES games could make the slapdash, "just-throw-another-guy-in-there" approach work, whatever I've said about it in the past.

i personally would be happy if co-op was added after as dlc, that way the main content isn't 'dumbed down'

Elder Scrolls and Fallout are the two single-player franchises that I will continue to go out and purchase despite there being no multiplayer capabilities. Like a few have said, Elder Scrolls has a lot of exploring and just "experiencing" the environment and what you can do, and I don't think it would be completely successful (or fun) to have a partner with you. Also, if it would honestly lead to a decrease in the final product, I don't think co-op would be worth the trade-off.

Bethesda is getting my $50 no matter what, but I would like a co-op option veeeeeeery much too. Even something as simple as being able to join a friend and roam about together, no quests or anything, just dungeon crawling would be fine by me.

Yeah, I see there as two ways to interpret this statement. Either they are arguing from a logistical, time and money standpoint in which fair enough.

Or they have a genuine mental block on the idea of co-op and literally start ruling other features out when talking about the idea of co-op at all, which would either point to a lack of ambition or problems with the engine being inherantly unsuitable or some such.

I think the former is infinately more likely, but they should really just come out and say it rather than beating euphamistically around the bush.

I personally suspect the fact that they haven't really made any/many Multiplayer games, if nothing else, means they just don't consider the option early enough in the project to be quite honest.

@elder III

I completely agree with you, you don't need to do the story line while in a co-op mode. if anyone's ever played GTA IV, the free roam mode could be used as a co-op mode in TES. I preferably don't like the thought of 16 people all roaming around one place, but maybe 2-4 people could work, and you wouldn't be able to continue the story line. it would all be free roam, killing monsters and exploring places with your friends for fun.

load of shit load of shit load of shit.

saints row, borderlands, dead island, dark souls, gears of war, halo, resistance 3, battlefield 3, and every mmo that has ever existed.

no excuse.

Elders Scrolls is not near as popular as Bethesda likes to pretend. Adding co-op as an OPTION would open the series up to more consumers. And not one Elder Scrolls fan would care, as long as they were able to play alone as well.

I actually don't think the pacing would be much of an issue in adding co-op to a game like this. I know they are different types of games but Borderlands had everyone stopping every 5 minutes to look over their loot, or talk to npc's, or check their stats, or check their quests, or whatever, and everyone gushes about that game's co-op.

Another game that faces similar issues is Dead Island, in that it's a game where people have to stop and check out stats or gear or different quests; or where some players would want to race through while others want to craft and search around, and it's one of the best co-op games ever.

I don't think co-op would be easy to implement in a huge game like this - I think the technical side of making it so that a group of 2-4 players can get around in a large open world would be the main obstacle, but if/when they do, it will only make it better.

Edit: trying to fix my terrible grammar...

--- Replying to CoopBob -----

There's one potential problem with your analysis, though: in both Dead Island and Borderlands, neither the characters nor the stories are of any real interest. Heck, even the game worlds aren't really very interesting. The fun is all about killing and looting with friends. So having multiple players really doesn't alter anything significant in terms of story or world design, because those are just background.

Wait, make that two problems: in both Borderlands and Dead Island, there's really not a whole lot to distinguish different character classes and builds, so the game doesn't have to accommodate a huge variety of different potential groups and skillsets.

At least theoretically, the story and game world in an Oblivion game are supposed to be more detailed and specific and relevant to the gameplay, and it definitely allows for a wider variety of character builds, which would make balancing for different potential co-op parties very, very difficult if not impossible.

--- Replying to Macrocephalus -----


Well yaaaa, you're right. The main problem with analogies is that they are always full of holes

I guess my general viewpoint on this sort of thing is that personally I don't care if the co-op work-in story wise is main character plus his miscellaneous band of companions. And yes, balancing, etc would be difficult. I just don't think it would take massive conceptual sacrifices to the core game to make it playable solo or with friends. And (again personally) I disagree that balancing would make it impossible, it would just mean lots more work.

Whenever I play a really awesome game I just always end up thinking how much I would like to experience all this awesomeness with a buddy.

--- Replying to CoopBob -----

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you realize just how much more work it would be.

Think about it — is there a single example of a really, really enormous game chock full of vast numbers of different kinds of quests and which allows an enormous variety of character builds being built for solo play but also balanced for co-op? Because I can't think of one off the top of my head. The amount of work would be staggering… or the game would have to be designed for co-op first and solo second, like the upcoming Ratchet & Clank.

--- Replying to Macrocephalus -----
And I don't think you realize how much more sales it'd be.

The whole "story/world" thing doesn't work on me. Want my $60? Make me care. And co-op does just that.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Why do you assume sales would automatically be much higher? The game would have to change some of what makes its fans fans. (And bear in mind, I'm not really one of them. Oblivion was my first Elder Scrolls game, and I had serious problems with it. I'm likely going to try Skyrim because of the hype and the promises that many of my problems with Oblivion have been addressed, but I'm not entirely optimistic.) There are co-op games that sell great, and games with co-op that don't. It's not an automatic sales panacea.

As to stories and world design not mattering to you — great. Vote with your $, as you already do. Obviously there are other people for whom it does matter, and we also vote with our wallets.

And no, I'm not arguing against co-op. I'm just saying it's not feasible or appropriate for EVERY LAST GAME ON THE PLANET WITH NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER, that's all.

--- Replying to Macrocephalus -----
Yes, it is.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Hah, I don't think you really believe that, but if you do, that's hilarious.

I don't go for sports games. Therefore, if EA wants to make more money, they should stop publishing Madden.

So we're having the nasty arguments that I predicted five months ago. Anyway, it seems to me that they'd either have to go the BYOB route that gave Fable II a two out of five, or completely scrap the write-your-own-story element that makes RPG's into top sellers and critical favorites. Still, I'd love to play Skyrim with a partner to delve dungeons or fight dragons. At the expense of realism and immersion, maybe you could let the two players go through quest dialogue independently? Both players retrieve the Thing, then they both bring it back to the quest giver and say different things about it? It's contrived, and there would be hiccups, but it could work. Or just take the Fable II BYOB route and make player 2 into an anonymous henchman. It would still be fun.

--- Replying to Bakken Hood -----
fable 2 had many many other problems that contributed to it's low score.

it's a shame skyrim won't have co-op, but i wasn't expecting it. it's yet another series that i feel could benefit from co-op. these types of games bore me if i don't have at least one buddy at my side.

--- Replying to Macrocephalus -----
Why hilarious?
You're telling me that Bethesda doesn't have the capability to some kind of co-op to Skyrim? It's utterly impossible?

Naughty Dog begs to differ. Rockstar Games begs to differ. DICE, Ubisoft Montreal, and EA Black Box do, too. These are all studios who've enjoyed great acclaim with single-player/versus franchises and still thought it best to add co-op. With great success, I might add.
Is it always optimal? No. Is it always feasible? Yes. Is it always appropriate? Well, that's up to the marketing team, but considering that co-op and multiplayer games far outsell single-player games, then yea - I'd say it's appropriate.

The reason you have such tunnel vision about the subject is because you can't fathom having the desire to do anything with Skyrim other than to "experience the experience". I'm pretty sure that if it shipped with co-op you'd buy it day one. And guess what? I would, too. Win for Bethesda.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Once again, you're attacking straw men.

I'm not particularly excited about Skyrim. I may try it out… but there's no way in hell I'm buying it. At most, I'll rent it. And your certainty that I'd buy it on day one if it shipped with co-op is hilarious, and concretely demonstrates your utter incapacity to understand my interests or preferences in gaming… and thus your own tunnel vision.

You accuse me of only being able to understand my own tastes? I'm not the one arguing that all games should be developed exactly in accordance with my personal preferences — that EA should drop Madden because I don't like sports games. You are. I love good co-op. But co-op isn't appropriate in every game, and it's not magical sales dust that blesses every game that incorporates it (presumably in proportion to the degree of that incorporation) with huge profits and massive success… or even ordinary profits and adequate success.

Guess what? Didn't read it. Guess why? You're not changing my opinion, as much as you'd like to.

Co-op is not only a possible option for every title, it's an appropriate option for every title. To me. And I'm the one that counts, because it's my money on the line.
Buy me Skyrim, and I promise I won't criticize it anymore.

I'm not into gaming for "the greater good", or some kind of artsy fartsy idealogy. It's my hobby, and not a cheap one at that. So when someone tells me, "co-op is not an option in our game", then in my book they've missed the boat. On to the next game.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Since you didn't read my previous post either, this comes as no surprise. At least you're being honest about it this time, though, so props for that.

Honesty is a virtue.

ya know, i think this would be great if it had some sort of "dungeon" that you could have 2 people or maybe even 3 people work together killing monsters to get to a boss, and then roll on what it drops, like WoW's loot system, and make it a downloadable content. Thats just my opinion though

--- Replying to coolice533 -----

Here's a big question, though: is combat in Skyrim intrinsically rewarding? Because the combat itself in Oblivion was kind of mediocre at best. The fun was leveling up your character, improving skills, getting cool loot, and so on. The actual battles and everything directly involved (graphics, sound, etc.) were just means to an end.

Adding an additional game mode that puts more emphasis on the vehicle and less on the destination could be a huge failure.

Then again, maybe fighting monsters will be a lot slicker and more fun in and of itself in Skyrim, I don't know. And hell, maybe some kind of horde mode would be fun, too — get a mix of friends together and try to withstand bigger and bigger (and tougher and tougher) waves of enemies. But it would probably take a lot of development resources to make something like that really compelling, and given how ridiculously buggy Bethesda games already are even with all their resources focused on the campaign, I'm not sure I want to see them divert any of their attention to something else.

So, you "don't know" if a co-op mode in Skyrim would be fun...but you do know that Bethesda's resources are too precious to give it a try.

Man, I want whatever crystal ball you're using.

i wasn't talking about a horde mode, more of a system of tunnels with monsters and a boss at the end. I'm not one of those guys saying my ideas the best, but i personally loved killing monsters and gearing a LOT more than leveling up. i actually beat the entire game staying around level 3. I also think vehicles are a terrible idea. You know like the area at the beginning of oblivion with all the monsters in the caves? I was talking something somewhat bigger with a somewhat large boss (maybe a dragon) at the end

Also, why do you think they would have do divert attention? i said downloadable content, which doesn't have to be released with the game. That's the purpose of downloadable content. Adding on later.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

Please go back to admitting you're not reading my posts instead of pretending you are but completely misrepresenting what I say. It's much more pleasant that way for everyone.