Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Having two champions of Cyrodil actually would not be so hard at all. .. Lots of stories have multiple heroes, especially epic saga . . .two arena Champions or two Archmages would be more of a feat. And even that is not beyond management. Many Governments are diarchal in nature. . . many more are actually Oligarchies, where a small cabal sit in authority . . . rather like. . . An Elder Coucnil

Anyway, most RPGs that have a second player option are first player dominant. . . if you wait, your companion waits etc. . . and the inventory stuff. . . please. . . dinasaur games like Baldur's gate had that mapped out perfectly a decade ago.

And the flaw in Fable 2 was not the co-op, nor was it graphics or physics. . . it was that the SCRIPT WRITING team, totally seperate from the engineering division, did not flush out as thorough, multilayered and open ended a story as they might have, the replay value was low because none of the plot lines had recurring aspects, even though many lent themselves too it. . . and frankly, the co-op was not as well implemented as it could have been. Again, the old, fossil Baldur's gate allowed for far better armour/weapon/clothing customization for the second player.

To say that they are not multiplayer is self evident so long as the option does not exist. . . but there is no solid reason they could not be, and so long as the technology is/was up to it, having a co-op mode would IN NO WAY EFFECT OR DETRACT FROM the single player game, for those who only wish to play in sinlge mode. Its an irrational and fallacious argument. . . like suggesting that if we put colonies on the moon the sun would burn out more rapidly. . . complete non sequiter.

Actually, co-op would detract from singleplayer, because if they should decide to put in co-op, Bethesda would be taking away their time and money to improve an already great singleplayer. I'd rather like that. I love the singleplayer. It makes TES what it is. My whole point of the arguement is that if Bethesda invested in a co-op option, that money and time could be committed to making the singleplayer better, which I personally do not like, which is just my $0.02 (and probably a large number of other people's). That's all, man.

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

i like pretending im a master thief and jumping around on top of houses.

unlimited gameplay hours for any character

 Kyle 1310 wrote:

does anyone know when it might come out?? i have heard 2012

Earliest is 2010, but thats fairly old news and that could easily change.
As for co-op let me say this. All those of you who think it would be could just try to imagine how long it would take for the bethesda team to design, implement, test, tweak, perfect and all the other stages to the supposed multiplayer system. Not only would it possibly end up as bad multiplayer (as someone said like fable 2) but it may also cause them to spend so much time on it that the quality of the rest of the game suffers as a result.
Of course you can dream, and of course its possible they might make a good multiplayer system, but you've got to ask yourself...Is it too soon for Elder Scrolls Multiplayer?

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

 Wastelander08 wrote:

 Kyle 1310 wrote:

does anyone know when it might come out?? i have heard 2012

Earliest is 2010, but thats fairly old news and that could easily change.
As for co-op let me say this. All those of you who think it would be could just try to imagine how long it would take for the bethesda team to design, implement, test, tweak, perfect and all the other stages to the supposed multiplayer system. Not only would it possibly end up as bad multiplayer (as someone said like fable 2) but it may also cause them to spend so much time on it that the quality of the rest of the game suffers as a result.
Of course you can dream, and of course its possible they might make a good multiplayer system, but you've got to ask yourself...Is it too soon for Elder Scrolls Multiplayer?

TES has already had multiplayer. Battlespire had multiplayer, of course Battlespire wasn't open world.

And Beth is ALWAYS working on TES, they had been working on Oblivion before Morrowind was even released. 2010 just seems like the correct release to me, from the length of time between M~Wind and Oblivion.

---

 OldPepsiMan wrote:

the whole secret is more Pepsi and less booze.

better achievements.
i know there was 50 but theyw asnt exactly any difficult one's. i would like to have seen something like - The horn of the Unicorn - where you have to kill the unicorn and obatin its horn. or an achievement for completing the vampire quest (without vile lair). its a great game probly still the best rpg ive played for ages..but id of liked it to go on for more.. i reached 1000/1000 after 62hours and since played it to about 80..i may have to do shivering isles or something to pass some time.

 Taldarin wrote:

 Wastelander08 wrote:

 Kyle 1310 wrote:

does anyone know when it might come out?? i have heard 2012

Earliest is 2010, but thats fairly old news and that could easily change.
As for co-op let me say this. All those of you who think it would be could just try to imagine how long it would take for the bethesda team to design, implement, test, tweak, perfect and all the other stages to the supposed multiplayer system. Not only would it possibly end up as bad multiplayer (as someone said like fable 2) but it may also cause them to spend so much time on it that the quality of the rest of the game suffers as a result.
Of course you can dream, and of course its possible they might make a good multiplayer system, but you've got to ask yourself...Is it too soon for Elder Scrolls Multiplayer?

TES has already had multiplayer. Battlespire had multiplayer, of course Battlespire wasn't open world.

And Beth is ALWAYS working on TES, they had been working on Oblivion before Morrowind was even released. 2010 just seems like the correct release to me, from the length of time between M~Wind and Oblivion.

I agree with the date being reasonable, but with economic downturn and what not im sure cuts must b made at even Bethesda and Zenimax, that could slow down the production progress of ES:V.

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

 Wastelander08 wrote:

 Taldarin wrote:

 Wastelander08 wrote:

 Kyle 1310 wrote:

does anyone know when it might come out?? i have heard 2012

Earliest is 2010, but thats fairly old news and that could easily change.
As for co-op let me say this. All those of you who think it would be could just try to imagine how long it would take for the bethesda team to design, implement, test, tweak, perfect and all the other stages to the supposed multiplayer system. Not only would it possibly end up as bad multiplayer (as someone said like fable 2) but it may also cause them to spend so much time on it that the quality of the rest of the game suffers as a result.
Of course you can dream, and of course its possible they might make a good multiplayer system, but you've got to ask yourself...Is it too soon for Elder Scrolls Multiplayer?

TES has already had multiplayer. Battlespire had multiplayer, of course Battlespire wasn't open world.

And Beth is ALWAYS working on TES, they had been working on Oblivion before Morrowind was even released. 2010 just seems like the correct release to me, from the length of time between M~Wind and Oblivion.

I agree with the date being reasonable, but with economic downturn and what not im sure cuts must b made at even Bethesda and Zenimax, that could slow down the production progress of ES:V.

I don't believe Zenimax is so short of money, considering the amount of money they have been spending in recent times.

Well thats good news, lets just hope they release some more information about it soon. Like what its called where its set ect.

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

I would settle for a key ring (lord knows the current game needs it), and the ability to fight on horseback, which is something that PC users have been enjoying for ages now. Having to dismount just to attack an enemy (or to have your horse attack it) is beyond silly. Adding some flying mounts would be awesome, too, such as dragons or griffins; you can already do this on the PC version using mods.

Also, Bethesda should expand the concept of NPC allies (e.g. Knights of the Nine, Dark Brotherhood Murderer, etc.), and allow you to hire mercenaries (through the Fighter's Guild, for example). You'd be able to equip the NPC the same way you would your own character (i.e. without reverse pickpocketing). In the case of mercenaries, you'd have to pay them, which could be resolved by having a small percentage of your earnings deducted every time you made money (finding gold in chests, or by selling items).

Finally, I'd love for the Morag Tong to return in a big way (perhaps to war with the Brotherhood?) and, to satisfy my curiosity, to have the whole "Deep Ones" Hackdirt subplot explored and further resolved (come to think of it, that'd make a great Oblivion plug-in).

---

:::Forums:::
=HCN= Team Cyanide

 HCN SmokeyMcPot wrote:

Finally, I'd love for the Morag Tong to return in a big way (perhaps to war with the Brotherhood?) br>

Yeah i thought it was a kick in the teeth when you got the morag tong stuff in the add on for oblivion (Merhunes razor?) only to discover they just enchanted some leather clothes. Morag Tong are like the leagl version of the dark brotherhood are they not? So maybe they should be hunting the brotherhood.

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

 Wastelander08 wrote:

 HCN SmokeyMcPot wrote:

Finally, I'd love for the Morag Tong to return in a big way (perhaps to war with the Brotherhood?) br>

Yeah i thought it was a kick in the teeth when you got the morag tong stuff in the add on for oblivion (Merhunes razor?) only to discover they just enchanted some leather clothes. Morag Tong are like the leagl version of the dark brotherhood are they not? So maybe they should be hunting the brotherhood.

Morag Tong is only legal in Morrowind.. they are just as illegal as the Darkbrotherhood everywhere else in the Empire.

---

April 15th is no longer Tax day, it is now TEA day

It'll probobly be set a few years on. (That can mean anything to 1-1000 years btw). So i guess the empire's political stance on the morag tong could change.

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

 Wastelander08 wrote:

It'll probobly be set a few years on. (That can mean anything to 1-1000 years btw). So i guess the empire's political stance on the morag tong could change.

Considering they were outlawed because they assassinated an Emperor, I doubt they'll ever be legit outside of Morrowind.

---

April 15th is no longer Tax day, it is now TEA day

Yeah but seeing as the royal family line has been destroyed i think there could possibly be a civil war. Thus we might see city states or confederacies which may perhaps legalise the Morag Tong.

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

 Wastelander08 wrote:

Yeah but seeing as the royal family line has been destroyed i think there could possibly be a civil war. Thus we might see city states or confederacies which may perhaps legalise the Morag Tong.

That may be so (but I would argue against there being a Civil War), but considering that the Morag Tong has proven that they aren't loyal enough to the Empire while being a part of it, to not murder the Emperor, why would they be loyal enough to some random Duke/Duchess/lord/etc in some random city state.


Plus, it isn't like the Morag Tong is the only assassian/spy group out there.

---

April 15th is no longer Tax day, it is now TEA day

 StarScream 22 wrote:

 Wastelander08 wrote:

Yeah but seeing as the royal family line has been destroyed i think there could possibly be a civil war. Thus we might see city states or confederacies which may perhaps legalise the Morag Tong.

That may be so (but I would argue against there being a Civil War), but considering that the Morag Tong has proven that they aren't loyal enough to the Empire while being a part of it, to not murder the Emperor, why would they be loyal enough to some random Duke/Duchess/lord/etc in some random city state.


Plus, it isn't like the Morag Tong is the only assassian/spy group out there.

Your right, their loyalty is an issue. But perhaps their members infiltrate the governing bodies of (lets say as an example) Kvatch- newly ceceded from the empire. They might have a corupting influence thus giving them a new power. which could leads to them hunting down rivals such as the dark brotherhood.

---

Time to Bring on the Payne!

 Wastelander08 wrote:

 StarScream 22 wrote:

 Wastelander08 wrote:

Yeah but seeing as the royal family line has been destroyed i think there could possibly be a civil war. Thus we might see city states or confederacies which may perhaps legalise the Morag Tong.

That may be so (but I would argue against there being a Civil War), but considering that the Morag Tong has proven that they aren't loyal enough to the Empire while being a part of it, to not murder the Emperor, why would they be loyal enough to some random Duke/Duchess/lord/etc in some random city state.


Plus, it isn't like the Morag Tong is the only assassian/spy group out there.

Your right, their loyalty is an issue. But perhaps their members infiltrate the governing bodies of (lets say as an example) Kvatch- newly ceceded from the empire. They might have a corupting influence thus giving them a new power. which could leads to them hunting down rivals such as the dark brotherhood.

Again, not impossible. Though I still find it very unlikely. The Morag Tong has always been a Dunmer centered Organization, headquatered somewhere in Morrowind. I doubt they'll bother with inflitrating many areas, that aren't atleast on the border with Morrowind.

They have been "banned" (I'm not really sure if they were all to legal before hand) for a long time, and they aren't hurting for business, so I doubt they would really care to expand, especially into a civil war. Also, it isn't impossible for their agents to leave Morrowind on "business", it is just that their Writs aren't considered legal and are treated by law enforcement as common theives and murders.

And then you have the issue of the public uneasniess over legalize assassination, and the fact they there would be a Elf high up in the government. And also, the fact that all gov'ts generally create their own local spy/assassination organization, and wouldn't need or want to contract that stuff out.

So, I won't say it is impossible, I could see a spy vs spy, cold warish conflict between the Morag Tong and the Sadowscales in a game set in the Black Marsh. Even can see a role for the Morag Tong in a Skyrim game, but doubtful anywhere else.

---

April 15th is no longer Tax day, it is now TEA day

Take your ideas to the correct thread. We don't need 2 threads with the same purpose.

---

Acid Bath - Jezebel

Death knowz...you sir, are a god.

 Mikedzines wrote:

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Having two champions of Cyrodil actually would not be so hard at all. .. Lots of stories have multiple heroes, especially epic saga . . .two arena Champions or two Archmages would be more of a feat. And even that is not beyond management. Many Governments are diarchal in nature. . . many more are actually Oligarchies, where a small cabal sit in authority . . . rather like. . . An Elder Coucnil

Only one person can be Sheogorath. Messing with lore tends to pissoff Death knowz. It makes him post stickies and what not. 

Well, you have me on Sheogorath Mike, and I won't argue it. However, that is why the second player. . . is the second player. . . and in drop in drop out you can always mantle your ascension on a day when you are playing solo. lol

 PH 6674 wrote:

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Having two champions of Cyrodil actually would not be so hard at all. .. Lots of stories have multiple heroes, especially epic saga . . .two arena Champions or two Archmages would be more of a feat. And even that is not beyond management. Many Governments are diarchal in nature. . . many more are actually Oligarchies, where a small cabal sit in authority . . . rather like. . . An Elder Coucnil

Anyway, most RPGs that have a second player option are first player dominant. . . if you wait, your companion waits etc. . . and the inventory stuff. . . please. . . dinasaur games like Baldur's gate had that mapped out perfectly a decade ago.

And the flaw in Fable 2 was not the co-op, nor was it graphics or physics. . . it was that the SCRIPT WRITING team, totally seperate from the engineering division, did not flush out as thorough, multilayered and open ended a story as they might have, the replay value was low because none of the plot lines had recurring aspects, even though many lent themselves too it. . . and frankly, the co-op was not as well implemented as it could have been. Again, the old, fossil Baldur's gate allowed for far better armour/weapon/clothing customization for the second player.

To say that they are not multiplayer is self evident so long as the option does not exist. . . but there is no solid reason they could not be, and so long as the technology is/was up to it, having a co-op mode would IN NO WAY EFFECT OR DETRACT FROM the single player game, for those who only wish to play in sinlge mode. Its an irrational and fallacious argument. . . like suggesting that if we put colonies on the moon the sun would burn out more rapidly. . . complete non sequiter.

Actually, co-op would detract from singleplayer, because if they should decide to put in co-op, Bethesda would be taking away their time and money to improve an already great singleplayer. I'd rather like that. I love the singleplayer. It makes TES what it is. My whole point of the arguement is that if Bethesda invested in a co-op option, that money and time could be committed to making the singleplayer better, which I personally do not like, which is just my $0.02 (and probably a large number of other people's). That's all, man.

No offense taken or intende, I simply deeply disagree. It is not simgleplay that makes The Elder Scrolls what they are. . . it is lore and immersion primarily, and of course things like graphics etc. A couch co-op mode would only hurt that if the team decided to scrap the lore, all the previous game aspects and/or similar AI advancements for future games, to implement the co-op. . . and it really would not require all that. I also find it lackluster (and you are not the main perpetrator of this, so it is not pointedly directed at you, just an observation) that virtually everytime a significant amount of people want to see a feature added, that some others do not want to see, the first argument that crops up after the more logical arguments prove to be flawed and insufficient to the task, is the "it would drain the resources" argument.

I could really do without argonians, and would happily exchange them as a playable race for. . . oh, lets say, Daedra!   . In fact, I would be fine only ever seeing Argonians as monsters in caves.  . . for me to slay, as I do goblins. .. yet some people love playing as Argonians. . . would it make my distaste of them more valid if I called them a drain on resources (especially considering how much design difference there is between them and the other races), and a superflous race the continued use of which detracts from better races/features that the game might add?

 ACE SHER1FF wrote:

better achievements.
i know there was 50 but theyw asnt exactly any difficult one's. i would like to have seen something like - The horn of the Unicorn - where you have to kill the unicorn and obatin its horn. or an achievement for completing the vampire quest (without vile lair). its a great game probly still the best rpg ive played for ages..but id of liked it to go on for more.. i reached 1000/1000 after 62hours and since played it to about 80..i may have to do shivering isles or something to pass some time.

I disagree, quest achievements are nearly as bad as multiplayer achievements, at least in role-playing games

---

What are you scared of?

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

 PH 6674 wrote:

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Having two champions of Cyrodil actually would not be so hard at all. .. Lots of stories have multiple heroes, especially epic saga . . .two arena Champions or two Archmages would be more of a feat. And even that is not beyond management. Many Governments are diarchal in nature. . . many more are actually Oligarchies, where a small cabal sit in authority . . . rather like. . . An Elder Coucnil

Anyway, most RPGs that have a second player option are first player dominant. . . if you wait, your companion waits etc. . . and the inventory stuff. . . please. . . dinasaur games like Baldur's gate had that mapped out perfectly a decade ago.

And the flaw in Fable 2 was not the co-op, nor was it graphics or physics. . . it was that the SCRIPT WRITING team, totally seperate from the engineering division, did not flush out as thorough, multilayered and open ended a story as they might have, the replay value was low because none of the plot lines had recurring aspects, even though many lent themselves too it. . . and frankly, the co-op was not as well implemented as it could have been. Again, the old, fossil Baldur's gate allowed for far better armour/weapon/clothing customization for the second player.

To say that they are not multiplayer is self evident so long as the option does not exist. . . but there is no solid reason they could not be, and so long as the technology is/was up to it, having a co-op mode would IN NO WAY EFFECT OR DETRACT FROM the single player game, for those who only wish to play in sinlge mode. Its an irrational and fallacious argument. . . like suggesting that if we put colonies on the moon the sun would burn out more rapidly. . . complete non sequiter.

Actually, co-op would detract from singleplayer, because if they should decide to put in co-op, Bethesda would be taking away their time and money to improve an already great singleplayer. I'd rather like that. I love the singleplayer. It makes TES what it is. My whole point of the arguement is that if Bethesda invested in a co-op option, that money and time could be committed to making the singleplayer better, which I personally do not like, which is just my $0.02 (and probably a large number of other people's). That's all, man.

No offense taken or intende, I simply deeply disagree. It is not simgleplay that makes The Elder Scrolls what they are. . . it is lore and immersion primarily, and of course things like graphics etc. A couch co-op mode would only hurt that if the team decided to scrap the lore, all the previous game aspects and/or similar AI advancements for future games, to implement the co-op. . . and it really would not require all that. I also find it lackluster (and you are not the main perpetrator of this, so it is not pointedly directed at you, just an observation) that virtually everytime a significant amount of people want to see a feature added, that some others do not want to see, the first argument that crops up after the more logical arguments prove to be flawed and insufficient to the task, is the "it would drain the resources" argument.

I could really do without argonians, and would happily exchange them as a playable race for. . . oh, lets say, Daedra!   . In fact, I would be fine only ever seeing Argonians as monsters in caves.  . . for me to slay, as I do goblins. .. yet some people love playing as Argonians. . . would it make my distaste of them more valid if I called them a drain on resources (especially considering how much design difference there is between them and the other races), and a superflous race the continued use of which detracts from better races/features that the game might add?

None taken, but don't bash Argonians. That's plain racist! I have a level 53, maxed-out Argonian. I'm sure he would'nt wanna be in a cave.. and who doesn't like unlimited water-breathing?

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

i like pretending im a master thief and jumping around on top of houses.

Argonians FTW. Making up Argonian names is fun.

And Arthazal, make up your mind. You may be talking about lore and immersion right now but not that long ago you were claiming you'd sacrifice all of that just so you could get rid of an invisible wall.

And don't go twisting my words around or changing the "meaning" of what you said. Not going to work on me this time.

---

 OldPepsiMan wrote:

the whole secret is more Pepsi and less booze.

 Taldarin wrote:

Argonians FTW. Making up Argonian names is fun.

And Arthazal, make up your mind. You may be talking about lore and immersion right now but not that long ago you were claiming you'd sacrifice all of that just so you could get rid of an invisible wall.

And don't go twisting my words around or changing the "meaning" of what you said. Not going to work on me this time.

I made up M'zaar, you?

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

i like pretending im a master thief and jumping around on top of houses.

 Taldarin wrote:

Argonians FTW. Making up Argonian names is fun.

And Arthazal, make up your mind. You may be talking about lore and immersion right now but not that long ago you were claiming you'd sacrifice all of that just so you could get rid of an invisible wall.

And don't go twisting my words around or changing the "meaning" of what you said. Not going to work on me this time.

Lol. I don't have to change my meaning, you twisted MY words so much as to make it irrelevant. I NEVER said I would sacrifice all in the game for no barriers. I would not. I would give up about half of the redundant dungeons for no barriers. . . and I would stick with a map on scale with Oblivion' Cyrodil, which actually had significantly less surface space, from all I understand, than other games in the series. But I wouldn't say, have them take back the entire Mages Guild, just so I could walk into Morrowind from Cyrodil.

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

 Taldarin wrote:

Argonians FTW. Making up Argonian names is fun.

And Arthazal, make up your mind. You may be talking about lore and immersion right now but not that long ago you were claiming you'd sacrifice all of that just so you could get rid of an invisible wall.

And don't go twisting my words around or changing the "meaning" of what you said. Not going to work on me this time.

Lol. I don't have to change my meaning, you twisted MY words so much as to make it irrelevant. I NEVER said I would sacrifice all in the game for no barriers. I would not. I would give up about half of the redundant dungeons for no barriers. . . and I would stick with a map on scale with Oblivion' Cyrodil, which actually had significantly less surface space, from all I understand, than other games in the series. But I wouldn't say, have them take back the entire Mages Guild, just so I could walk into Morrowind from Cyrodil.

Morrowind would be roughly the size of Cyrodil in Oblivion, NOT the more massive Morrowind of the Morrowind game etc.), and with a greatly reduced number of explorable locales in all non main quest provinces.

the other provinces would still be less explorable. . . only majorly significant locales. . . all the other caves and such would give you the old. "this door will not open at this time" like the damned orrery. lol

Take away the things that aren't "major" and you get less immersion and lore, which seems to contradict what you just said.

Yes, some of the dungeons that were in Morrowind were redundant but there were a lot that had some sort of purpose that did further lore, and thus immersion.

Having a striped down version Vvardenfell is not worth it if it's only slightly recognizable. That would kill both immersion and lore as well as cause the orginal Morrowind game and the new game to contridict one another.

I said this before to you, having a bare bones version of a province is not worth it. The only thing that'd do is make all the areas in the series universe look boring and dull.

---

 OldPepsiMan wrote:

the whole secret is more Pepsi and less booze.

What they should do is go back to morrowinds gameplay I found it more in-depth then oblivion.  Oblivion held your hand way too much.  Also I liked the fact you could wear clothing along with armor.  I do like the lockpicking mini game though in oblivion over morrowinds try till you get it method.

 ExcludedRobin wrote:

What they should do is go back to morrowinds gameplay I found it more in-depth then oblivion.  Oblivion held your hand way too much.  Also I liked the fact you could wear clothing along with armor.  I do like the lockpicking mini game though in oblivion over morrowinds try till you get it method.

There were no physics in Morrowind so you didn't have to worry so much about things like collision...
The use of the skeleton key totally "nerfs" lockpicking in general, for Oblivion. I just hope they make it more like Fallout 3's. You could feel for the lock, and you didn't have to see all those stupid tumblers.

---

Assassins Creed 2 Achievement Walkthrough!

Seems like Athrazal makes new enemies every time he posts.

---

Acid Bath - Jezebel

Death knowz...you sir, are a god.

 death knowz wrote:

Seems like Athrazal makes new enemies every time he posts.

Death knowz everything. (PUNZ INTENDED LOLOLOLOL BEEP)

Anyway, what TES really needs is a nice, new, polished and refined combat system.

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

i like pretending im a master thief and jumping around on top of houses.