What they need for the next TES is some sort of co-op. That's it imo. That would make it so damn fun.

What do you think?

---

A1, Yeah. It's That Important.

 A1 KILL SAUCE wrote:

What they need for the next TES is some sort of co-op. That's it imo. That would make it so damn fun.

What do you think?

*points wabbajack at A1 KILL SAUCE*
*turns him into a deer*

---

My Music. : Tell me what you think/SPREAD THE WORD

.N.O.

---

What are you scared of?

I don't think co-op will happen, nor should it really. Only thing I'd like is some melee and bow abilitys rather than just magic abilitys.

I'd rather they try and make the best single-player experience possible as opposed to spending time trying to implement co-op. 

---

Robots cannot be trusted.

ENOUGH! just ENOUGH! ENOUUUUUGH! We have gone over this extensively, including in the thread about ideas for the next game. Some of us would really LOVE some form of co-op (preferably console/couch two player my mind, as in third person it is the least complicated and the most rewarding for the purpose of entertainment with actual living, breathing, present company. Few things compare to that type of gaming experience, but anyway). . . And some of us don't. I think many of the arguments for the don't group are of a fairly narrow track, and in the main are hollow and exclusionary, but what of it. Either we will see it or we won't, or some other vast RPG in the future will do it and gain a large following thereby.

Co-op would be super *** and would ruin the experience of what the elder scrolls is all about. If the next elder scrolls has co-op or is a mmorpg I would be both extremely shocked and very disappointed. If it’s a mmorpg I will flat out not buy the game. If it has co-op I will never play it. Look at Fable 2. The co-op was absolute garbage. If Bethesda were to do some sort of co-op, that would divert focus away from making the main part of the game really great. I don’t know why I’m even saying this. I’m almost completely positive that tes5 won’t be a mmorpg and it won’t have co-op. The thing I want the most though is for Bethesda to announce the god damn game already. I wanna see a trailer or something. And in terms of what I want to see in the next game, I would like improved combat in every area (fighting,spells,arrows) and I want to see maybe some sort of animal companion, like a wolf or bear. Also I want to be able to get all the unique items and artifacts in the elder scrolls lore, not just some of them as was the case in Oblivion.  

 Kimbo Fife wrote:

. If it has co-op I will never play it. Look at Fable 2. The co-op was absolute garbage. If Bethesda were to do some sort of co-op, that would divert focus away from making the main part of the game really great. I don’t know why I’m even saying this. I’m almost completely positive that tes5 won’t be a mmorpg and it won’t have co-op. The thing I want the most though is for Bethesda to announce the god damn game already. I wanna see a trailer or something. And in terms of what I want to see in the next game,

Fable 2 could've been so much better. The 3rd person only perspective allowed for the game to work. Elderscrolls games, (starting with Morrowind) play on a 1st and 3rd person view, making it more challenging.

A good portion of people also believe that TES V will not have any multiplayer aspects to it. Oblivion has brought a lot of casual gamers, and these gamers are used to having casual features like multiplayer incorporated with their average slice of pizza.

I doubt we'll see anything until next year. They are releasing some TES novels this Fall, so perhaps those can give us some sort of insight as to what the next game will be all about.

I'd like to see better artifacts come back as well. I wasn't too happy about the lack of unique heavy armor in Oblivion. I really hope I get Lord's Mail, Ebony Mail or Dragonbone back.

---

My Music. : Tell me what you think/SPREAD THE WORD

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

---

Games to get
MW2
assassins creed 2
Bad company 2

Stop being so CO-OP nazi-ish. Even a couch co-op would be fun, it isn't really all that fun when my friend is over and we have to watch each other play. If they can pull it off great, if it becomes another two worlds, then no I can deal w/o.

Besides many games HAVE pulled off co-op really well, GoW for example did it as close to perfect as any I've seen.

---

First Rule: We don't talk about it
Second Rule: We don't talk about it
We have no name, only in death we are Bob Parker

 Pharaoh X360 wrote:

Stop being so CO-OP nazi-ish. Even a couch co-op would be fun, it isn't really all that fun when my friend is over and we have to watch each other play. If they can pull it off great, if it becomes another two worlds, then no I can deal w/o.

Besides many games HAVE pulled off co-op really well, GoW for example did it as close to perfect as any I've seen.

fable 2 sucked on co-op cuz one screen. you couldnt do anything

---

Games to get
MW2
assassins creed 2
Bad company 2

 Kyle 1310 wrote:

 Pharaoh X360 wrote:

Stop being so CO-OP nazi-ish. Even a couch co-op would be fun, it isn't really all that fun when my friend is over and we have to watch each other play. If they can pull it off great, if it becomes another two worlds, then no I can deal w/o.

Besides many games HAVE pulled off co-op really well, GoW for example did it as close to perfect as any I've seen.

fable 2 sucked on co-op cuz one screen. you couldnt do anything

I was talking about GOOD ones. . . there's always going to be ideals that some people just fail on, but Bethesda hasn't done me wrong so far.

---

First Rule: We don't talk about it
Second Rule: We don't talk about it
We have no name, only in death we are Bob Parker

there one coming out for psp so i think thats going to be kinda a demo type thing  if it all fits on it then maybe co-op mode  

---

Games to get
MW2
assassins creed 2
Bad company 2

I actually prefer shared screen to split screen for couch co-op. . . if I wanted to play on a seperate mission miles away from my co- player. . . I would just play alone. Split screen can also be discombobulating, because it does not transition to single screen, even when you are standing side by side. Ever played dynasty warriors splitscreen? Its like a f*ing acid trip with kalidescopes thrown in.  And I utterly agree with Pharoah about how horrible it is to have a friend sitting by and not be able to share these massive adventures and worlds with them.

GOW is a completely linear 3PS, which is about 1% of the size of Oblivion. Piece of cake to make a good co-op out of that. TES is an immersive, open-ended W-RPG, that has a real game world and everything that goes with it.

The only way I could see multiplayer working on TES would be in the arena or in set dungeon-dives, but it would completely ruin any sense of immersion. You would not be in the game world, you would be on your couch with your friend. Anything else would stop it from being TES. It really wouldn't work. What if your co-op pal does a quest and you don't, and it affects the game world? You could stop him from doing those quests, but then it wouldn't be open-ended, would it? It would go against the whole TES ethos.

Ahh, Sandypants. Here we must differ. I think you totally misunderstand what the co-op experience is all about when you say  "You would not be in the game world, you would be on your couch with your friend." A proper co-op experience immerses you even more deeply into the world. It becomes a shared adventure. That is really what makes it special, and wonderful, and why, if it could be well implemented without detraction from other key features, it would so enhance a sweeping game like Elder Scrolls. . .it isn't about a helping hand in dungeon plunder. Sharing loot is one of the few drawbacks. It is about sharing the achievements, discovering new places and entities with a friend. . .  the immersion becomes more real because of the added element of the second player. . . rather like mass halucination. . . If you are looking at it soley for boss beating benifits, you are missing the point. If you adjust difficulty or play long enough, you can beat the boss by yourself. It is about sharing an adventure. . . fellowship and comraderie. . . the reason we usually see small groups or pairs of friends set off on great adventures in the epic films we love. . . because a solitary quest is full of lonely moments that are nullified by the company of one with shared objectives. . . the humour becomes funnier. . . the danger becomes somehow more real and at the same time less harrowing. . . because you know you have a partner in crime. . . its not just about strategic advantage, its an emotional experience of sorts. . . you would had to have had a good experience with a properly played co-op adventure to understand. Once you have played co-op with great satisfaction on a lesser game like Baldur's Gate or Gauntlet and thought, "ah, if only this was a more profound and wide world we were exploring, with more paths and options open to us!" only then, perhaps, can one truly understand how magnificent an Elder Scrll with couch co-op would be.

Addenda: to your latter question, most couch co-op is at least marginally first player dominant, so it is unlikely that your second player would be able to just go off and do a seperate quest that would alter the status of the gaming world. . . even if he/she was imported into your game from a different game. . . it would still be your world experience. . . at most he/she might already have quest items that you have not yet acquired. But so what? Every time I visit Lindai there is a new Ayleid crown. lol

Oblivion and Morrowind were such massive games, that if co-op were implemented them, it would ruin the experience. I mean, what about leveling? What if your buddy is level 49 and your lvl 3? Scamps and Xivilais would be running around, killing the fun for the lvl 3. And how about factions, fame, quests, the whole nine yards. You can't have two archmages, or two Gray Foxes. What about DLC's? Over Xbox live? NO. All the great aspects of the games would be missing. It just can't happen. It's like diving off the Chrysler building. It'd be a huge, terrible mess.

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

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

The enemies would be the same as Morrowind. Certain areas for high level players, certain areas for low level areas, and many challenging areas for those looking for a really fun experience. I think sharing the game world could work, but I like having the whole world to myself, but implementing a co-op or even MMO style of multiplayer into this game could easily be done without much repurcussions.

 PH 6674 wrote:

All the great aspects of the games would be missing. It just can't happen. It's like diving off the Chrysler building. It'd be a huge, terrible mess.

This dude knows what he’s talking about. Implementing co-op to the game or making it a mmorpg would completely destroy what the Elder Scrolls is all about. You people need to stop dreaming anyway. Bethesda knows better than to ruin their flagship game with co-op or online play. If you want that go play wow or something and stop posting you’re ridiculous ideas all over the internet. God forbid Bethesda actually listens to you and ruins the game.

P.S. – Arthazal Olorin, your ideas are straight up stone cold wack.

Stunning insights Kimbo. . . and such illuminating vocabulary. And while you are welcome to your opinions, it would be nice if you stopped playing Stalin and trying to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Co-op would destroy nothing. What an idiotic notion. The game is not all about being solitary. It is all about experiencing a massive secondary world and sword/sorcery lore heavy gaming experience with depth and verisimilitude. The OPTION of being able to add a friend to the mix from time to time is A. just that, only an option, not mandatory, and thus not able to RUIN anything without your consent, and B. can add great depth and enjoyment for the many who desire it.

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Stunning insights Kimbo. . . and such illuminating vocabulary. And while you are welcome to your opinions, it would be nice if you stopped playing Stalin and trying to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Co-op would destroy nothing. What an idiotic notion. The game is not all about being solitary. It is all about experiencing a massive secondary world and sword/sorcery lore heavy gaming experience with depth and verisimilitude. The OPTION of being able to add a friend to the mix from time to time is A. just that, only an option, not mandatory, and thus not able to RUIN anything without your consent, and B. can add great depth and enjoyment for the many who desire it.

Correct. What is mandatory is what takes precedence when designing anything. The Elder Scrolls doesn't need multiplayer. At all. It got this far without it, so why should it?

Do not fix, what is not broken.

And do you even have friends to play co-op with, mister Mercator maps?

---

Acid Bath - Jezebel

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

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Stunning insights Kimbo. . . and such illuminating vocabulary. And while you are welcome to your opinions, it would be nice if you stopped playing Stalin and trying to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Co-op would destroy nothing. What an idiotic notion. The game is not all about being solitary. It is all about experiencing a massive secondary world and sword/sorcery lore heavy gaming experience with depth and verisimilitude. The OPTION of being able to add a friend to the mix from time to time is A. just that, only an option, not mandatory, and thus not able to RUIN anything without your consent, and B. can add great depth and enjoyment for the many who desire it.

The option of adding a friend is NOT "A". It's an option, sure, but why should Bethesda stray away from the things they do best? They should try to improve combat, physics, and minor bugs, not implement a co-op option. Even in co-op, most of the singleplayer aspects would be stripped. It would not work. If you want to play and MMO, feel free. TES is not going to have co-op, no matter how much you want to because it would be a mess. I would rather have a much smoother singleplayer game that focuses on depth and detail, rather than a shabby singleplayer game with a crappy, limited co-op.

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

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

eh not really sure on the co op idea mayyyyyybe if they did the co op like fable2 without the whole fixed camra an everything to be withing a distance of each other thing or an elderscrolls mmo lol but thats really pushing it and i love the game the way it is just wish could customize the whole body not just face but thats a different topic

 death knowz wrote:

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Stunning insights Kimbo. . . and such illuminating vocabulary. And while you are welcome to your opinions, it would be nice if you stopped playing Stalin and trying to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Co-op would destroy nothing. What an idiotic notion. The game is not all about being solitary. It is all about experiencing a massive secondary world and sword/sorcery lore heavy gaming experience with depth and verisimilitude. The OPTION of being able to add a friend to the mix from time to time is A. just that, only an option, not mandatory, and thus not able to RUIN anything without your consent, and B. can add great depth and enjoyment for the many who desire it.

Correct. What is mandatory is what takes precedence when designing anything. The Elder Scrolls doesn't need multiplayer. At all. It got this far without it, so why should it?

Do not fix, what is not broken.

And do you even have friends to play co-op with, mister Mercator maps?

If I didn't the issue would be of little interest to me. . . yet, as you are descending into a$$hole territory again, a condition which I had for a time believed you had overcome, I will cease to reply further, and will resume correspondence with you when you show evidence of having kicked the habit. . . I.E. comments ad questions without petulant, snide quips.

 PH 6674 wrote:

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Stunning insights Kimbo. . . and such illuminating vocabulary. And while you are welcome to your opinions, it would be nice if you stopped playing Stalin and trying to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Co-op would destroy nothing. What an idiotic notion. The game is not all about being solitary. It is all about experiencing a massive secondary world and sword/sorcery lore heavy gaming experience with depth and verisimilitude. The OPTION of being able to add a friend to the mix from time to time is A. just that, only an option, not mandatory, and thus not able to RUIN anything without your consent, and B. can add great depth and enjoyment for the many who desire it.

The option of adding a friend is NOT "A". It's an option, sure, but why should Bethesda stray away from the things they do best? They should try to improve combat, physics, and minor bugs, not implement a co-op option. Even in co-op, most of the singleplayer aspects would be stripped. It would not work. If you want to play and MMO, feel free. TES is not going to have co-op, no matter how much you want to because it would be a mess. I would rather have a much smoother singleplayer game that focuses on depth and detail, rather than a shabby singleplayer game with a crappy, limited co-op.

I have no particular interest in MMOs at this time, actually. . . add the option for the same reason one adds any option. . . because there is a significant population that desires it. Admittedly that must be weighed against whether the addition is possible, feasible etc. A simple co-op form probably is both. What single player aspects are you suggesting would be stripped? And why would they be stripped? Stating that something would not work without very detailed supportive rationale is an empty and idle statement. It would be a mess? What does that even mean? Why would it be a mess>? In what ways? Where is the clear evidence that singleplayer would become shabby. My hope would be for all the great aspects of the game to be maintained. The only additive would be the option of having a drop in local partner, when and if desired. Now if you are saying there would be major technical problems, that is another matter, and if that can be proven beyond doubt, it must be taken into account. Yet if you are saying, as the writing implies, that a co-op mode would ruin the singleplayer mode merely by existing. . . well that is just illogical fool talk.

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

 PH 6674 wrote:

 Arthazal Olorin wrote:

Stunning insights Kimbo. . . and such illuminating vocabulary. And while you are welcome to your opinions, it would be nice if you stopped playing Stalin and trying to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Co-op would destroy nothing. What an idiotic notion. The game is not all about being solitary. It is all about experiencing a massive secondary world and sword/sorcery lore heavy gaming experience with depth and verisimilitude. The OPTION of being able to add a friend to the mix from time to time is A. just that, only an option, not mandatory, and thus not able to RUIN anything without your consent, and B. can add great depth and enjoyment for the many who desire it.

The option of adding a friend is NOT "A". It's an option, sure, but why should Bethesda stray away from the things they do best? They should try to improve combat, physics, and minor bugs, not implement a co-op option. Even in co-op, most of the singleplayer aspects would be stripped. It would not work. If you want to play and MMO, feel free. TES is not going to have co-op, no matter how much you want to because it would be a mess. I would rather have a much smoother singleplayer game that focuses on depth and detail, rather than a shabby singleplayer game with a crappy, limited co-op.

I have no particular interest in MMOs at this time, actually. . . add the option for the same reason one adds any option. . . because there is a significant population that desires it. Admittedly that must be weighed against whether the addition is possible, feasible etc. A simple co-op form probably is both. What single player aspects are you suggesting would be stripped? And why would they be stripped? Stating that something would not work without very detailed supportive rationale is an empty and idle statement. It would be a mess? What does that even mean? Why would it be a mess>? In what ways? Where is the clear evidence that singleplayer would become shabby. My hope would be for all the great aspects of the game to be maintained. The only additive would be the option of having a drop in local partner, when and if desired. Now if you are saying there would be major technical problems, that is another matter, and if that can be proven beyond doubt, it must be taken into account. Yet if you are saying, as the writing implies, that a co-op mode would ruin the singleplayer mode merely by existing. . . well that is just illogical fool talk.

Like I said before, how would you go about Oblivion when it's a level dependent game? If anything, there should be a relative level cap, but that's not necessary. TES is not a multiplayer game. Give it some thought. How could there be two Champions? TES is a singleplayer series. You see, the functions of barter, save, wait, sleep, vamprism, containers, dispostion, and simply opening your inventory would take too much work to design for two characters. Why should Bethesda take the time to create this option, when they could improve what they're doing best? Like death knowz said, don't fix what's not broken. See how Fable 2's co-op ended out. Now illogical fool talk is out of the question. Dropping into the game where? When? During combat? Think of the bugs. TES: IV will be a great improvement in the series if Bethesda works on the singleplayer aspects. TES games are just not multiplayer games.

---

 Maccy Man wrote:

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

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.

 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. 

---

My Music. : Tell me what you think/SPREAD THE WORD

More 'hidden' societies/cults/etc.  There were alot more freaky crowds I came across in MW by a longshot... I think I remember having to go down really far in this sewer thing to reach one of the vampire lairs, and I also remember all of the random ashlander camps completely isolated from any town.  The guilds in Oblivion were cool, but I'm sure they could add some more!

Also, more variation in the 'dungeons'.  It becomes predictable after a while what you need to do in Ayleid ruins, so much that I'd prefer not going all the way into them.  I'm sure there are some other 'ancient races' in the Elder Scrolls history that they could add some of their architecture in the realm.  Again, Morrowind had the Daedric Ruins, the Dwarven Ruins, the Forts, so on so forth.  Imagine being able to come across all of those types.

I don't want EVERY place to scale based on your level.  I like places that you HAVE to be experienced in order to get in.  I'd like to fight some bosses that you'd need a ton of destruction magic, or insane alteration, or good axe skill, etc.  I don't like the idea that people are able to beat Oblivion at Level 1...

Nerf the Alteration!  I can stack as many feather skills as I want, as long as I name the spells differently... same thing goes with shields.

'Sets' like in Diablo 2; if you have the matching boots, cloak and helm then you get bonuses.  That would be killer.

More huge battles.  I remember at the end of the main quest there were alot of Daedra that I had to fight at once (My level was in the Mid 30's), Spider Daedra, Atronauchs, Scamps, everything at once.  It'd be pretty sweet having to hold off a fort or something.  I found that any 'ambushes' were at most 3 or 4 enemies.

If they can, a larger map with way more cities.  I was blown away by the depth of each city in Oblivion.  I can imagine how awesome it would be if there were twice as many.

I want the next one to give me like 100+ hours of gameplay on one character.

---

[1000/1000]
GH2, Oblivion, Rock Band 2, Avatar (stfu), Eternal Sonata, Sonic USG, Shrek 3 lol,

[Currently Playing]

ive been reading these sort of threads for a while and i think i should psyt something

No Multiplayer.. my reasen you ask, because less time would be spent on making the single player as they would have to divert money and time to making something that doesnt NEED to be included, as death once said in one of these many threads about this topic "if it aint broken, dont fix it"

however ive seen soem good ideas and arguments for coop and pathetic ones againts it

for one the whole idea about two champians ruining the experience is just stupid, for one the new guy could be a 'henchmen' or an explorer, and even though i beet the questline most quest givers still ask me "your and adventurer arnt you?" gives me the impression that the people of tamriel woudnt care if more than one hero was walking about
to be honest im more concerned as to why the champian of cyrodill is helping an old lady with rat troubles for some gold than anything else
secondly immersion! and that it would ruin some game machanics, yes it would change some game machanics, just have the changes when the second person is playing and have it normal for when your doing single player, and as for immersion, you dont have to play co op if you dont want to

somebody also said earlier up about having an online arena and have dungeon raids online, to which i say that would be awsome, and someone has surgested an online trade village or something like that in another thread to which i also say hell yh (not sure how to implement it but it would be cool)

however i still say no co-op as it would take away from single player development, howver IF they somehow make a single player game better than morrowind and then add some sort of multiplayer, who are you to  complain, you get an amazing single player and something you dont have to use

---

 elpeligro13 wrote:

You can't reproduce from a neck massage.