The Elder Scrolls - Megathread - Skyrim is 57 days away!

[FrozenEye]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkefdc_1_news

climax away, here's a new upload.
Add it to the OP.

I will later. It's to awkward to do on my phone.
Is it the official video?

[Ad Bot]

[Skele]

Multi-player has no place in a single-player story telling RPG like The Elder Scrolls. It just wouldn't fit. You are supposed to be the hero, where all the odds are stacked against you, and you must vanquish evil alone. Your character becomes special because of this, and there is more of an epic feeling in the world. Once you introduce more heroes, that weight is lifted because now you have companions to help shoulder some of it.

To add to this, I'd rather see them spend all their efforts on making a great single-player RPG, that's polished, is feature rich, and has a story that really draws you in, then have them split their efforts in order to make the game work for both multi-player and single-player. If you want a multi-player RPG experience, there are so many others out their specifically designed for multi-player.

As for Fable 2/3, instead of adding in a, in my opinion, pointless multi-player experience, they should have spent the time making the game good. They both went downhill, with Fable 3 at an all time low, from the original.

[Man 2]

Hiiro, here's the thing.
You're comparing what multiplayer should be like in Skyrim to multiplayer in other games that are nothing like it.
Lego's drop-in/drop-out mode wouldn't work in Skyrim because Lego games are arranged in non-scaled levels flooded with the same type of enemy with the occasional boss peppered in.

Fable doesn't even scale the player's opponents. It just makes them easier to beat.
Borderlands, EYE and Terraria I don't have knowledge of, I'll let someone else tackle that.

You're being absolutely blind to what everyone's telling you and you're spouting the same nonsense over and over again.


OP spelled "Thief" wrong. :l

[FrozenEye]

I would actually like multiplayer if it had something to do with arena.
Just a thought.

[Hiiro326]

Hiiro, here's the thing.
You're comparing what multiplayer should be like in Skyrim to multiplayer in other games that are nothing like it.
Lego's drop-in/drop-out mode wouldn't work in Skyrim because Lego games are arranged in non-scaled levels flooded with the same type of enemy with the occasional boss peppered in.

Fable doesn't even scale the player's opponents. It just makes them easier to beat.
Borderlands, EYE and Terraria I don't have knowledge of, I'll let someone else tackle that.

You're being absolutely blind to what everyone's telling you and you're spouting the same nonsense over and over again.


OP spelled "Thief" wrong. :L

In Borderlands you can just hop in and out and when you get into the game the enemies get stronger, eye is the same way, that's how it would work for Skyrim *IF* it was going to be put in. I'm saying the same thing over and over just like you all are actually, just nobody posts more than 3 times so everyone is going over the same thing multiple times.

Multi-player has no place in a single-player story telling RPG like The Elder Scrolls. It just wouldn't fit. You are supposed to be the hero, where all the odds are stacked against you, and you must vanquish evil alone. Your character becomes special because of this, and there is more of an epic feeling in the world. Once you introduce more heroes, that weight is lifted because now you have companions to help shoulder some of it.

To add to this, I'd rather see them spend all their efforts on making a great single-player RPG, that's polished, is feature rich, and has a story that really draws you in, then have them split their efforts in order to make the game work for both multi-player and single-player. If you want a multi-player RPG experience, there are so many others out their specifically designed for multi-player.

As for Fable 2/3, instead of adding in a, in my opinion, pointless multi-player experience, they should have spent the time making the game good. They both went downhill, with Fable 3 at an all time low, from the original.

You're saying exactly what everyone else said, I want to respond to this with something better than this but I already have, they can have good multiplayer and a good single player system, coop, like the games I've mentioned. Also if you're some heroic Dragonborne in this game the coop partner would be a NOT dragonborne guy, like in Oblivion, they would be backup people like in Bioware games, how you have sidekicks.

[Messes]

Also if you're some heroic Dragonborne in this game the coop partner would be a NOT dragonborne guy,

No one would ever want to be Player 2 due to them not being able to speak dragon or use shouts lol

[Man 2]

Also, the Dragonborn are supposed to be the "dragon-hunters"(correct me if I'm wrong), so it defeats the purpose of a sidekick when a big bad dragon comes knocking at your door.

[Hiiro326]

No one would ever want to be Player 2 due to them not being able to speak dragon or use shouts lol

I wouldn't give a stuff about that. I'd be fine hanging out with my friend once I've already beaten the single player.

Beat single player, do pretty much alot of everything there is (Don't go all, YOU CAN NEVUR DO EVERYTHING, SO MUCH CONTENT 300 HOURS ON OBLIVION! on me) Once you complete alot of the content I wouldn't mind playing with one of my friends to watch his story, unless this game is extremely linear, then it might be like... meh. I'd still do it to play with a friend though. forget shouts, friends > Dragonkin

Also, the Dragonborn are supposed to be the "dragon-hunters"(correct me if I'm wrong), so it defeats the purpose of a sidekick when a big bad dragon comes knocking at your door.

I'm not reading up on the lore, how would that defeat the purpose? If a dragon attacks a town that you're in and you fight it, some of the gaurds that aren't pussies are going to help out, why not your life long friend that hangs out with you and mooches off of your fame but gets nothing except 30% of the cash and a few hand me downs?

[FrozenEye]

Also, the Dragonborn are supposed to be the "dragon-hunters"(correct me if I'm wrong), so it defeats the purpose of a sidekick when a big bad dragon comes knocking at your door.

this is still unknown.
Todd hasn't given any info on the subject.

I'm sure we will find out within 30 min of gameplay

[Littledude]

Also, the Dragonborn are supposed to be the "dragon-hunters"(correct me if I'm wrong), so it defeats the purpose of a sidekick when a big bad dragon comes knocking at your door.

NOt really, the Blades battled dragons along with the Dragonborn. They defended the Dragon Born and fought alongside them. The reason the blade's protected the emperors was because the emperors were the last know line of dragon born, up until Skyrim.


Blades are basically dragon born in the same way Batman is a super hero.

They don't actually have the special abilities but they do the work.

[Hiiro326]

NOt really, the Blades battled dragons along with the Dragonborn. They defended the Dragon Born and fought alongside them. The reason the blade's protected the emperors was because the emperors were the last know line of dragon born, up until Skyrim.

Here's how it should have happened (forget bugs, those can be fixed)
Make Multiplayer dispite everyone hating it
Make the sidekick one of these "Blade" guys
Release date is a month later but it's worth it because it has multiplayer unless you're a selfish bastard
????
GOTY (Already getting GOTY but still.)

[Littledude]

nononononononononononononon
how dare you suggest a later release date for the sake of multiplayer
you heathen

[FrozenEye]

NOt really, the Blades battled dragons along with the Dragonborn. They defended the Dragon Born and fought alongside them. The reason the blade's protected the emperors was because the emperors were the last know line of dragon born, up until Skyrim.
Blades are basically dragon born in the same way Batman is a super hero.
They don't actually have the abilities but they do the work.

The emporers are dragonborn? ;0

[Hiiro326]

nononononononononononononon
how dare you suggest a later release date for the sake of multiplayer
you heathen

I should feel bad.

But like, they'd make more money by doing it. Nobody will not buy it because it comes out a month later, a large group of people wont buy it until it's cheap without multiplayer.

[Fredulus]

Lol it would take waay longer than a month.