Bethesda marketing chief Pete Hines has claimed that the company is "technically capable" of bringing multiplayer to the Elder Scrolls series, but explained at length why it's not considering the addition.
Speaking in the latest issue of Edge, Hines explained that Bethesda had never asked one of its developers to tack on multiplayer to a game, and was in fact far more likely to question whether they should leave it out..
Hines admitted that hearing repeated consumer requests for multiplayer in Elder Scrolls "does get old" and explained how the addition could result in a "lesser game".
He commented: 'It's not wrong or unreasonable for people to want to experience a game with their friends, or want to do things with folks online. There's nothing wrong with that at all. What we've tried to do is help people understand that in game development, it's all about trade-offs. One of our mantras here is that you can do anything - you just can't do everything.
"So certainly we could do multiplayer. Unquestionably. It's not a thing we're technically incapable of figuring out. But when we draw up the list of things we'd like to have cut or change in order to support that feature, what we end up with is unpalatable. It'd make a lesser version of the game. And there is no doubt on the dev side that that is the case."
The latest game in the Elder Scrolls universe, Skyrim, is due for release in November for 360, PS3 and PC.
Order Edge here and have it delivered straight to your door
Comments
22 comments so far...
wrightandrewjame on 12 Apr '11 said:
I'm quite sure that the response here on CVG was a clear 'No' to multiplayer. Not going to go into why again, but at least they came to the same conclusions as us.
metallicorphan on 12 Apr '11 said:
I am pretty sure most of knew that TES was possible to have multiplayer,looking at games like Red Dead Redemption they have a massive open world and multiplayer...but as it will be said again,some games just don't need multiplayer...with The Elder Scrolls,its the single player experience that the fans love,why split the dev team up and put all the effort into something that fans aren't really bothered about
nathar on 12 Apr '11 said:
It would be pretty sweet to play through with a friend or two in a co-op mode, but isn't it nice to see a game developed for single players, rather than a token 5 hour sp campaign tacked onto a mp game?
(the answer is "yes")
Moribundman on 12 Apr '11 said:
RDR is the best model for how it would work in a TES or FO game, but the thing about RDR is that you have a CoD level of "character" in multiplayer - just a basic generic person who you can get minor improvements for (weapons, skin unlocks, mounts, titles). You don't have the same sort of connection to the character that you do in single player, and the hideouts essentially become shooter maps despite being in an open world.
This totally rails against TES and the exploration of a particular dungeon and development and stupid amount of tweaking you do to your own personal character. This is the reason I don't like MMOs - you just end up being another grinder and a nobody happy for any petty victory to justify the financial outlay you're spunking.
If I wanted that, I could just show more of an interest in real life...
Moribundman on 12 Apr '11 said:
The only two story-driven open worldy multiplayers I would give the time of day to are RDR and ACB (to a lesser extent GTA4). They both did something different using the existing game resourced but didn't gimp the main game and you could play the game quite happily for weeks, completely ignoring them (aside from all the achievement points they guzzled up).
I don't get the obsession with co-op. The likes of Saints Row 2, Borderlands and Fable 2/3 just show thats like taking a story driven game and anally raping it with a dose of casual/Nintendoey bounce around fun. That'll work (ish) in those games because they're lighthearted and nudge nudge in style but If I'm going to work my way through Fallout or Oblivion then suddenly have a mate pop into my world beat up a few baddies then disappear offline an hour later in a puff of smoke it just breaks the fourth wall and introduces an intolerably neon THIS IS A GAME, NOT A DEEP STORY level of artifice.
PandyBear on 12 Apr '11 said:
We'll in that case, leave the door open for multiplayer, and let the modding community implement it out for you? With the ridiculous amounts of community content for Oblivion, im still playing the game 5 years down the line
Moribundman on 12 Apr '11 said:
All true. All well and good - but the big money's in the consoles and I assume thats what they have their eyes on with regard to these statements, and why you're unlikely to see MP in these games unless it can be supported on Xbox/PS3 as well.
yourmumwasfun on 12 Apr '11 said:
Think about possibilities:
team pick locking
capture a potion
spread the disease
rafoca on 12 Apr '11 said:
Co-op would make this game even better. It would make more people to buy too. Also, more replayability!!!
I want co-op in Elder Scrolls
BenThomasFoster on 12 Apr '11 said:
Just co-op straight up co-op no fancy business just get it so you can play with a friend. I would refuse to play a TES game that was an MMO or had versus multi. then again i'm very happy with it stay singleplayer if anything its fresh change form multiplayer games these days
wattz3 on 12 Apr '11 said:
i think it shuld stay single player ....maybe release a seperate multiplayer version of elderscrolls
newsinthefield on 12 Apr '11 said:
I'm glad to see there is at least one developer brave enough to resist the lures of multiplayer in order to focus more attention on the single player campaign. It's simply not worth spending time and money on a multiplayer element as, in many games, these multiplayer elements become nothing more than a bullet point on the back of the box a few months down the line.
BLARRG on 12 Apr '11 said:
Bethesda just keep doing what you are doing and dont listen to the 12year olds
cburch on 12 Apr '11 said:
Bethesda shouldnt feel the need to justify not including mp in any form,its their game,they know what they are doing,same with rocksteady regarding arkham city.Its refreshing to see companies standing their ground and not pandering to the "but this game would be even better with multiplayer tacked on for no good reason" crowd.
headmate on 12 Apr '11 said:
not even co-op should be implemented. I want Elder Scrolls to stay exactly the way it is, single player only. Anyone who wants multiplayer needs their heads examined.
kilatomato on 12 Apr '11 said:
Not every game needs a multiplayer. There is nothing wrong with giving the player their own sandbox to play in.
Massive kudos for Bethesda for sticking to their guns. They are great at making huge, fantastic single player environments and they keep at it.
Its this kind of mentality that assures they get a day one purchase from me. Staying true to who you are is important in todays world of sh*tty gaming. Too many companies turn into faceless corporate run husks who want to homogenize games into bland shooter gaming paste to try and make money like CoD.
agentxnofx on 12 Apr '11 said:
I really don't understand the opposition to it... since Morrowind (from what I remember), the game has always let you run around with abut AI to fight along your side. This is essentially co-op. But most people don't like bats**t stupid AI that gets stuck running into walls, gets stuck in water, etc etc... I could see co-op as a play on this AI-partner stuff they already have... just limit the distance they can stray from player-one and the rest shouldn't matter. I don't think anyone is asking for an MMO or a new story to accommodate having both players. Just someone to help ya f**k up enemy's... I'm not sure about you guys, but my gf likes the game, plays her characters and when she's playing, I'm usually watching... when I'm playing, she's watching. it'd be nice to have the option however limited.
freds1 on 12 Apr '11 said:
TES has always been single player and should remain so, imo. I'm glad they are keeping that way.
KippDynamite on 12 Apr '11 said:
I have played well over 250 hours of Ovlivion, and I consider myself a novice. I haven't even had contact with the dark brotherhood yet!
I am pleased to hear the devs speak this way.
FAUNA on 12 Apr '11 said:
NO MULTI-PLAYER!!!
icedmetal57 on 12 Apr '11 said:
I recently beat the main quest line for the first time after a few hundred hours like yourself, as well as the Shivering Isles main quest line.
These games don't need to worry about "more replayability" they have plenty as is. They don't need a half-assed co-op or multiplayer tacked on to add replayability.
PandyBear on 13 Apr '11 said:
I'm not entirely sure how well the console versions of Oblivion sold compared to the pc version. But i would imagine a large push on these over the pc for Skyrims release. But as you said, if the console versions dont get MP, then chances the pc version wouldnt either. Mainly either due to costs or effort required for such a long term endeavour. And this is why i point at community created content. Not only will pc get f**k-tons of user created goodies, all the DLC (i'd imagine) texture revamps, bug fixes through user released patches long after Bethy had left it be etc; Where console players would only get what was given to them by Bethy themselves, and be damn grateful for it (i should blody hope so). But yes, i DO agree with alot of comments here that say that MP is completely unnecessary, It isnt wanted as it would take away from the single player experience, but bethy could, as previously mentioned, leave the door open for perhaps the pc community to dick about and create somesort of MP gameplay.
/inane rambling