Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview The Elder Scrolls Multiplayer Would Lead to a Lesser Game

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,602
Location
Deutschland
Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

<p>Sometimes a man has to know his limits and maybe leave a feature out instead of forcing it in harming the whole thing in the process. Like ladders for example. It's the same case with multiplayer, which would make the Elder Scrolls a lesser game, says Pete Hines <a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/297703/news/bethesda-elder-scrolls-multiplayer-possible-but-would-make-for-a-lesser-game/" target="_blank">according to CVG</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="text_article_body">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.<br /><br /> "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."</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/102344-the-elder-scrolls-multiplayer-would-lead-to-a-lesser-game.html">GB</a></p>
 

DragoFireheart

all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
23,731
Multiplayer != Better game.

Some games are meant for multiplayer capabilities, while others should stay single player. I would argue that RPGs with a focus on exploring a detailed world (either through dialog or interactive objects within that world) should never have multiplayer. Some games actually become better with multiplayer, like fighting games or FPS. A good game designer knows which ones should and shouldn't have such a feature.
 

Vibalist

Arcane
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
3,585
Location
Denmark
I don't understand why so many gamers automatically consider multiplayer to be a good feature in any game, and complain when it's not present in an RPG like Skyrim.
Whenever I visit almost any other forum dedicated to gaming than this, there will inevitably be one or two people going "no multiplayer? In this day and age?" before the release of any AAA title that doesn't have it, as if every game will be better for it.
It's like people think that if CoD is fun in multiplayer, then every other game must be as well or something.
 

Callaxes

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
1,676
DragoFireheart said:
Multiplayer != Better game.

Some games are meant for multiplayer capabilities, while others should stay single player. I would argue that RPGs with a focus on exploring a detailed world (either through dialog or interactive objects within that world) should never have multiplayer. Some games actually become better with multiplayer, like fighting games or FPS. A good game designer knows which ones should and shouldn't have such a feature.

I'm starting to feel sorry for the man's reputation. Every single time I read anything from him I get the impression he's trying to sell me snake oil. Even when he says things like this, which would sound like wisdom in the mouth of other developers (even Todd), but when he says it, you just end up feeling like you want to mace him.
 

Jaesun

Fabulous Ex-Moderator
Patron
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
37,273
Location
Seattle, WA USA
MCA
Bethesda's entire programming team cannot figure out mounted combat, let alone multi-player.

Unlike the 1 person who programed Mount and Blade.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
385
Beth has enough trouble doing the basics. He is right though, TES would certainly be even worse with MP.

It's not a thing we're technically incapable of figuring out.

Incompetent or lazy, same result.
 

Noceur

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
199
Location
Tar Pits
Multiplayer/COOP in an elderscrolls game would probably work if they didn't make the PC the second coming of Jesus Christ every time.
But I agree, multiplayer != better game.
 

Bluebottle

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,182
Dead State Wasteland 2
Of course, he is correct.

However this sentiment:
I would argue that RPGs with a focus on exploring a detailed world (either through dialog or interactive objects within that world) should never have multiplayer.

...seems a very strange thing indeed to say about a genre that was born as a multiplayer game. It has always struck me as odd that an entertainment form that was initially all about playing with friends, when translated onto the computer, almost instantly abandoned this central tenet. It also kind of says something about its player base.

In other words; where's my fucking co-op RPG?
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
7,428
Location
Villainville
MCA
DragoFireheart said:
Multiplayer != Better game.

Some games are meant for multiplayer capabilities, while others should stay single player. I would argue that RPGs with a focus on exploring a detailed world (either through dialog or interactive objects within that world) should never have multiplayer.

I am glad you are a fucking nobody in a forum of deviants. We have enough game developers full of bullshit.

Jaesun said:
Bethesda's entire programming team cannot figure out mounted combat, let alone multi-player.

Unlike the 1 person who programed Mount and Blade.

You have to remember that even without combat, horses, their animations looked like ass and movement mechanics were quite shitty.
 

DragoFireheart

all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
23,731
Bluebottle said:
Of course, he is correct.

However this sentiment:
I would argue that RPGs with a focus on exploring a detailed world (either through dialog or interactive objects within that world) should never have multiplayer.

...seems a very strange thing indeed to say about a genre that was born as a multiplayer game. It has always struck me as odd that an entertainment form that was initially all about playing with friends, when translated onto the computer, almost instantly abandoned this central tenet. It also kind of says something about its player base.

In other words; where's my fucking co-op RPG?

- The problem is that multiplayer games don't seem to be able to mimic PnP style RPGs ala table top. For one reason or another, having the larger audience attracts a lower and lower common denominator. Considering that maintaining an online server is expensive, a company is likely to focus on making enough profit to make such a endeavor worthwhile. If you focus all of your energy on niche elements that make RPGs good, you push away the lower common denominators, which means less money. Result? The company dumbs down shit, and you get...

World of Warcraft.



VentilatorOfDoom said:
Don't use reverse logic. He didn't say multiplayer doesn't necessarily lead to a better game. He said: multiplayer = worse game. Which is most likely nonsense.

- I understand what the article is talking about. The idea that multiplayer = worse is fucking nonsense, but I can sorta understand the idea the guy is talking about. Some games are good with multiplayer and some aren't.



villain of the story said:
I am glad you are a fucking nobody in a forum of deviants. We have enough game developers full of bullshit.

Alright, then show me a GOOD RPG (Meaningful C&C, good story, non-grindy elements) that is multiplayer. Not a fucking Action RPG extra light on the RPG elements like World of Moneycraft, I mean something like a multiplayer Fallout 1. Tell me, where the fuck are these games? Oh that's right, they are still stuck on the table using die and paper and notebooks with lines of details that would confuse the fuck out of the average mouth breathing Kwan. RPGs are a relative niche genre and simply don't work in a multiplayer fashion like an MMO game. Why do you think so many developers are making action RPGs lite on the RPG elements?
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Callaxes said:
DragoFireheart said:
Multiplayer != Better game.

Some games are meant for multiplayer capabilities, while others should stay single player. I would argue that RPGs with a focus on exploring a detailed world (either through dialog or interactive objects within that world) should never have multiplayer. Some games actually become better with multiplayer, like fighting games or FPS. A good game designer knows which ones should and shouldn't have such a feature.

I'm starting to feel sorry for the man's reputation. Every single time I read anything from him I get the impression he's trying to sell me snake oil. Even when he says things like this, which would sound like wisdom in the mouth of other developers (even Todd), but when he says it, you just end up feeling like you want to mace him.

I've often felt that Todd is better at 'selling' the games than Pete is. Pete comes across as a moron even when he speaks the truth - he's like one of those politicians who is too stupid for his party to trust him to speak for himself, so whenever he's interviewed he just gives the 'stock' answers for each question, with every answer being that his party is good and the other ones suck. Todd talks up his games, but then says 'yeah, we need to work on the writing' (don't have a link, just one of the interviews posted on the Codex), giving his comments enough pseudo-objectivity that they don't 'feel' like you're watching an ad. Hines says 'my favourite story is Oblivion', and you get the impression (not just from that quote, it's a constant thing) that he has never actually played any of their games, nor does he own a computer, so he answers every question with 'this game is AWESOMELY AWESOME' to every question he's asked.

Having said that, there's also something to be said for looking at it in terms of results. I.e. at the end of the day, marketing is Hines' responsibility and he's managed to get a large portion of the gaming world to define 'good' as 'whatever Bethesda is doing', while getting them to gloss over any weaknesses, and having massive sales and near-universal critical acclaim for a rather mediocre set of games. If you look at plain results, then I guess that makes him excellent at his job. He's just so terrible at interviews though. He'd do well to get a lacky to be the PR 'face' while he focusses on marketing strategy. I guess from his viewpoint, there's job security (hence leverage in salary negotiation) in making sure that he's the guy that game 'journalists' call to ask questions - makes him harder to replace.
 

mangsy

Educated
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
329
Reading this reminded me that there will be a World of Darkness MMO based on Bloodlines coming out at some point...
 

baronjohn

Cipher
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,383
Location
USA
Re: The Elder Scrolls Multiplayer Would Lead to a Lesser Gam

Unquestionably. It's not a thing we're technically incapable of figuring out.
I doubt it.
 

Raapys

Arcane
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,960
DragoFireheart said:
- I understand what the article is talking about. The idea that multiplayer = worse is fucking nonsense, but I can sorta understand the idea the guy is talking about. Some games are good with multiplayer and some aren't.
Uh, it's not about a game being good with multiplayer or not. It's about what other features you want to scrap to have the time/resources to put (decent-quality) multiplayer in. It's really as simple as that.

At any rate, shitty game is shitty. Multiplayer or not.
 

Callaxes

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
1,676
Azrael the cat said:
I've often felt that Todd is better at 'selling' the games than Pete is. Pete comes across as a moron even when he speaks the truth - he's like one of those politicians who is too stupid for his party to trust him to speak for himself, so whenever he's interviewed he just gives the 'stock' answers for each question, with every answer being that his party is good and the other ones suck. Todd talks up his games, but then says 'yeah, we need to work on the writing' (don't have a link, just one of the interviews posted on the Codex), giving his comments enough pseudo-objectivity that they don't 'feel' like you're watching an ad. Hines says 'my favourite story is Oblivion', and you get the impression (not just from that quote, it's a constant thing) that he has never actually played any of their games, nor does he own a computer, so he answers every question with 'this game is AWESOMELY AWESOME' to every question he's asked.

Having said that, there's also something to be said for looking at it in terms of results. I.e. at the end of the day, marketing is Hines' responsibility and he's managed to get a large portion of the gaming world to define 'good' as 'whatever Bethesda is doing', while getting them to gloss over any weaknesses, and having massive sales and near-universal critical acclaim for a rather mediocre set of games. If you look at plain results, then I guess that makes him excellent at his job. He's just so terrible at interviews though. He'd do well to get a lacky to be the PR 'face' while he focusses on marketing strategy. I guess from his viewpoint, there's job security (hence leverage in salary negotiation) in making sure that he's the guy that game 'journalists' call to ask questions - makes him harder to replace.

Why is it that it's so easy to hate (maybe hate is not the right word here) game developers? It seems to come about more easily then hating politicians.

At the opposite end, a game developer will get praised a lot if he works on a good game. But the praise and fandom isn't much different from say a writer or a favorite musician (but of course, with less money and fans).

But I've never seen the quality of dislike that developers get from making bad games. I guess they have all the bad qualities combined in one package. They're a part of a firm, which makes it easier to generalize and think that "They're all the same at Bethesda". There's mercantilism, hype and a sort of "WW1 era" sense of pride you see so times when they'll say they're the best. And then there's always broken hearts when cult classic or a series reinvents itself and slowly evolves into something else.

It's often easy to forget that the people involved in making a game are in the end just a team of people. And while they might not be a happy family, they're probably a lot more united and friendly then people who work in cubicles all day and hate their job. So it might seem very weird for them when they see any of their colleagues bashed on boards as we usually do.

I don't like to berate people at all, but it's so easy to develop a grudge over people like him.
 

UserNamer

Cipher
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
692
Yathzee is gay, all that "I'm straight but I thought about gay sex and like to explore homosexuality in my role playing experiences, but I like sex with women MORE, I swear!" Is bullshit and you can see right through it.

First of all he says he like sex with the ladies best, this means that he likes sex (at least the idea) of sex with men.

Second he admit he "though about it" (it as in gay sex). What straight men would spend time thinking about gay sex that way?

Third, you can tell from his voice and how he looks that his body is delightfully testosterone free. It's no wonder that many terminally unmanly nerds are so homophiliac and gay-curious. My theory is that once you lost so much test you become so passive that you start to perceive gay sex as alluring.

But for me the worst part of these new gay wave games is how homosexuality is presented. Look, if they want to put a gay character with romantic opinions, it may be nice. But having all the main characters gay? And presenting homosexuality as if it was something completely normal and not an oddity, like it is in reality?* Last I checked gays were like 1% of the population.

*Well this may change as more balless nerds like yatzhee show up and as the propaganda of showing gayness as normal continues.
 

nasi

Novice
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
61
unfloxcable said:
dont' you guys understan.d this derper is a damn liar.

i can put up with your stupid management of your own budget. your carelessness with final products and teh fucking lack of support. your disrespect abroad.

you piece of shit. but don't you fucking tell us that an entier multiplayer game is impossible. quit cutting shit out to make your life easier. you have had enough time to sip lemonade and warm up under the sun.


i am so qualified grrr. you and your piss ants have no clue. you pay for the research to come back in favor of your preconceptions you shitter.

it is up to you you fucker. network progarmming and for sure multiplayer does not mean you get to cut shit out.

you fucking make that shit work because you have fucking brain that can desing for it. and we do want to play with our friends and you making up for that fact by your lying extensions of yearly 15 DLC lie fucker.

i can't believe i even like fallout 3. damn u. oblivion liar cunt.
haha :D :lol: :D
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
VentilatorOfDoom said:
DragoFireheart said:
Multiplayer != Better game.
And for once he is right.
Of course, he is correct.

Don't use reverse logic. He didn't say multiplayer doesn't necessarily lead to a better game. He said: multiplayer = worse game. Which is most likely nonsense.
Wait, so that is what you're trying to say here?


I mean, are you seriously denying that 1. programming multiplayer takes time and 2. time is limited?
 

DragoFireheart

all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
23,731
Raapys said:
Uh, it's not about a game being good with multiplayer or not. It's about what other features you want to scrap to have the time/resources to put (decent-quality) multiplayer in. It's really as simple as that.

- No it's not. Some games get MORE value out of multiplayer than others while not actually sacrificing any noticeable resources.


villain of the story said:
DragoFireheart said:
BWAAAAAAAAA NOBODY DID IT BEFORE SO IT MEANS IT CANNOT BE DONE SO JUST SHUTUP OKAY! OKAY!?=!=!=

Actually, I make my opinion based on the fact that making a good multiplayer RPG is the exception to the rule. Not once did I even state it couldn't be done. The only multiplayer RPG I have ever played that was even remotely decent was Neverwinter Nights by Bioware. Between the fact that players can host their own servers and create their own modules (alter the rules, etc) helped make it a good game in the multiplayer aspect. However, there are many issues with that which I am glad to discuss with you IF you refrain from mindlessly flaming me.

Regardless, the majority of attempts at making a good multiplayer RPG are shit.
 

Commissar Draco

Codexia Comrade Colonel Commissar
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
20,856
Location
Привислинский край
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Divinity: Original Sin 2
Whatever, Multiplayer or not Skyrim will be Banal, Shit, Boring. Unless Zenimax woud fire Pete, Todd and hire talented coders and writers. :smug:
... Who I'm kidding now, judging how many bought DA2 even on Codex it will be best RPG eva GOTY. :x God how I hate those sheeple. :retarded:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom