Ok, so this game seems pretty sweet and all, but there's this one weird thing that's been bothering me.
You have an intricate party system that involves creating/leveling supporting characters who are with you at all times, and indeed seem to play an integral role in the game. Not only are they not actually story-relevant characters (or so I gather), but they can be swapped out at any time with totally new people, exchanged online, and level independently.
And then you have this comment, taken from E3 of last year (source: nowgamer.com, which had the only article on the subject I could find) :
"Speaking at the E3 Dragon’s Dogma booth, Capcom’s Hiroyuki Kobayashi has explained why the new fantasy RPG is omitting multiplayer from its experience.
"Multiplayer would distract from the experience," explained Kobayashi. "There's still elements coming that aren't what people are expecting, but we want to build the world around single-player though.”
This makes confuses me. If your engine for some reason can't support it, or if it doesn't make sense in the context of the game, fine. But you literally have a game based around having a fairly independent-acting party, the system behind which has a strong online component to it. I could understand issues of it making the game too easy if everyone brought in their main dude, but couldn't you just let people play as the 'pawns'?
Does seem odd to anyone else? Usually I just sort of grumble to myself about lack of co-op because I'm weird like that, but this design choice is simply baffling to me.