Wait. So. Is there co-op in this game or not?

#1 Posted by FetchTheDubliners (14 posts) -

I know this question has been asked a hundred times, but when I was playing the demo, it asked me to name my character, THEN it asked me to pick a second name called a Moniker.

The moniker says, "Your Moniker will display for players with parental controls enabled." And the only reason it would need this is for co-op or multiplayer. Am I wrong?

Some one set me on the straight path please.

#2 Edited by TentPole (1858 posts) -

No co-op. It probably has to do with letting other players borrow your pawns.

#3 Posted by senorfuzzeh (385 posts) -

@TentPole: Unfortunate. This game almost seems perfect for Co-op.

#4 Posted by Gravier251 (217 posts) -

There is no co-op. I expect the moniker is purely for the Pawn system aspect of the game. In the game you have a companion (pawn) that you can level up, get gear, etc. Along with your character. You also get 2 other temporary pawns that you cannot level or gear up, these are usually either random pawns in the game, or the Pawns created by another player.

Likewise your companion can show up wandering another persons world and be hired (or from that nexus place). The companion later gives you some money, items, etc. As spoils from their adventures outside of their time with you.

Given that Pawns are shared between players, hired on for a time while they are relevent in level, or if they have a really good build, etc. Then the moniker system is likely for people who don't want to have some pawn with a really dumb, crude name. So it forces them to have an alternate name for people who turn that setting on.

#5 Posted by mrcraggle (1938 posts) -

@senorfuzzeh: Until recently I always thought co-op was a general focus of this game. From the gameplay I've seen it looks mmo-lite in some ways. Even though this is a large open world game, it reminds me in some ways of PSO and how you've go questing with 3 other friends but obviously much grander here.

#6 Posted by Vorbis (2750 posts) -

The Moniker names are amazing, had to go with Wesker and Jill.

#7 Posted by TEHMAXXORZ (1199 posts) -

There is no coop, but the whole pawn system (share your pawns with people and 'borrow' others to level them up and... make them smarter) seems pretty interesting.

#8 Posted by senorfuzzeh (385 posts) -

@mrcraggle: Yeah I see that. When my friend explained it to me he said "basically its shadow of colosuss with mutliplayer." And I damn near did a back flip right there from excitement. But low and behold, no co-op :(

#9 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@TEHMAXXORZ said:

There is no coop, but the whole pawn system (share your pawns with people and 'borrow' others to level them up and... make them smarter) seems pretty interesting.

They don't level with other people. They only level when they are with their actual creator/player. All they get when summoned by others is quest/monster knowledge, rift crystals, sometimes some items, and any gifts they are given.

#10 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@Karkarov said:

@TEHMAXXORZ said:

There is no coop, but the whole pawn system (share your pawns with people and 'borrow' others to level them up and... make them smarter) seems pretty interesting.

They don't level with other people. They only level when they are with their actual creator/player. All they get when summoned by others is quest/monster knowledge, rift crystals, sometimes some items, and any gifts they are given.

I like the Monster Knowledge idea. 
#11 Posted by zvalkyr (3 posts) -

The Japanese-text description of the moniker setting is pretty different from the English one. Instead of being for players with parental controls enabled, it's so that Japanese players can have names with Japanese characters, but their pawns also have a name that uses Roman letters, since pawns seem to be shared internationally. It makes a lot more sense to me that way, given the game's M rating stateside. But I guess you can also turn monikers on so that you don't see names like xXSuperSaiyanSephirothXx or whatever.

#12 Posted by RVonE (4638 posts) -

@zvalkyr said:

The Japanese-text description of the moniker setting is pretty different from the English one. Instead of being for players with parental controls enabled, it's so that Japanese players can have names with Japanese characters, but their pawns also have a name that uses Roman letters, since pawns seem to be shared internationally. It makes a lot more sense to me that way, given the game's M rating stateside. But I guess you can also turn monikers on so that you don't see names like xXSuperSaiyanSephirothXx or whatever.

Oh wow, that's pretty different indeed. I had just assumed the parental control moniker thing was a weird hold-over from Japan.

#13 Posted by LobsterCrunk (90 posts) -

This game was built with a 4-character team comprised of different builds that you, the player, can totally play as and they didn't add multiplayer...

If this is Resi 5 all over again I am going to be pissed, because multiplayer seems like something that really should be in this game from the get-go

#14 Edited by RVonE (4638 posts) -

@LobsterCrunk said:

This game was built with a 4-character team comprised of different builds that you, the player, can totally play as and they didn't add multiplayer...

If this is Resi 5 all over again I am going to be pissed, because multiplayer seems like something that really should be in this game from the get-go

So would you find it compelling to play as a pawn (one who obeys every wish of the Arisen and without any characteristics of his/her own) in a game of some other dude?

EDIT: also, you can't play the other characters in your team. You can order them around but there is no direct control.

#15 Posted by LobsterCrunk (90 posts) -

@RVonE:

What I meant was that since all the pawns in the game use spells, abilities and items that you are able to use as a player, the seperate team-roles are all able to be fulfilled by another human - the gameplay has been designed with multiplayer in mind.

I would rather that than nothing at all - if it was just that you could join a friend's game and take the role of his, customised pawn - I would prefer taking on giant monsters and surviving the perilous night with a buddy.

You could easily go the other route though, Borderlands was able to have constant character progression: you just select what character you want to continue progressing and everything is constantly saved.

#16 Posted by RVonE (4638 posts) -

@LobsterCrunk said:

@RVonE:

What I meant was that since all the pawns in the game use spells, abilities and items that you are able to use as a player, the seperate team-roles are all able to be fulfilled by another human - the gameplay has been designed with multiplayer in mind.

I would rather that than nothing at all - if it was just that you could join a friend's game and take the role of his, customised pawn - I would prefer taking on giant monsters and surviving the perilous night with a buddy.

You could easily go the other route though, Borderlands was able to have constant character progression: you just select what character you want to continue progressing and everything is constantly saved.

Yes, Borderlands is an interesting point of comparison, but in that game all players are of equal status and for that system to work with Dragon's Dogma they'd have to retool the central story conceit of the Arisen.

#17 Posted by VDay (25 posts) -

@LobsterCrunk: The game was always, from the start, a single-player open world RPG. It's one thing if you think it'd be cool if it had co-op, but demanding it and saying how clearly it should have multiplayer or presuming that it was "designed with multiplayer in mind" when every single thing Capcom's ever said points to the opposite being true just comes off as gamer entitlement. Even implementing something as simple as letting your friend control a pawn would take a lot of time and resources, and adds a ton of technical challenges both from a coding and game balance standpoint.

People make it sound like every modern open world RPG has co-op/multiplayer in it and that Dragon's Dogma is some weird outdated game that inexplicably doesn't. If they wanted to make a multiplayer game they would've made Monster Hunter West, but they didn't so they made Dragon's Dogma instead. It's fine if you want the latter to be more like the former, but it just seems silly to me to be upset that Dragon's Dogma is a different type of game than what you, for whatever reason, decided you wanted it to be.

#18 Posted by Fire_Of_The_Wind (170 posts) -

http://www.capcom-unity.com/gregaman/blog/2012/05/10/have_it_your_way_in_dragons_dogma

From the director of DD, the first thing he says is "There was never any intent for DD to be Monster Hunter for the West." This was built from the ground up as a single-player game.

#19 Edited by LobsterCrunk (90 posts) -

@VDay said:

@LobsterCrunk: The game was always, from the start, a single-player open world RPG. It's one thing if you think it'd be cool if it had co-op, but demanding it and saying how clearly it should have multiplayer or presuming that it was "designed with multiplayer in mind" when every single thing Capcom's ever said points to the opposite being true just comes off as gamer entitlement. Even implementing something as simple as letting your friend control a pawn would take a lot of time and resources, and adds a ton of technical challenges both from a coding and game balance standpoint.

People make it sound like every modern open world RPG has co-op/multiplayer in it and that Dragon's Dogma is some weird outdated game that inexplicably doesn't. If they wanted to make a multiplayer game they would've made Monster Hunter West, but they didn't so they made Dragon's Dogma instead. It's fine if you want the latter to be more like the former, but it just seems silly to me to be upset that Dragon's Dogma is a different type of game than what you, for whatever reason, decided you wanted it to be.

Dude, in gameplay terms you can literally do everything that the AI characters can do - that takes care of all the character balancing issues because, once again, you always play the game with at least one other character (who potentially shares all of your player-controlled abilities) to help you out. Not only that, but every enemy encounter in the game is balanced to be taken on in a group.

Actually, I guess it really is too early to say that. For all we know there could be whole sections of the game that are especially challenging because they want you fighting solo.

I guess that's just my impression based on absolutely every piece of information regarding this game before release. Especially given the focus on your pawns, it seems like solo-multiplayer is a really high focus for this game - and I guess, also, that this is exactly the kind of experience they want to make.

I have been looking forward to this kind of game for some time. It's Capcom, and they made Monster Hunter - which I only ever got to play once in multiplayer, because nobody I know owns a PSP. I had such fun with that game, with how it played and how the monsters behaved. They continually deny Monster Hunter a release on either PS3 or 360 - even though it would be crazy easy to do so - but they do release a game that looks almost exactly like it, only with deeper combat and a far more complex character creator. And they focus it on a closed-off co-op experience. It's a bitter pill to swallow, for sure.

#20 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@LobsterCrunk said:

@VDay said:

I have been looking forward to this kind of game for some time. It's Capcom, and they made Monster Hunter - which I only ever got to play once in multiplayer, because nobody I know owns a PSP. I had such fun with that game, with how it played and how the monsters behaved. They continually deny Monster Hunter a release on either PS3 or 360 - even though it would be crazy easy to do so - but they do release a game that looks almost exactly like it, only with deeper combat and a far more complex character creator. And they focus it on a closed-off co-op experience. It's a bitter pill to swallow, for sure.

Actually I would argue that off all the games Dragon's Dogma has been compared to Monster Hunter is the least valid comparison save maybe Shadow of the Collossus. It isn't just a more complex character creator your character is literally in a totally different dimension of functionality, customization, and depth than a Monster Hunter character. In Monster Hunter you are in an instanced closed world, Dragon's Dogma is open world with very little instancing. MH has no story, DD has a 30-40 hour long main story. MH it is all about the gear in every respect down to how you play and what moves you have, in DD gear is important but only because it helps determine stats and your move set options which are so expansive it is literally impossible to even have half the available moves for a one hand sword usable at the same time. Forget about the fact that you actually have a class, character level, job level, very deep build system, more gear slots, etc etc in DD. MH is heavily reliant on multi player for it's fun factor and was built for multi player from the ground up, DD is the exact opposite.

Both games have big monsters with multiple body parts, action based combat, and were made by Capcom. Beyond that they have very little if not nothing else in common.

Remember that you can at least hire a buddies pawns, trade items with friends, participate in the Ur Dragon fight, and share pics on facebook or other social media. So it has some multi player based things.

#21 Posted by LobsterCrunk (90 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

Actually I would argue that off all the games Dragon's Dogma has been compared to Monster Hunter is the least valid comparison save maybe Shadow of the Collossus. It isn't just a more complex character creator your character is literally in a totally different dimension of functionality, customization, and depth than a Monster Hunter character. In Monster Hunter you are in an instanced closed world, Dragon's Dogma is open world with very little instancing. MH has no story, DD has a 30-40 hour long main story. MH it is all about the gear in every respect down to how you play and what moves you have, in DD gear is important but only because it helps determine stats and your move set options which are so expansive it is literally impossible to even have half the available moves for a one hand sword usable at the same time. Forget about the fact that you actually have a class, character level, job level, very deep build system, more gear slots, etc etc in DD. MH is heavily reliant on multi player for it's fun factor and was built for multi player from the ground up, DD is the exact opposite.

Both games have big monsters with multiple body parts, action based combat, and were made by Capcom. Beyond that they have very little if not nothing else in common.

Remember that you can at least hire a buddies pawns, trade items with friends, participate in the Ur Dragon fight, and share pics on facebook or other social media. So it has some multi player based things.

Apologies for the wall. of. text:

I'm gonna have to state, once more, that Dragon's Dogma most definitely has been designed with mutliplayer in mind because every encounter is faced with at least two characters - you and your pawn - and every action that every pawn is capable of making is also an action that any player-controlled character can do. There is also a distinct singleplayer aspect to Monster Hunter, with quests that cannot be done online, which means that if it wasn't designed from the ground-up as singleplayer, it should have been.

Monster Hunter also had different classes - depending on the weapons that you chose to wield (hammers, greatswords, daggers, crossbows, that kind of thing) and the success of your team, online, depended on your collective ability to balance those classes. The game did not give you AI buddies, but some of the enemies were so difficult that you required multiple players to get through it, so if you didn't have internet access (or no-one you knew had a PSP), the game was very hard and difficult to get deep into. Would it have been so difficult to put in AI characters that you could give weapons to? Or even choose from a list of characters, like you do in the character select screen at the start of the game? Do you see how, immediately, this makes the game almost identical to Dragon's Dogma?

I understand, by the way, that DD is a far deeper game than MH, in many respects, but that doesn't mean they are not incredibly similar to each other. The gameplay itself is remarkably similar, and seems more like that of a sequel than anything else. An incredibly polished sequel, mind you, and one that's dealing with hardware that can take a lot more punishment - like Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear 2. The two games have distinct story lines, distinct characters, distinct themes and are totally distinct from each other, but they are both progressions of an idea of gameplay - one more primitive than the other.

So they make Dragon's Dogma and they want to put big enemies in it, but they realise that you can't deal with all of these enemies by yourself, so they give you AI buddies to help you out.

Why not go Monster Hunter with it, then? Why the sudden change of heart? If the answer is, indeed, that they wanted to craft a story-driven experience that might have been marred by the presence of human companions, why not go Resi 5 with it and present the option to play the game with others if you so choose? What about after you've completed the game the first time, when you know how the story goes and you decide to skip a few cutscenes because the reason you're playing the game again is to play it, not because you are moved by the story. When all there is left is gameplay, adding more people simply makes all the variables explode and this creates parameters of chaos that every game benefits from - in a way that is completely distinct from the singleplayer experience.

Also, you really can't count any of that stuff as multiplayer, it's all based on social media and exists outside of Dragon's Dogma - the game. The only slightly multiplayer part of it is the Ur Dragon, which is pretty cool and all, but that's all it is, it's still not actually multiple players taking part in the same encounter. Can you really tell me that any of that is comparable to taking on a dragon with 3 of your friends?

All of this - and then you consider Capcom's most recent announcement, that on-disc DLC will no longer be a sticking point for consumers. Except we have to wait until after Dragon's Dogma for DLC to be entirely off-disk? It sounds even more like they're going to be selling me the multiplayer code a few weeks down the line - and if this happens, by the way, all of your arguments are null and void, because then they will have thought of and implemented multiplayer long before the game's release.

Honestly, I kind of hope that multiplayer never comes out for it, if that was the case.

#22 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@LobsterCrunk said:

All of this - and then you consider Capcom's most recent announcement, that on-disc DLC will no longer be a sticking point for consumers. Except we have to wait until after Dragon's Dogma for DLC to be entirely off-disk? It sounds even more like they're going to be selling me the multiplayer code a few weeks down the line - and if this happens, by the way, all of your arguments are null and void, because then they will have thought of and implemented multiplayer long before the game's release.

Honestly, I kind of hope that multiplayer never comes out for it, if that was the case.

It has been confirmed for over a month that Dogma would have on disc DLC in the form of 100 bonus quests. Also they aren't my arguments. Watch a dev blog dude. Hideki Itsuno is the #1 top dog on this game said straight out in his dev blog it was designed to be single player from day one. Also I hate to burst your bubble but there are things only the main character (aka the Arisen) can do. I could spend hours writing about the differences between the two games and they are freaking huge but it would be a waste of time. The same guy I mentioned before also said in that same dev blog that this game is and I quote "not Monster Hunter for the West".

I am just going to say when the Director of the game says it was designed to be single player and is not a Monster Hunter spin off that it is probably worth it to take his word for it.

#23 Edited by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@LobsterCrunk said:

@Karkarov said:

Actually I would argue that off all the games Dragon's Dogma has been compared to Monster Hunter is the least valid comparison save maybe Shadow of the Collossus. It isn't just a more complex character creator your character is literally in a totally different dimension of functionality, customization, and depth than a Monster Hunter character. In Monster Hunter you are in an instanced closed world, Dragon's Dogma is open world with very little instancing. MH has no story, DD has a 30-40 hour long main story. MH it is all about the gear in every respect down to how you play and what moves you have, in DD gear is important but only because it helps determine stats and your move set options which are so expansive it is literally impossible to even have half the available moves for a one hand sword usable at the same time. Forget about the fact that you actually have a class, character level, job level, very deep build system, more gear slots, etc etc in DD. MH is heavily reliant on multi player for it's fun factor and was built for multi player from the ground up, DD is the exact opposite.

Both games have big monsters with multiple body parts, action based combat, and were made by Capcom. Beyond that they have very little if not nothing else in common.

Remember that you can at least hire a buddies pawns, trade items with friends, participate in the Ur Dragon fight, and share pics on facebook or other social media. So it has some multi player based things.

Apologies for the wall. of. text:

I'm gonna have to state, once more, that Dragon's Dogma most definitely has been designed with mutliplayer in mind because every encounter is faced with at least two characters - you and your pawn - and every action that every pawn is capable of making is also an action that any player-controlled character can do. There is also a distinct singleplayer aspect to Monster Hunter, with quests that cannot be done online, which means that if it wasn't designed from the ground-up as singleplayer, it should have been.

Monster Hunter also had different classes - depending on the weapons that you chose to wield (hammers, greatswords, daggers, crossbows, that kind of thing) and the success of your team, online, depended on your collective ability to balance those classes. The game did not give you AI buddies, but some of the enemies were so difficult that you required multiple players to get through it, so if you didn't have internet access (or no-one you knew had a PSP), the game was very hard and difficult to get deep into. Would it have been so difficult to put in AI characters that you could give weapons to? Or even choose from a list of characters, like you do in the character select screen at the start of the game? Do you see how, immediately, this makes the game almost identical to Dragon's Dogma?

I understand, by the way, that DD is a far deeper game than MH, in many respects, but that doesn't mean they are not incredibly similar to each other. The gameplay itself is remarkably similar, and seems more like that of a sequel than anything else. An incredibly polished sequel, mind you, and one that's dealing with hardware that can take a lot more punishment - like Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear 2. The two games have distinct story lines, distinct characters, distinct themes and are totally distinct from each other, but they are both progressions of an idea of gameplay - one more primitive than the other.

So they make Dragon's Dogma and they want to put big enemies in it, but they realise that you can't deal with all of these enemies by yourself, so they give you AI buddies to help you out.

Why not go Monster Hunter with it, then? Why the sudden change of heart? If the answer is, indeed, that they wanted to craft a story-driven experience that might have been marred by the presence of human companions, why not go Resi 5 with it and present the option to play the game with others if you so choose? What about after you've completed the game the first time, when you know how the story goes and you decide to skip a few cutscenes because the reason you're playing the game again is to play it, not because you are moved by the story. When all there is left is gameplay, adding more people simply makes all the variables explode and this creates parameters of chaos that every game benefits from - in a way that is completely distinct from the singleplayer experience.

Also, you really can't count any of that stuff as multiplayer, it's all based on social media and exists outside of Dragon's Dogma - the game. The only slightly multiplayer part of it is the Ur Dragon, which is pretty cool and all, but that's all it is, it's still not actually multiple players taking part in the same encounter. Can you really tell me that any of that is comparable to taking on a dragon with 3 of your friends?

All of this - and then you consider Capcom's most recent announcement, that on-disc DLC will no longer be a sticking point for consumers. Except we have to wait until after Dragon's Dogma for DLC to be entirely off-disk? It sounds even more like they're going to be selling me the multiplayer code a few weeks down the line - and if this happens, by the way, all of your arguments are null and void, because then they will have thought of and implemented multiplayer long before the game's release.

Honestly, I kind of hope that multiplayer never comes out for it, if that was the case.

Real reason? Capcom knows they don't know how to make online co-op mulitplayer work reliably, so they can save face by making you play with AI. That's the reason. It would be totally simple to put in the hooks for online mulitplayer, but Capcom knows that the japanese sensibilities surrounding online play are so antiquated and backwards, it's not even worth developing. They were more than likely developing it to be a western MH supplement, couldn't get it working on a grand scale, then made everything AI and capped it all off.

Multiplayer will never come out for this game for that 1 simple reason.

#24 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

I am just going to say when the Director of the game says it was designed to be single player and is not a Monster Hunter spin off that it is probably worth it to take his word for it.

That dude is LYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYING.

#25 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

Real reason? Capcom knows they don't know how to make online co-op mulitplayer work reliably, so they can save face by making you play with AI. That's the reason. It would be totally simple to put in the hooks for online mulitplayer, but Capcom knows that the japanese sensibilities surrounding online play are so antiquated and backwards, it's not even worth developing. They were more than likely developing it to be a western MH supplement, couldn't get it working on a grand scale, then made everything AI and capped it all off.

Multiplayer will never come out for this game for that 1 simple reason.

I thought Jakob was smoking crack when I saw his post saying it was the consumers fault diablo 3 had a bad launch day then I read this.... Jakob was hitting weed at best. I do agree though, the odds of this game getting multiplayer are minimal. It isn't like the last large open world RPG had it either.

#26 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

@Mesoian said:

Real reason? Capcom knows they don't know how to make online co-op mulitplayer work reliably, so they can save face by making you play with AI. That's the reason. It would be totally simple to put in the hooks for online mulitplayer, but Capcom knows that the japanese sensibilities surrounding online play are so antiquated and backwards, it's not even worth developing. They were more than likely developing it to be a western MH supplement, couldn't get it working on a grand scale, then made everything AI and capped it all off.

Multiplayer will never come out for this game for that 1 simple reason.

I thought Jakob was smoking crack when I saw his post saying it was the consumers fault diablo 3 had a bad launch day then I read this.... Jakob was hitting weed at best. I do agree though, the odds of this game getting multiplayer are minimal. It isn't like the last large open world RPG had it either.

Oh no, do you remember the shitstorm capcom had to go through over Last Planet 2, which essentially has the kind of mulitplayer that people wish this one did? That online didn't work. At all. And that game was 100 times simpler than this. I am fully confident that around year 4 of development, an executive decision was made to clamp down on the online and make it a secondary en devour, which eventually turned into the pawn system. Capcom hasn't has a single decent online game since Lost planet 1 at the x360's launch. People try to point to MH:3 on the wii and I have to remind them that all online games on the wii have garbage infrastructural, the fact that it's following suit doesn't help.

I mean hell, look at the videos that have been posted by OXMuk, there are missions with lever puzzles that were CLEARLY designed to be synchronous puzzles. This was obviously going to be an online game at some point, and then the decision was made to change it.

I'm still pretty jazzed about this game, but...man. Don't kid yourself, there's a lot of stuff that capcom is cutting around in order to kick this thing out the door. I'm still REALLY disheartened by the revelations about the map that came out a few days ago, but man...Capcom has this crazy cycle of getting people incredibly hyped about their games, then DAYS before release, pulling back the veil and revealing all the bullshit surrounding everything. It's terrible.

#27 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@Fire_Of_The_Wind said:

From the director of DD, the first thing he says is "There was never any intent for DD to be Monster Hunter for the West."

It would be really dumb of Capcom to make a game which could be as successful in the West as Monster Hunter is in Japan. What would they even do with all that money? Better to quickly pump out minor iterations on their fighting games until no-one cares about them anymore so that they can slowly slide into irrelevance like the Konamis and Namcos of the world. Well played, Capcpom.

Quite so. Capcom's nack for corporate nonsense and poor planning is legendary now. Remember their words about essentially rushing Marvel 3 into stores way too early? Something along the lines of "We thought the fighting game community was ready for the next step in fighting games, and our DLC plans over the course of the year will make it so game play stays fresh and exciting", when the real reason was that their deal with Marvel expired in April and they wanted to get Marvel numbers in their q4 records so they could have a nice smily face at the end of the fiscal year.

I understand that every corporation has to sling some game every once in a while, but CHRIST, capcom does it sooooooooo much and they are SOOOOOOOOOO bad at it! I feel bad for the dudes at Capcom Unity because they seem to be trying to actually quell the masses, and the moment they start gaining a little bit of good faith, Capcom Japan shits all over their efforts.

#28 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@Mesoian: The weirdest part is that Capcom were one of the few J-developers who seemed to almost have their shit together in the early years of this generation. Post-SF4 they've just unraveled, it's kind of sad and a bit pathetic.

Perhaps they were expecting to ride MVC3 and SFXT off into the sunset, so the other games on their slate (besides RE6) probably didn't matter as much as the moneymakers. It would be awful if Capcom were reduced to Street Fighter and Resident Evil sequels but it feels like it's been a while since they made anything else which really matters.

I think it has to do a lot with Inafune leaving. He seemed to be the voice of reason for Capcom and without him there, it seems to be poor decision after poor decision.

The most comical thing is that they could totally still ride on SSF4. It they released 6 new characters and 6 new stages for that game every 12 months and had that be their annual update via DLC, charge something sane like 10 or 15 dollars, and work on regular bug/balance issues, they would be FIIIIIINE. IT worked great for AE and would have worked great for Marvel had they not rushed it out. Hell, if they had taken their time with Marvel 3, they would be making SOOOOOOOO much money off a 15 dollar 8 character game update.

But no, we have statements like, "yeah, you see how well operation racoon city sold? western development does work when we don't constantly meddle in the affairs of the developer!" Insanity. The most frustrating thing about it all though is that it doesn't matter if Dragon's Dogma is successful or not. The Vita has a monster hunter game coming out early next year in japan which WILL sell 3 million within it's first month. Because Japan is so enamored with that franchise, it'll cover up all the missteps that capcom is making and urge them to make even more. There's almost no risk in capcom's model because their safety net is so dense and profitable.

#29 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

I'm still pretty jazzed about this game, but...man. Don't kid yourself, there's a lot of stuff that capcom is cutting around in order to kick this thing out the door. I'm still REALLY disheartened by the revelations about the map that came out a few days ago, but man...Capcom has this crazy cycle of getting people incredibly hyped about their games, then DAYS before release, pulling back the veil and revealing all the bullshit surrounding everything. It's terrible.

We will have to agree to disagree. This game never looked multiplayer to me from the first time it was shown. Nor did even the earliest tidbits they released suggest it was multiplayer. Frankly they would be insane to even try it in this game, it is a freakin open world sandbox rpg with character depth out the ass and very little instancing aside from dungeons. Every RPG that has tried multiplayer in any sort of similar scenario so far as failed at it. I know where you are going with the puzzle things etc but I also know alot of those floor switches and things can even be activated by monsters so I am not convinced.

Regardless the games size is fine. No it apparently won't take 2 hours to go from the far west coast to the far east coast but half the map is obviously going to be DLC. The most recent Robert Cram video showed a decent point though, yes if you just go from a to b as fast as you can and stick only to the path it isn't that time consuming. You could probably make Gran Soren to the farthest north west point in maybe... 15-20 minutes. But if you leave the road, don't run from every encounter, look for side quests, and explore a little (which is what makes the game great) suddenly that trip takes a whole lot longer and is a ton more fun. The fun isn't in the destination but in what you did getting there in other words. Remember the dude has also put over 60-70 hours in the game and admits he hasn't beaten it or done every quest. For those who want more there is even a 100 quest DLC on disc. The game wont lack for content.

Personally I would rather have a Rockstar style sandbox than a Skyrim style open world anyway. Sure you can cover the whole map a crap ton faster and there isn't as much there.... but what is there always has something fun to do and interesting to see. Half of Skyrim was just boring empty wilderness.

#30 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

@Mesoian said:

I'm still pretty jazzed about this game, but...man. Don't kid yourself, there's a lot of stuff that capcom is cutting around in order to kick this thing out the door. I'm still REALLY disheartened by the revelations about the map that came out a few days ago, but man...Capcom has this crazy cycle of getting people incredibly hyped about their games, then DAYS before release, pulling back the veil and revealing all the bullshit surrounding everything. It's terrible.

We will have to agree to disagree. This game never looked multiplayer to me from the first time it was shown. Nor did even the earliest tidbits they released suggest it was multiplayer. Frankly they would be insane to even try it in this game, it is a freakin open world sandbox rpg with character depth out the ass and very little instancing aside from dungeons. Every RPG that has tried multiplayer in any sort of similar scenario so far as failed at it. I know where you are going with the puzzle things etc but I also know alot of those floor switches and things can even be activated by monsters so I am not convinced.

Regardless the games size is fine. No it apparently won't take 2 hours to go from the far west coast to the far east coast but half the map is obviously going to be DLC. The most recent Robert Cram video showed a decent point though, yes if you just go from a to b as fast as you can and stick only to the path it isn't that time consuming. You could probably make Gran Soren to the farthest north west point in maybe... 15-20 minutes. But if you leave the road, don't run from every encounter, look for side quests, and explore a little (which is what makes the game great) suddenly that trip takes a whole lot longer and is a ton more fun. The fun isn't in the destination but in what you did getting there in other words. Remember the dude has also put over 60-70 hours in the game and admits he hasn't beaten it or done every quest. For those who want more there is even a 100 quest DLC on disc. The game wont lack for content.

Personally I would rather have a Rockstar style sandbox than a Skyrim style open world anyway. Sure you can cover the whole map a crap ton faster and there isn't as much there.... but what is there always has something fun to do and interesting to see. Half of Skyrim was just boring empty wilderness.

Oh I'm still in. I haven't been chased away yet, though Capcom is making it hard to be really hype about any of this, as they classically do.

If Capcom wants to prove it's goodwill towards this whole thing, any map related DLC content they put out will be free, or less than 2 dollars. When the shoe drops, and it will, hard, on this DLC stuff (Seriously, they had to warn people it was coming last week), it'll be real interesting to see what happens with their timeline regarding this game. I think this might be the biggest clusterfuck regarding DLC we've ever seen.

#31 Posted by VDay (25 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

I mean hell, look at the videos that have been posted by OXMuk, there are missions with lever puzzles that were CLEARLY designed to be synchronous puzzles. This was obviously going to be an online game at some point, and then the decision was made to change it.

Well, can't argue with that bullet-proof logic.

#32 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@VDay said:

@Mesoian said:

I mean hell, look at the videos that have been posted by OXMuk, there are missions with lever puzzles that were CLEARLY designed to be synchronous puzzles. This was obviously going to be an online game at some point, and then the decision was made to change it.

Well, can't argue with that bullet-proof logic.

Clearly, as you are not.

It's not just that though. Trust me, when this game comes out and you engage the in the vast majority of quests that are better suited to a 4 player co-op rpg, you'll understand what I mean. Hell, the vague nature of the actual story of the game caused by the ambigiouity necessary when multiple players are controlled by humans, is the biggest slight that reviewers have put against it thus far. Either Capcom's DMC team can't write a story for crap (which we know isn't true) or they made a clear decision to change it during development. One is far more likely than the other.

Well, save for the people who complained that it was too hard because they didn't know how pawns worked.

#33 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

Oh I'm still in. I haven't been chased away yet, though Capcom is making it hard to be really hype about any of this, as they classically do.

If Capcom wants to prove it's goodwill towards this whole thing, any map related DLC content they put out will be free, or less than 2 dollars. When the shoe drops, and it will, hard, on this DLC stuff (Seriously, they had to warn people it was coming last week), it'll be real interesting to see what happens with their timeline regarding this game. I think this might be the biggest clusterfuck regarding DLC we've ever seen.

*shrug* I knew the first DLC was on disc like a month ago. They have been fairly transparent about their DLC plans with Dogma so far. On the bright side I think Japan has to pay for the Berserk tie in items but every other region just gets it free. Personally I think their only real DLC f'up has been Asura's Wrath. The games actual ending being DLC is not a smart play. Sure they have done alot of slimy things with other games DLC but it wasn't really any worse than what other companies do too. I seriously doubt they will give out any DLC for free or next to nothing though, unless they offer additional pieces of the map but they are basically empty with nothing but randomly generated encounters you could see elsewhere.

In the end we have to wait and see.

#34 Edited by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

@Mesoian said:

Oh I'm still in. I haven't been chased away yet, though Capcom is making it hard to be really hype about any of this, as they classically do.

If Capcom wants to prove it's goodwill towards this whole thing, any map related DLC content they put out will be free, or less than 2 dollars. When the shoe drops, and it will, hard, on this DLC stuff (Seriously, they had to warn people it was coming last week), it'll be real interesting to see what happens with their timeline regarding this game. I think this might be the biggest clusterfuck regarding DLC we've ever seen.

*shrug* I knew the first DLC was on disc like a month ago. They have been fairly transparent about their DLC plans with Dogma so far. On the bright side I think Japan has to pay for the Berserk tie in items but every other region just gets it free. Personally I think their only real DLC f'up has been Asura's Wrath. The games actual ending being DLC is not a smart play. Sure they have done alot of slimy things with other games DLC but it wasn't really any worse than what other companies do too. I seriously doubt they will give out any DLC for free or next to nothing though, unless they offer additional pieces of the map but they are basically empty with nothing but randomly generated encounters you could see elsewhere.

In the end we have to wait and see.

No, we all knew that those 100 quests for 7 dollars were on the disc, mostly because they're a pack in with the Japanese collectors edition. Something tells me the DLC plans for this game are going to be WAY more nefarious than what we assumed. If those 100 quests were what we were told about before hand, I really shutter to think about what Capcom wanted to keep under wraps.

And no, as of right now, capcom is the most egregious offender when it comes to DLC. Worse than activision, worse than EA. You're also forgetting the Marvel downloadable characters, which they decided to STILL CHARGE FOR in Ultimate Marvel, and the complete mess of DLC that is SFxT. The DLC situation for that game was enough to scare most of the FGC away from it, which takes a LOT.

#35 Edited by VDay (25 posts) -

@Mesoian: I don't want to argue the point with you because it's clear from your posts that you're ready to do some impressive mental gymnastics to prove your point, and I'm not going to change that. I mean, if you're going to use something as random as the fact that they haven't completely revealed the story of their single-player rpg as concrete proof that this game had co-op then there's no point trying to convince you otherwise. Never mind that the entire point of the story/game is that you're the arisen, a unique, special hero chosen by the Dragon when he ate your heart. How exactly does that opening play out in your version of the game which was clearly going to have multiple players?

#36 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@VDay said:

@Mesoian: I don't want to argue the point with you because it's clear from your posts that you're ready to do some impressive mental gymnastics to prove your point, and I'm not going to change that. I mean, if you're going to use something as random as the fact that they haven't completely revealed the story of their single-player rpg as concrete proof that this game had co-op then there's no point trying to convince you otherwise. Never mind that the entire point of the story/game is that you're the arisen, a unique, special hero chosen by the Dragon when he ate your heart. How exactly does that opening play out in your version of the game which was clearly going to have multiple players?

You haven't seen the part in the story about the Pawn Rift and the multiple arisen yet have you?

Trust me, most of what you're going to see in this game, story wise, would feel more at home in a game like Phantasy Star Online.

#37 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

@VDay said:

@Mesoian: I don't want to argue the point with you because it's clear from your posts that you're ready to do some impressive mental gymnastics to prove your point, and I'm not going to change that. I mean, if you're going to use something as random as the fact that they haven't completely revealed the story of their single-player rpg as concrete proof that this game had co-op then there's no point trying to convince you otherwise. Never mind that the entire point of the story/game is that you're the arisen, a unique, special hero chosen by the Dragon when he ate your heart. How exactly does that opening play out in your version of the game which was clearly going to have multiple players?

You haven't seen the part in the story about the Pawn Rift and the multiple arisen yet have you?

Trust me, most of what you're going to see in this game, story wise, would feel more at home in a game like Phantasy Star Online.

While I don't exactly disagree I don't think that means the game was being made for multiplayer. I think the comparison of say Demon's or Dark Souls would be more apt. Sure there is some co op in those games, but it is highly limited and was designed around the idea that most of the time you would be alone.

In the end we don't know a ton about the story yet other than that it is weak to average according to like 1-2 reviewers. But again, is the story of Skyrim worth a crap? It is the open world sandbox environment, combat, and character customization that will make or break the game.

#38 Posted by mordukai (7153 posts) -

@TentPole said:

No co-op. It probably has to do with letting other players borrow your pawns.

According to the Game Informer review your coop pawns can be hired by other players, as long as you're online of course, to use in their game. Seems like they stay by your side even when hired and when you visit an inn you'll get a msg that your coop member has come back and they retain the knowledge they got from that game.

#39 Posted by VDay (25 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

You haven't seen the part in the story about the Pawn Rift and the multiple arisen yet have you?

Actually I have, I just didn't make the mental leap you did and assume that clearly that means that you were meant to jump between worlds and play the whole story co-op. If you got a review copy and have played through the entire game already then that'd be one thing, but you're apparently basing all of this off of the same videos I've watched and a natural distrust of Capcom. Like I said, it sounds like you're pretty set so there's no point trying to actually discuss this with you, especially if you're going to end your posts with sentences like this as if you're citing facts instead of just your own opinion:

Trust me, most of what you're going to see in this game, story wise, would feel more at home in a game like Phantasy Star Online.

#40 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

@Mesoian said:

@VDay said:

@Mesoian: I don't want to argue the point with you because it's clear from your posts that you're ready to do some impressive mental gymnastics to prove your point, and I'm not going to change that. I mean, if you're going to use something as random as the fact that they haven't completely revealed the story of their single-player rpg as concrete proof that this game had co-op then there's no point trying to convince you otherwise. Never mind that the entire point of the story/game is that you're the arisen, a unique, special hero chosen by the Dragon when he ate your heart. How exactly does that opening play out in your version of the game which was clearly going to have multiple players?

You haven't seen the part in the story about the Pawn Rift and the multiple arisen yet have you?

Trust me, most of what you're going to see in this game, story wise, would feel more at home in a game like Phantasy Star Online.

While I don't exactly disagree I don't think that means the game was being made for multiplayer. I think the comparison of say Demon's or Dark Souls would be more apt. Sure there is some co op in those games, but it is highly limited and was designed around the idea that most of the time you would be alone.

In the end we don't know a ton about the story yet other than that it is weak to average according to like 1-2 reviewers. But again, is the story of Skyrim worth a crap? It is the open world sandbox environment, combat, and character customization that will make or break the game.

I mean don't get me wrong, i'm not saying, "MAN THIS GAME WOULD HAVE BEEN A 10/10 IF IT WERE MULTIPLAYER!" I know how capcom does multiplayer, we're all better off this way.

But that being said, I feel from the way capcom teams do single player games to the way they do multiplayer games, there's definitely a tone when developer is actively trying to tell a very pointed story towards the player. Look at the DMC series, very pointed, very direct, only one method of intepretation. Now look at Lost Planet 2. Very vague, very open to interpretation, made very much to be enjoyed by multiple people. If this was really going to be a single game since day one, I can't see capcom going so vague, considering they are pointedly flashy when it comes to single player.

My biggest point is that, if you're looking for some sort of amazing story to keep you moving, you're going to be disappointed. And true, skyrim's story wasn't anything amazing, but what kept me playing skyrim for 120 hours was the journey across the massive world and being able to explore. Telling the story of my character through the nodes that were placed throughout the world was enough drive to keep me moving. And to keep things spiced up, you'd occasionally see crazy stuff like a mammoth fighting a gang of sabercats or something, something that I'm worried we won't see as much in this game (but that's a different discussion). I TRULY hope that there's enough interesting stuff to keep the gameplay fun and engaging. The worst thing for this game would be for nighttime to be a chore instead of a fight, or for each major story quest to be to walk to one end of the countryside, then go back to town, rinse, repeat, and that's the only way you grow.

I want this game to be good. But I am cynical as fuck about it right now.

#41 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -

This is not monster hunter get over it

#42 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@VDay said:

@Mesoian said:

You haven't seen the part in the story about the Pawn Rift and the multiple arisen yet have you?

Actually I have, I just didn't make the mental leap you did and assume that clearly that means that you were meant to jump between worlds and play the whole story co-op. If you got a review copy and have played through the entire game already then that'd be one thing, but you're apparently basing all of this off of the same videos I've watched and a natural distrust of Capcom. Like I said, it sounds like you're pretty set so there's no point trying to actually discuss this with you, especially if you're going to end your posts with sentences like this as if you're citing facts instead of just your own opinion:

Trust me, most of what you're going to see in this game, story wise, would feel more at home in a game like Phantasy Star Online.

How is that a leap of logic? They made a network where characters can be transported from "world to world" and follow the arisen. SOUNDS LIKE A MULTIPLAYER HUB TO ME! Come on dude. Hell, the multiplayer in White Knight Chronicles IS EXACTLY THIS. You make a pawn, you join other people's games and you do quests very similar to the quests in DD. Not that outlandish.

#43 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

My biggest point is that, if you're looking for some sort of amazing story to keep you moving, you're going to be disappointed. And true, skyrim's story wasn't anything amazing, but what kept me playing skyrim for 120 hours was the journey across the massive world and being able to explore. Telling the story of my character through the nodes that were placed throughout the world was enough drive to keep me moving. And to keep things spiced up, you'd occasionally see crazy stuff like a mammoth fighting a gang of sabercats or something, something that I'm worried we won't see as much in this game (but that's a different discussion). I TRULY hope that there's enough interesting stuff to keep the gameplay fun and engaging. The worst thing for this game would be for nighttime to be a chore instead of a fight, or for each major story quest to be to walk to one end of the countryside, then go back to town, rinse, repeat, and that's the only way you grow.

I want this game to be good. But I am cynical as fuck about it right now.

Sounds to me like we are on the same page either way, I am just more optimistic about the game. I have a feeling you will be satisfied though. I have seen video's with Cyclops fighting bandits, players getting thrown in jail cause they tossed a guard off a roof, the game has all the open world mischief stuff there. I hope the story is stronger than I expect it to be but I am down with stories that are open to interpretation anyway. My favorite small team based RPG is and always has been D&D 2nd edition with a group of me and 4 other dudes at a dinner table with dice after all. Well we may need some chips and or some mountain dew too.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.