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.

After listening to the 3 OXM videos about the systems and whatnot, I'd say that giving the game multiplayer co-op would totally fuck up the whole pawn system (Which sounds like a really deep, cool system)

Also, why does every game need to have multiplayer?

Nope. I certainly don't care about a lack of co-op. Some games don't need to be multiplayer experiences, regardless of how well the format might lend itself.

Ok, so this game seems pretty sweet and all, but there's this one glaring flaw 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 absolutely no sense to 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 you could just let people play as the 'pawns'! How hard is that?

Does this bother anyone else? Usually I just sort of grumble to myself about lack of co-op, but this design choice is simply baffling to me.

Half-baked ideas that are then poorly implemented? In a Japanese game?

Get outta town.

I prefer games with no multiplayer.

@The_Laughing_Man said:

From what I have seen its a massive world with deep systems. Not every game needs multiplayer or co op.

@HotSauceMagik said:

Also, why does every game need to have multiplayer?

I completely agree that not every game needs it. It just seems really bizarre to set up what is essentially a co-op system, and then not actually have it. Everything else I've seen of this game looks awesome, I just find this an odd design choice.

This game is so fucking weird.

I'm going to have to wait on reviews. Hopefully Giantbomb really gives a lengthy quick look or says something. It looks great, but so did Lost Planet 2. Wonky controls and iffy mechanics is what I heard from E3 events, oh also it's capcom.

You do realize it's extremely difficult to implement co-op in a deep, open world game like this right? As in it's rarely done. RPGs that are based around co-op or feature it are usually more of the dungeon crawler variety. Open world games that have co-op are usually action games like Saints Row that have much less going on mechanically. That's why they didn't do it probably. And ultimately, in working around this problem, they seem to have developed a very interesting system that hits some of the notes that co-op RPGs do while having unique mechanics unlike other games.

@MarkWahlberg said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

From what I have seen its a massive world with deep systems. Not every game needs multiplayer or co op.

@HotSauceMagik said:

Also, why does every game need to have multiplayer?

I completely agree that not every game needs it. It just seems really bizarre to set up what is essentially a co-op system, and then not actually have it. Everything else I've seen of this game looks awesome, I just find this an odd design choice.

As I say above, I see it much less of a "design choice" and more of a working around limitations.

@Doctorchimp: i expect it'll score okay but not great, mainly for technical reasons. but it seems to have heart, lots of interesting ideas and possibilities for fun - i'm definitely going to pick it up unless there's something cripplingly awful about it i haven't caught wind of yet

@drag said:

@Doctorchimp: i expect it'll score okay but not great, mainly for technical reasons. but it seems to have heart, lots of interesting ideas and possibilities for fun - i'm definitely going to pick it up unless there's something cripplingly awful about it i haven't caught wind of yet

Yeah, I mean I'm not looking for a 90+ metacritic.

But if the reviews saying Capcom was right and the world is huge, expansive and cool to roam around in I'm all in. I just don't want it to be a lie where the world is huge but you're funneled down missions and the combat is busted. Also all the good weapons are hidden behind DLC packs.

A little caution is all I'm exercising.

I don't care about multiplayer, really. I own some games supporting multiplayer, and never use it.

Dragon's Dogma looks great so far and I'm positive I'll enjoy it just the way it is :)

Apparently they spent an absolute fortune developing this game. I think it's Capcom's most expensive property yet.

I may not have multiplayer, but the online component of loaning pawns sounds like a neat feature.

I'm of the opinion that literally every Capcom title besides Street Fighter is convoluted and awkwardly outdated in ways that are inexcusable at this point, but for some reason I'm actually pretty excited about this. Reminds me of the Souls games, which are among my favourite this gen.

The lack of multiplayer is really weird, but I'll get over it - games like this are in short supply.

I really do wish it had traditional co-op. I love playing games with friends and have been anticipating this title for quite some time, but the lack of co-op really sucks since it seems like it would be fun.

Yeah I think pretty much every game should have co-op, especially RPGs. Makes grinds a lot less boring.

@MikkaQ said:

Yeah I think pretty much every game should have co-op, especially RPGs. Makes grinds a lot less boring.

I'm of the opposite view. There's no need to shoehorn co-op into every game out there. If Dragon's Dogma is an entertaining single-player game, that's good enough for me.

I'm glad the game has no multiplayer. If the developers feel the game is better without it then they should not be forced to do so. Too many games are just throwing multiplayer in for a bullet point of the back of the box.

No co-op is disappointing. This genre is pretty much perfect for it.

@Hailinel said:

@MikkaQ said:

Yeah I think pretty much every game should have co-op, especially RPGs. Makes grinds a lot less boring.

I'm of the opposite view. There's no need to shoehorn co-op into every game out there. If Dragon's Dogma is an entertaining single-player game, that's good enough for me.

My problem is when they divide resources by implementing a whole separate multiplayer mode. Co-op is a fairly simple feature to implement by comparison. It needs little-to-no extra art assets and is easily ignored when not desired. For me it adds a lot of value to a game.

Not a fan of online co-op either, the entire point for me is to be able to play through a game with the person next to me on the couch, like with Contra and Double Dragon back in the day.

I don't really care for the lack of co-op. But if that's what you really want, you should play Monster Hunter.

Ugh, what is with you people?!

Leave co-op for the shooters and silly action/adventure platformers since those people seem to be either too stupid or just plain lazy to handle such genres. Yes, co-op is good and fun in some cases (like racing games or sports) but with RPG games, you tackle everything on your own. It's your world, your experience. Don't shoehorn co-op into every genre simply because you want to have your online "friends" joining you. Did Skyrim or Oblivion have co-op? No, and it didn't need it either. This is the one genre co-op can be dismissed.

Just poking thru here but jesus I find myself confused now what is "Traditional Coop" in games. Just a question and btw I see this games day/night cycle really cool kinda stalkerish actually so I'm excited to see how it turns out.

It seems like having another person there would just distract you from the experience. Not every game needs co-op.

It's like the way I love to watch terrible horror movies with friends, but I'd never watch say, 2001: A Space Odyssey with those people because they wouldn't be able to shut the fuck up. It's just a different type of experience.

Confused about all these people saying its weird for an RPG not to have co-op, I can't actually remember any that do.

Way to stick it to the PC crowd...for the 1000th time.

I liked what I saw in the OXM previews, and lack of co-op is not going to turn me off this game. Games are almost always more fun with a friend or two, but not every game has to have it.

This game looks fucking incredible. Lack of co-op isn't going to hurt this at all IMO. I always find anyone I end up trying to play co-op games with rushes. I like to explore every little nook and cranny for items and generally take my time, ESPECIALLY with RPG's.

@ModerateViolence: I think it's because the game feels more of a Monster Hunter with more RPG elements, and pretty much every monster hunter-ish game has multiplayer.

True, but if you look at the history of RPG games, you come to find out that those that did include co-op didn't really fit. Like Fable 2 or some of the later Final Fantasy's. It was shoehorned in and pretty lame. Plus, in an open world it's not going to work anyways. Most co-op games are segmented into levels, if your partner were to work on the main quest, you would either have to be teleported also, or be left forgotten.

@HotSauceMagik said:

After listening to the 3 OXM videos about the systems and whatnot, I'd say that giving the game multiplayer co-op would totally fuck up the whole pawn system (Which sounds like a really deep, cool system)

Also, why does every game need to have multiplayer?

I100% agree

@Beeezer said:

True, but if you look at the history of RPG games, you come to find out that those that did include co-op didn't really fit. Like Fable 2 or some of the later Final Fantasy's. It was shoehorned in and pretty lame.

Ugh *shudders* Don't remind me. To be fair though, everything in Fable 2 was kind of crap, so you can't really single that part out. But yeah. That was shit. What final fantasy had co-op, though? I thought they were all single except for that mmo.

@yinstarrunner said:

It seems like having another person there would just distract you from the experience. Not every game needs co-op.

It's like the way I love to watch terrible horror movies with friends, but I'd never watch say, 2001: A Space Odyssey with those people because they wouldn't be able to shut the fuck up. It's just a different type of experience.

That's a good argument, but it'll be hard to say whether that really applies until we actually play the game.

Again, I'm not making this argument because I think this type of game needs any form of multi; I'm just confused by their instead implementing a system that, based on what I've seen, seems to mimic it.

I'm actually really looking forward to this version of Multiplayer - I have old friends from school and my hometown that aren't always able to meet up to play with me (they go to work when I get home from work etc). It will be nice to be able to trade characters around and still interact even without being online at the same time.

Actually, when you look at what they've done, it's a bit like Pokemon. You can trade your little guys around to other people (they gain experiences, items, and learn to help you-the player.) This is a game, that if these new mechanics can work and work relatively well, might actually change things for once. Any form of multiplayer in this style of game would have to have as much depth and be as solid as the single-player experience to work.

@Beeezer: That actually just occurred to me yesterday (i think I said something about it in another thread). Nice to know I'm not the only one to see it.

Yeah, as with some other handheld games (names escape me at the moment) this form of "co-op" actually works. You still get the single player experience, but with the added bonus of letting the online community take part. The only problem is that some might exploit this feature to power through the game, but that's to be expected in the game community. As with how useful this function is offline? That's to be determined at launch.

@MarkWahlberg:

@Beeezer said:

Yeah, as with some other handheld games (names escape me at the moment) this form of "co-op" actually works. You still get the single player experience, but with the added bonus of letting the online community take part. The only problem is that some might exploit this feature to power through the game, but that's to be expected in the game community. As with how useful this function is offline? That's to be determined at launch.

Actually just for the record this isn't how the Pawn system works. The only Pawn that can be recruited by other players is your Main Pawn which you create in your own game. Outside of the fact that you don't control them directly and they can't be a hybrid class they are basically like a second main character. You can gear them, they level with you, you pick their class and skills etc. You can even change their appearance at an in game barber and or change their class and skill set up at the inn.

The thing is your main pawn only levels with you though. If your buddy Bobby G recruits your main pawn to help him first off.... you have to be offline/not playing or he can't recruit your main pawn to begin with. Secondly your MP gains no exp when helping your buddy, their exp is locked they can only level when teamed with you. Lastly the only loot they even get is based on what items your buddy gives to them in their game and I think some randomly generated stuff based on what they did (maybe). So while a REALLY nice dude might be able to load you up with some gear this way (no idea if gear is level gated) you will never suddenly have this billy bad ass as a pawn because he did stuff while you were at work.

The real benefit is that if they helped kill a Chimera they will now know what to do when you run into a Chimera for the first time. Or if they do some weird quest that sends you all over the back of beyond when you do that quest they will be able to tell you where to go. Of course you can always ignore them anyway.

Also for the record not all pawns are actually other characters pawns. Bunches of them are just dudes wandering around in game you just hire out, so you don't have to play online to get pawns for your team. Also only your main pawn levels with you, your two secondary pawns will never level. Point being you don't keep them with you for good when you out level them you recruit someone new. So it is basically a bromance between you and the MP with two other schmucks hanging out here and there, unless of course one or both of you is female. Hmmmm hawt.

PS: Why am I bumping all this stuff today for some reason? I must be bored.

@MarkWahlberg said:

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.

Seems logical...people online playing multiplayer are often in it for themselves. Very very very few other players would be there to improve your experience, your goals (unless so limited that all goals are the same), and they will not be in it for your enjoyment. Multiplayer games work when there are limits, we saw this well demonstrated in Journey (thatgamecompany) where multiplayer was limited to seamless drop in drop out where people couldn’t speak and interaction was limited so much you didn't even know who was who. That is what people marveled at...no swearing, no jerks, no waiting for people to catch up, etc. Multiplayer is not a great experience in most cases because even the nicest folks will commit mild griefing behavior while playing just because they want to "test limits".

I cannot imagin playing a "real" story based action RPG with other people...they would screw up my game...not even in a interactive and thoughful way even...just a silly pointless griefing way. The proper way to have a party or group in an RPG is going to be AI most of the time because people are people, who as gamers, are ruled by the pleasure principle, demanding satisfaction now, regardless of circumstances and possible undesirable effects. That AI while limited until were make energant thought AI has teh advanatge fo being "on task & in the moment" the whole game through.

Multiplayer would work just fine. Those saying it wouldn't are either completely submitting themselves to the word of the Capcomian Lords, or they really fucking hate other people.

Seeing how the pawn system works (there is another customizable character built into the story) it would be feasible for another player to either import their character as a substitute, or simply use your pawn - the second player immediately has a connection to the world by virtue of them mattering. The most noteworthy drawback would be developing the infrastructure, which would take time and money. That's probably the only real reason we don't see MP in the game. Oh, and the fact that Capcom has notoriously awful netcode. I cannot imagine what issues they would run into with an open world game. Shit. I'm gonna have nightmares now.

EDIT: Not saying that the lack of multiplayer ruins the game, or anything. After playing the demo, I'm super excited. SUPER. I merely think that a compelling multiplayer experience would have been a feasible goal.

@TheDudeOfGaming: It's made by Japanese developers, they have no idea how the hell to develop for PC.