In my old age, I’ve grown to love Western-RPGs, a genre that bored me silly in my youth. With Dragon Age 2 – one of my most anticipated games of the year – being a bit of a misstep, my eyes have fallen to Oblivion’s sequel, Skyrim. One of the things I love about W-RPG’s is the expansive single player campaign that tends to suck you riiiight in, absorbing your entire being from start to completion.
It seems Skyrim’s director agree with me, because the game won’t be getting a needlessly shoehorned multiplayer component. Hooray! Bethesda’s Todd Howards explains why.
Speaking to IGN, Howard said the developer has often courted the idea of multiplayer, but in the end, it “always loses”.”The two most requested features we get are dragons and multiplayer. We got one of them this time,” he said.”We always look into multiplayer, put lots of ideas on the whiteboard and it always loses. It’s not that we don’t like it. I can think of ways it would be a lot of fun.”One of the reasons they’ve shied away from adding players to theÂ the RPG is that the core team would have to divert their attention away from crafting a fine single-player experience .”At the end of the day, that dev time is going to take away from doing the best single-player game we can, and that’s where our hearts are.”
I’m pretty happy about that. I’ve often moaned about the wasted development hours put in to adding a pointless multiplayer component to games that don’t need them, something we’ve seen recently with BioShock 2 and Dead Space 2. More often than not, the multiplayer just plain sucks, and acts aÂ short diversion before people go back to playing Call of Duty. Me? I’d take dragons over multiplayer any day.
Source : IGN
Last Updated: April 1, 2011