Dragon's Dogma II - "They’re masterworks, all – you can’t go wrong"

[mediocrepoet]

I spend like 5 mins in character creation. You get a helmet within like ten minutes of the game and then never see your face again.

You can always let the visor up, games allows it for a bunch of helmets

yeah and then you spend 90 percent of the game looking at your character from behind anyway. Ass flap on the trousers would be more useful than the visor

+1 Adventurer's Onesie of Chutzpah

 

[mediocrepoet]

Out of curiosity, who thinks of this game's kingdom as Vere... whatever. I keep mentally calling it Gransys and Gran Soren before remembering and then shrugging and saying meh.

 

[Fink]

yeah, idk what it is but to me gransys and gran soren are much more evocative names than vermund and vernworth.

 

[Fink]

Since finishing DD2 I've been replaying DDDA for a bit; in general the atmosphere is way better than in the sequel. Just simple things that matter to me like cool place names, texture of UI elements.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Since finishing DD2 I've been replaying DDDA for a bit; in general the atmosphere is way better than in the sequel.

Interesting.

I prefer DD2 for the main world, but haven't seen anything as good as BBI, not that I expected to either. It'll be the DLC(s?) that will make or break it for me. For now, I'm reasonably pleased.

Just simple things that matter to me like ... texture of UI elements.

What? Weird. What does that even mean? Actually, perhaps more accurately, what does that mean that you're noticing with regard to DDDA vs DD2?

Because I've certainly seen games with really cheapass mobile shovelware looking UI elements that turn me off because it's like watching one of Prosper's projects.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

Out of curiosity, who thinks of this game's kingdom as Vere... whatever. I keep mentally calling it Gransys and Gran Soren before remembering and then shrugging and saying meh.

There's a reason I just keep saying "capital". It's easier.

 

[Fink]

To me the DD2 UI has this sort of neon, sleek-modern thing going on - particularly in the vitals bars and button guide - while the DDDA UI feels like illustrated parchment.

 

[Zariusz]

Vermund would be more interesting if its southern part had mediterranean architecture. The mountainous regions are great though, i loved that secret mountain pass to Battahl through rainy valleys, great feeling of adventure.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Out of curiosity, who thinks of this game's kingdom as Vere... whatever. I keep mentally calling it Gransys and Gran Soren before remembering and then shrugging and saying meh.

Vermont, dude.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

A few more updates and this will be one of the greatest games ever made. It's already better than Elden Ring even with it's herpes and genital warts. The possibilities of this game are endless.

 

[Suicidal]

So turns out

Spoiler

there is a pretty big dungeon next to the starting encampment full of saurians that also has a chimera

Spoiler

that also has a breakable wall leading into another dungeon full of undead including a lich

I wonder how many normies found it right at the start of the game, entered it, died and uninstalled the game.

Also fighting enemies like the chimera and the lich is a lot cooler than in DD1. In DD1 non-black chimeras barely did anything and liches mostly just floated around and died in 2 seconds to holy magic. Here they use a lot more different spells and can kill you quite easily if you're not careful.

 

[Crayll]

At 66 hours in, finally reached

Ending spoilers

the postgame. Cleared the true ending at 72 hours. Pretty good amount of content considering I purposefully left a few areas unexplored, some vocations untouched, and a lot of quests not done to save some new things for a second playthrough.

Story felt rushed towards the end, but the unmoored world made up for it, really enjoyed that. Would've liked to see regular enemy spawns overhauled like in DD1, but the insanity of adding a pseudo-permadeath mode in at the last second is exactly the kind of thing I wanted from a Dragon's Dogma sequel. Seeing the special game over and realizing what had just happened had me feeling like I did beating the OG Grigori and seeing the full Everfall for the first time.

The specifics of this story's cycle had me a little confused at first, but I'm guessing the rules of the world are just different than DD1. The watching one didn't really seem like the seneschal especially since there's nothing about you taking over for him.

Couple complaints, the Grigori fight sucks compared to the first and there should've been a special boss for the true ending. Even though the seneschal was hilariously easy it was a great setpiece and really stuck with me. The bit with your pawn at the end of 2 was nice, but it was still lacking.

Overall a great game despite clearly being rushed Capcom, straight improvement over the original in every way except for dungeon design and monster variety (if you factor in Dark Arisen). Also the story if only because there wasn't enough Grigori.
Hoping for a DLC that gives another huge landmass to run around in plus a megadungeon or two.

 

[Spike]

I finally have my new MALE HUMAN FIGHTER Arisen! With, of course, my qt squad. The leading lady, a smoking hot archer.

I present to thee: Arisen's Angels.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

A few more updates and this will be one of the greatest games ever made. It's already better than Elden Ring even with it's herpes and genital warts. The possibilities of this game are endless.

It’s not even in the same league. Get fucking real.

And it’s even mildly disappointing as a sequel, generally speaking.
Very few improvements over the first and hardly any attempts to actually address the flaws of the original.

Starting with the brain dead difficulty curve and the shockingly idiotic idea to limit AGAIN the player to a single character, no matter what.

 

[Fedora Master]

Should have made him a beastren

Illusionist Arisen named Howard with a black beastren pawn named NIGGERMAN

 

[Anonona]

And it’s even mildly disappointing as a sequel, generally speaking.
Very few improvements over the first and hardly any attempts to actually address the flaws of the original.

Starting with the brain dead difficulty curve and the shockingly idiotic idea

All of this could be said about Elden Ring too. A game that feel like a rehash despite being promised that it would be something different to the Souls games, hardly any mechanical improvement, if any, compared to its immediate predecessor, uses fuckton of reskinned enemies and reuses bosses, the world is a chore to explore for the most part, full on inconsequential catacombs, caves, mines and Heroes' Tombs, very tired boss design, short as fuck if you only do the main story but way too long if you do side-quest, and hardly enough of the real meat of the game, which are the Legacy Dungeons.

Combat system is pretty much the same than other souls games, and in some instances even worse due to how it is balanced, making things like Ashes of War king or jumping attacks way too useful, so the already simple combat that has hardly evolved since Demon's Souls becomes just about spamming a single attack unless you restrain yourself. For some reason now things like the kick and parry are Ashes of War, so your base moveset is more limited, which boggles the mind when the core moveset already needed more options, not less. Many enemies are reused from past games and the game has like 100 ways of being trivialize, either by using a broken weapon, ash of war, bleed or certain spells. Hell, level up VIT first and until the Forbidden Lands the game will be a cakewalk. And then suddenly it jumps in difficulty after the capital, no because enemies are better designed, but because their stats are cranked up. Which may be inconsequential anyway if you use any of the broken shit.

I like Elden Ring too, but is overrated as fuck and not that dissimilar to DD2 when it comes to shortcomings. At least DD2 combat is more unique, as well as more technological impressive considering how the game physics play a role on them yet is stable as a rock and extremelly rarely does it "breaks", without mentioning how the world designs is more interesting than the vast expanses of nothing of Elden Ring. To me, any game that lets you ride a horse is usually a red flag, because now the world has to be streeched to accomodate the speed of the mount, which usually means the world becomes a lot of nothing and tedious to navigate.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

All of this could be said about Elden Ring too. A game that feel like a rehash despite being promised that it would be something different to the Souls games, hardly any mechanical improvement, if any, compared to its immediate predecessor, uses fuckton of reskinned enemies and reuses bosses, the world is a chore to explore for the most part, full on inconsequential catacombs, caves, mines and Heroes' Tombs, very tired boss design, short as fuck if you only do the main story but way too long if you do side-quest, and hardly enough of the real meat of the game, which are the Legacy Dungeons.

Yeah, I mean, it COULD be said, mostly by clueless morons.

ER is a game that expanded significantly on what the previous From Soft games did, delivered quantity AND quality in spades for most of his course, maintaining a decent level of challenge across the board, etc.
It's also a game that offered a MASSIVE amount of variety (with a certain dose of padding on top, admittedly), while DD2 has only the padding to show off and not the baseline variety to back it up.
In fact, the game is almost in that nefarious "Breath of the Wild" tier when it comes to an astonishing lack of enemy variety. What's worse is that most of them seem to come straight from the first game.
Vistas/scenarios aren't really doing that much better. Bar a couple of notable spots most of the two "biomes" in the game have a same-y feeling across the board.

And the fact that the game goes out of its way to PUNISH me if I want to restart a new playthrough with a new character for whatever reason is nothing short of demented design.

Combat system is pretty much the same than other souls games

Yeah... It kinda helps that it's always been good. And they kept refining it.

so the already simple combat becomes just about spamming a single attack

I will never take any reductionist "Just spamming an attack" or "Just rolling all the time" take on these games seriously.
It doesn't help your case that once you accept to do that, the judgement over other action series has to become even less charitable.

I like Elden Ring too, but is overrated as fuck and not that dissimilar to DD2 when it comes to shortcomings.

"Overrated" is a vague buzzword.
What I can say is that ER has been a game that offered so many good moments, interesting discoveries and amusing fights it started to feel like a classic in the middle of playing it. No need for nostalgia to kick in.
Dragon's Dogma 2 is the exact opposite so far. It's the game that I anticipated for years under the assumption "If they polish the rough spots of the first it's going to be a jewel" and it's constantly bumming me down.
It's arguably not even superior to the first in every area, let alone improving things across the board.

At least DD2 combat is more unique, as well as more technological impressive considering how the game physics play a role on them

I mean, it could be, if it leveraged its strengths better and didn't play itself half of the time (you could literally sit back and let your pawns do most of the work in most situations). Also, if it didn't make every single encounter feel so repetitive and unengaging.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I'll also take the chance to let you kids on the spectrum know that spamming a "Disagree" reaction isn't a compelling rebuttal, by the way.

 

[Anonona]

ER is a game that expanded significantly on what the previous From Soft games did, delivered quantity AND quality in spades for most of his course, maintaining a decent level of challenge across the board, etc.

I guess making it open world is a way of expanding it, at least in the size of the map. Quantity, yes, quality, so-so, the design of enemies is kind of uneven, even of bosses, not any of them are really that different from past games. And the decent level of challenge is straight up not true. It is pretty much schizophrenic in this aspect. Following the "intended" path, you have Marggit, that is harder than Godrick who is harder than Rennala, yet Radahn is arguably harder than all of those, and then Morgot is easier than Radahn, and then the Fire Giant is easier than Morgot, and then Malenia is harder than anybody, and Maliketh first phase is harder than the second, and them Godfrey is arguably easier than Morgot even, and then Radagon is harder than Elden Beast but both are at the level of Morgot.

And this following the "intended path" more or less, and not taking into account using busted shit like, for example, a bleed twinblade you can get in Limgrave for example, to fucking destroy most of the enemies. Seriously, it felt like a bad joke in one of my replays when I decided to go with twinblade bleed and Margit transformed from a decent challenge into a fucking joke, so much so I lost the will to continue that build because I was killing everything with no effort. And the only thing I did was adding bleed to a twinblade. And you even have to ignore basic mechanics like spirit summoning cause it really fucking trivializes most fights.

It's also a game that offered a MASSIVE amount of variety (with a certain dose of padding on top, admittedly), while DD2 has only the padding to show off and not the baseline variety to back it up.

I disagree, Elden Ring doesn't have a "massive" amount of variety. Reskinned enemies like the soldiers and knights, using regular enemies as bosses in side content to a degree not other souls game has ever done. Enemies from past games are reused with new skins. Some enemy types are pretty much not even a blip on the players radar as their moveset is insignificant. And when it comes to enemy design in DD2, the enemies are far more interesting on average than ER due to the nature of combat. A Cyclops and the possible interactions it has are quite a lot more interesting than a Troll in ER for example.

In fact, the game is almost in that nefarious "Breath of the Wild" tier when it comes to an astonishing lack of enemy variety. What's worse is that most of them seem to come straight from the first game.
Vistas/scenarios aren't really doing that much better. Bar a couple of notable spots most of the two "biomes" in the game have a same-y feeling across the board.

The first point right here is bullshit and you know it. Even if the bestiary is small, it is better than BotW in number, and don't get me started in quality. And regarding the second point, then I guess is a matter of subjective opinion. I find the map design satisfying. Vermund alone has very distinct areas like the forest, the misty marshes and the mountains, which are different to navigate and have each one interesting locales.

And the fact that the game goes out of its way to PUNISH me if I want to restart a new playthrough with a new character for whatever reason is nothing short of demented design.

Can't disagree here. I think it may be tied to the pawn system.

Yeah... It kinda helps that it's always been good. And they kept refining it.

I mean, I wouldn't call it good. Is serviceable. The game really depends a lot on bosses and enemy design because the combat alone cannot carry it and even then in that aspects they aren't really that impressive. Souls have always been a complete package of exploration, character building and action, for me they are in truth just 3D Castlevanias, with all that it implies; simple combat, top tier exploration and good character building. If it were for the combat alone, they wouldn't really sell.

Contrast with games like Nioh, for example, were so many people claim how the level design is worse, diablo-like loot is lame and the story is laughable, yet the combat alone carries the game, and you can have enemy gauntlet levels and be fucking pleased due to how fun it is. Even fighting basic enemies is fun due to the possibilities and player expression it allows. DD2, while not being as deep as Nioh, it has a very unique combat with tight design and mechanics not usually seen in other games as well as a decent amount of freedom on how to play your vocation through skill selection. Souls have been keeping itself very basic for quite a long time.

Also, they keep "adding", small things, to the combat system, but I wouldn't call it refining it. Sure, they added Ashes of War on DS3, but they took out basic moves like the kick and parries, like I said before, and put them on Ashes of War. Our basic movesets is the same since Demon's Souls, with the only real exception being the new guard counter, which is pretty nice I admit, and the jumping attacks, which we already have but now we are less vertical impaired. Attacks properties are very basic, and once you get a weapon you like for whatever reason, due to how upgrading works, usually it stays with you the whole playthough, never expanding your possibilities with it beyond numbers. In fact the way they add new things is very thoughtless, that is why you have shit like Ashes of War dominating and jump attack and guard counter spamming, which are so fucking good they are almost always the best answer to strong threats, while weak enemies are your classical R1 spam. From a mechanical stand point, stance breaking is probably the best addition, and that shit has been in action games even before Dark Souls came out, like in Monster Hunter. The A part of ARPG in ER and Souls in general is very weak and basic. Not bad, but as the saga progresses and they fail to update the combat system, they cling to trying to mask it by making bosses with more complex and flashy attack patterns, that are yet as simple mechanically as past games.

I will never take any reductionist "Just spamming an attack" or "Just rolling all the time" take on these games seriously.
It doesn't help your case that once you accept to do that, the judgement over other action series has to become even less charitable.

I don't do it, cause otherwise I would get fucking bore of the games, to the point I know I'm actively nerfing myself as I play most of the time. And even if I did, it doesn't invalidate though that the game combat is still lackluster. You can beat games like Nioh abd DMC with only one basic combo and a dodge, still has a myriad of options in the moment to moment combat, which Souls lacks. Also, please, spare me the use of this free of jail card of "if you use this argument, your opinions are invalid" bullshit. If anything, DD2 suffers from the same issue than ER: both games have certain options that are way too good and you have to no use them if you want to avoid trivializing the game completelly. What DD2 has over ER is that once you restrain yourself, the moment-to-moment options that DD2 gives you are far more interesting than what ER offers.

What I can say is that ER has been a game that offered so many good moments, interesting discoveries and amusing fights it started to feel like a classic in the middle of playing it. No need for nostalgia to kick in.
Dragon's Dogma 2 is the exact opposite so far. It's the game that I anticipated for years under the assumption "If they polish the rough spots of the first it's going to be a jewel" and it's constantly bumming me down.
It's arguably not even superior to the first in every area, let alone improving things across the board.

And for me, my experience with ER has been similar to DD2: started the game very promising, best shit ever, but halfway I was sick and tired of it and its repetitive nature, as well as dissapointed in how it could have been great but they took the worst decisions. Still like it a lot, I think is a very good game, excellent even, but disappointing. My use of overrated may be bad, and the term itself meaningless, yet I find it appropiate when I see how many flaws of the game are forgiven or ignored, and is presented as some great step foward while if anything at times it feels like a step back. You could take all the open world shit out and the game and it would have been better for it, but then it would just be Dark Souls 4, not a bad thing at all, but lets not kid ourselves that the game was a great step foward from past games.

Having said this, I sadly have to agree that in parts DD2 has been a regression in certain aspects and haven't learn about their past mistakes, and I can see why you feel the way you do about the game, even if I disagree that ER is in another league. Despite how it may appear, I consider both fantastic ARPGs, some of my favourites ARPGs even, but deeply flawed. I would even concede that ER achieves better what it sets to do than DD2 does, yet I can't agree on your assesment of its quality.

I mean, it could be, if it leveraged its strengths better and didn't play itself half of the time (you could literally sit back and let your pawns do most of the work in most situations). Also, if it didn't make every single encounter feel so repetitive and unengaging.

Here you are right. I think difficulty is, before anything else, the weakest point of the game and the enemy variety compounds it. Doesn't matter that now each goblins fight differently if you kill them in 1 hit.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Combat system is pretty much the same than other souls games

Yeah... It kinda helps that it's always been good. And they kept refining it.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Yeah... It kinda helps that it's always been good. And they kept refining it.

What? It IS. It'ìs more or less the gold standard in action RPGs.
It's reasonably simple to grasp with a decent skill ceiling for mastery, offers an appreciable challenge without being frustrating or unfair, scales "softly" without having massive snowballing (i.e. even low level enemies remain decently threatening if left unchecked while high level ones can be tough but doable at lower level with an adequate skillset) and it allows a decent degree of variety in playstyles and so on. And it's more than decently aesthetically-pleasing on top.

It's also a combat system tied to games that have compelling or at least competent design in all other areas, avoiding a dreaded "NIOH" situation where the core combat would be good in itself, but everything else from itemization to map design is cancer-tier levels of bad.

It doesn't really matter than a bunch of autistic guys on this forum seem to have a personal vendetta against it and love to dismiss it as "retarded rolling all the time" (while at the same time bending over backward to defend FAR worse stuff like ELEX).
Chances are that whatever "better alternative" you are thinking of while posting a smug and condescending little picture is at most on par with it (or even more likely not an action RPG to begin with).

 

[Turn_BASED]

Yeah... It kinda helps that it's always been good. And they kept refining it.

What? It IS. It'ìs more or less the gold standard in action RPGs.
It's reasonably simple to grasp with a decent skill ceiling for mastery, offers an appreciable challenge without being frustrating or unfair, scales "softly" without having massive snowballing (i.e. even low level enemies remain decently threatening if left unchecked while high level ones can be tough but doable at lower level with an adequate skillset) and it allows a decent degree of variety in playstyles and so on. And it's more than decently aesthetically-pleasing on top.

It's also a combat system tied to games that have compelling or at least competent design in all other areas, avoiding a dreaded "NIOH" situation where the core combat would be good in itself, but everything else from itemization to map design is cancer-tier levels of bad.

It doesn't really matter than a bunch of autistic guys on this forum seem to have a personal vendetta against it and love to dismiss it as "retarded rolling all the time" (while at the same time bending over backward to defend FAR worse stuff like ELEX).
Chances are that whatever "better alternative" you are thinking of while posting a smug and condescending little picture is at most on par with it (or even more likely not an action RPG to begin with).

Amazing Elden Ring combat:

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

List me the better alternatives with equally compelling mechanics and without the "game-breaking builds" and I will take your retardation seriously.
Well, honestly no. Let's say A BIT more seriously, at most.

It's also (somewhat) worth noting that you had to pick a two years old video from 20 rebalance patches before to make your point.

 

[Artyoan]

Out of curiosity, who thinks of this game's kingdom as Vere... whatever. I keep mentally calling it Gransys and Gran Soren before remembering and then shrugging and saying meh.

The setting has a lot less memorable locations than DD1 did, unfortunately. The major city feels like a Gran Soren equivalent but there are less pawn references to it such as 'all roads lead to Gran Soren' and so it feels more like just another location. There is no Cassardis equivalent with the bizarre but pleasant musical theme. No sequence like the griffin blue moon tower (so far). The actual world map is far better but the locations within are not made to be endearing.

Still enjoying the game a lot but I can understand the sour reaction. There should have been more here and more learned from DD1's mistakes. Not only are some mistakes repeated, but they seem to have rushed elements. Again.

 

[Anonona]

Wouldn't really call it the gold standard of ARPGs. In fact the label of ARPG may not be as accurate as one may think to describe what souls are. They way the player is granted his move sets is very telling of this.

In Souls games and derivatives (Bloodborne and Elden Ring) your moveset is decided by your weapon. This may look like something obvious, just like any other ARPG, but it actually is more peculiar that it seems. You have weapon types, like straight swords for example. Usually, a weapon type is characterized by its members sharing similar movesets and/or properties with one another. Therefore, inside that category you have different weapons, like longsword and broadsword. Now while being both straight swords, both have different movesets. Longsword have a thrust as a heavy attack, giving it range, while broadsword have wide swipes for crowd control. And then you can find special weapons like, for example, the Carian Knight Sword which has a special heavy attack with guard point properties. The thing about this is, that the main difference between them are 1-2 attacks, and you must equip the 3 weapons if you want full access to their movesets. Your weapons decide your moveset, not your character. The only exception to this rule are spells and Ashes of War, which are modular.

Now, in contrast, most ARPGs of almost all types, being slower and methodical like Dragon's Dogma, anime over the top like Tales of, or hybrids like Nioh do have one thing in common: your moveset is decided by your character or, in some instances, your weapon type, not your weapon itself. In Dragon's Dogma you have vocations with limited skill slots that allows to customize how you play, in Tales of each character has his own moveset and you have to choose what skills to equip, and Nioh, the most similar to the souls games, each weapon type has a very expansive moveset and a modular system that lets you customize what skills are at your disposal at each moment. It doesn't matter you are using a longsword or a broadsword, if you are a fighter or your character has leveled said weapon type, he will always have access to their full moveset.

This difference is important because each one emphasize an element of gameplay. The second model is an example of combat focused games in which the system are designed around giving a rich and somewhat deep combat experience where the player has access to many options while at the same time allowing certain degree of customization and avoiding becoming full on Hack'n Slash games like DMC by making the player choose and customize their character to perform a certain role in combat. As your character fights he becomes stronger, as he becomes stronger more gameplay options open up and combat becomes deeper, granting the player a learning curve by having a few skills at the beginning and allowing them time to familarize with them as they level up and learn new ones, adapting to the growing complexity of combat.

In the case of Souls games, the system they use is ideal for them, not because it makes combat better, as the second system offers a wider and richer array of choices, but because it makes exploration much more rewarding. Finding a new weapon is not only an increase in power, but also opens up new gameplay styles for the player. Fighting may increase your stats and is true you need a minimum stat requirement for certain weapons and spells, but once the minimun is reached, leveling up is just a matter of bigger numbers. In truth, it is a wonderful system that, while it does has the inconvenience of making it lesser than the other if taken in a vacuum, it compliments the Souls games perfectly and makes for a very satisfying experience. Even spells and Ashes of War, which offer a certain degree of modularity like the second system, are obtained principally by exploring the world, not fighting.

Now, as I said, the label ARPG may not describe precisely what souls games are, at least not entirely. And to explain myself, I would like to compare the game to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and derivatives. Anyone that hasn't play those games and likes From's Souls should try them at least once, because their design philosophies are strikingly similar. Castlevania uses the same system as the Souls, albeit in a more simplified manner: your moveset is decided by which weapons you have equiped, so a sword may do a fast but short ranged stab and another one may do slow but wide vertical slices that make them better at hitting enemies that are higher. Character levels are just about stats and both have a very strong focus on exploration, rewarding the player with more weapons, spells and the like. Combat in both games also has a strong emphasis on enemies and bosses design to offer challenge instead of the combat system itself being the main point. Souls games and their derivatives are very close to Metroidvanias, particularly the -vanias part of it, which also have RPG elements.

So I would say souls combat does lose when comparing to other, combat focused ARPGs. But if you compare to other Metroidvanias or exploration based ARPG, I would actually call them the gold standard of what they should be. I'm not even saying it is bad compared to other ARPGs, is just the perfect fit for what the games really aim to do and do a damn good job at that.