@Detrian said:

@Mesoian said:

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

So I just finished the story.

I'm not embellishing when I say that this game has one of the worst stories in video games. Period. Poorly told, poorly executed, you can see the seems around the things they cut out and areas that they wanted to enhance...It's a complete and utter failure.

But it was awesome to play, even with it's mechanical problems. I would be interested in a dragon's dogma 2.

Edit: Okay, turns out that wasn't the end. And I'm confused. So let's see what happens

Edit 2: Everything in the everflow is bullshit.

Did you get to the actual end? I'm 30 hours in and have yet to meet the duke and I'm level 40.

You are dragging your feet. I finished the game at 40 hours exactly at level 57. You're swiftly going to get to the point where the game is too easy. IMO - do all the story quests so you can get to the late game, where things get interesting again.

The ending was not as crazy as everyone says it is, mostly because the rest of the game is so flat. It's a game built on really interesting ideas, but fails at executing almost every single one. It's too bad...

So you rushed through the game and then say it's flat?

It is flat. But 40 hours is hardly rushing through the game. There are people completing it in 18.

The reason why I pushed forward instead of doing all the side stuff is because, 1, the side stuff in this game is TERRIBLE. All of the board quests are so rubbish they're barely worth doing. You gain more experience fighting Ogres and Cyclopses than walking for 30 minutes babysitting an NPC across the map and dropping them off (though that did help level building early game). And 2, unless you do story quest, the loot lust dries up. New items to buy and make you stronger don't show up unless you finish the story missions. So you want that shiny piece of loot that'll make you look more badass? You have to get to the end game. That's a little lame, but it doesn't matter that much.

And don't get me wrong, this game is fun to play, real fun. But everything outside of combat is TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLE. The interface, the HUD, the narrative, the characters, the dialogue, it's LAUGHABLY terrible. The craziness of the ending loses a lot when the rest of the story has been so bad. It's hard to care about the insanity descending around you when you never cared about any of hte other stuff to begin with. There's a reason why Monster Hunter thrives, and it's not due to it's story, it's due to the gameplay, which this game excels at.

@Mesoian: The exploration is good.

@TentPole said:

@Mesoian: The exploration is good.

It is okay. It would have been better with some sort of faster method of travel. I'm not even talking fast travel persay, so much as....mounts. Horses or something, something that doesn't burn stamina outside of battle. Having to walk everywhere is a bit insufferable.

@Totori said:

@Mesoian: There are some quests that seem generic, but end up with story cutscenes.

Those are story quests. Only story quests have cutscenes. There are optional story quests (which, again, SEVERLY hurts the narrative. I can't imagine anyone giving two craps about Selene if they accidently skipped Quina's missions early in the game), but yeah, only story quests have cutscenes.

As I said, I finished it the game proper last night. I'll write a review probably tomorrow, depending on how busy I get, and I might make a video supplement tomorrow as well since I'm in NG+. I liked it, but there are some important aspects that are severely lacking. Like I said, I'm willing to go in on a Dragon's Dogma 2, but only if they identify their mistakes and learn from them. Because the train wreck of a narrative in this game is just sad. It's not even endearingly bad, you just end up not caring and looking for the next big monster to kill. Something very wrong about that in a game like this. In skyrim, even if you don't care about the main story, the secondary quests were interesting and genuinely engrossing. Nothing comes close to any of that in this game, and it's a shame.

But the combat makes you feel tough, and when it gets hard, it's a real accomplishment when you clear rooms. This game swings real hard.

@Mesoian: There is no difference between a side quest and an optional story quest.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Just picked it up (got a bitchin' deal on some trade-ins as well), played it for about 3 hours and I love it so far.

It reminds me of the Souls games in so far that when I get hit, I get fucking floored and being able to outmaneuver the enemies that are more agile than you and outwit the larger beasts to be so fucking fun. Not to mention that the skill system is pretty fun and the pawn system makes the "feel" a little better than the Souls games from a character building standpoint.

Even though I'm a sucker for a good story, I don't care whether or not anything of interest happens; I just want to fight some dudes. Like, I can foresee stupid amounts of time being put into this game, maybe reaching my SSFIV clock (~600 hours) in a few years or so.

@Mesoian: For what it's worth, I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything you've said entirely.

Haven't finished the game, i'm yet to even meet the duke.

So far:

• the combat is great i'm really liking it
• the pawn system is interesting
• lack of travel options is insufferable, no proper fast travel, no mounts, quests that require walking a huge distances several times over, now combine it with a slow walk/run pace and a constantly draining stamina and monster re spawns and you have a recipe for mind numbing drudgery
• I hate the gear unlocking being tied to story progression and some convoluted merchant idol/affection status (and drop % in chests), i like doing every side quest before moving the story forward and the game blatantly tells you that those will be forefit if you progress, naturally me and my pawns are still faffing about in old gear while i constantly see decked out pawns of others on the road :/
• combine the slow pace of travel with how dependent is gear in terms of what shops have and how gear drops are affected plus how brutal inventory is in this game (and not being on PC i cant mod it) this is really discouraging me from just rolling around and exploring
• no real quicksave option, god how i miss this with an rpg, hours wasted because i can't just hit F5 and keep moving in a split second, haven't encountered anything as archaic in years
• the inventory/equip menus are likewise stuck in game design prehistoric ages, going through your inventory and using/equipping items is a chore, little delays between bigger sections instead of instant response make it even worse
• having to click through several dialogue responses of the smith before even getting to his service list (something you do quite often) ugh
• like most rightly mention the world and characters in it are pretty meh (so far) but this doesn't bother me much

It's a list of mostly negatives now that I look at it, but despite this I'm still having fun with the game because of the cool fights.

This game is rough and not in a difficulty sense. I can look past a lot of little things or bugs in a lot of games and have a very high tolerance to such things to the point where I disagree with reviews for holding such little clunkiness against games. But this is rough in a very core design sense from the ground up every game system is just so unwieldy.

You see Korean MMO's get severely nerfed in the grind department in order to level, for the western audience. This game features a similar disregard for a players personal time. (not expressed in the same way of course, just the end result). So many little simple things that could have made this a much better game.

Played this for like 12 hours yesterday minus a few breaks yesterday. In absolute love with this game. I know I missed a ton of stuff too so a NG+ is in order at some point. Can't wait tonight to get off work to play some more.

@Totori said:

@Tennmuerti: start and select is quicksave.

I know of this, it's not really a quicksave. A proper quicksave is one button press and 1-2 seconds of wait time max, a lot of games manage well under a second or don't have to pause the game at all. One button press and keep moving instantly without any menus is a quick save.

I don't consider pressing a button waiting for the pause menu to load then pressing another button, then waiting half a minute for a save then having to exit the menu - a quicksave, sorry. Not in 2012. It's just a regular save with a tiny shortcut that avoids one more press and yet another menu load.

@Totori said:

@Tennmuerti: start and select is quicksave.

I know of this, it's not really a quicksave. A proper quicksave is one button press and 1-2 seconds of wait time max, a lot of games manage well under a second or don't have to pause the game at all. One button press and keep moving instantly without any menus is a quick save.

I don't consider pressing a button waiting for the pause menu to load then pressing another button, then waiting half a minute for a save then having to exit the menu - a quicksave, sorry. Not in 2012. It's just a regular save with a tiny shortcut that avoids one more press and yet another menu load.

@Totori said:

@Tennmuerti: start and select is quicksave.

I know of this, it's not really a quicksave. A proper quicksave is one button press and 1-2 seconds of wait time max, a lot of games manage well under a second or don't have to pause the game at all. One button press and keep moving instantly without any menus is a quick save.

I don't consider pressing a button waiting for the pause menu to load then pressing another button, then waiting half a minute for a save then having to exit the menu - a quicksave, sorry. Not in 2012. It's just a regular save with a tiny shortcut that avoids one more press and yet another menu load.

@crazyleaves said:

@Tennmuerti

@Totori said:

@Tennmuerti: start and select is quicksave.

I know of this, it's not really a quicksave. A proper quicksave is one button press and 1-2 seconds of wait time max, a lot of games manage well under a second or don't have to pause the game at all. One button press and keep moving instantly without any menus is a quick save.

I don't consider pressing a button waiting for the pause menu to load then pressing another button, then waiting half a minute for a save then having to exit the menu - a quicksave, sorry. Not in 2012. It's just a regular save with a tiny shortcut that avoids one more press and yet another menu load.

When I hit start the menu is there in an instant. If your time is truly that valuable why do you play games?

The save itself takes much more time, or do you read selectively? The entire process is quite deliberate and also breaks the pace as well as wasting time, also making one save more rarely then one would normally do otherwise.

And yes my time is valuable, I only have so much of it after work and other normal social and human functions. I play games because it's a hobby, many games manage not to waste it because of a poor implementation of a certain system that is easily avoidable. I don't mind wasting my time on things I enjoy doing, i do mind wasting it on a poor system that makes me wait as well as not allowing to just hit a button and move on, it's inconvenient, especially when I know it's possible for the very same function to be done much more conveniently and faster to the user, because other developers manage it just fine.

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

@Totori said:

Well then go back to playing PC games then, if that's so horrible.

So what I can't criticize a poor feature now? That's not an excuse, there are games on consoles now that also do quicksaves quite well and actually quick. Or at least checkpoint more frequently on their own. This is a thread for mentioning your thoughts on the game, to me this is a negative and I'm mentioning it amongst others.

A defence that boils down to: "don't play it then" is laughable. You can dislike certain aspects of a game and criticize them while not disliking the game overall.

@TentPole said:

@Mesoian: There is no difference between a side quest and an optional story quest.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Same here. Good thing I wasn't the one who said it. Read my post again.

@Tennmuerti said:

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

...but it does let you do it on the fly...as long as you're not in combat.

I don't understand your argument. Oh wait, are you playing on the PS3?

@Tennmuerti said:

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

...but it does let you do it on the fly...as long as you're not in combat.

I don't understand your argument. Oh wait, are you playing on the PS3?

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

...but it does let you do it on the fly...as long as you're not in combat.

I don't understand your argument. Oh wait, are you playing on the PS3?

It's lets you save whenever you want on the PS3 too

Right, but I think his problem is, and I'm assuming via prior experience with other games like DD on the PS3, that when you quick save, it pulls up the PS3 save menu that all games use, which does take a long time, then prompts him if he wants to save, then saves VERY SLOWLY, then returns him to the game. I played Skyrim on the PS3 and manually saving was a chore everytime, forcing me to move the auto saves up to every 5 minutes.

However, playing on the xbox, all you do is hit back and start and it just saves. It takes about 3 seconds, and you're playing again. Apparently Skyrim was the same way on the 360.

If that's the case, it's less DD's fault and more the playstations fault. that's just how games save on that platform. It's pretty annoying.

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

...but it does let you do it on the fly...as long as you're not in combat.

I don't understand your argument. Oh wait, are you playing on the PS3?

It's lets you save whenever you want on the PS3 too

Right, but I think his problem is, and I'm assuming via prior experience with other games like DD on the PS3, that when you quick save, it pulls up the PS3 save menu that all games use, which does take a long time, then prompts him if he wants to save, then saves VERY SLOWLY, then returns him to the game. I played Skyrim on the PS3 and manually saving was a chore everytime, forcing me to move the auto saves up to every 5 minutes.

However, playing on the xbox, all you do is hit back and start and it just saves. It takes about 3 seconds, and you're playing again. Apparently Skyrim was the same way on the 360.

If that's the case, it's less DD's fault and more the playstations fault. that's just how games save on that platform. It's pretty annoying.

Ah. Well then I dunno. I don't see the problem.

Ah. Well then I dunno. I don't see the problem.

How does the New game plus work in this game? Is there a new game plus? 

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

...but it does let you do it on the fly...as long as you're not in combat.

I don't understand your argument. Oh wait, are you playing on the PS3?

It's lets you save whenever you want on the PS3 too

You can't save in combat. At least not on the PS3.

On the fly to me means, press a button and instantly keep moving/playing.

@Totori said:

@Tennmuerti: Well it's a little ridiculous. The game takes 10 seconds to save instead of 1 second, it's the worst thing in the world. What were you going to cure cancer in that extra 9 seconds?

If you read what I said the time expenditure is not the only issue. It's the whole nature of the process that halts gameplay and makes you jump through hoops too.

Also the difference is not between 1 second and 10 seconds. It's a difference between something that you do without noticing and happens almost instantenously and you are free to do as many times as you like because it is so easy. And on the other hand spending 15-20 seconds dicking around in the menus and waiting staring at the screen just to do a very simple basic game function, that has been done properly in other games time and time again. I hate wasting time on abolutely nothing, waiting for others to do something or waiting where there doesn't need to be waiting is my pet peeve in life. it's time I could be doing something else, like playing moer videogame as an example.

It's also only one such clunky shitty sytem amongst a horde of others in this game that waste time needlessly, it's a cumulative effect of poor design choices and implementation that is avoidable and is avoided in other games.

Your cancer hyperbole is hilarious tho.

@Tennmuerti said:

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Wasting half an hour on a failed quest because a dopy NPC died and I did not save for a while because a shitty save system doesn't allow me to do it on the fly, is a negative thing in my eyes.

...but it does let you do it on the fly...as long as you're not in combat.

I don't understand your argument. Oh wait, are you playing on the PS3?

It's lets you save whenever you want on the PS3 too

You can't save in combat. At least not on the PS3.

On the fly to me means, press a button and instantly keep moving/playing.

@Totori said:

@Tennmuerti: Well it's a little ridiculous. The game takes 10 seconds to save instead of 1 second, it's the worst thing in the world. What were you going to cure cancer in that extra 9 seconds?

If you read what I said the time expenditure is not the only issue. It's the whole nature of the process that halts gameplay and makes you jump through hoops too.

Also the difference is not between 1 second and 10 seconds. It's a difference between something that you do without noticing and happens almost instantenously and you are free to do as many times as you like because it is so easy. And on the other hand spending 15-20 seconds dicking around in the menus and waiting staring at the screen just to do a very simple basic game function, that has been done properly in other games time and time again. I hate wasting time on abolutely nothing, waiting for others to do something or waiting where there doesn't need to be waiting is my pet peeve in life. it's time I could be doing something else, like playing moer videogame as an example.

It's also only one such clunky shitty sytem amongst a horde of others in this game that waste time needlessly, it's a cumulative effect of poor design choices and implementation that is avoidable and is avoided in other games.

Your cancer hyperbole is hilarious tho.

Then you don't want to play console games. You should have waited for the PC version of this game. In all honesty, you should have known better being an avid PC gamer.

@Mesoian said:

@Totori said:

@Mesoian: There are some quests that seem generic, but end up with story cutscenes.

Those are story quests. Only story quests have cutscenes. There are optional story quests (which, again, SEVERLY hurts the narrative. I can't imagine anyone giving two craps about Selene if they accidently skipped Quina's missions early in the game), but yeah, only story quests have cutscenes.

You complain that none of the sidequest have story or cutscenes. But when someone points out that they do, you claim they don't count because they have story and that makes them optional story quest. Tis silly.

Though the story is so bad that it hardly makes a difference to me.

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

Right, but I think his problem is, and I'm assuming via prior experience with other games like DD on the PS3, that when you quick save, it pulls up the PS3 save menu that all games use, which does take a long time, then prompts him if he wants to save, then saves VERY SLOWLY, then returns him to the game. I played Skyrim on the PS3 and manually saving was a chore everytime, forcing me to move the auto saves up to every 5 minutes.

However, playing on the xbox, all you do is hit back and start and it just saves. It takes about 3 seconds, and you're playing again. Apparently Skyrim was the same way on the 360.

If that's the case, it's less DD's fault and more the playstations fault. that's just how games save on that platform. It's pretty annoying.

Oh no it does not use that save system. it uses it's own in game one. On the PS3 you hit start and select and it saves. takes no more than 10 seconds at the max.

False, you hit start, select, confirm save, exit out of the menu. A function that could be one button.

Also doesn't take 10 seconds on the PS3 takes about 15-20, the save itself only takes 10.

@Totori said:

@Mesoian said:

Ah. Well then I dunno. I don't see the problem.

He's probably one of those people that gets mad at previews before movies, because that add 10 minutes more onto the movie time.

Oh oooooh I'm one of those people.

Here I was defending my point (even tho i like the game overall by the way), which you found an issue with and now you're slinging subtle personal insults my way, in indirect replies to others no less.Classy.

Not sure if or how much this has been touched on, but is this very similar to the Souls games? I loved Dark Souls. It had tremendous combat, little to no story, no fast travel (although the short-cuts that opened up were brilliant), a punishing system in which you could lose your progress, repetition and memorization of the enemy placement, and huge, awesome monsters. Is Dragon's Dogma likely to be a good fit for me? It sounds similar in many ways. I had written this game off because of the mixed reviews, but the Game Trailers video review looked pretty solid. I'll likely check out the demo, but I'd really love some input from people who know first hand.

@Mesoian said:

Then you don't want to play console games. You should have waited for the PC version of this game. In all honesty, you should have known better being an avid PC gamer.

Has the PC version been confirmed? Because I have not heard anything, hence why I'm playing it on the PS3.

Also other rpg or openworld games on the consoles offer better systems, such as Skyrim, ME3, Witcher 2, Prototype 2. Either through faster saves or better more frequent checkpointing/autosaves. So i kind of excpect better standards these days. /shrug

What button would you have used? You act like the controller scheme isn't already 100% used up.

@Tennmuerti said:

False, you hit start, select, confirm save, exit out of the menu. A function that could be one button.

@Tennmuerti said:

@Mesoian said:

Then you don't want to play console games. You should have waited for the PC version of this game. In all honesty, you should have known better being an avid PC gamer.

Has the PC version been confirmed? Because I have not heard anything, hence why I'm playing it on the PS3.

Also other rpg or openworld games on the consoles offer better systems, such as Skyrim, ME3, Witcher 2, Prototype 2. Either through faster saves or better more frequent checkpointing/autosaves. So i kind of excpect better standards these days. /shrug

Eh. It's just as easy as to lose a good 45 minutes of progress due to poor checkpointing in those games as it is in DD. Believe me, I had to redo quite a few missions due to the checkpointing system in Skyrim and ME3. Skyrim just has nicer options because Bethesda knows that their games break quite often.

And Capcom seems to be being coy about it, but I'd expect an official announcement at e3 or TGS. Pretty sure DD sold well enough on 360 and PS3 to warrant the PC version. Though, this is Capcpom we're talking about...that PC version may be just as bad, if not worse than the console version (remember RE4?)

@Mesoian said:

What button would you have used? You act like the controller scheme isn't already 100% used up.

@Tennmuerti said:

False, you hit start, select, confirm save, exit out of the menu. A function that could be one button.

Pawn command interface has 2 buttons to say Help! , invetory can be easily moved to one of them (or on the bottom and Come. replaces one of the Help! commands), there you have select freed up for quicksave.

Or also allow more then one save slot, do ocasional 10 minute autosaves, etc.

Solutions exist, they've been done by other console games

I'm enjoying my time with Dragon's Dogma. That early mission where you're escorting a wagon was a lot of fun. Kinda chaotic, but I'm okay with that. Also, climbing on huge monsters is a great feeling. I totally get where people will not like the game and that's fine. For me, this falls in line with stuff like Dead Rising 2 and Dead Island, where there's some built in wonkiness, but there's typically enough of a hook that I have a small well of good will. Sometimes it'll run dry and I need to take a break from the game, but it always replenishes.

I'm enjoying my time with Dragon's Dogma. That early mission where you're escorting a wagon was a lot of fun. Kinda chaotic, but I'm okay with that. Also, climbing on huge monsters is a great feeling. I totally get where people will not like the game and that's fine. For me, this falls in line with stuff like Dead Rising 2 and Dead Island, where there's some built in wonkiness, but there's typically enough of a hook that I have a small well of good will. Sometimes it'll run dry and I need to take a break from the game, but it always replenishes.

This game looks really cool. Patrick's whole notion of every fantasy game trying to imitate The Elder Scrolls is so damn wrong. It really shows that he's only played a couple fantasy games; I just wish he'd make the connection.

@Totori said:

@MuttersomeTaxicab said:

I'm enjoying my time with Dragon's Dogma. That early mission where you're escorting a wagon was a lot of fun. Kinda chaotic, but I'm okay with that. Also, climbing on huge monsters is a great feeling. I totally get where people will not like the game and that's fine. For me, this falls in line with stuff like Dead Rising 2 and Dead Island, where there's some built in wonkiness, but there's typically enough of a hook that I have a small well of good will. Sometimes it'll run dry and I need to take a break from the game, but it always replenishes.

So it's a game with a special kind of taste, that you want from time to time but not every day?

Yeah, that's an excellent way to put it.

@FunExplosions said:

This game looks really cool. Patrick's whole notion of every fantasy game trying to imitate The Elder Scrolls is so damn wrong. It really shows that he's only played a couple fantasy games; I just wish he'd make the connection.

I don't know that he's necessarily positing that every fantasy game is trying to imitate the Elder Scrolls, but I don't know a single company that doesn't want the success of Skyrim, and I can't fathom a company in the business of making fantasy RPGs that didn't look real long and hard at what Skyrim was doing. I'm pretty sure he's able to recognize that Skyrim came out six months ago, too, so it's not like Capcom played that game and said "LET'S DO THIS BUT DO COMBAT BETTER" and then shipped this game six months later. In many, many ways, this feels like an attempt to make a more Western-friendly Monster Hunter. But ultimately, the sad fact is that there aren't a lot of mainstream fantasy action RPGs in recent memory that fall along these lines, so yeah, it's hard to fault him for trotting out the inevitable (and pretty apt) Dark Souls and Skyrim comparisons because that's what a casual reader is probably going to recognize.

I think the majority of people bitching about the game are the same people who don't get the design vision for it. It really is better than Skyrim in every way save for the visuals IMO. The key thing here is that the main gameplay loop you do in both games is combat. One is fun...the other is like playing a glorified game of wack-a-mole.

@MuttersomeTaxicab said:

@FunExplosions said:

This game looks really cool. Patrick's whole notion of every fantasy game trying to imitate The Elder Scrolls is so damn wrong. It really shows that he's only played a couple fantasy games; I just wish he'd make the connection.

I don't know that he's necessarily positing that every fantasy game is trying to imitate the Elder Scrolls, but I don't know a single company that doesn't want the success of Skyrim, and I can't fathom a company in the business of making fantasy RPGs that didn't look real long and hard at what Skyrim was doing. I'm pretty sure he's able to recognize that Skyrim came out six months ago, too, so it's not like Capcom played that game and said "LET'S DO THIS BUT DO COMBAT BETTER" and then shipped this game six months later. In many, many ways, this feels like an attempt to make a more Western-friendly Monster Hunter. But ultimately, the sad fact is that there aren't a lot of mainstream fantasy action RPGs in recent memory that fall along these lines, so yeah, it's hard to fault him for trotting out the inevitable (and pretty apt) Dark Souls and Skyrim comparisons because that's what a casual reader is probably going to recognize.

In that Quick Look, though, he leans way too hard into the whole "yeah, it's alright, but they just can't match up with Skryim" thing. You can even see Vinny uncomfortably disagree with him, at one point finally saying "ehhh... I don't think there necessarily needs to be a Skyrim comparison," or something along those lines. Not all open-worlds need to have tons of shit to do. Look at Shadow of the Colossus. Yeah, they had lizards and fruit, but besides that it was just landscapes and landscapes.

@Totori: Dragon's Dogma is now my favorite open-world RPG from this generation.

I'm the Black Swordsmen, and my pawn will be the White Hawk.

@Totori: Dragon's Dogma is now my favorite open-world RPG from this generation.

I'm the Black Swordsmen, and my pawn will be the White Hawk.

I was hopeful after the demo was released. I liked the combat and pawn system but after playing for an hour or so of the main game I couldn't get past the voice acting and the non-existent story. I know I should probably give it some more time but when game time is a luxury I'd much rather play something I know I'll get some enjoyment out of. It's better to quit while ahead then beat my head for a few hours only to find out I wasn't going to like it much more after that first hour anyways.

Glad to see people are liking it though.

Did anyone listen to the 8-4 Play cast where they talked about DD? Those guys really get the game.

@Demoskinos said:

I think the majority of people bitching about the game are the same people who don't get the design vision for it. It really is better than Skyrim in every way save for the visuals IMO.

I think Skyrim has much better lore. But other than that I agree with what you are saying.

The key thing here is that the main gameplay loop you do in both games is combat. One is fun...the other is like playing a glorified game of wack-a-mole.

Except that a good game of whack-a-mole is a much better experience than swinging that sword around in Skyrim.

@Totori: No, he won't have an afro. No idea if you've read the manga berserk or not so I'll just post a pic from it.

Before anyone asks, yes Capcom has the armor in the game. Oh, and its not DLC or anything like that.

I'm really enjoying it, it is refreshing to have an open world game where your map starts out utterly blank, so the size and scope of the world is an absolute mystery. Seeing a quest marker appear in the distance in unexplored territory is always interesting, makes me wonder what might await. Combat is engaging, Pawn system is quite enjoyable. I actually grow a little attached to some pawns.

I Once had a rather memorable pawn named after Tim the Enchanter off of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He was about lvl 10. Many days and a long time later I pass an old man on the road and speak to him. Was a lvl 30, better geared Tim. The dynamic spawning of pawns into the world from other players is done pretty well.

The lighting, especially at night and in forests is great. Makes a welcome change from night time being essentially just a palette swap. As for story I am enjoying it in parts, recently had a pretty funny scene which addressed the fact that I had made a forgery of a quest item so I could turn that in and keep the original item. That you can even do such a thing is a pretty interesting idea.

I even find myself gazing into the sky to see where the sun is, in order to judge how much more daylight I have. No other open world game really makes me do that. It is refreshing to have something approach from the angle Dragon's Dogma does, rather than the scaled enemies and loot, fast travel, etc. Approach that things have moved to now. Reminds me of my time spent playing Morrowind, in which I was having to actively look at road signs for directions, and cross reference with the paper map that came with the game. I have missed games involving me in the world to that extent. Dragon's Dogma kind of matches that desire, throws in enjoyable combat and some interesting systems along with an okay story that seems to have some choices to make.

It isn't perfect, but it may be the most enjoyable open world RPG I have played in some time.

@Aquablak: Honestly, I don't think it's at all similar to Dark Souls. Combat is a lot more rapid, and although being careful with the conbat can be really rewarding, in terms of figuring out what combos work and stuff, it also really frequently devolves into mashing for me. Also there's an element of randomness to it that means it will never be as measured or precise as DS (eg, the fact you have no control over the weapon buffs your pawns are giving you). Also, non-fighter classes have no block that I can see - so whereas in DS you almost never want to get hit, DD seems a lot more about making sure you don't get hit too much, if you know what I mean. Also, as someone said in another thread, it's more about taking on mobs than one on one combat like DS.

There is quite a lot of story compared to DS, although a lot of it is really badly explained (a lot of moments when you finish a quest and someone says something about what you just did that was in no way conveyed during the quest). So you could say there is no story, but it's not in the deliberate way of Dark Souls at all. There are shortcuts but only a couple, and they all take a bit of time to travel in themselves, but the world is a lot more expansive than Lordran. Also, Dark Souls did give you a sort of fast travel after a while anyway.

The only way in which I can see any similarities between the two is the monster design to be honest, and even then, I haven't seen any monsters on the scale of some bosses in DS (although I'm not too far through the game yet, I guess).

I don't want to say it's a bad game, I'm really enjoying it, but it is nothing like Dark Souls, imo.

@Demoskinos said:

I think the majority of people bitching about the game are the same people who don't get the design vision for it. It really is better than Skyrim in every way save for the visuals IMO.

I think Skyrim has much better lore. But other than that I agree with what you are saying.

The key thing here is that the main gameplay loop you do in both games is combat. One is fun...the other is like playing a glorified game of wack-a-mole.

Except that a good game of whack-a-mole is a much better experience than swinging that sword around in Skyrim.