ok guys,

so I am relatively new to Action-RPG's. The only series I have played is Mass Effect (1 and 2) and I love them to death. I was looking into the medieval side of the genre and came across games such as Skyrim, Dragons Dogma, Risen, Dragon Age etc. I have crossed out Risen and Dragon Age. This leaves me with Skyrim and Dragons Dogma.

From the videos I have seen the combat in Skyrim doesn't look that great, as opposed to DD. Many people praise Skyrim, but there is also a lot of hate.

If there were demo's (on PC) out there for either of these games I would not be troubling you with my concern.

Which do you guys think is better? and why? if you feel both are MUST PLAYS then let it be known.

Thank you.

I think Skyrim's combat just wrecks the entire game. I mean, people will talk about the "imershun" and how much random crap you can do by dropping items here and there, but the truth is the majority of a regular playthrough will be spent in combat, and the combat is literally hold LMB until the enemy is dead.

However, DD has less of the random screwing around because the engine isn't really made for that kind of stuff and the world is a bit smaller. There is overall an even bigger focus on combat, so it's a really good thing the combat isn't ass like in Skyrim.

But if you only have a PC I don't think DD is coming out for that for a long time if ever, so you'd have to go for Skyrim.

There is no demo for Skyrim and Dragons Dogma is not on the PC, so... to be honest I don't know what else to tell you.

I wouldn't say combat is a strength of either of these games. DD's strength lies in the versatility of it's character development system and Skyrim is completely LOADED with content. Plus, isn't Skyrim on sale by now? Maybe that will help your choice?

OMG I just assumed that DD would be coming to the PC. Thanks for the update.

I have an Xbox 360, but it is at another place. I wont have access to it till July.

If you want a good Action-RPG, with great graphics, and interesting word, great dialogues and an ok story go for The Witcher 2...Even though 1 has a better story and one of the best endings ever (To me at least...I never saw that twist coming!) is really long and the combat is not as responsive as 2.

May I ask why you crossed Dragon Age off your list? Skyrim is a fine game, but it's also very much aimless. Dragon Age is easily the best fantasy game of the console generation in my book. I can't say much about Dragon's Dogma outside of what I played of the demo, but it seems very janky. There were some pretty cool moments in the demo, but I had to wade through a lot of general crap to get to it, which, ironically, is the same problem I have with Skyrim.

Skyrim is fun if you want to explore but the combat isn't that great. 
 
Also have you considered The Witcher 2? It strikes a nice balance between story and combat, and is one of the best RPGs available at the moment.

Read my '300 hours in Skyrim' blog, and my 'Two Weeks, 140 hours in Skyrim' blog.

You play Skyrim to explore the huge world and the large number of stories its locations and people have to tell. From the bombcast, it seems like Dragon's Dogma has none of that, but better combat.

If you looking for action-oriented combat in an RPG, have you considered Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning? It's a little more "high fantasy" than TESV or DD, but there is a PC demo out you can try to see if you like the action. The graphics in the demo are shoddy but I hear they're better in the main game. There are enough reviews out detailing the strong and weak points of the Amalur world and quest system so no need to rehash that here. I'm just offering an alternative choice. I love Skyrim on the PC, but as others have said, the combat is functional but nothing to celebrate. Exploration is the selling point of that series. Oh, and PC version of Skyrim has a very robust mod community.

@AlisterCat: I would say thats very relative to how you view the game. There is PLENTY to do if you WANT. I'm getting really into DD myself. Patrick seemed to give it a mostly fair shake but still seemed put off by its quirkiness. I really don't know what he was talking about no loot either. I've found a few pieces of armor and gear that are REALLY expensive equipment. Personally, I can see this having longer legs than Skyrim for me. Of course I expect to be in the minority here but...hey. Just saying I don't think he gave a entirely accurate depiction of what the game is.

If you haven't played The Witcher 2 yet, I would suggest that over both Skyrim or Dragon's Dogma. It's a fantastic game.

(on PC) 

Skyrim. Exploration and Lore are just there man. Combat is really up to the person playing because personally I enjoy it. It is clunky sometimes and janky, but the jank as we all know makes the game loveable. DD has way too many flaw to just play for the combat. No fast travel and a boring world make the game sound tedious after a while.

Others saying Witcher and Dragon Age are on the money about good RPGs but they don't have the same feeling of exploration as Skyrim which is why I think he is choosing between that and DD.

@AlisterCat: I would say thats very relative to how you view the game. There is PLENTY to do if you WANT. I'm getting really into DD myself. Patrick seemed to give it a mostly fair shake but still seemed put off by its quirkiness. I really don't know what he was talking about no loot either. I've found a few pieces of armor and gear that are REALLY expensive equipment. Personally, I can see this having longer legs than Skyrim for me. Of course I expect to be in the minority here but...hey. Just saying I don't think he gave a entirely accurate depiction of what the game is.

Once you get into it, Dragon Age Origin's combat isn't so bad. It's different if you've never played anything like it but I had fun with it.

As for Skyrim vs. Dragon's Dogma, I must say Skyrim. And I'm saying this as someone who also puts a very heavy emphasis on quality of combat in his games. If you thought Mass Effect's rather subpar third-person shooting was good, then Skyrim's subpar sword swinging also shouldn't bother you too much. Any hate that Skyrim garners is from a small and vocal crowd, so I wouldn't worry about them. From the Bombcast, Dragon's Dogma's best point is its combat and everything else it doesn't seem to know what to do with. It seems like a cool enough game but I couldn't possibly recommend it over Skyrim.

So, yes, Skyrim. It has some weak points but its strong points soar so high that you might have a hard time recalling that you're just mashing the "swing sword" button over and over to kill things. And if you really want great action-y combat like Devil May Cry or God of War in your fantasy RPG, then good luck finding that. I have not yet found an RPG whose combat satisfies me in the same way that those sorts of games do. The genres are different and RPG's take some getting used to - Skyrim is a great start to them.

And, finally, if none of those float your boat then pick up the Fallout 3 GOTY.

I see you guys recommending The Witcher.

I played it the other day to test the Texture mod for it and I noticed 2 things.

1. The game was a little choppy at times (I have a Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2GHz, AMD HD 6850 and 4GB of RAM) so I don't know what the problem is.

2. I couldn't get used to the combat at all. Is it something that grows on you? cos maybe my noob ass is to blame for not liking the combat (i played about 15 minutes of the game)

@Red said:

May I ask why you crossed Dragon Age off your list? Skyrim is a fine game, but it's also very much aimless. Dragon Age is easily the best fantasy game of the console generation in my book. I can't say much about Dragon's Dogma outside of what I played of the demo, but it seems very janky. There were some pretty cool moments in the demo, but I had to wade through a lot of general crap to get to it, which, ironically, is the same problem I have with Skyrim.

I tried the Dragons Age 2 demo and didn't really like it. I know its just a demo and all, but still. Maybe I should look into it?

Skyrim, no question about it, GET IT!!!

Dragon Age Origins > The Witcher 2 > Skyrim is how i'd go. I loved DAO. Skyrim just doesn't do it for me and i've barely touched The Witcher 1.

Also your PC isn't a powerhouse that's why The Witcher 2 isn't all that smooth. Lower your settings a bit, it's a very graphical intense game.

Skyrim's gonna add mounted combat soon. I'd wait too see how that turns out. The combat in Dragon's Dogma looks a lot better and climbing enemies is exciting, but the world of Skyrim's fantastic, even if I did enjoy Cyrodiils variety more. Still, as underwhelming as Skyrim's core melee combat is, shouts are a blast and switching up your style mid-fight to spells or ranged or just fusrodah-ing enemies off cliffs is a ton of fun.

The Witchers combat you definitely get the hang of when you go to the first open area where you can practise on some easy monsters that come out at night. All about managing you styles and I assume later on gets trickier when you add more spells (I'm early in the game and am taking a Diablo 3/Alan Wake break). I haven't played enough of The Witcher 2 to comment on how it plays.

@Subject2Change said:

Dragon Age Origins > The Witcher 2 > Skyrim is how i'd go. I loved DAO. Skyrim just doesn't do it for me and i've barely touched The Witcher 1.

Also your PC isn't a powerhouse that's why The Witcher 2 isn't all that smooth. Lower your settings a bit, it's a very graphical intense game.

no dude, I was talking about The Witcher 1 !!!

Witcher 1 was poorly coded; similar to Crysis; hence the issues.

@GlutenBob: The demo for Dragon Age 2 wasn't that great, and the original is a far better game regardless. You can pick up Origins for $20, so I'd definitely recommend checking it out.

If your rig can handle it I recommend Skyrim. The combat really isn't as bad as people make it out to be but at the same time it is no Dark Souls. To offset the middling combat though is an immense beautifully realized world with tons to do.

There are 2 games about whacking dragons. In one game whacking dragons is fun. In the other it is not.

@GlutenBob: Like I told you before just skip Witcher 1 a go directly to 2. The combat system is completely different, is more action oriented.

Also, people this is not about what game you love the most. This dude wants recommendations on something he would like. He said he doesn't have much experience with Action-RPGs and that he loves Mass Effect 1 and 2. With that in mind I believe we should recommend something that has:

1.- Interesting characters, good dialogues and great storytelling

2.- A competent, not too complex combat system where you feel in control of your character

3.- An interesting universe

4.- Choice / consequence system

That is why I think Witcher 2 is the game for you @GlutenBob, it has the four things above and is one of the best (if no the best) games ever to handle nº4, also it has a dragon if that somehow is important to you. Maybe the first Dragon Age would be a good choice, but there is a lot of clicking and pausing and you control several characters from an isometric view...when I played it I didn't have much experience with that kind of game but I really liked, so maybe you would too, but you said you didn't like the combat in Witcher 1 so I don't know. I have not played Skyrim but what I have read is that is too open and aimless and it doesn't have a good narrative.

Also, Kingdoms of Amalur has a demo, so maybe you should try that.

I think it would help if you made a list like the one I made so we have a better understanding of what is it that you like/want.

@GlutenBob: Diablo III.

But out of those two, definitely Skyrim.

@GlutenBob said:

I see you guys recommending The Witcher.

I played it the other day to test the Texture mod for it and I noticed 2 things.

1. The game was a little choppy at times (I have a Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2GHz, AMD HD 6850 and 4GB of RAM) so I don't know what the problem is.

2. I couldn't get used to the combat at all. Is it something that grows on you? cos maybe my noob ass is to blame for not liking the combat (i played about 15 minutes of the game)

Just roll and attack from the back. Roll Roll Roll Roll. Since you don't really have full control over Geralts animations you never know when he will swip and when he will leap so against tougher enemies and groups you basically slash at an enemy, roll past them to their back, slash once and keep rolling away. If the enemy is slow or just one of them you can probably afford a light, heavy heavy combo but otherwise, you roll roll and roll.

If you find yourself wanting a quality RPG with an immersion level thats through the roof, solid combat the doesn't impress but does enough (much like the Mass Effect games for shooting), and a world the cuts it closest to being a living, breathing, virtual reality than Skyrim is your game hands down. Its absolutely beautiful and full of life to which when you play the game you easily loose yourself. Issues with it include the vastness of the world (which I find to be a positive quality especially since it is done better than the competition) making it difficult to focus on the story, and the subpar combat. I think the combat serves its purpose and is a big improvement from Oblivion. With a few learned skills, you'll be linking attacks very easily. Where Dogma shines is with the combat department but honestly between that and Kingdom's of Amalur, Amalur takes it. Dogma is smaller, if thats what you're looking for but even with its size, the environment still doesn't compare to Skyrim. You'd expect a smaller game would compensate for visual flare but it really doesn't You have to remember who is making the games also. As stereotypical as its sounds, heres how it goes: Western Games: Great Story/Poor or Average Combat. Japanese Games: Confusing/Nonsensical Story/Excellent Gameplay. Think of DMC, Bayonetta, Vanquish, Ninja Gaiden. This is what they are good at... solid gameplay that trumps western developers so the focus on Dogma is about moving fluidly like you would in an action game. Issues with Dogma is that it seems rushed. It could have been an amazing game but the camera sucks, the level designs don't impress, and the story is total trash but in the short moments of fighting a boss, its amazing and you're blood is pumping. Witch 2 though is a very well rounded RPG and it doesn't have the scale of Skyrim but it would be my second choice. So here are my recommendations. The all around better choice to me is Skyrim. If the size intimidates you go for Witcher 2. If action/combat is what you want go for Kingdoms of Amalur. I'd pick each of those 3 before Dogma with Skyrim & Witcher 2 being the 2 most polished and quality driven RPG's. Between the 2 I'd go for Skyrim.

Forget both, wait for Dark Souls

I have yet to receive my copy of Dragons Dogma yet but pick Skyrim. Best game ever made.

@Subject2Change said:

Witcher 1 was poorly coded; similar to Crysis; hence the issues.

Crysis totally wasn't poorly coded. A the Witcher was kinda spotty, but it should run fine for him as it ran fine on my laptop.

Go with Skyrim.

Why?

Five years from now people will still be talking about Skyrim, it's a truly significant game. Dragon's Dogma on the other hand, while good, is not even in Skyrim's league.

If you want to play the better game, play Skyrim.

No matter the circumstances I would say that you pick Skyrim.

Dragon's Dogma! x1000 times Dragon's Dogma! Skyrim is very cut and paste, and has stuffy dated mechanics.

Or why not get both?

Skyrim or Dragon Age, I wouldn't recommend Witcher until you had some more experience. Dragons Dogma seems alright but not Skyrim level.

@AlexW00d said:

@Subject2Change said:

Witcher 1 was poorly coded; similar to Crysis; hence the issues.

Crysis totally wasn't poorly coded. A the Witcher was kinda spotty, but it should run fine for him as it ran fine on my laptop.

Poorly coded doesn't mean it was a bad game. It's just that Crysis was horribly optimized. For the time, yes, PCs couldn't handle it. But even today, some of the mid to high tier rigs have occasional chugging. That's a sign of poor optimization via poor coding. The Witcher wasn't nearly as bad, but it also isn't as demanding.

@Jack268 said:

I think Skyrim's combat just wrecks the entire game. I mean, people will talk about the "imershun" and how much random crap you can do by dropping items here and there, but the truth is the majority of a regular playthrough will be spent in combat, and the combat is literally hold LMB until the enemy is dead.

However, DD has less of the random screwing around because the engine isn't really made for that kind of stuff and the world is a bit smaller. There is overall an even bigger focus on combat, so it's a really good thing the combat isn't ass like in Skyrim.

But if you only have a PC I don't think DD is coming out for that for a long time if ever, so you'd have to go for Skyrim.

That's a pretty significant over simplification of the combat in Skyrim. And, if you play on easy, you can blow past it and just explore all of the cool shit. But turn up the difficulty and play a more balanced character, and the combat is, in my opinion, pretty interesting. Not without jank, but I enjoyed using a lot of different techniques. Set trap, shoot couple dudes with arrows, drop my bow and pull out a sword and shield and parry/bash/ use strategic power attacks/cancelling animations to get a couple fast hits in if I'm low on stamina. Is it super complex? No, but on harder difficulties, I think it's pretty engaging. I also really enjoyed playing a ranger/stealth character who mostly picked dudes off from a distance. And even if you don't enjoy the combat, the exploration is worth it. I spent 200 hours in the game, and none of my characters really made any significant story progress. I basically got up to a point where the story leads you right to a really cool side quest and then stopped with the main quest line. Now I'm taking a break from it until I hopefully get a new rig in the coming months to play it without worrying about hitching and framerate issues, but I fully plan to play a good bit more of that game. And probably get into a lot of the magic mods because I've not touched a mage character due to the balance issues that as far as I know still make it hard to have an enjoyably experience with a pure mage. Although I bet an armored up/Alteration mage with a shield would be pretty enjoyable.

Also, there are some great mods for Skyrim, either to make the combat more interesting, or to add awesome new loot to the game (most of the new loot is garbage honestly, but check out the 3rd Era Weapons or whatever, they are lore friendly because their just from older ES games, and they look great and fit in well while still giving a lot of new weapon types), or jsut to make it look sharper. You could probably get away with some texture packs to make things look a little sharper without suffering performance issues. I'd be happy to recommend some of the better texture mods and all that if you'd like, feel free to PM me or just ask here on the thread :) I'll try not to pimp my own mods though :3

@PenguinDust said:

If you looking for action-oriented combat in an RPG, have you considered Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning? It's a little more "high fantasy" than TESV or DD, but there is a PC demo out you can try to see if you like the action. The graphics in the demo are shoddy but I hear they're better in the main game. There are enough reviews out detailing the strong and weak points of the Amalur world and quest system so no need to rehash that here. I'm just offering an alternative choice. I love Skyrim on the PC, but as others have said, the combat is functional but nothing to celebrate. Exploration is the selling point of that series. Oh, and PC version of Skyrim has a very robust mod community.

Ugh, do not support that game. It's such a fucking shit fest of stealing straight out of other games. Very little that it does is even a spin on a classic mechanic, it's mostly just mechanics (and an aesthetic) lifted straight out of other popular games. If you want a good game in that vein, go with the first and 3rd Fable games. The original is still awesome, and the third one was in my opinion much more interesting than the second, though a lot less open if I remember.

@GlutenBob said:

@Red said:

May I ask why you crossed Dragon Age off your list? Skyrim is a fine game, but it's also very much aimless. Dragon Age is easily the best fantasy game of the console generation in my book. I can't say much about Dragon's Dogma outside of what I played of the demo, but it seems very janky. There were some pretty cool moments in the demo, but I had to wade through a lot of general crap to get to it, which, ironically, is the same problem I have with Skyrim.

I tried the Dragons Age 2 demo and didn't really like it. I know its just a demo and all, but still. Maybe I should look into it?

Dragon Age: Origins is not DA2, it's a fairly different game, and DAO is way better. It's my favorite game of all time, seriously. Play that game on the hardest difficulty on PC and you'll have a fucking blast. It's also 20 bucks for the game and all the DLC on Steam I think. That or $30, which is a god damned steal, almost all of the DLC is substantial, and great. Especially the expansion. Just one thing, if you do play DAO, you must know one thing. Always always always do the mage tower area first, as soon as you get access to the whole map, GO TO THE TOWER AND GET YOUR HEALING MAGE. It'll make the game much more enjoyable, unless you start with a healing mage. Which is totally viable, because of how you switch characters you don't really play a class, you play several. The way I play, I often control most if not all of a character's actions by pausing, telling everyone what to do, unpausing, switching around to keep everyone busy and smart, etc. I love that game's combat, I love it's characters and writing (God, the Noble Dwarven origin is genius, the writing in there is sooooo sharp)

Go with Skyrim. Yes the Combat isn't that strong, but it is a terrific game. I suggest playing as an archer, taking fools out from a distance before they even know you there is much more satisfying then the melee combat.

@Berserker976 said:

Go with Skyrim.

Why?

Five years from now people will still be talking about Skyrim, it's a truly significant game. Dragon's Dogma on the other hand, while good, is not even in Skyrim's league.

If you want to play the better game, play Skyrim.

I'm willing to agree with this and I haven't even played Skyrim! Dragon's Dogma is still good, but that's all it really is.

I did not like Skyrim at all.

That does not mean that it is not a great game though. It just prioritizes things I do not value as much as the things Dragon's Dogma does.

Skyrim! Hands down! Dragon's Dogma is a turd! Oh and Diablo 3 is awesome

Personally I'd say Skyrim by a mile. That said, the thing that I really like about Skyrim is the exploration, the fact that you can wander around the massive world and find all of these cool things. Dragon's Dogma doesn't have that as the world is fairly shallow, but it does have vastly better combat. It sounds like you really appreciate RPGs with solid action behind them (like ME2 and 3 as you mentioned.) The combat in Skyrim is decent enough but falls far short of the combo-based stuff of DD, so keep that in mind when making a decision

@MadMagyar92 said:

@AlexW00d said:

@Subject2Change said:

Witcher 1 was poorly coded; similar to Crysis; hence the issues.

Crysis totally wasn't poorly coded. A the Witcher was kinda spotty, but it should run fine for him as it ran fine on my laptop.

Poorly coded doesn't mean it was a bad game. It's just that Crysis was horribly optimized. For the time, yes, PCs couldn't handle it. But even today, some of the mid to high tier rigs have occasional chugging. That's a sign of poor optimization via poor coding. The Witcher wasn't nearly as bad, but it also isn't as demanding.

Exactly, I loved Crysis it's code was not optimized for graphics and thus suffered frame lost on most systems at the time; now a days it will run on most new hardware at least on Low/Med.

I didn't read through the replies, I'm sure it's been said but: if you really value solid combat, get Dragon's Dogma. If a rich, lore-filled open world tickles your fancy, get Skyrim. Neither of these games has both, so it's up to you to decide what's more important to you...or just get both/some other game entirely :)

Skyrim's million mods and growing vs Dragons Dogma's zero mod status quo... (Get Skyrim)

If something is bothering you in the game, chances are someone has already fixed it.

I'm gonna say Skyrim for now, but wait for Dark Souls PC!

I'd say Skyrim > Witcher 2 > Dogma.

Skyrim has a drastically better world than either of the other two games, and offers a ton more content. The combat in Skyrim is like most video games where it is pretty standard and not complicated. I think the loot factor in helps make the combat better though. The Witcher 2 is a great looking game with top notch voice acting, but I think the world and characters in it are bland, and the actual game itself is pretty boring. Dogma has fun combat and enemy encounters, but a pretty uninspired, run of the mill game world. I've never been a fan of games with good gameplay but an uninteresting setting.

@AlexW00d said:

@Subject2Change said:

Witcher 1 was poorly coded; similar to Crysis; hence the issues.

Crysis totally wasn't poorly coded. A the Witcher was kinda spotty, but it should run fine for him as it ran fine on my laptop.

Poorly coded doesn't mean it was a bad game. It's just that Crysis was horribly optimized. For the time, yes, PCs couldn't handle it. But even today, some of the mid to high tier rigs have occasional chugging. That's a sign of poor optimization via poor coding. The Witcher wasn't nearly as bad, but it also isn't as demanding.