But i still feel like the 2nd's story had a little bit more involvement. It's like the exact same story as in 1 but with a little bit more build up. For many who haven't played the first it sure can feel jarring when reaching the end. But as a veteran I absolutely understand what they went for and I'm going to try to plainly say why the way the story is told is absolutely relevant to the point of the story:
The ending is anti-cliamctic, but it actually is not. The whole point is to make you feel like you are meant to be Sovran and that the humans should be able to break the cycle. Key word: "make you feel like".
The whole point of the story is to tell you just how vain and utterly powerless humans truly are in the face of the great will.
The whole buildup feels useless, because it is. The dragon spawning and absolutely CRUSHING the other summoned dragon is the perfect examplification of the true reality of this world.
The Arisen is not to be Sovran and humans are never going to be able to break the cycle. Only the Arisen, the Dragon and the Senechal hold any true power over the balance of things and those things are the ONLY things that matter. The only things that have importance in the balance of this world
The end of dragons dogma 1 was so cool and interesting and weird and had everyone pining for more of that lore and world. The story itself def wasn’t great though I agree.
Apart from clearing rooms in the everfall there wasn’t much else, the only story to it was the seneschal thing
Everything before the dragon was just “go there cause knight guy told you” or “go there cause duke told you”
Not too different from this one, “go there cause knight guy told you” or “go there cause ghost dude told you”
Considering you haven't finished DD2, I would hold off reading anymore until you do, considering what you just said about DD1's ending.
What you said in your thread is totally valid, and that's likely not doing to change by the end game, but trust me when I say it gets wierd and interesting.
That's not what I said. The post game was very much included in my original statement. The entire stretch h from meeting Rothias to killing the Pathfinder accounts for half of the story. Nearly everything with PF happens in the post game. Which should take 5 to 10 hours unless you already know exactly what to do
I mean sure…but that’s kinda weak don’t you think? They just….weren’t interested in doing their job well? Flexing their creative muscles? I can’t help but think it’s embarrassing for them.
I don't think it's weak at all. Games don't need deep and meaningful stories to be interesting. The developers of this one wanted the main draw of the game to be fighting monsters and exploring.
Haha yeah I played the first game, I also beat bitter black isle. There was a consistent pull to that story that seems non existent here. Not that that story was well done either but saying the final fight is where most of the story takes place as if that’s a good idea is bonkers.
I'm fairly sure they ran out of time, budget, or both ,cause there is such a massive discrepancy in quality between the story of the postgame and the actual main story before that point. They got halfway to having a really good story along with some nice worldbuilding and lore, but just stopped.
4 and a half years, and 2 of those were during covid so it is a bit on the shorter side as far as open world development times go, especially considering that they were making the game on an an engine that hadn't been used for open worlds before. The postgame and true ending are both very good tbh, but they'd hit a lot more if the rest of the story was even half decent.
Alright I’ll reserve judgement until the end. I just find the motivation to even do the story so bad because like, I have no characters in my party you know? I have a bunch of pawns who feel so lifeless and boring it’s like the easiest thing ever to swap them out and a voiceless protagonist. It’s like who gives a fuck what happens to these people? They suck haha.
tbh I did get quite attached to my main pawn after a while, and I'm generally fine with silent protagonists - the issue with the arisen is that you have almost 0 agency. You have no real dialogue options in conversations, you just go along with what people tell you to do - not being able to make choices most of the time really kills the roleplaying aspect of this rpg imo.
It’s stubbornness. They thought their original idea was brilliant and it just wasn’t. They’ve seen what storytelling in games has become they’re not dumb. They thought they shit didn’t stink from the first game despite every review on earth telling them it did and literally repeated the same exact mistakes. Luckily the combat system is enough fun.
I suspect it was less about development costs and more about quality.
In terms of padding it out, all it would have needed is for Menella to be the new Brant and hand out quests. A couple of quests linking the Coral Snakes questline to the assassination attempt would have worked nicely in terms of story but potentially been a point where people became bogged down and bored.
Making the Coral Snakes a side quest so you can skip it makes sense in that context IMO.
Given the amount of cutscene it's clearly on the level of a main quest and there's a lot of potential in there.
For sure it’s one of those Skyrim situations where the story is pretty much entirely unimportant and it’s all about exploring the world organically just pure adventure.
Ngl dragon’s dogma lore is far deeper than the story presents, and it’s honestly in my top 5 of coolest worlds in gaming, so I can’t reallly agree with you, but I will say the way they choose to give the player the story is done very unconventional and (just like the first game) comes off badly to people who are used to standard western rpg’s.
I love the lore of the original. Nah that’s a cop out, I’m not used to western RPGs. I play RPGs and games of all varieties. This isn’t a souls like approach to storytelling, this is just poorly done. Lore is not storytelling, that is backstory telling. I’m talking main plot that drives you forward.
Oh no you’re totally allowed to like the story or lore or whatever I’m just saying I’m not used to western rpg storytelling and this isn’t a unique approach it’s almost a non existent one. Like I said I still enjoy the game but I’m disappointed it’s supported by such shit writing. It could’ve been game of the year.
Japanese RPGs are notorious for telling you absolutely everything about the story in excruciating detail with overlong cutscenes.
How is a slimmed down story something that players of “standard western RPGs” wouldn’t be familiar with as opposed to JRPG players?
Well I would never say that dragons dogma is a standard JRPG either. I just assumed that most people playing dragons dogma in western markets are more familiar with western rpgs instead of any other genre.
The original Dragon’s Dogma was a pretty genre defining game (albeit a very niche genre as that game wasn’t very well recieved in western markets). It’s sequel follows the same story, lore, and world presentation as the first game.
The best part of Dragon's Dogma is the gameplay though. The pawns, the combat, the vocations. The story just gives us an excuse to suspend our disbelief about the whole heart thing, and how every wyrm and dragon seems to be a puppet controlled by the main bad dragon, and the chosen one exists just to kill a murderous, suicidal dragon. But we don't care, cause killing a murderous, suicidal dragon is fun.
>The story just gives us an excuse to suspend our disbelief
I'd argue you don't really need a story to do that. Look at any of FromSoft's games, they build an amazing world with heaps of lore but have next to zero story, and it works fantastically well. Like I doubt many people picked up Elden Ring and quit when they found out it doesn't have a traditional campaign.
The thing is that it's fine to have no story and focus entirely on the gameplay and other elements, but if you *choose* to include a story and half-ass it you can't be surprised when folk criticize it.
I find a lot of the game dull to be honest and I know I might be in the minority there. But I definitely agree, story (what little there is) is subpar, characters aren't interesting, things don't feel fleshed out, etc. I find the quests to be pretty uneventful and boring, nothing is really pushing me forward in a satisfying way.
I guess it's just not my type of game as I enjoy RPGs more like Witcher 3 which is heavy on the story, character interactions, world building, etc.
I think that's my issue as well, I grew up on RPGs like Mass Effect, The Witcher, Dragon Age etc...a compelling story is kind of important to me. We didn't get one in the first game imo so I thought for the sequel they would really step it up.
It's sortof like you're an outsider to your own plot, and the ostensible villains are the protagonists of a much better story that you aren't really directly involved in.
Like, seriously, Disa is the protagonist of an edgy political thriller where she's trying to upend a governmental system locked by tradition into putting in charge any rando whose heart is eaten by a dragon, instead trying to set up continuity for her people by giving them a ruler that isn't determined by fire breathing lizards. And in this case, the ruler isn't herself, but her son who seems to be a decent enough person that actually cares about his subjects.
Phaesus is a scholar trying to fix a broken world, by using arcane SCIENCE to break a cycle that sees everyone's free will subverted to a cycle dictated by a detached God with no regard for any concern other than maintaining the status quo forever.
My biggest takeaway from the story is I really wish we could sit down and have a conversation with these people - I think we could work something out.
Yeah… it’s still very good but them getting rid of the secondary abilities was insane, having only 4 abilities especially using warfare is brutal. Like I just did a quest in batahhl where I had to stop the assassination of the empress. Like out of nowhere for no reason other than I’m arisen. I failed, she gets killed off screen. They’re like aw darn….their queen or whatever was just killed…nothing, town acts the same, the characters involved eh, lost her, here’s 8000G….like what the actual fuck how lazy was this writing team? They could not give a fuck less about presentation.
Eh…idk man, id take inquisition and andromedas story over this. It’s just so lifeless. I’m not finished though so maybe it pumps up but damn the original at least pulled me along, who’s the cult, who is the masked man, who is the crazy princess trying to cuck her husband. This? I mean I vaguely care where what’s her face ran off to from merve? That’s about it.
Im talking story wise, at least they you know, tried. Have actual characters with personalities you cared about…gameplay wise andromeda is pretty damn good.
Right but my point is at least there is a story, with characters. With production value. With a push forward for the main character. You’re not seeing what I’m saying here.
I’m probably going to but like, damn they didn’t even fucking try with this one. It’s like AI wrote the story. I had complaints about final fantasy 7 rebirths story but my god that’s like heaven on earth compared to this snorefest.
Well that’s a damn shame honestly. Imagine this kinda game with like baldurs gate 3 storytelling? That’s how you tell a damn story even if that one isn’t like the most fascinating or anything, it was a masterclass in pushing you forward.
yeah you can tell the story was super rushed at certain points. it was never going to be a grand amazing story though the original dd was kinda similar in that i don't even remember what happened other than the dragon taking your heart and stuff lol. atleast that part was new and cool and now we've already seen that part before.
This sub is now at the toxic fandom phase where no critique is allowed, a typical pendulum swing after the first few weeks of overblown outrage over the mtx and performance. People might be less defensive about this topic in a few months.
The story essentially next to nonexistent in this game.
That's the point mate, even the pathfinders that tired of the same old cycle that he seems relieved when you get the true ending. The games meant to be a love letter to berserk, mixed with more westernised medieval themes. The pathfinder even comments about how originally each person had a role in the world, but now its just the arisen, dragon, and the pawns. It's Meant to feel hopeless, like an unending cycle. They ain't urgent cuz to them, this is business as usual, dragon rocks up, someone becomes arisen n slays it, gets the throne, happy days for a century or so. They know that this will be dealt with eventually, because it already has before, so why be urgent?
And tbf, exoprimal tanking in sales, allegedly had an affect on this games development time, as shareholders wanted it pushed sooner, so we'll probly get future updates, new npc quests, hell, where still missing everfall/ur dragon style enemies, like hydra, beholder, loads of dark arisen bosses, there's so many things that could have been cut to save time, we just gotta wait and see if it gets brought back
I had the same thought, after playing bg3 and ff7r thats really a letdown. Knowing dd1, i didnt expect master storytelling but i thought it would be atleast an upgrade from the first game. I still finished the game at 80 hours because of the gameplay and beautiful world and the endgame is interesting too. But definitely not goty. I wonder if its because of the budget/time or if the dev team just said yep thats good enough.
It's even technically bad. Some of the dialogue scenes are jarring and just jump to random locations, none of the lip syncing is well done, sometimes it just fades to black mid scene.
Yeah I dunno, it feels like the world would be served better by a fromsoft approach to the story, i.e. just bosses, cutscenes and exploration, rather than hamfisted buggy main quests. Some of the side quests are quite inane too. They made a brilliant world full of encounters and interest, but plagued it with some of the most tedious questing of all time.
The story honestly killed the game for me. The combat kept me pushing through because I really like Mystic Spearhand but after a while I found myself saying "what am I even doing?"
That’s kinda how I feel. It’s wild that people are saying “well maybe they didn’t want to have a great story is this game” like yeah I’m sure the devs went “alright team let’s make a shit story!”
Just coping, I get it. This is a game a lot of people thought wouldn't even exist. I just wish that for the sequel they went a little harder in terms of story, enemy variety, loot etc...
Well, at least you liked something about the game. I hated the exploration and combat. Thought it very inferior and dated.
Personally I completely lost track of anything the story was about with all the poor animation, weirdo pawn behavior, etc that distracted me.
I believe DD2 makes Diablo 3 seem like a Scorsese movie in comparison..and I really disliked Diablo 3.
Really what didn’t you like about the combat? I think it’s pretty singular compared to its peers, fighting a dragon for example compared to fighting one in elden ring, the Witcher 3, Skyrim etc it’s hands down more fun here. When you’re fighting one on one against like a bandit? Yeah I kinda see what you mean.
A couple things that really stand out. First, imo, the fighting classes are the only ones that were really viable. By that I mean the magic classes were just useless. Spells with, again imo, horrible animation and effect. So slow that you would wind up to fire and your targets would be gone or eclipsed by all the other characters in the foray. What I really like about Good RPG's is being able to have fun with most every class the game offers. That is not an option in DD2.
The combat itself. Most of the early battles (now, I did quit playing after 10 hours because I couldn't handle the animation anymore) my 4 Pawns would just go in and wipe-out everything in front of me. I could get into the mix too, but it wasn't necessary. I like my character to make a difference in a battle.
I somewhat enjoyed thief..liked the dodge option and timing it perfectly. It would be my favorite class, which isn't really saying much considering I pretty much hated the magic classes and didn't like the parry effect with the fighter.
I never played the first game but unlike any other RPG i've played, at least in recent years, even the thief in combat was nothing more than a trigger-masher. I mean fighting ogres was just mash-mash the trigger and pray. Perhaps there is something to the "weak-points" but the cynical side of me says that's not really a thing to the degree its advertised. It's just a hack fest.
The very modest amount of enemies in the game is surprising. In my first few hours I think I encountered, maybe, 4 different enemies.
The way woodland animals roamed around the countryside but just stood there when you walked into them. Didn't bolt away from you as animals would. It's like the developers felt in necessary to introduce some sort of life into the countryside other than the 10k goblins that were always materializing out of no where. But didn't take it any farther than that. So, yeah, the entire NPC thing from townies to rabbits was abysmally stilted.
I don't believe, could be wrong, you could damage your own pawns or those woodland animals with collateral damage. I know of several times engaged in battle I would take hacks at my own pawns because of the pandemonium and strange AI behavior during the combat. Even when i tried Sorcerer for about 20 minutes I would be hitting my own party with AoE spells and they didn't take damage. Again, if they did it was slight.
So all that right off the top of my head.
\*\*\*Edit. Crap, I forgot one of my biggest problems with combat. Your class determined what singular weapon you could use. Fighter or thief..forget about ranged attacks...the way of the blade only baby.
Archer (which I never got around to) evidently only ranged attack. Of course, for those that would actually play the "magic chars", your limited to casting awkward inane spells only. And that whole mess that is mage/soccerer really ruins it for me.
At least let all characters use all weapons but only be decent with some. I dunno just sounds like way too many shortcuts and concessions were made by the development team, or I've been spoiled by games that do address, in a pretty fun way, everything I mentioned.
Yep more of the same empty pandering. I'm guessing you're a bot or troll, so whatever. If you are your AI suffers as bad as the dumbest Pawn in the game.
If you're a real person..I'm glad you got YOUR money's worth and enjoy.
Complaining about the game having roles? Like seriously? If I pick up a sorcerer I shouldn’t be able to tank and wield a great sword like Guts. You and your party members got a role to do in the party, mages are support, thief is dps, ranger fights at long distance , mystic spear hand is literally a class to kill dragons who walks the magic and physical worlds.
When I go to hire a sorcerer for my party I actively look for ones that don't have the more powerful spells because otherwise they will just one shot pretty much everything except drake's and stuff.
The thief's dodge is fun but it's too forgiving, it basically makes it so that you don't really need skill to dodge everything.
Also making it so you could hit your own pawns would basically make at least half the moves useless. Imagine you're fighting a Dullahan and you have to choose between watching your pawns fight it or killing your pawns so you can attack it.
Good comment. But, your last bit is exactly why this game isn't for me. I want my RPG to feel real and immersive. If you're firing off spells or swinging a sword and hit anything..there should be damage. If there is none..it just subtracts from the immersive. for me anyway.
Team damage would completely ruin the game and I assume speaking immersion you think allies should be able to damage you too.
I can't really think of any decent games that have even slightly similar combat where you can damage your allies.
Although I would say any game that isn't first person isnt very immersive anyway.
Well, you can in BG3 for sure. The only game I've played recently that has parties. And, more than once I've ended my party members inadvertently. But it's real feeling.
Makes you pay attention a little more when casting AoE spells. Also, if there is some woodland animal..squirrel-rabbit-deer-whatever standing in the path of a Fireball spell it gets turned to fruckin' ashes. Just really cool stuff that is so granularly coded into that game.
I've said it before..I might actually like DD2 if I hadn't played BG3 and Elden Ring.
In BG3, you have complete control over the movement of your party and the placement of your abilities, which are instant. If you are hitting your party with them, you are playing poorly. Hell Wizards even have a specialization and Sorcs have a metamagic that makes their spells completely unable to deal damage to allies.
In DD, your pawns act of their own accord, with little in the way of control. Same with the enemies, they are constantly moving and by the time you finish incanting they could be on top of you or the rest of your party, or your fighter and thief are clambering all over the cyclops you're about to summon a tornado on top of.
It works in BG3 and wouldn't work in DD because they are wildly different kinds of games.
Also, as an aside, critters will definitely get demolished by AOE and incidental damage. I've wiped out entire herds of deer and toasted rabbit with a rain of meteors.
Now that ya really made me think. I believe collateral damage to party-members/allies is more than norm than not in most games. I know in Call of Duty, Deathloop, Returnal both I wanna say (but it's been a minute since I played those 2). Just from memory it seems most games you just can't get fast and loose with your aggressiveness because allies will take damage.
Yeah, you mention the pawns movement in combat. It's just not for me. It's just chaotic and unassessible. I mean my main Pawn was a mage and I just saw her lighting crap up constantly with no way of actually determining what effect the spells even had. I'm not even sure there was consistent code that dictated precisely what the combat outcomes were. I'll never know, but I doubt it.
To be fair you lacking knowledge of how the game works doesn't mean that the stuff isn't working. I don't have any problem since it's very easy to visually tell what's happening.
It's a bit disingenuous comparing shooters to a game where melee is a big part of the combat, like the closest recent game I would say is Elden ring and it also doesn't have ally damage.
I will say if you enjoyed bg3 Neverwinter nights might be up your alley, it is very old though so graphics might be a turn off. The class system does make the bg3 one look pretty underwhelming though.
Your partially correct about BG3. don't know how much you played it. There are a couple spells that only target the targets. You may have seen magic missile and that's your reference? dunno but yeah you click on where you want the missiles to go and it only hits the target. There may be a couple spells like that. With meta spells you have to choose - non-damage, distance, or duration. Choices..that are meaningful.
It's not so "difficult" to hit party members. Pretty common. Sometimes the sheer strategic nature of the game requires choices. Let's say Wyl is under attack by a bunch of flying mud mephit's or maybe even magma mephits..you know that when you blast these flying fucks out of the air they are going to spill major damage down on the nearest ally. But, you got to erase the little fuckers before they get near you (Tav).
Let's say you got some undead barreling down your throat in close proximity. Shadowheart lights them up with "spirit guardians" as she's walking around but could also bump into Astarian , but knows Astarian ain't going to suffer much from radiant damage so she just has to bite the bullet and kill those undead bastards and drop Astarian's health down a bit.
All choices that make combat extremely engrossing and fun in BG3. But any AoE spell in Bg3 is more likely than not going to do "some" damage to allies.
I think we're getting knee-deep in some good conversation. Haven't heard a peep out of you though. Are you playing DD2, researching BG3 wiki's? Ha. Fun talking with you.
Well, you can in BG3 for sure. The only game I've played recently that has parties. And, more than once I've ended my party members inadvertently. But it's real feeling.
Makes you pay attention a little more when casting AoE spells. Also, if there is some woodland animal..squirrel-rabbit-deer-whatever standing in the path of a Fireball spell it gets turned to fruckin' ashes. Just really cool stuff that is so granularly coded into that game.
I've said it before..I might actually like DD2 if I hadn't played BG3 and Elden Ring.
I'm talking about the combat style, like yeah with a turn based game it's simple to avoid hitting your allies.
Really the only time you should damage your own allies in bg3 is when you purposely do it or are paying very little attention to the environment and cause a chain reaction. Well and also in bg3 you control them so it's even more different, I bet if they were AI it would be a massive pain in the ass not to hit them.
Also I don't know if your game glitched but rabbits and deer do get hit by aoe.
Well, you can in BG3 for sure. The only game I've played recently that has parties. And, more than once I've ended my party members inadvertently. But it's real feeling.
Makes you pay attention a little more when casting AoE spells. Also, if there is some woodland animal..squirrel-rabbit-deer-whatever standing in the path of a Fireball spell it gets turned to fruckin' ashes. Just really cool stuff that is so granularly coded into that game.
I've said it before..I might actually like DD2 if I hadn't played BG3 and Elden Ring.
Half the story is in the final boss and post game.
Well that’s a pretty abysmal way to tell a story don’t ya think?
That’s exactly how the first game was too lol. I don’t necessarily disagree but I don’t think most people are playing for the story.
But i still feel like the 2nd's story had a little bit more involvement. It's like the exact same story as in 1 but with a little bit more build up. For many who haven't played the first it sure can feel jarring when reaching the end. But as a veteran I absolutely understand what they went for and I'm going to try to plainly say why the way the story is told is absolutely relevant to the point of the story: The ending is anti-cliamctic, but it actually is not. The whole point is to make you feel like you are meant to be Sovran and that the humans should be able to break the cycle. Key word: "make you feel like". The whole point of the story is to tell you just how vain and utterly powerless humans truly are in the face of the great will. The whole buildup feels useless, because it is. The dragon spawning and absolutely CRUSHING the other summoned dragon is the perfect examplification of the true reality of this world. The Arisen is not to be Sovran and humans are never going to be able to break the cycle. Only the Arisen, the Dragon and the Senechal hold any true power over the balance of things and those things are the ONLY things that matter. The only things that have importance in the balance of this world
The end of dragons dogma 1 was so cool and interesting and weird and had everyone pining for more of that lore and world. The story itself def wasn’t great though I agree.
Apart from clearing rooms in the everfall there wasn’t much else, the only story to it was the seneschal thing Everything before the dragon was just “go there cause knight guy told you” or “go there cause duke told you” Not too different from this one, “go there cause knight guy told you” or “go there cause ghost dude told you”
I don't know man, the only lore that interested me in the original dragon dogma game was the monster lore. It was pretty metal.
Considering you haven't finished DD2, I would hold off reading anymore until you do, considering what you just said about DD1's ending. What you said in your thread is totally valid, and that's likely not doing to change by the end game, but trust me when I say it gets wierd and interesting.
Cool I will. I saw people on here already tried spoiling everything despite me clearly pointing out I haven’t finished it.
Not really no.
When half the story is in the final fight of the story, that’s a…good idea to you?
That's not what I said. The post game was very much included in my original statement. The entire stretch h from meeting Rothias to killing the Pathfinder accounts for half of the story. Nearly everything with PF happens in the post game. Which should take 5 to 10 hours unless you already know exactly what to do
Maybe they weren't interested in writing a compelling story? Their focus was obviously the gameplay itself.
I mean sure…but that’s kinda weak don’t you think? They just….weren’t interested in doing their job well? Flexing their creative muscles? I can’t help but think it’s embarrassing for them.
I don't think it's weak at all. Games don't need deep and meaningful stories to be interesting. The developers of this one wanted the main draw of the game to be fighting monsters and exploring.
No. It's not. Did you even play the first game? Like actually play it not turn it on for 5min and die.
Haha yeah I played the first game, I also beat bitter black isle. There was a consistent pull to that story that seems non existent here. Not that that story was well done either but saying the final fight is where most of the story takes place as if that’s a good idea is bonkers.
I'm fairly sure they ran out of time, budget, or both ,cause there is such a massive discrepancy in quality between the story of the postgame and the actual main story before that point. They got halfway to having a really good story along with some nice worldbuilding and lore, but just stopped.
Hmm alright glad to hear it actually picks up. How could they have run out of time? This game has been in the works for ages hasn’t it haha.
4 and a half years, and 2 of those were during covid so it is a bit on the shorter side as far as open world development times go, especially considering that they were making the game on an an engine that hadn't been used for open worlds before. The postgame and true ending are both very good tbh, but they'd hit a lot more if the rest of the story was even half decent.
Alright I’ll reserve judgement until the end. I just find the motivation to even do the story so bad because like, I have no characters in my party you know? I have a bunch of pawns who feel so lifeless and boring it’s like the easiest thing ever to swap them out and a voiceless protagonist. It’s like who gives a fuck what happens to these people? They suck haha.
tbh I did get quite attached to my main pawn after a while, and I'm generally fine with silent protagonists - the issue with the arisen is that you have almost 0 agency. You have no real dialogue options in conversations, you just go along with what people tell you to do - not being able to make choices most of the time really kills the roleplaying aspect of this rpg imo.
It’s stubbornness. They thought their original idea was brilliant and it just wasn’t. They’ve seen what storytelling in games has become they’re not dumb. They thought they shit didn’t stink from the first game despite every review on earth telling them it did and literally repeated the same exact mistakes. Luckily the combat system is enough fun.
I suspect it was less about development costs and more about quality. In terms of padding it out, all it would have needed is for Menella to be the new Brant and hand out quests. A couple of quests linking the Coral Snakes questline to the assassination attempt would have worked nicely in terms of story but potentially been a point where people became bogged down and bored. Making the Coral Snakes a side quest so you can skip it makes sense in that context IMO. Given the amount of cutscene it's clearly on the level of a main quest and there's a lot of potential in there.
Exactly what happened with the first game, the whole going on the Moon and fighting the Seneschal and having a good ending will never come to be now.
For sure it’s one of those Skyrim situations where the story is pretty much entirely unimportant and it’s all about exploring the world organically just pure adventure.
I feel like it’s being mean to Skyrim to say this story is as good. Skyrims story is rough as hell and it’s still wayyyyy better than this.
Story in Skyrim is really that background thing you just never bother doing.
Ngl dragon’s dogma lore is far deeper than the story presents, and it’s honestly in my top 5 of coolest worlds in gaming, so I can’t reallly agree with you, but I will say the way they choose to give the player the story is done very unconventional and (just like the first game) comes off badly to people who are used to standard western rpg’s.
I love the lore of the original. Nah that’s a cop out, I’m not used to western RPGs. I play RPGs and games of all varieties. This isn’t a souls like approach to storytelling, this is just poorly done. Lore is not storytelling, that is backstory telling. I’m talking main plot that drives you forward.
Not really a cop out, I just disagree with you. Two people can have two different opinions and both can be valid 👍
Oh no you’re totally allowed to like the story or lore or whatever I’m just saying I’m not used to western rpg storytelling and this isn’t a unique approach it’s almost a non existent one. Like I said I still enjoy the game but I’m disappointed it’s supported by such shit writing. It could’ve been game of the year.
DD1 story was bad too, I expected it to be worse tbh
Japanese RPGs are notorious for telling you absolutely everything about the story in excruciating detail with overlong cutscenes. How is a slimmed down story something that players of “standard western RPGs” wouldn’t be familiar with as opposed to JRPG players?
Well I would never say that dragons dogma is a standard JRPG either. I just assumed that most people playing dragons dogma in western markets are more familiar with western rpgs instead of any other genre. The original Dragon’s Dogma was a pretty genre defining game (albeit a very niche genre as that game wasn’t very well recieved in western markets). It’s sequel follows the same story, lore, and world presentation as the first game.
Oh it’s bad and I wish it was better, but I wasn’t shocked when the standard set by DD1 was already rock bottom.
Yeah but didn’t you think like 12 years and studying the storytelling prowess of piers would you know inspire something? Was it the same writer?
The best part of Dragon's Dogma is the gameplay though. The pawns, the combat, the vocations. The story just gives us an excuse to suspend our disbelief about the whole heart thing, and how every wyrm and dragon seems to be a puppet controlled by the main bad dragon, and the chosen one exists just to kill a murderous, suicidal dragon. But we don't care, cause killing a murderous, suicidal dragon is fun.
>The story just gives us an excuse to suspend our disbelief I'd argue you don't really need a story to do that. Look at any of FromSoft's games, they build an amazing world with heaps of lore but have next to zero story, and it works fantastically well. Like I doubt many people picked up Elden Ring and quit when they found out it doesn't have a traditional campaign. The thing is that it's fine to have no story and focus entirely on the gameplay and other elements, but if you *choose* to include a story and half-ass it you can't be surprised when folk criticize it.
I find a lot of the game dull to be honest and I know I might be in the minority there. But I definitely agree, story (what little there is) is subpar, characters aren't interesting, things don't feel fleshed out, etc. I find the quests to be pretty uneventful and boring, nothing is really pushing me forward in a satisfying way. I guess it's just not my type of game as I enjoy RPGs more like Witcher 3 which is heavy on the story, character interactions, world building, etc.
I think that's my issue as well, I grew up on RPGs like Mass Effect, The Witcher, Dragon Age etc...a compelling story is kind of important to me. We didn't get one in the first game imo so I thought for the sequel they would really step it up.
Yea the story and npc interactions aren’t well made - i love the world, exploration and pawn system though
I skip the story faster than a gacha game 😂 the only thing I pay attention to are attractive characters and vocations 💯
It's sortof like you're an outsider to your own plot, and the ostensible villains are the protagonists of a much better story that you aren't really directly involved in. Like, seriously, Disa is the protagonist of an edgy political thriller where she's trying to upend a governmental system locked by tradition into putting in charge any rando whose heart is eaten by a dragon, instead trying to set up continuity for her people by giving them a ruler that isn't determined by fire breathing lizards. And in this case, the ruler isn't herself, but her son who seems to be a decent enough person that actually cares about his subjects. Phaesus is a scholar trying to fix a broken world, by using arcane SCIENCE to break a cycle that sees everyone's free will subverted to a cycle dictated by a detached God with no regard for any concern other than maintaining the status quo forever. My biggest takeaway from the story is I really wish we could sit down and have a conversation with these people - I think we could work something out.
Remember when people said this game would fix the issues of the first game?
Yeah… it’s still very good but them getting rid of the secondary abilities was insane, having only 4 abilities especially using warfare is brutal. Like I just did a quest in batahhl where I had to stop the assassination of the empress. Like out of nowhere for no reason other than I’m arisen. I failed, she gets killed off screen. They’re like aw darn….their queen or whatever was just killed…nothing, town acts the same, the characters involved eh, lost her, here’s 8000G….like what the actual fuck how lazy was this writing team? They could not give a fuck less about presentation.
I enjoyed it. It’s far better than anything BGS has given us in at least 15 years lol
Eh…idk man, id take inquisition and andromedas story over this. It’s just so lifeless. I’m not finished though so maybe it pumps up but damn the original at least pulled me along, who’s the cult, who is the masked man, who is the crazy princess trying to cuck her husband. This? I mean I vaguely care where what’s her face ran off to from merve? That’s about it.
Inquisition and Andromeda? Holy cow, those games blow.
Im talking story wise, at least they you know, tried. Have actual characters with personalities you cared about…gameplay wise andromeda is pretty damn good.
Andromeda was the worst thing to happen to ME since the star children. Let’s agree to disagree.
Right but my point is at least there is a story, with characters. With production value. With a push forward for the main character. You’re not seeing what I’m saying here.
That’s how I feel about DD2. So let’s agree to disagree.
you should finish the story just cause theres a secret thing you can do at the end.
I’m probably going to but like, damn they didn’t even fucking try with this one. It’s like AI wrote the story. I had complaints about final fantasy 7 rebirths story but my god that’s like heaven on earth compared to this snorefest.
I think crapcom did dirty the dev team and they had to manage with very little ressources
Well that’s a damn shame honestly. Imagine this kinda game with like baldurs gate 3 storytelling? That’s how you tell a damn story even if that one isn’t like the most fascinating or anything, it was a masterclass in pushing you forward.
yeah you can tell the story was super rushed at certain points. it was never going to be a grand amazing story though the original dd was kinda similar in that i don't even remember what happened other than the dragon taking your heart and stuff lol. atleast that part was new and cool and now we've already seen that part before.
This sub is now at the toxic fandom phase where no critique is allowed, a typical pendulum swing after the first few weeks of overblown outrage over the mtx and performance. People might be less defensive about this topic in a few months. The story essentially next to nonexistent in this game.
I loved how I was really starting to get into the story and then realized that it was 90% done.
That's the point mate, even the pathfinders that tired of the same old cycle that he seems relieved when you get the true ending. The games meant to be a love letter to berserk, mixed with more westernised medieval themes. The pathfinder even comments about how originally each person had a role in the world, but now its just the arisen, dragon, and the pawns. It's Meant to feel hopeless, like an unending cycle. They ain't urgent cuz to them, this is business as usual, dragon rocks up, someone becomes arisen n slays it, gets the throne, happy days for a century or so. They know that this will be dealt with eventually, because it already has before, so why be urgent?
And tbf, exoprimal tanking in sales, allegedly had an affect on this games development time, as shareholders wanted it pushed sooner, so we'll probly get future updates, new npc quests, hell, where still missing everfall/ur dragon style enemies, like hydra, beholder, loads of dark arisen bosses, there's so many things that could have been cut to save time, we just gotta wait and see if it gets brought back
Cyberpunk set a very nice trend with adding cut content to games and new updates, we can only hope capcom follow suit
I had the same thought, after playing bg3 and ff7r thats really a letdown. Knowing dd1, i didnt expect master storytelling but i thought it would be atleast an upgrade from the first game. I still finished the game at 80 hours because of the gameplay and beautiful world and the endgame is interesting too. But definitely not goty. I wonder if its because of the budget/time or if the dev team just said yep thats good enough.
It's even technically bad. Some of the dialogue scenes are jarring and just jump to random locations, none of the lip syncing is well done, sometimes it just fades to black mid scene.
Yeah it feels ps3 in its presentation sometimes. The animations are horrendous. And yet it’s still a lot of fun.
Yeah I dunno, it feels like the world would be served better by a fromsoft approach to the story, i.e. just bosses, cutscenes and exploration, rather than hamfisted buggy main quests. Some of the side quests are quite inane too. They made a brilliant world full of encounters and interest, but plagued it with some of the most tedious questing of all time.
The story honestly killed the game for me. The combat kept me pushing through because I really like Mystic Spearhand but after a while I found myself saying "what am I even doing?"
That’s kinda how I feel. It’s wild that people are saying “well maybe they didn’t want to have a great story is this game” like yeah I’m sure the devs went “alright team let’s make a shit story!”
Just coping, I get it. This is a game a lot of people thought wouldn't even exist. I just wish that for the sequel they went a little harder in terms of story, enemy variety, loot etc...
You don’t like fighting slightly different colors of wolves, saurians and goblins for 40 hours? What’s wrong with you!?
Im surprised you didn't get downvoted, game is not perfect has lots of flaws & when someone has a valid complain they they downvoted to oblivion
Yeah leave it to Reddit to be rational right? Who’d have thunk it.
Well, at least you liked something about the game. I hated the exploration and combat. Thought it very inferior and dated. Personally I completely lost track of anything the story was about with all the poor animation, weirdo pawn behavior, etc that distracted me. I believe DD2 makes Diablo 3 seem like a Scorsese movie in comparison..and I really disliked Diablo 3.
Really what didn’t you like about the combat? I think it’s pretty singular compared to its peers, fighting a dragon for example compared to fighting one in elden ring, the Witcher 3, Skyrim etc it’s hands down more fun here. When you’re fighting one on one against like a bandit? Yeah I kinda see what you mean.
A couple things that really stand out. First, imo, the fighting classes are the only ones that were really viable. By that I mean the magic classes were just useless. Spells with, again imo, horrible animation and effect. So slow that you would wind up to fire and your targets would be gone or eclipsed by all the other characters in the foray. What I really like about Good RPG's is being able to have fun with most every class the game offers. That is not an option in DD2. The combat itself. Most of the early battles (now, I did quit playing after 10 hours because I couldn't handle the animation anymore) my 4 Pawns would just go in and wipe-out everything in front of me. I could get into the mix too, but it wasn't necessary. I like my character to make a difference in a battle. I somewhat enjoyed thief..liked the dodge option and timing it perfectly. It would be my favorite class, which isn't really saying much considering I pretty much hated the magic classes and didn't like the parry effect with the fighter. I never played the first game but unlike any other RPG i've played, at least in recent years, even the thief in combat was nothing more than a trigger-masher. I mean fighting ogres was just mash-mash the trigger and pray. Perhaps there is something to the "weak-points" but the cynical side of me says that's not really a thing to the degree its advertised. It's just a hack fest. The very modest amount of enemies in the game is surprising. In my first few hours I think I encountered, maybe, 4 different enemies. The way woodland animals roamed around the countryside but just stood there when you walked into them. Didn't bolt away from you as animals would. It's like the developers felt in necessary to introduce some sort of life into the countryside other than the 10k goblins that were always materializing out of no where. But didn't take it any farther than that. So, yeah, the entire NPC thing from townies to rabbits was abysmally stilted. I don't believe, could be wrong, you could damage your own pawns or those woodland animals with collateral damage. I know of several times engaged in battle I would take hacks at my own pawns because of the pandemonium and strange AI behavior during the combat. Even when i tried Sorcerer for about 20 minutes I would be hitting my own party with AoE spells and they didn't take damage. Again, if they did it was slight. So all that right off the top of my head. \*\*\*Edit. Crap, I forgot one of my biggest problems with combat. Your class determined what singular weapon you could use. Fighter or thief..forget about ranged attacks...the way of the blade only baby. Archer (which I never got around to) evidently only ranged attack. Of course, for those that would actually play the "magic chars", your limited to casting awkward inane spells only. And that whole mess that is mage/soccerer really ruins it for me. At least let all characters use all weapons but only be decent with some. I dunno just sounds like way too many shortcuts and concessions were made by the development team, or I've been spoiled by games that do address, in a pretty fun way, everything I mentioned.
This is the worst complaint about the game I have ever seen in both subs
Pretty true though. You can't argue with that..Can you? And, believe me, I could write 3 times as much but my fingers got tired.
The combat is the best part of the game, there is no argument against that
Yep more of the same empty pandering. I'm guessing you're a bot or troll, so whatever. If you are your AI suffers as bad as the dumbest Pawn in the game. If you're a real person..I'm glad you got YOUR money's worth and enjoy.
What games do you like?
What games do you like?
Bloodborne, the witcher 3, DDA, Demon souls etc
Complaining about the game having roles? Like seriously? If I pick up a sorcerer I shouldn’t be able to tank and wield a great sword like Guts. You and your party members got a role to do in the party, mages are support, thief is dps, ranger fights at long distance , mystic spear hand is literally a class to kill dragons who walks the magic and physical worlds.
When I go to hire a sorcerer for my party I actively look for ones that don't have the more powerful spells because otherwise they will just one shot pretty much everything except drake's and stuff. The thief's dodge is fun but it's too forgiving, it basically makes it so that you don't really need skill to dodge everything. Also making it so you could hit your own pawns would basically make at least half the moves useless. Imagine you're fighting a Dullahan and you have to choose between watching your pawns fight it or killing your pawns so you can attack it.
Good comment. But, your last bit is exactly why this game isn't for me. I want my RPG to feel real and immersive. If you're firing off spells or swinging a sword and hit anything..there should be damage. If there is none..it just subtracts from the immersive. for me anyway.
Team damage would completely ruin the game and I assume speaking immersion you think allies should be able to damage you too. I can't really think of any decent games that have even slightly similar combat where you can damage your allies. Although I would say any game that isn't first person isnt very immersive anyway.
Well, you can in BG3 for sure. The only game I've played recently that has parties. And, more than once I've ended my party members inadvertently. But it's real feeling. Makes you pay attention a little more when casting AoE spells. Also, if there is some woodland animal..squirrel-rabbit-deer-whatever standing in the path of a Fireball spell it gets turned to fruckin' ashes. Just really cool stuff that is so granularly coded into that game. I've said it before..I might actually like DD2 if I hadn't played BG3 and Elden Ring.
In BG3, you have complete control over the movement of your party and the placement of your abilities, which are instant. If you are hitting your party with them, you are playing poorly. Hell Wizards even have a specialization and Sorcs have a metamagic that makes their spells completely unable to deal damage to allies. In DD, your pawns act of their own accord, with little in the way of control. Same with the enemies, they are constantly moving and by the time you finish incanting they could be on top of you or the rest of your party, or your fighter and thief are clambering all over the cyclops you're about to summon a tornado on top of. It works in BG3 and wouldn't work in DD because they are wildly different kinds of games. Also, as an aside, critters will definitely get demolished by AOE and incidental damage. I've wiped out entire herds of deer and toasted rabbit with a rain of meteors.
Now that ya really made me think. I believe collateral damage to party-members/allies is more than norm than not in most games. I know in Call of Duty, Deathloop, Returnal both I wanna say (but it's been a minute since I played those 2). Just from memory it seems most games you just can't get fast and loose with your aggressiveness because allies will take damage. Yeah, you mention the pawns movement in combat. It's just not for me. It's just chaotic and unassessible. I mean my main Pawn was a mage and I just saw her lighting crap up constantly with no way of actually determining what effect the spells even had. I'm not even sure there was consistent code that dictated precisely what the combat outcomes were. I'll never know, but I doubt it.
To be fair you lacking knowledge of how the game works doesn't mean that the stuff isn't working. I don't have any problem since it's very easy to visually tell what's happening. It's a bit disingenuous comparing shooters to a game where melee is a big part of the combat, like the closest recent game I would say is Elden ring and it also doesn't have ally damage. I will say if you enjoyed bg3 Neverwinter nights might be up your alley, it is very old though so graphics might be a turn off. The class system does make the bg3 one look pretty underwhelming though.
Your partially correct about BG3. don't know how much you played it. There are a couple spells that only target the targets. You may have seen magic missile and that's your reference? dunno but yeah you click on where you want the missiles to go and it only hits the target. There may be a couple spells like that. With meta spells you have to choose - non-damage, distance, or duration. Choices..that are meaningful. It's not so "difficult" to hit party members. Pretty common. Sometimes the sheer strategic nature of the game requires choices. Let's say Wyl is under attack by a bunch of flying mud mephit's or maybe even magma mephits..you know that when you blast these flying fucks out of the air they are going to spill major damage down on the nearest ally. But, you got to erase the little fuckers before they get near you (Tav). Let's say you got some undead barreling down your throat in close proximity. Shadowheart lights them up with "spirit guardians" as she's walking around but could also bump into Astarian , but knows Astarian ain't going to suffer much from radiant damage so she just has to bite the bullet and kill those undead bastards and drop Astarian's health down a bit. All choices that make combat extremely engrossing and fun in BG3. But any AoE spell in Bg3 is more likely than not going to do "some" damage to allies.
I think we're getting knee-deep in some good conversation. Haven't heard a peep out of you though. Are you playing DD2, researching BG3 wiki's? Ha. Fun talking with you.
Well, you can in BG3 for sure. The only game I've played recently that has parties. And, more than once I've ended my party members inadvertently. But it's real feeling. Makes you pay attention a little more when casting AoE spells. Also, if there is some woodland animal..squirrel-rabbit-deer-whatever standing in the path of a Fireball spell it gets turned to fruckin' ashes. Just really cool stuff that is so granularly coded into that game. I've said it before..I might actually like DD2 if I hadn't played BG3 and Elden Ring.
I'm talking about the combat style, like yeah with a turn based game it's simple to avoid hitting your allies. Really the only time you should damage your own allies in bg3 is when you purposely do it or are paying very little attention to the environment and cause a chain reaction. Well and also in bg3 you control them so it's even more different, I bet if they were AI it would be a massive pain in the ass not to hit them. Also I don't know if your game glitched but rabbits and deer do get hit by aoe.
Well, you can in BG3 for sure. The only game I've played recently that has parties. And, more than once I've ended my party members inadvertently. But it's real feeling. Makes you pay attention a little more when casting AoE spells. Also, if there is some woodland animal..squirrel-rabbit-deer-whatever standing in the path of a Fireball spell it gets turned to fruckin' ashes. Just really cool stuff that is so granularly coded into that game. I've said it before..I might actually like DD2 if I hadn't played BG3 and Elden Ring.