Support NeoGAF

[Laughing Banana]

Dragon's Dogma's combat is one thing that I would, without a doubt, herald above even the likes of Dark Souls 3 and even Bloodborne, and that is heavy coming from me considering how much I dearly love Bloodborne's combat system, but DD's combat is completely on another level.

Incredible magic effects, very satisfying sword thwacks, fantastic ranged combat both magical or physical, none can beat the overall feel of Dragon's Dogma combat.

 

[Zocano]

Dragon's Dogma let me appreciate the elder scrolls games (and fallout) open world design even more. When you take out dynamic systems, it's a boring swamp to trudge through. Nothing changes in Dragon's Dogma open world and there aren't enough changes or systems outside of combat to make me want to continue playing. My favorite moments with the game were the first 5 hours when everything outside the 3 goblins from the starting town was brutally difficult.

The second I came even close to "on-level" everything became easy and boring to fight. Why utilize the breadth of the combat when a lot of simple mashing works just fine. It doesn't apply to all enemies, of course, but I think a lack of difficulty (and scaling difficulty) just made me grow bored of the game. I don't have the drive to get myself to the dark arisen content either.

Combat is kinda the only thing the game has going for it, which, yah, is fun but there was just so much missing for me in the well worn open world game formula that I didn't stick around very long (about 30 hours I think?). I'd rather just play another elder scrolls.

 

[Soodanim]

I played 100 hours on PS3 DD. I did more than that when I bought it on PC.

I played God knows how many hours on PS3 and even more on PC DS1. I played DS3 story once and barely touched it since.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Goddamnit people. How can combat be bad in a game where you can scale a goddamn Gryphon as it takes off and proceed to stab it in the wings as it flies around until it crashes to the earth, but not before you leap off heroically, landing like nothing happened.

"Wolves hunt in packs, Arisen."

Thanks, faithful companion #2.

 

[Mutombo]

Apples and oranges, I suppose, but I loved them both. Capcom was working on a new Dragon's Dogma, right? DD Online?

Or are they just so low on funds that they are canceling everything from DD to that other supposedly free to play Dragons Dogma like game that probably will never come out.

 

[Unai]

I just don't see how, unless the only other ARPG he's enjoyed was from the Souls series. There's literally nothing else out there that has combat like either of these two games, and both are fun for very different reasons. Not every game has to be as rote as the Souls series to have fun combat. I don't disagree with the complaints about the world itself, the general aesthetic, the inventory, the story or any of the other flaws. They will be worse depending on what you're comparing it to and how much it really matters. The combat and exploration was so fun that those flaws didn't prevent me from wanting to keep playing. Conversely, one of the most praised RPGs recently around here just bores me to tears.

Everyone always forget about Kingdoms of Amalur

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Pleasantly surprised at how loved the game apparently is after all. With 12k+ views, I hope some new players will join the club soon.

 

[Syril]

Name a single AAA "RPG" (or any really) that didn't have brain-dead/boring combat since last gen. So many games would benefit from having combat like this. It's not "hardcore" (neither is it in Souls, but people will claim that it is anyway), but it's not mash X to win or a game that relies on dated first-person shooter mechanics, and it also doesn't feel janky.

See, this is where my problem with it comes from. The RPG stuff in it doesn't do anything for me because I don't think it was done well, so the only thing left for me is the combat which I'm then judging by action game standards instead of RPG standards.

 

[Register]

Dragon's Dogma is highly overrated. I'm a huge fan of these type of games, but DD ranks pretty low - even far below Two Worlds and the like. The combat is the only saving grace, but not nearly enough to put it above 'medicore'. The world is boring has nothing to explore really, the NPCs are uber generic as are the quests and everything feels unrewarding and the story is a joke.

Saying it's better than Dark Souls 3 is laughable.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Dragon's Dogma is highly overrated. I'm a huge fan of these type of games, but DD ranks pretty low - even far below Two Worlds and the like. The combat is the only saving grace, but not nearly enough to put it above 'medicore'. The world is boring has nothing to explore really, the NPCs are uber generic as are the quests and everything feels unrewarding and the story is a joke.

Saying it's better than Dark Souls 3 is laughable.

Thread keeps getting crazier. I expect to see "Dragon's Dogma is worst than Gothic 4" in 2 pages, followed by "Dragon's Dogma is worst than Bad Rats" and "Dragon's Dogma is worst than DON'T YOU DARE SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT MY SOULS GAMES".

 

[Laughing Banana]

Can't believe anyone would even compare DD's combat system to SKYRIM, of all things, and THEN also view Skyrim more favorably, even.

Wow

 

[sublimit]

Skyrim doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this thread. Especially when we talk in terms of combat.

Dragon's Dogma and the Souls series have incredibly satisfying and deep combat systems that are easy to learn but hard to master.

Skyrim's combat is trash.Period.

 

[Eidan]

there is nothing about Souls combat that is objectively better than DD. Quit the opposite for the most part actually and I consider Dark souls 1 the best game of all time.

I fit weren't for the huge amount of weapons in DS, it would have more repetitive combat style than DD by default.

Hell what can you do combat wise in DS that you can't do in DD? Souls have more weapon variety and that's all.

With the options to cut monsters parts and climbing them DD even feels less repetitive than Souls to me.

Again I like Souls more than DD(except for DS2/3), but calling DD's combat repetitive compared to Souls just doesn't fly with me.


edit: DD does have bad story and worse open world. I don't know about art style and music though. DS3 has weak enemy designs Souls wise and I vastly like the ones in DD more.

Here you go.

Skyrim doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this thread. Especially when we talk in terms of combat.

Dragon's Dogma and the Souls series have incredibly satisfying and deep combat systems that are easy to learn but hard to master.

Skyrim's combat is trash.Period.

And for you.

Can't believe anyone would even compare DD's combat system to SKYRIM, of all things, and THEN also view Skyrim more favorably, even.

Wow

Can't forget you.

 

[Norns]

Skyrim doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this thread. Especially when we talk in terms of combat.

Dragon's Dogma and the Souls series have incredibly satisfying and deep combat systems that are easy to learn but hard to master.

Skyrim's combat is trash.Period.

Clearly it does since so many folks are talking about it. I like how you spell out punctuation though.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Here you go.



And for you.



Can't forget you.

If stats and equipment mattering in damage means it not skill based then doesn't that disqualify like the entire genre?

 

[Eidan]

If stats and equipment mattering in damage means it not skill based then doesn't that disqualify like the entire genre?

I'd say a combination of the DEGREE in which stats and equipment matter in damage and defense, and how the game deals with consequences with healing and Wakestones, that you get a game where skill is less important than the grind. Much like Skyrim.

I consider this thing to be on a spectrum. If you have a game that combines action with stat progression, there's a balance between the two. Some games lean more in one direction than the other. I'd say on one spectrum you have...a character action game with light stat progression, most likely just HP (Metal Gear Rising for instance). That game is heavily skill-based. Then you might have a game with a bit more stat growth, but where to truly excel you're expected to master the controls, mechanics, and have impressive reflexes (Bloodborne...with the Souls titles leaning a bit more with stat progression). Then you have a game where you can have a mastery in the game's controls and mechanics, but what will truly matter is if your stats and equipment are up to par. This is where Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma firmly land. DD is hurt further, as mentioned above, by how it deals out consequences. Death is negated with easily farmable wakestones, and you can pause and FULLY heal from items that are cheap and easy to farm.

It's not a skill based game, now matter how cool you think it is to jump on big monsters. It's Skyrim with more responsive controls, and snappier animations. Now is that bad in itself? I don't think so. For instance, I enjoyed Skyrim. But Skyrim had more going for it than just combat. And DD doesn't have shit.

 

[iHaunter]

Congratulations.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

I'd say a combination of the DEGREE in which stats and equipment matter in damage and defense, and how the game deals with consequences with healing and Wakestones, that you get a game where skill is less important than the grind. Much like Skyrim.

I consider this thing to be on a spectrum. If you have a game that combines action with stat progression, there's a balance between the two. Some games lean more in one direction than the other. I'd say on one spectrum you have...a character action game with light stat progression, most likely just HP (Metal Gear Rising for instance). That game is heavily skill-based. Then you might have a game with a bit more stat growth, but where to truly excel you're expected to master the controls, mechanics, and have impressive reflexes (Bloodborne...with the Souls titles leaning a bit more with stat progression). Then you have a game where you can have a mastery in the game's controls and mechanics, but what will truly matter is if your stats and equipment are up to par. This is where Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma firmly land. DD is hurt further, as mentioned above, by how it deals out consequences. Death is negated with easily farmable wakestones, and you can pause and FULLY heal from items that are cheap and easy to farm.

It's not a skill based game, now matter how cool you think it is to jump on big monsters. It's Skyrim with more responsive controls, and snappier animations. Now is that bad in itself? I don't think so. For instance, I enjoyed Skyrim. But Skyrim had more going for it than just combat. And DD doesn't have shit.

Irrespective of the degree to which my stats affect my weapon there are things that need to be done with that weapon for it to offer me any of those benefits. My stats and equipment don't dodge for me to help me avoid damage. They don't time the frames on when to use my parries to deflect attacks. They don't lead a target depending upon it's distance when I'm shooting arrows. I'm not sure why you're intent on spreading some idea that the game isn't skill based but that's just not true. While you might think that stats mean more ultimately that doesn't mean the game is devoid of skill as you are trying to make it appear.

Your complaint about consumables is baseless because you aren't forced to use them. Wakestones don't simply subtract themselves from your inventory and respawn you. They do if you decide to. You have to pause and go into the menu to use consumables. Just because there isn't a grade at the end of the mission for it doesn't mean you can't abstain anyway. I mean you are literally ruining your own experience and complaining about the game doing it. If you want consequences die and start over.

DD has plenty other than it's combat. I love being able to make a black guy that looks like a black guy. I loved being able to have a man as my love. I loved riding harpies to take me high atop pillars I couldn't reach otherwise. I love that though there weren't many creatures most of them look like what I would expect to see from Greco Roman mythology and D&D. I love being able to have a party of four or go solo. I loved how dark the nights are. Mornings are absolutely beautiful. I loved that the world was small enough that I feel like I know every inch of Gransys and was hoping for other kingdoms to be fleshed out in sequels. I'm sorry the game may not offer you anything more than combat. Given how hard you are working to deny certain aspects of the game I'm not sure that you would be one to see them.

 

[sublimit]

nitekrawlwer i wouldn't even bother if i were you.

 

[Kuosi]

The PC version is quite brilliant, while the graphical upgrades aren't huge the performance is worlds apart, I own it on 360 where the fps would sometimes drop to 10-20 at times, while on PC I can run it pretty much on 144fps lock.
I would however not rank it above Souls games by any means, not even the combat

 

[Zocano]

Skyrim doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this thread. Especially when we talk in terms of combat.

Dragon's Dogma and the Souls series have incredibly satisfying and deep combat systems that are easy to learn but hard to master.

Skyrim's combat is trash.Period.

...actually I'd say Souls has the same amount of "depth" as Skyrim's combat. It's more that Souls is actually super responsive and communicates to you clearly what you need to do to succeed. Skyrim's on the otherhand is floaty, unreliable, unclear, and clunky. The toolsets are actually insanely similar between the two, just the actual act of utilizing those tools (blocking, swinging a sword, positioning) is clear and responsive in one over the other. Third person helps a lot in that regard.

Dragon's Dogma has more "depth" because it simply has a larger toolset to utilize.

Doesn't stop the rest of the game from being a yawn-fest, unfortunately.

DD has plenty other than it's combat. I love being able to make a black guy that looks like a black guy. I loved being able to have a man as my love. I loved riding harpies to take me high atop pillars I couldn't reach otherwise. I love that though there weren't many creatures most of them look like what I would expect to see from Greco Roman mythology and D&D. I love being able to have a party of four or go solo. I loved how dark the nights are. Mornings are absolutely beautiful. I loved that the world was small enough that I feel like I know every inch of Gransys and was hoping for other kingdoms to be fleshed out in sequels. I'm sorry the game may not offer you anything more than combat. Given how hard you are working to deny certain aspects of the game I'm not sure that you would be one to see them.

The world might be smaller but it doesn't lean on that strength unlike the Souls games which have an equally small "world". Dragon's Dogma has a bunch of nothing between static enemy placements that never change with (mostly) random loot. That guts the feeling of exploration immediately in all sorts of ways. At the very least Skyrim has a shit ton of dynamic systems in its world to make fun, goofy, and sometimes interesting shit happen. But I come to Skyrim for the sim-y shit. Dragon's Dogma doesn't have that sort of safety net and it's sandbox to play in isn't interesting enough for me to use its tools/toys (combat) in.

Dark nights was a cool thing but unfortunately, if you play smart, that is hardly ever a thing that happens. Especially once you get a handful of warp stones. And the big post-dragon dungeon doesn't really have the darkness system in play. It's just kind of Bloodborne Chalice dungeon shit over and over.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

The world might be smaller but it doesn't lean on that strength unlike the Souls games which have an equally small "world". Dragon's Dogma has a bunch of nothing between static enemy placements that never change with (mostly) random loot. That guts the feeling of exploration immediately in all sorts of ways. At the very least Skyrim has a shit ton of dynamic systems in its world to make fun, goofy, and sometimes interesting shit happen. But I come to Skyrim for the sim-y shit. Dragon's Dogma doesn't have that sort of safety net and it's sandbox to play in isn't interesting enough for me to use its tools/toys (combat) in.

Dark nights was a cool thing but unfortunately, if you play smart, that is hardly ever a thing that happens. Especially once you get a handful of warp stones. And the big post-dragon dungeon doesn't really have the darkness system in play. It's just kind of Bloodborne Chalice dungeon shit over and over.

The spawns change up a bit after you've faced Grigori. I don't expect new flora and fauna when treading the same path without major environmental disturbance. Not to mention upgrading my equipment would be harder if the spawns were changing locations and more randomized.

There are multiple quests at night. The darkness still works half the time on BBI. If you have Assassin(favorite class) augments that kinda matters. Not that you wont still get that murky darkness at several points inside BBI due to environmental setups like the sewers, the lanterns that also damage enemies etc.

I'm starting to wonder if Capcom might need to change the genre of the game so that people's expectations are for a more Action/Adventure game than an RPG. I can admit that Dragon's Dogma is barely an RPG if role playing, branching dialogue options, varied quest design and persistent NPCs with scheduling are the kinds of things that you think of when you think of RPG. Luckily I knew Capcom was the publisher and what the developers worked on prior. I was thoroughly expecting an action game with some RPG elements and aesthetics. The ones that were there like awesome customization were icing on the cake.