![]() You start skipping the fodder enemies and then eventually you're skipping whole swathes of the map cause you just get nothing out of fighting and wasting your time when you can just run past it all. DA version made port crystals more abundant but the true horror of this dead world is not apparent until mid to late game when you go back to finish up quests and you can't be arsed to fight the 1000th wolf pack. The major problem is the open world is essentially a stagnant one that leads to an un-engaging experience and not appealing to traverse which makes the lack of fast travel stick out more. The most boring fun game is the perfect way to describe Dragon's Dogma, it has unbelievable highs caked inside the most snooze inducing lows. I can sort of see why DD enemies don't grow as the player gets stronger Because DD's combat requires more player engagement, having to deal with higher level trash every time you want to cross from point A to B will become even more tiresome and will also require a lot more balancing, poor balancing will wreck DD's combat.just ask anyone who used a no equip limit mod and stacked explosive arrows. Bethesda's leveled enemies approach makes it so that when you go back to do dungeons you missed out on you at least have the chance to test out your new gear and spells you got from looting because the enemies will at least put up a decent fight, DD enemies on the other hand melt if you so much as look at them after you past a certain threshold. In fact the only side quest in Dragon's Dogma that's somewhat memorable is the one where you have to meet the Duchess in secret, and even then I remember that mainly because of how jarring the aftermath is (the duke acts like nothing happened despite throwing you into jail minutes ago).Ĭapcom's attempt at an open world game really makes you notice how other devs design choices makes a huge difference. Furthermore, the quest lines in Skyrim are way more engaging than any quest or series of quests in Dragon's Dogma. Sure both games have a large abundance and over-reliance on dungeon crawling and kill x at location y quests, but atleast Skyrim has a few more objectives than just that such as Dark Brotherhood assassinations and thief quests. In terms of quests Elder Scrolls still wins simply because there's still a greater variety when it comes to quests. Even when it comes to characters Skyrim is still better: I can actually remember quite a few of them whereas the only characters that were somewhat memorable in Dragon's Dogma were the Duke, The Dragonforged, and the Duke's wife. Skyrim's story might be a little forgettable but at least the main plot actually has you doing things to stop the dragon, whereas Dragon's Dogma's main plot has you doing random unrelated tasks before finally deciding that it's now time to fight the dragon. And you start joining the dots.Īs much as I dislike Skyrim, I have to say that Dragon's Dogma is still far worse in these aspects. And then you spot Mason lurking there during the day. ![]() ![]() Or when you have an Abbey full of nuns in the middle of a forest, where two ogres hang out at night because they're attracted to females. So, despite its flaws, this game is something. So what does that mean? That was a cool moment of discovery for me. While I was playing the game again I noticed something. The game looks stunning, from the setting sun to the glow of lanterns in the night. Heck, it's character creator alone is superb. It has a great foundation in gameplay and lore, and there are lessons that could have been applied to really reach its potential. It's sad because this is a game that clearly would have benefited from a sequel. On the one hand, they exist to open up the map, on the other hand they're dated by their design. It feels like these are a result of cuts, rather than poor thought. The church, is often brought up, but has little to no payoff. For example, Mason, one of the first characters you meet in the city, appears as a city vagrant, but is clearly mixed in things that belies his appearance. There is enough foundation there to suggest deeper stories and characterization, but it seems like those threads have been snipped. It feels like the game is incomplete, in a way. I think the problem is how the story is implemented, rather than the story itself. If you finish the game, you'll have access to the complete lore, and it's actually rather fascinating and there is potential there to explore further facets in sequels. I have to disagree that the lore is trite. But I would like to comment on some of the points. I like the game a whole lot, flaws and all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |