Poll of the Day > i have mixed feelings about dragons dogma dark arisen

(+) Yeah! (+)

on one hand it looks and plays like a mid lifecycle budget ps2 game

on the other hand, i kind of really like it
---

it was a decent game.
---

On one hand, I love the boss fights and character creator. On the other, I hate almost literally everything else. I'm replaying it and it's just making me crave Monster Hunter.

My biggest problem is the world itself, when I was reading reviews people said the map was huge, like big as Skyrim, but when I played I discovered most of the map areas maybe 10 hours and alot of the map forces you into semi-linear choke points before you get to a slightly open area with fuck all to do unless you have a quest there. Getting around is also a bitch since unless you carry nothing but the bare essentials and pack dozens of stamina items you'll be sprinting and running out of stamina all the time, it's really tedious. I want the map to be bigger but they would need to fix stamina management first.

Quests are also mostly lame, with the exception of some few dozen every quest is "Kill X amount of Y" or "collect generic item No. #163. Although atleast they had the amazing foresight to have those complete instantly and give you the rewards where you stand.

The menus is also kinda tedious, why is there a serperate menu for Armor and weapons and another, far more convenient one when you hit the Select button? Should have been combined. Also no multiple save slots, which is somewhat annoying.

Other than that and some other minor issues I really like it too, just feels budgeted/underdeveloped as hell.
---

helIy posted...

it looks and plays like a mid lifecycle budget ps2 game

---

helIy posted...

helIy posted...

it looks and plays like a mid lifecycle budget ps2 game

I don't like the game but that sounds harsh. the one thing I liked about it was that it seemed pretty high quality. great graphics, animations, frame rate, nothing to complain about in those areas. the gameplay though... ugh. maybe it gets better, but I was not having fun, that's for sure. gameplay-wise, skyrim is just plain better, which is a sad thing to say.
---

compare it to the first monster Hunter
---

The combat was a lot more interesting to me once I opened up the hybrid and advanced vocations

Talk of the combat reminds me of another issue I have. Why the fuck can I only equip 3 skills on a weapon that isn't a staff? This bothers me, I feel like the game was built around having more at one time(Would certainly make it much more fun) but they added the limit for some reason.
---

in the beginning of the game, you have six skills equipped, and you're using a sword, so like
---

helIy posted...

in the beginning of the game, you have six skills equipped, and you're using a sword, so like

You can only have 3 skills specific to weapon though, like if you use a sword you can only have 3 sword specific skills, with a shield you can have 3 shield skills for a total of six, unless you use exclusively a staff in which case you can have six spells.
---

Sahuagin posted...

helIy posted...

helIy posted...

it looks and plays like a mid lifecycle budget ps2 game

I don't like the game but that sounds harsh. the one thing I liked about it was that it seemed pretty high quality. great graphics, animations, frame rate, nothing to complain about in those areas. the gameplay though... ugh. maybe it gets better, but I was not having fun, that's for sure. gameplay-wise, skyrim is just plain better, which is a sad thing to say.

In the original release, I don't think the game could even hit 30fps. This remaster is locked at 30fps, which is a shame considering it runs on 60fps on PC and looks like a dream. Definitely the type of game that massively benefits from a higher framerate.

The combat is largely button-mashy, and outside of boss fights it's really not a fun game. Post-game is a great deal more entertaining because boss variety is essentially doubled, but I still prefer other open-world rpgs. The exploration, fast travel, backtracking, quests, pawn system, healing mechanics, and inventory management irritate the shit outta me.

Raganork posted...

In the original release, I don't think the game could even hit 30fps. This remaster is locked at 30fps, which is a shame considering it runs on 60fps on PC and looks like a dream. Definitely the type of game that massively benefits from a higher framerate.

yes I played it on PC. I guess helly must be on console.
---

yeah

30 more fps makes it suddenly not look like a budget ps2 title

makes sense
---

I guess I'm not graphics picky and just mostly noticed the framerate

but it's not just that. the whole presentation felt great. everything was flashy and looked nice. it made me want to enjoy the gameplay, because the presentation and graphical part of it was top notch. but... nope. spoiled by dark souls I guess.
---

if dark souls was slightly less punishing, and you could pause, it'd def beat out a lot of these games

i love dark souls aesthetic
---

helIy posted...

if dark souls was slightly less punishing

if you can get over the pause thing, the first one is not hard, it only pretends to be hard. it uses misdirection and obscurity to keep you from knowing how to play, so the learning part can be frustrating, (and I wouldn't necessarily call that a good thing), but once you get past that there's no problem, and you start wondering just how hard you can make the game and still survive.

(and for DS2 and 3, I'd mostly agree about the 'slightly less punishing' thing)
---

i really can't get over the not pausing thing.

like that literally ruins it.
---