If you're looking for an honest unbiased review of the game, I suggest you read this one: I waited a whole year to play this game do to mixed reviews and issues with the game. I also bought this game when it was on sale which if I recall was about half off. I also did play Dark Arisen, so I am basing my experiences off of that. One of the biggest hurdles for me was hearing about the performance of the game. It was heavily disappointing to see that a game was released with so many issues so I can understand the negative reviews at the game's launch As of right now I barely have any issues with the game's performance. Here are my computer specs: 13 Gen Intel(R) Core i7-13700k, 32 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 While there are a few glitches here and there it's nothing that stops my progress of the game. When I enter the towns I actually don't have any problems with lagging or any drops. I optimized my game to make it run with my computer, which I strongly suggest even if you do have to lower the memory and settings a bit. I'm not one of those people that needs heavy graphics to enjoy a game though. Long as it looks good and it's playable is usually enough for me. Even then it still looks great. Now as for the game: It really feels like I am playing Dragon's Dogma 2. The game play, the way it feels, the way it works - I mean it's Dragon's Dogma 2. I know maybe some people were expecting something else - or more, but for me I wanted something like Dark Arisen and I would say that this is it. What makes Dragon's Dogma 2 fun - is how unique it is, the fighting, the pawn system, the monsters. All these things vary to a degree, but still the same in most regards. Are there some things taken away from the first game? The armor and clothing layer for one. Why they removed it - I have no idea. There some of it still present, but not like the first game. The lack of vocations too, but there's still quite a bit to choose from and a different offset for each vocation. The fighting is practically the same as the first game. Whether it's the first or the second game you're still using the same buttons to attack regardless of what your vocation is. Can it be a bit repetitive depending on the vocation? Yeah sure, I play a mage - most of that is spells, standing, and using the same spells. Does it bother me? No. my goal is to stay alive and stand back to deal as much damage as I can while I let my pawns do most of the close combat fighting. You really just have to pick which vocation works for you. One of the most creative things about Dragon's Dogma was the pawn system, which in this game... is FANTASTIC. I would say a lot more than the first. I'm not sure if maybe a lot of what they did went to the pawn system compared to everything else, but the pawns are so fun, and it's so interesting to see their interactions based on each other. It is incredibly more in depth than it appears, the way they remember quests and other Arisen’s and the things they may have done during the game is phenomenal from an AI standpoint. They feel surprisingly real, I've had a pawn recently tell me how the quest I completed was failed by an arisen they traveled with. They'll tell you who Arisen's travel with, one at the beginning of the game told me someone traveled with only females (lol). I've had my own pawn run around and hail everyone after defeating an ogre. I also had my pawn pick up another pawn and throw them over the cliff when that pawn was down and trying to revive them. Why did she do that? Don't know but it was funny. Can the things they say become repetitive? For sure, they can repeat dialogue, but if you pay attention you'll always see a unique interaction with your pawn or other pawns. And I do enjoy being able to high-five pawns and give them gestures after fights. It's really unique and a great part of the game. As for the quest; the quest system in the first game wasn't really all that great either. I would say it's about the same. I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. A lot of the quests are more direct and this may be due to the fact that in the first game you could fail quests if you didn't do them in a timely manner. While the second game has that same feature, the difference is this time they make you a little more aware of that so you just don't "fail" and wonder.. how did that even happen? In a lot of ways, they still throw quests out just like the first one, it's up to you whether you want to do them or not. The map, in my opinion, leads for a lot of exploration. I think it's enjoyable, the first one was a lot smaller. This map I do feel like with the little towns, or places, various caves, there's more going on in it. Would it be nice if there was more to some of these areas? Yeah, but do I feel like it ruins the game? No- a lot of these places tend to be for quests/exploration you don't necessarily need to go back to it (if you don't want to) after you're done. Plus, with the ox/ferrystone system, you have a fairly easy time traveling through the majority of the map. The ox cart system is really unique, and as you progress 200 gold is chump change, you can also save ferrystones and travel to any portcrystal. Truth be told, I find myself using the ox cart system quite a bit. Which leads to camp/resting/inns. Backpacks are actually fairly easy to come by, and you can use them until they're gone due to a monster attack. In the beginning it can be difficult to sleep and replenish health at inns but once again.. after you progress, spending the money isn't all that bad. Even then I would just find myself sleeping at a camp on purpose to save money. After some point you can buy a house in Vermund and travel and sleep there whenever you want. As far as the health system goes - I don't find myself having all that much trouble with the shortening of the health. I think it makes for good planning/strategy and it's super easy to replenish it by once again going to a campsite/inn if you're already traveling. The monsters are all the same just like in the first game maybe save for the Hydra and the wyrms. I wish they definitely added more and also the leveling progression was better but that was also an issue with the first game. They're still fun to fight though. The story; I really enjoy it. I think one of the biggest problems with the story others have is how different it is compared to the first one. It's more political, but I like that sort of setting/premise. I think it's interesting to see how this place built for the arisen to be king is now being usurped from them and it's something that can VERY much happen in something like a monarch. I don't think it's unrealistic - as well as how people don't like pawns or may use them as slaves. The quests also paint a bigger picture of what's going on. It's unfair to say people won't enjoy the story when it really just depends. it may not be for everyone but there's definitely something to get out of it. Plus if you max out your pawns affinity you get one of the better endings of the game which I STRONGLY recommend. All in all, I think the game is definitely worth playing. I believe most of the negative reviews are unfortunately due to a poorly painted reception due to the launch of the game and what others have to say. Form your own opinion- I was one of those people who thought it must be a terrible game until I played it for myself. I think the other issue is the price. Even then, there's no justifying the price tag and can give more of a negative perception when you're spending so much money. Get it when it's on sale and you'll definitely get your money's worth. Lastly, the Everfall is not in the game, which gave a lot more to the game after you finish the main quest in the first one. Hopefully they’ll have a good DLC to add like BitterBlack Isle
Expand the review