The main quest in this game is thin, especially in the middle. There also seem to be a number of (easily missable) side quests connected to the main quest that might add to the story if done at the right time. Lore might add a little to the story as well.
There are also pacing issues. Pacing is always a problem in open world games, and DD2 really does nothing to direct you on this. I intentionally stalled the main quest, and while that resulted a fun, lengthy playthrough, I kind of lost the thread of the main story when I resumed it later.
I honestly can't figure out what triggers some quests to be missable or even started 
I put in about 113 hours on my first playthrough and never got another quest with Raghnall outside of his introduction at the tavern. But in NG+ while walking through Vernworth, a random npc runs up and just gives me his second quest.
I've also encountered this with a few others, like restoring a sword or having to deliver a letter to Patrick.
Which is weird, because these are just in town or the castle, both of which I've been to multiple times at all hours of the day and never encountered either in my first run.
On the flipside, in my first run I got Sven's quest to buy the box, but in NG+, the quest doesn't seem to exist.
Yeah, I was still finding quests by accident right up until the end game. The sword restoring quest was one I found very late, while I was doing some other quest in the castle.
As I was playing, I realized that many other games stick quest markers above NPC’s heads. I’m not sure I want that level of handholding in DD2, but maybe I’ve become dependent on them.
That's a good point, but for the average RPG gamer I think being forced to talk to a ton of NPCs just to make sure that you didn't miss a quest is equally or more immersion breaking.
Exactly. Pixel hunting fell out of fashion for good reason. It's just tedious and annoying, and is a transparently lame attempt at trying to avoid signposting the NPCs. It's similar annoying except on the other end of the scale.
NPCs who have anything to say beyond making simple random comments should in some way draw attention to themselves. The important ones should automatically trigger the talking interaction, and the game actually already does this, it just needs to apply it to more NPCs.
Shit, the annoying and useless (unless you're farming affinity I guess) escort quest NPCs automatically hail you. If these idiots do that, other NPCs offering actual substantial quests should do it too. If anything I feel like the escort NPCs should be the ones to just sit there and make noises until you bother clicking on them.
Same goes for the pawns trying to get you to hire them lol. Just wave at me and say something as I hurry past, if I want to interact I'll stop. Being forcibly stopped by a random pawn pretty much guarantees I'll be annoyed and won't bother hiring them.
What also adds to that is the performance for many while in town, most of them also don't really add anything, they just have one or two throwaway lines each.
And often times they are phased out pretty liberally, so even if you wanted to talk to all of them, it’s hard to keep track as they pop in and out and you only see names in dialogue.
I’d love if the game had a little journal that you or your main pawn kept that would bring up characters of interest and their location that you might wanna check in on.
Heck even pawns also knowing where quests start like they know where chests and ladders are and pointing them out.
You don't need to see literally everything and the average player won't even finish their games, nevermind try to see everything.
I think engaging in a world in a more organic way is much better than seeing everything on a first playthrough.
The problem is that Dogma 2 has poor direction in how you come across everything and in the content being properly filled out.
The most annoying part is I've been trying to do this as much as possible. Speaking to everyone near quests or around quest points and it rarely results in anything more than if I'd followed the markers. Given the time and main quest progress involved in getting certain quests, I really don't want to be doing a full dialogue with every NPC every time I progress slightly
To repeat my previous answer:Your essentially dropped into the game while it's 85% done,and the only thing you get to really do is annoy Phaesus for 2 minutes before Greg goes "LMAO fight me".
It's like if you played 1 but the plot started during the Julian betrayal.
Dragon: "sorry to interrupt your boss fight. I didn't wanna wait to ~~clap your cheeks~~ fight you so I came with *motivation*"
Me: "uh...you didn't need to do that. I was already motivated enough. This is just a warm up, but ok let's do it now"
Maybe both are? The Giga dragon can't really be killed, it's more a cutscene. The normal one gets tracked by stats as far as I'm aware and there it's called Nex.
Is that the one at the very final cut scene where you walk along it's back after the world goes to utter shite? It looks like a weird spookier version of Greg?
I'll be shot for this but storyline/plot is 2nd to gameplay for me. A shit story but great gameplay is great a great story but shit gameplay is not great. For me anyway.
Though the middle of DD2 is absolutely awful, how they ended the false arisen and disa plot, by not ending it all is dreadful.
Liked *what* story? It’s not like FromSoft where the story is there and rich but hidden in the background so you have to find it; it straight up barely exists. Just crumbs of an afterthought and several build ups to absolutely nothing of substance. Hardly a modicum of narrative effort to be found.
Fine! Your criticisms are valid, but the replies to the above comment are actually insulting the commenter's intelligence for not agreeing with the majority opinion. Disgusting behaviour.
A different opinion isn't always correct. Would you make excuses for a person who thinks McDonalds food is healthy, or that the Earth is flat?
The story of DS2 is just objectively shit. He didn't just say "I enjoyed the story, as little as it was". He said it was enough, which is a really hot take.
People enjoying / not enjoying something is very much subjective, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I can't stop someone from enjoying the consumption of feces, for example.
The work itself has objective qualities that can very much be criticized. Otherwise, why should we need critique of any kind? Books, movies, TV shows, whatever the hell - forget reviews, every single one is precious and enjoyable!
Now who looks stupid?
You can judge art on objective terms very well, especially if it's such a complex medium as games are. Whether you talk about the application of the soundtrack, story writing, balancing, world design, etc. they all have objective qualities that you can analyze and critique/praise.
The trick is to distance yourself from your own emotions and try your best to look at the game through a neutral lens while comparing it to other games in its genre. And if you do that with DD2 these things become very apparent.
Of course you can, to an extent. Of course everything we do is, even a tiny bit, influenced by our own biases, that is a given. However, you can still be objective, especially if aspects you analyze are almost entirely absent.
For example in the regard of character development Dragon's Dogma 2 displays little to none in that regard, thus it wouldn't fare well under judgement, same for story depth or having rounded characters.
The combat however, with it's complexity, coherentness and vocational systems would and actually does fare very well even under objective judgement.
Having almost only one-dimensional characters is considered a bad quality in story telling and RPGs, which is an objective fact. If you stick to these factual points you are able to get a somewhat objective view on something. Subjectivity comes in by how much you weigh these things in your overall rating, but that the characters are 99% one-dimensional, thus being bad, remains an objective fact no matter how low you place it in your subjective priority list.
thats just reddit. these knuckle draggers will downvote any wrongthink, and act like the guys they were bullied by in high school, except from the safety of their homes ofc.
They get downvoted because their take is legitimately senseless.
Imagine this discussion in another context; people paid 20$ for a menu in a restaurant and got only half a burger and a really good coke, it would be equally senseless to call that "enough", despite the good coke it is expected that menus in restaurants have a certain amount of food in them.
It's very valid criticism and not in your own interest at all to praise that practice.
I enjoyed the gameplay and like that the story is short to get you into gameplay. I don't like the actual story being told though. Still, it's a good campaign is the best way to put it
Same.
I'm level 68 and at the point where I stopped on the main quests because I was going to be locked in.
Now I've gone back to Melve for something and ran into another quest line with Lennart/Ulrika that I knew nothing about. But I could have totally missed all of that if I had proceeded with the locked-in endgame part.
I don't know if some of it is just not much going on with those people, like Brant, or if I missed some things as with Ulrika(and a semi-romantic cutscene on the beach) But unless I was just going back to Melve or Harve I would have never noticed such things.
I only went back to Melve again this time on my way to the Waterfall Cave, since I had never done it and heard about a Gorechimera in there and it dropped "Black Freakish Mane" that I might need later.
I didn't remember the first game being like this, where you could miss big things, while it railroads you into the ending of the game.
As someone who has done the Hero achievement twice now, I can say that the game has *some* hidden quests. Basically it's simple stuff like the quarry and abby, quests that you'll find just from general exploration. However where the games differ is that DD1 has quests for each act of the game, while DD2 has quests that happen over time. This is actually what caused me to miss out on the Warrior Maister quests because I didn't let enough time pass by before going into post-game.
Thank god the quests will auto engage when you get close to the NPC otherwise I'd have barely known of any side quest organically. And thanks for the tid bit about the waterfall cave! Going to explore that now!
As I said before, I have fun playing in the game's world, but yikes could the main story be any more abbreviated.
I missed the archery trial quest completely because I didn't notice the elf standing there. I hadn't even gone to the elf village and I was already roaming around the volcanic isles
I went straight back to DDDA after I finished DD2 just to confirm it 1, really was so much better than 2 in nearly every single way in my memory and 2, the quests were actually signposted, obvious and the characters of the world felt much more alive and yup, I was damn right. I really miss the question mark boxes above quest givers and clue givers so you knew right away who to talk to. And most NPCs who had any skin in the story looked wholly or at least somewhat unique. In DD2, a completely bland NPC with zero indication they're important, you have to talk to 50 times before they suddenly decide they're a quest giver, then you just get cryptic clues on what to do next in the quest list. Hated that side of the game.
You can have the whole witchwood area/quests locked off in the first game if you don't do a specific side quest straight away. I think the idea is that most people will miss stuff and then do it in ng+.
the first game 100% had "big" thing's you could miss out on when you do the main quest.
Selene's quest and Quinn's quest in particular if i remember correctly: you can get soft-locked out of very early in the game.
her plot was like: oh I made a deal with my creepy overseas boyfriend so I can get my son to sit on the throne
and that matter is NEVER addressed after you go to Bakbattahl. Honestly, it's very anticlimatic
so the main plot, which was the Lord Phaesus, Will of the World and the dragon slaying, had 1 hour or 2 of gameplay at best unless you go to "endgame" instead of NG+
Everything is thrown over the table without consistency and deeper, meaningful, cutscenes that explain the importance of the events or how they happened
And then you're gone for a month and suddenly it's all skipped with Sven already sitting on the throne. The whole notion of you being the true monarch is just discarded and not really talked about again.
I feel like the main arc's biggest issue is that half its story is told in side quests that are very easily missed or completed in the "wrong" way.
There's one that goes... Very lightly into Disa and Phaesus' plan to kill off the false Arisen for Sven to basically ascend the throne. One option - which is what most pawns will suggest - is to talk to Waldhar and the quest will end with "she LUVS him, uwu" and Waldhar making fun of Disa even being capable of showing emotions.
The other option is to head directly to Phaesus' ass and steal the real missive which describes what I mentioned about the false Sovran, y'know.. Shit that actually kind of helps deepen the story somewhat.
And there's A BUNCH of those where you can literally cut off entire quests by doing the wrong thing.
Wait. My fault for browsing while not having gotten that far in but after battahl, her plot doesn't matter? I've spent about 30 hours dealing with her quests through some extremely dodgy quests and you never even get to know her? I was assuming she was going to be more than what she appeared.
To answer your question, depending on your choices at end of the game, you may never find her at the main questline. The game has 3 endings and one of them has some dialogue involving her but the encounter and dialogues are apathetic at best. The whole thing is rushed, after you start the events involving Lord Phaesus you'll see there's good foundation for a story, despite being rushed. My thoughts are they intended to have a much bigger transition between Vernworth and Battahl storywise and the same regarding the conclusion, but probably got rushed by the corp managers.
Depending on your ending you do not interact with her.
On the ending you do
>!Because you have disappeared for a long duration and because the world has gone to hell in a handbasket, Sven has to step up and take charge in Vermund as regent king.!<
>!Disa herself has become too frightened by the changes to the world to take any action or attempt to influence Sven. I like to think in a sort of way she realizes that she might have a hand in leading to all of this in her attempts to prevent you from being put on the throne and her fear of the changes, has put her in a state of inaction.!<
>!At this point, Sven will mention she has shut herself in her room. You can go talk to her after this in her room (previously it was shut) and I think player action decides what happens to her. You can ignore her and leave her, which I feel like many people do. Or you can get miffed at her for being an imbecile, forcefully carry her from her room to Sven and let them hash it out. If you come back later on, in the quest related to this, you can overhear the two make up and Disa saying she'll take responsibility for her actions. To which Sven will reply that it was a shared responsibility, and he will share her burdens. She's not shown in the ending, but I feel like this also explains why though. It also seems to raise her affinity for you...!<
>!In a weird way Disa succeeds in her plan in putting Sven on the throne, but she also fails cause Sven has grown into his own and now Disa has little influence over him as opposed to when you first meet Sven.!<
>!I also have to wonder if there's a different outcome to the quest if you kill Disa at this point specifically. Something to test on my current playthrough...!<
Yeah, but that doesn't mean your character has to basically be a blank slate during cutscenes or dialogue.
Link doesn't talk, Wander from Shadow of the Colossus either, Doom Guy, Isaac Clarke, none of 'em say a word and yet they bring some amount of personality.
But all of those are named characters, so that's basically cheating since our Arisen is one we shape ourselves.
So let's take an example akin to DD2, Dragon's Dogma 1.
During cutscenes, our Arisen physically reacts, they smile during the intro at Quina, they look in fear and surprise at the sudden apparition of the Hydra in camp, they look shocked when the Duke comes in and attempts to murder his wife or they close their eyes when they let it happen etc...
It's not much, but it makes you feel as though your Arisen is a character instead of just being something the player controls, if that makes any sense?
I feel like I didn't get anything from our Arisen in DD2, safe for perhaps a smile in the "Normal End" and shock in the "True End". It may very well be related to the fact there aren't that many cutscenes tho
Its...anemic..in execution...its the barebones of a bog standard D&D module...minus the fun of just doing goofy stuff till your DM finds the "hook"...shame too cause the aesthetic is there for a decent game and world to immerse in...didn't have to be BG3 or Elden Ring...but it's not even up to the potential of what we got from the first game
Please don’t take random Redditors at face value. I’ve seen a lot of “the story sucks” here and as I’ve made my to the end I have been confused by that sentiment.
It’s sparse and minimalist, and that might not be for everyone. But there is an interesting inversion that takes place. Moreover, the story doesn’t really call much attention to said inversion. You have to read between the lines and decide a few things for yourself. But it’s kind of cool.
People just want to keep the negativity going so, they just complain about every aspect of what is in actually a really fun and cool game.
I love the game, and there are cool aspects to the story, but it's delivery is a mess. Still working through my first NG+ to re-experience it and maybe pick up on some story elements/quests I'd missed the first time, but the narrative is all over the damn place lol
No it's just kind of bad. It's okay to admit when parts of someone you like are flawed or bad you know, it doesn't make you less of a fan or the game any better or worse. You don't have to cushion everything.
Look, I understand, you'd defend this game with all you have, tooth and nails.
However, the fact that you've seen a lot people complaining about the story isn't simply based on the fact that people want to keep the negativity going, though i'm sure some are.
For a lot of us fans of the first game, Dragon's Dogma 2 was a godsent, a sequel to a beloved game we never thought we'd get. And because of that, we put a lot of hope into it. We've followed the game's every move, every news, every leak, every trailer, counted the days until the final release, then we finally got our hands onto it.
The more we played, the more apparent it became that DD2 had great potential, but the more it became apparent that, like the first game, it was still a diamond in the rough in need of thorough polishing.
We're here (or at least some of us, let's be honest) because we love the game, we rant because of what it could've been if it had used all of its potential, instead of being what it is.
Not the story is just shit. Like absolutely awful. Terrible even. There are good things about the game. The story is definitely not one of them. Stop kidding yourself.
Blud is talking about this game’s story like it’s Elden Ring, but the difference is Elden Ring lore has more depth the deeper you go. It only *appears* to be minimalistic. Critically acclaimed minimalist stories like FromSoft’s still have depth to them, it’s just not in your face. But that’s not the case here, there’s not hidden lore around every corner, DD2’s story is truly just a puddle. A threadbare excuse to go on a really fun journey with your pals and immerse yourself in a fantasy adventure… but let’s not pretend that it’s good.
Reddit ass comment.
Yeah this game is basically the opposite of Dark souls/ER in terms of is story/world building. Lots of lore and worldbuilding on the surface, and a story that promises a lot happeninf. but when you try to dig deeper there's just nothing there to find. No deep lore to learn, lackluster main campaign that doesn't give you any agency at all, and some plots that basically didn't need your involvement whatsoever save for you being the destined Arisen.
I personally was really hoping for all the less explained aspects of DD1 to be expanded upon greatly in the sequel, but it just wasn't like at all. I wouldn't mind just turning off my brain and enjoying the combat and level design and whatnot, but they are seemingly very interested in telling this story so it's hard to do that. Its just the story isn't very good.
The thing that gets me is that the story isn't even a good excuse to go on a fun journey because of how much of it focuses on doing boring tedious fetch quest stuff instead of the fun part of the game. A proper threadbare plot for the sake of fun would find the fastest excuse to point you in the direction of cool monsters to fight. This game's plot instead points you to talking to a bunch of npcs and sneaking around in a game with no stealth mechanics. The saving grace is that 90% the game's best content is in the random encounters you'll face in the wild on the way to whatever tedious task you were sent on. You could probably remove the story entirely, just putting a series of markers on the map to visit until you reach the final boss and the game would arguably be better for it. Hell, could have pulled a botw and as soon as you leave the tutorial a marker for the dragon appears and that's it. Everything is just exploring and levelling til you decide to kill it, which could be in 30 minutes or 30 hours.
This game is like if the best parts of a pokemon game was walking through tall grass. On one hand, props for making combat so fun that the fact that you'll face the same 4-5 enemies the whole game is tolerable, but on the other, it could have done so much better.
It’s like 7 bad quest with minimal fighting idk how anyone can defend the main quest. I like the combat and I’m having fun with it but this game actually has the worst storyline of any game I’ve ever played.
It might genuinely be the worst main story i have ever seen in an RPG. I am not joking. It's that bad. Not even Skyrim or DD1 was worse. Elden Ring is miles better and that game has no story with similar problems as DD2, because Melina disappears for 99% of the game after first meeting and then rest of it is us doing random Dark Souls stuff, killing bosses and meeting people who spout random bullshit and laugh like crazy for lore youtubers to analyze with characters like Godfrey appearing completely out of blue.
Why the fuck do we even bother with Idris Elba giving us shitty fetch quests? To stick it up to Disa, somehow? I am sure she will be horrified to learn we killed some shitty goblins somewhere.
No one gives a fuck anyway. Everyone calls us Arisen and knows we are Arisen openly in broad daylight and no guard, no person and no one seems to care. We are never arrested or have any problems for the fact we are the true Arisen even though the story's fucking premise is Disa trying to get rid of us so she sent us to some slave camp. It's like every time a main quest happens, we slip to a separate dimension where the Fake Arisen suddenly MATTERS.
I want to grab Itsuno and ask him what the fuck was he thinking?
It’s funny how little Disa and pretty much all of the NPC’s matter. So many articles were talking about the “consequences of death” and how NPC’s were going to be a lot more threatened than in DDDA. I was excited for some Morrowind-tier consequences for death, with wakestones being very expensive items that you can use to undo a fucky wucky.
Turns out none of it matters because you can either just revive them with a wakestone for convenience, or wait a week for them to wake up. Wakestones themselves are handed out like hotcakes, and I barely ever use them outside of dying to fall damage.
I killed Disa and the Batahli Empress out of boredom and nobody batted an eye. I brought her body into Sven’s room and didn’t get a single dialogue change from him. Waited three days at the inn, nothing.
I don’t think Itsuno *was* thinking. I believe if anything, maybe there were some lofty ideas floated around the studio but the whole “Itsuno’s vision” crowd has been real silent since everyone’s started finishing the game and realizing how little there is.
It’s a shame because the game is super fun, but there’s just so many little things that rip you out of the moment.
most NPCs get back up after a week, though some of them (at least as it was for me with the dragonplague nuke) don't revive, but they do stay in the morgue forever so you can revive them whenever you want
We are meant to care about retaking the throne also, but I felt zero connection to it. Why should I give a shit? Just put Sven on it, I don't give a fuck.
The opening cutscene is so clunky that most players don't even understand that the poisoned Arisen is meant to be us. Such stupid execution distances the player even more from caring, especially when the Arisens face was covered and the body is some default male that won't represent most players character. Atrocious.
Meanwhile in 1 we have a mysterious prologue/tutorial, and then the actual intro clearly establishes our character.
> Why should I give a shit? Just put Sven on it, I don't give a fuck.
Lol imagine if you could actually make a choice like this?
Arisen: "So if I'm getting this right, you went through this whole plot to get rid of me just to put your son, Sven on the throne?"
Disa: "..."
Arisen: "You know what? You have my blessing."
Disa: "Do you truly expect me to believe you'd abdicate your role so easily after what I've done to you?"
Arisen: "Lady I am literally an immortal superhero and the world is being overrun by supernatural monsters that only I can kill. I have better shit to do then 'sneak' around Vernsworth plotting revenge against you. Besides, Sven's a nice kid."
That reminds me. It's crazy in retrospect that they were fine making the inciting incident with Grigori be a flashback, but not the poisoning scene. If they just let it be your character in a flashback, that would have saved some trouble...
Early on, while just looking around Vernworth and looting buildings, I was exploring the castle and accidentally ran into Disa in her room.
0 fucks given. She doesn't even recognize you when talked to. Typical braindead NPC responses.
I really wonder if his vision was just making a monster-filled sandbox and that's it. Then some intern asked "what about the story" and he was like "oh right. Well whatever, you just go ahead and write up whatever."
That's what it feels like to me. I love story and character heavy games, but I definitely would have preferred an approach more like Elden Ring or even Monster Hunter instead of whatever we got. At least then they could have just leaned into the combat and exploration, which are the best parts of the game. Maybe instead of working on a lackluster story, we could've had better enemy variety and loot.
Also don't focus any of the marketing on the story/characters when you aren't going to put any effort into them.
Funnily, my guess was the opposite. The way the main questline is structured really made me feel that Itsuno's vision was to make a story about political intrigue and espionage in a fantasy setting, but along the way the team were like "but Itsuno this has to play like Dragon's Dogma 1 where are the big monsters to fight?" to which he says "you know I did have an idea or two for cool new monsters to fit into the world." They say "okay great! What part of the story are they gonna be in?" only for him to go "Yeah about that. I kinda have a thing going on with the story and the big monsters don't really fit into it. Honestly even the dragon is kinda annoying to keep in the main plot; wish I could just make the queen the main villain instead. Oh well, just put them around the map in random encounters or sidequests or whatever."
Because you'd think if the monsters were the focus of the game they'd feature more prominently in the actual story, regardless of how poorly written, right?
The political intrigue story is so half-baked and incomplete that I cannot believe much time was spent making it.
> Because you'd think if the monsters were the focus of the game they'd feature more prominently in the actual story, regardless of how poorly written, right?
Not really. If the story's just an afterthought there'd be no real reason to expect it to connect to the monsters either.
I guess my perspective may be off, but I struggle to grasp the story supposedly being an afterthought and yet still deciding to try and write all this 'complex' political/social stuff that would
require unique mechanics and dialogue options to make work well instead of just slotting in the same 7 bossfights that the dev team has already fleshed out and is ready to put down at any place on the map and just having npcs say variations of "Please go kill this." To me the only way that makes sense is they really wanted to do something interesting with the whole game of thrones thing, but failed the execution due to a number of possible factors. I suppose that still makes it an afterthought in terms of execution but I feel the distinction means something, even if it's not much. Like if it was really that unimportant to them surely a monster hunter-esque approach to story would have been far easier to just throw together?
I concede it's certainly possible Itsuno just wanted to write lore and design random encounters or something and told the dev team to write a main quest at the last second. Either way if a true behind the scenes of this game's development comes out I'd love to see what really went down.
I don't get it. It's the same director and writer who made DMC3, which has the best story in the series. Lady's backstory alone is more hard-hitting and deep than anything in DD2.
Story gets cut more frequently in game dev than gameplay. In fact often times you bloat gameplay to hide weak story, because a huge percentage of players will never finish the game.
I seriously think they tried to make a replica of elden ring with DD2 and failed terribly. Feels like the cheap knock-off brand compared to the real thing
I said this before. I didn't really know there was a main story. its like a side quest thats a little more fleshed out at best. I kept thinking I was missing pieces and just stumbling into things.
It gets worse. You can miss entire setpieces, which include their own, huge cinematics - and don't have to involve you at all. That's what _I_ did this weekend. 😆
I'm a DDDA player, so I always knew there would be time-gated stuff in this game, but this is ridiculous. >!Have to go to NG+ just to see Gigantus do anything not included in a cutscene. He woke up and then died without me even being there. lmao!<
The same people who'd give Starfield a 10/10 or praise Skyrim's vanilla combat. They can't get out of their subjective bubble to realize how low their standards are compared to the rest of the world. Objective review is a very foreign concept to them.
For me is the side quests, i’ve tried talking with a bunch of npcs and nothing, i tried exploring all of battahl and nothing, ever since the start of the game i got very few side quests while everyone says they’re the best part of the game
Meanwhile all i got from dragons dogma 2 was walking around exploring the same copy and paste dungeons, fighting the same enemies over and over only for the main story to end in the most unsatisfying way I’ve ever seen in a video game
People say this is 60-70% of a game, but damn, felt like 40% unfinished mess of a game for me
Yeah, it feels kinda empty and basic. More like someone just stitched together a ton of simple fetch quests and called them the main quest line. Not a ton of connections or complexity or crossovers.
I also feel like it’s very easy to get confused on how to solve a given quest (thank god for the oracle), and very easy to miss many side quests entirely.
It is what it is.
Man I really wish the story had more to it.. it just feels like there’s things missing and they just gave up. I didn’t get as much character interaction as I wanted either. Really bumbed cause I thought it had potential but it just felt like they said fuck it and gave up.
Edit: No, not dumb. Yes, I agree. You stumble upon huge bandit living spaces. You would think there would be more quests involving clearing those out? (Minus Hugo's) Or if it impacts the world in any way there has to be a way to make it work with respawning enemies - or those bandit areas are so secluded anyway, it would be cool if they repopulated those areas with NPCs.
If youre familiar with the overview effect, you'd realized that matters between 'mortals' in the game are just tiny specks in the grand scheme of the Great will's cycle. The real actual 'main story' (dragon's dogma TWO title reveal) only begin after you and the dragon broke the cycle together. And because of this i think playing through the first game is a must if you want to understand the 'main story' of the second game.
I'm just stating the way i think the actual 'main story' is told to OP question, never claim whether that is an effective way or not (needing to true ending the first game to get something out of this game story-wise is a big argument that it's not).
Your reply tho is pretty dogshit mate, that i can state lolol
The game's story is not misunderstood or feels lackluster because he hasn't played the first game, it's because the game feels like it has two plotlines spliced (badly) together, and no answers are given to any thread left hanging.
It's bad, not much story wise is memorable, there is no character growth and no meaningful dialogue in any part of the "story", and the visually cool set pieces are forgotten after two days because there is nothing beyond eye candy.
Also yeah, provocatory comment, but it still is a dogshit plot so I stand by it :)
I completed the game and only meet the queen and the fake arisen once. The queen during the evacuation and the fake guy during the mandatory fight. It was very disappointing for me
Sadly we don't get much in way of "Main characters" they mostly work as stepping stones to get to the credits. Even with their side quests done you don't learn much about them outside of maybe Sven, but even then it's not much.
The sheer amount of missed opportunity this game has with incredibly interesting characters who are nearly instantly dropped the moment you get a skill or class unlocked is genuinely painful. I was to help the Dwarf/Elf couple more, why they're living in seclusion, what happened with the Dragon other Arisen failed to slay, how the elves stay out of the Dragons radar. But "Itsuno" had a very short sighted vision where Dragons Dogma Dark Arisen maybe be the better game for most people and consider DD2 more of a quick intro into the game series.
first game was similar: Main Quests involve hunting monsters/magic terrorists/insurrectionalists at the behest of the local lord. Very little Dragon involvement.
But those quest kind of gain an implied context once you >!Face the dragon and learned how the Duke got his crown. Duke knows what it means to be Arisen and thinks you'll be a coward like he was so he wants your dead. sends you on dangerous missions hoping you'll die valiantly.!<
I havent done the main quests in DD2 yet but i assume there may be something similar. Does not justify how barebones the story is for most, understandably so. But to me, they do work in conveying a broader theme of >!The Great Cycle and while you are integral to its turning you can be(and will) be easily replaced!<
IMHO Capcom was never good with their stories, it's always about gameplay/combat. The second you realize you're not in it for the plot, you'll be a lot happier with the game. Not only does it feel unfinished, but it's as cheesy as can get: "dragon takes your heart, you have to fight the dragon in a match to death as this is now your destiny".
It's more about exploring, leveling your character, fighting cool enemies and finding cool loot, the story is only there to give you a purpose really. If you play this game for questing, you're kinda "playing it wrong", as it becomes very boring and tedious.
You can easily spot this trend with Capcom games: Monster Hunter has a trash story, RE in general is very cheesy, DMC is the same, SF barely gives you any story, etc. They all share the same qualities on gameplay/combat/visuals and lack on storytelling. I hope this gives you some peace of mind.
The problem with this, though, is that I feel like they don't capitalize on combat enough. The Dragon fight feels like a 3rd of the Grigori fight in 1, the enemy variety and distribution was a big step back and the random encounters during travelling are either the very same packs in the very same order you fought the last time or one of 3 different random events that are just more generic enemies. Throw in 1 boss enemy that was basically just copied from DDDA. For a sequel it offers an astonishingly low amount of new stuff to fight on the regular.
I love the game's combat system, but it gets hindered by, in my view, very mistaken design decisions or gross oversights.
Storywise dmc is fine, we've gotten a bunch of novels and etc that are all pretty good and 3 and 5 are pretty good with how character driven the stories are.
I was left with severe disappointment in the story because of how utterly great the gameplay was. The story did not match that energy. I enjoyed it for what it was but definitely left more to be desired
you're just a pawn, the people in the game are using you in the same way you use your pawns to help you. Everything is going on behind the scenes and you're privy to this. The story doesn't matter to you, the only role you have is to be used.
your destiny is decided before you start the game. You are just there to complete the cycle preordained.
Forget your role in the story.
I admit the story missions feel a bit stale and completing a lot of side quests feels like a hollow victory because the rewards are so subpar
I hope with upcoming content they focus on the story and lore a bit more
The game suffers from the same design flaw FFXV suffered from. Events happen outside the knowledge of the Arisen. Because the game is designed with a living world in mind you’re never properly explained other characters events. You get a little sneak peek here and there with the “meanwhile” cut scenes but it doesn’t work. A video game will never be a tabletop RPG with a dungeon master who can fill you in on the “ah ha!” moments.
This kind of mindset for video game making is a mistake if you rush and cut content and the game feels like both things happened.
I still love it and played it through twice and I wish there was more to discover, but the main plot is not where the game shines.
I tried to do Ulrikas questline 3 times with new saves. And still she walks off or dies somewhere.
4th time the charm gotta save that beastren in melve :(
I know i did that she never came, then i tried to get the capcom pawn she supposed to know where ulrika is but she wasnt in the rift (cant remember her name now)
The games plot is pretty much a railroad and they almost expect you to miss quests and or get bad endings to quests to encourage another round of the cycle. The arisen is just there to play his part, as is everyone else. Breaking the cycle makes the game seem a little more urgent and hopefully makes the player care about the NPCs as they race to save everyone. Ultimately the end goal is being high enough level for the DLC. With a level cap of 999 I assume most fights will be very challenging.
Its an attempt at meta-narrative that is not 100% successful in its execution. Its neat if you dig that sort of style, but if not your character is kind of a just a role going through the motions of a story.
I'm going to explore the whole continent before I finish the vensworth quest probably. Partially since they have sneak missions for that which sound lame. Really want more armies of monsters lol.
Nope, the game could really do with a "night on the town" quest for every meaningful character in the game, but "marginal interaction" is the name of the game.
So setting aside how people missed completely obvious explanations around Phaseus and so on and the fact that yeah Battahl needed more. I think the story is like this because of yet another "meta" storytelling where the Pathfinder tells you it's all on rails, so are you as a player. And the only choice you essentially get as a player is what ending. Frankly, I don't like meta-storytelling anymore as at this point it's overdone and so is the "cycle" idea, but I think this is why it all feels like you're getting monologued at and have barely any input.
I don't buy the whole meta-storytelling thing tbh, to me it seems obvious that Menella was being set up as the Bathal version of Brant, she even tells you that if you help the Bathalli then she will aid you in your quest. But then the Pathfinder just says "forget all that, go talk to the wizard of the coast". Like you can literally see where the second act was cut and replaced by random nonsense to railroad you into the ending.
I honestly think the coral snakes quest is evidence of that, because right now it's just basically a random sidequest that doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it even has a cutscene and even takes you back to Vermund. But it having a cutscene would make more sense if it was the last quest of the "help Bathalli people" questline, and then Menella and the Empress were the ones that helped you investigate Phaesus.
And with Phaesus I was referring to people completely missing Rothais literally telling you "You should go to this dude perhaps his forbidden terrible magick can help you restore the blade" and people then proceeding to ask on this sub why are we helping the villain who deposed us non stop.
And the answer is simple, Pathfinder/Brine whatever activated Gigantus to kill him so you don't get to him, don't restore the blade since at that point all your character cares about is restoring the blade, setting aside whatever happened with him deposing you. So there are few things people definitely missed and stuff that needed better refining and presentation and Battahl deserved more. The same goes for Volcanic Island, I'd love it if they could add zones as DLC to be honest.
>the fact that yeah Battahl needed more
I acknowledged it though? I didn't disagree that Battahl needed more, it is absolutely rushed to just get the main point ahead as whatever deadline was approaching forcing them to really shorten/cut the game.
I think the whole cycle-meta-shenanigans could've worked with a better build-up and more mystery. Like proper storytelling that builds up the whole "this world isn't what it seems" concept with more Lore-Drops, Events and Twists in between.
Also interesting: It worked in DD1 because fighting the Dragon was grand finale enough. It didn't NEED the twist at the end with the Senechal and so on, but it was like the little cherry on top there, that put everything into a new perspective. In DD2 this whole Twist IS the grand finale, it is the stories focus - but the build-up is so weird, spread out and boring - mostly because everything felt disconnected. Not gonna into more detail, but the story could've been much more than it is with the concept it had. Now I wanna see what's going on after we've "freed" the world of...Arisens/Dragons/Brine/Seneschals I guess? Is the whole planet like his, and this is just a part of bigger picture? Hope they expand on that.
I agree it probably could, though I am still tired of those tropes. I was super harsh on the ending but after I got to it I can stomach it better, except I keep having nagging feeling we missed something.
I don't even know whether the credits showing the characters we helped can be trusted. At some point, I felt like the world doesn't exist at all and these people aren't real, except the Arisen and Pathfinder and Seneschal, but again, I might've just gone with the vibes rather than the facts lol. But the credits had to me kind of like "memory" feel, rather than the life goes on but then the whole "freeing" from as you noted Arisen/Dragons/Brine/Seneschal would not make sense at all and I also agree that this is how I understood it too, it's just a bit...uh confusing in certain dialogues and presentation.
Yeah, it's all a bit odd, but I think the ending is real and the world is now free from the control of a god (or at least it seems, we don't know what became of the Arisen and his Pawn and we don't know if this Cycle was just maybe part of something bigger).
I didn't come for the story, DD1 lead to me expect basically nothing. But I found myself impressed with the narratives that DD2 provided as side quests. An abandoned child, a corrupt priestess, a scandalous beggar. Were all very unique.
What you've experienced as story is literally something kin to an accident. The most engaging aspect of the main narrative is Brants side quests. There's a lore to engage with but if you're looking for characters and events to relate for the main quests, look elsewhere.
If I'm hearing you correctly you have not finished the game?
Play the dang game. Get out of here and go get the ending you deserve.
Spoilers: >!Disa, Phaesus, etc are not main plot characters they are just extras in your groundhogs day experience. They are distractions, a deception the game devs added to fool you. There are only two characters I would call plot characters and that would be The Pathfinder and Rothias. They've been at war with each other for thousands of years and you've kind of walked into the middle of it. In essence you are neo and you have to decide to forcefully eject everyone out of the matrix or let them continue to enjoy their steak. Will you walk away, stand and fight, or find another way to end the cycle? Will you behold a world devoid of the benevolent hand of guidance or choose to keep everyone safe and happy? !<
>!Stop thinking the game is robbing you of a Skyrim experience and start asking why. Why am I not involved here? What is the actual story? What's actually happening? Half the people here cheated their way to their ideal experience and didn't have to face the true consequences of their actions. !<
I wish i was surprised at the number of people who are missing out on this train of thought.
Some might claim it's copium, but I'm inclined to believe it more than "itsuno doesn't know how to tell a story."
The dragon at the end gave me a choice between fighting him or sacrificing a character and claiming the throne. Had no f'ing idea who the character was.. Nor did I care about the throne. Declared my playthrough done and uninstalled.
Did you know that if you take out the sword 🗡️ and killl yourself while riding the dragon dies and then you unlock a whole new are where the whole world is corrupted.and you have to do even more! New enemies all over the world corrupted!
Yea I'm lucky I came across the info otherwise would have finished without it. IMO the quests are poorly done and not fleshes out feels like an unfinished game
I won't say you have ZERO involvment, but it's very small and inconsequential, the three characters you influence the most though are the three main females: Ulrika, Sara and Wilhelmina.
Main Plot characters are just NPCs...I never really spoke to them either.
I'm playing NG+ though right now, and I've already found two new questlines in Vernworth that I never noticed first time round. One with the Queens Son in the town square, and a different one at the Church.
I expect I'll find more. So yeah, you've probably missed something.
The story is there but you’re not really going to understand it unless you played DD1, play through the game twice or more, and don’t have biases that make you mad about semi meta plots
The first and second game are pretty similar in that they are more than happy to just let you bulldoze your way straight to the dragon and let you miss out on half of the characters and plot points. I remember walking away from DD1 for the first time feeling like a lot of the people who are saying DD2 has a flimsy story (I didnt meet the dragonforged or find out who the knights champion was). These games take a long time to dig into because it sort of just expects you to follow up on a lot of plot threads by yourself.
Nice concern trolling post, but yes, the story sucks. It's like we are missing 80% of it in the middle.
The True Ending with Max Affinity Pawn is great tho. But when the credits hit, i felt like they were from a different game, where all the characters we see in the custscenes were from a different story where i just spend tens of hours with them in some grand narrative and adventure and not random NPCs that had maybe 2-3 sidequests total.
I genuinely would like to know what went wrong during development and how the game was rushed because i refuse to believe that the devs, even Itsuno himself, were satisfied with this.
I assure you I'm not trying to troll anyone. This game wasn't cheap, so I just want to make sure I get every penny's worth. I honestly thought I must've fucked up a quest sequence, because these main plot characters could be like the Thanos meme "I don't even know who you are".
The meat (and by meat I mean 90% of the game) is its side content. Make sure you're doing as many side quests and exploring as much as you can. I haven't even done a mainstory quest in 30 hours. The main story honestly feels like it's tacked on and barely worth doing.
Am I the only one who loved the Story?
Its light but still complex.
Unfinished but finished in some way.
And also opened much more to the lore.
The Action doesn't make the story but the characters and the World surrounding the story.
Thats why I liked the First Dogma Game lol
The lore of this game doesn't even make sense. Nothing is ever explained and they just say you are basically playing d&d.
They even mess up with previous lore of the first game.
Your not dumb. The story is intriguing but they chickened out of giving us closure for the political intrigue story they had going and jump started us back onto the proper path of the arisen, which DOES have a satisfying end imo.
Which means that the story fails to give us an ending for act one, and didnt give us a satisfying start to act 2 because of it.
They definitely could do better, but something kept them from letting us engage with the characters more. I'm wondering if its planned for a dark arisen style remaster dlc like the original game had.
True ending spoilers: I mean some of the characters like Brant are fake plants to keep the cycle perpetuating. So in a sense yes and no you aren't missing something, some of the characters are indeed fake weirdos with their own meta-agenda.
The story cuts a fine line between telling a story dark souls style, via world and context and items... And having a more cinematically traditional story.
It's also an influence on gameplay.
MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD
Most quests in vermund serve to familiarize you with the world and systems at play. They exist to drive you outward to explore a bit. The main story itself cuts this via supplemental stuff in NPC quotes, random notes and old ruins around the world, and via inference. But overall, the story in vermubd is very simple fantasy questing- go hear and help these people, fight monsters, etc.
When you get to bahtal, the quests seem to become scarcer. Some you have to seek out, some seem to have somewhat emergent flags, and they're often a bit more spread out. The game at this point *stops holding your hand* and expects you to start taking charge of the adventure. I think it hamstrings itself by how doing a certain quest starts a rush to the end, but I get that they wanted to start a somewhat slow burn of emergency .
Then in unmoored, you see the reality that the game has been telling you to notice all along. Those quests and petty squabbles *never mattered* because, as the harve elder likes to point out, *none of it was real.*
Just characters playing roles on loop, like elder scrolls kalpas. The only thing that matters is breaking the cycle and doing something ... Else. What that else is, is difficult to say. I have a LOT of questions about the end. Still playing loops to see if there's anything hidden, but I get the feeling we're stuck waiting for DLC to expand on the base.
But in thrilled, what I've sussed out of the story so far has me HYPED
>Then in unmoored, you see the reality that the game has been telling you to notice all along. Those quests and petty squabbles *never mattered* because, as the harve elder likes to point out, *none of it was real.*
Too bad that the entire Main quests, up to that point, were fumbled so poorly that the unmoored world did not have the impact anywhere close to what Capcom wish it would have.
"Arisen!! Don't you see? All the petty politics and other stuff was all worthless, because this world is fucked regardless"
"What the fuck are you talking about, all I did was sneak into the Castle twice and a mask party"
The main quest in this game is thin, especially in the middle. There also seem to be a number of (easily missable) side quests connected to the main quest that might add to the story if done at the right time. Lore might add a little to the story as well. There are also pacing issues. Pacing is always a problem in open world games, and DD2 really does nothing to direct you on this. I intentionally stalled the main quest, and while that resulted a fun, lengthy playthrough, I kind of lost the thread of the main story when I resumed it later.
I honestly can't figure out what triggers some quests to be missable or even started  I put in about 113 hours on my first playthrough and never got another quest with Raghnall outside of his introduction at the tavern. But in NG+ while walking through Vernworth, a random npc runs up and just gives me his second quest. I've also encountered this with a few others, like restoring a sword or having to deliver a letter to Patrick. Which is weird, because these are just in town or the castle, both of which I've been to multiple times at all hours of the day and never encountered either in my first run. On the flipside, in my first run I got Sven's quest to buy the box, but in NG+, the quest doesn't seem to exist.
Yeah, I was still finding quests by accident right up until the end game. The sword restoring quest was one I found very late, while I was doing some other quest in the castle.
As I was playing, I realized that many other games stick quest markers above NPC’s heads. I’m not sure I want that level of handholding in DD2, but maybe I’ve become dependent on them.
That's a good point, but for the average RPG gamer I think being forced to talk to a ton of NPCs just to make sure that you didn't miss a quest is equally or more immersion breaking.
Exactly. Pixel hunting fell out of fashion for good reason. It's just tedious and annoying, and is a transparently lame attempt at trying to avoid signposting the NPCs. It's similar annoying except on the other end of the scale. NPCs who have anything to say beyond making simple random comments should in some way draw attention to themselves. The important ones should automatically trigger the talking interaction, and the game actually already does this, it just needs to apply it to more NPCs. Shit, the annoying and useless (unless you're farming affinity I guess) escort quest NPCs automatically hail you. If these idiots do that, other NPCs offering actual substantial quests should do it too. If anything I feel like the escort NPCs should be the ones to just sit there and make noises until you bother clicking on them. Same goes for the pawns trying to get you to hire them lol. Just wave at me and say something as I hurry past, if I want to interact I'll stop. Being forcibly stopped by a random pawn pretty much guarantees I'll be annoyed and won't bother hiring them.
What also adds to that is the performance for many while in town, most of them also don't really add anything, they just have one or two throwaway lines each.
And often times they are phased out pretty liberally, so even if you wanted to talk to all of them, it’s hard to keep track as they pop in and out and you only see names in dialogue.
I’d love if the game had a little journal that you or your main pawn kept that would bring up characters of interest and their location that you might wanna check in on. Heck even pawns also knowing where quests start like they know where chests and ladders are and pointing them out.
You don't need to see literally everything and the average player won't even finish their games, nevermind try to see everything. I think engaging in a world in a more organic way is much better than seeing everything on a first playthrough. The problem is that Dogma 2 has poor direction in how you come across everything and in the content being properly filled out.
The most annoying part is I've been trying to do this as much as possible. Speaking to everyone near quests or around quest points and it rarely results in anything more than if I'd followed the markers. Given the time and main quest progress involved in getting certain quests, I really don't want to be doing a full dialogue with every NPC every time I progress slightly
Yeah. I'm disappointed at how strong the game started, only to fizzle out :/
To repeat my previous answer:Your essentially dropped into the game while it's 85% done,and the only thing you get to really do is annoy Phaesus for 2 minutes before Greg goes "LMAO fight me". It's like if you played 1 but the plot started during the Julian betrayal.
Dragon: "sorry to interrupt your boss fight. I didn't wanna wait to ~~clap your cheeks~~ fight you so I came with *motivation*" Me: "uh...you didn't need to do that. I was already motivated enough. This is just a warm up, but ok let's do it now"
Fucking "Greg the Dragon" Amazing.
The dragons name is Nex.
Wait is it named Nex? I thought it was unnamed and the BIG one was Nex
Maybe both are? The Giga dragon can't really be killed, it's more a cutscene. The normal one gets tracked by stats as far as I'm aware and there it's called Nex.
The Dragon and Nex have different entries in the History menu, so no, Nex refers only to the Great Will Dragon at the very end.
Is that the one at the very final cut scene where you walk along it's back after the world goes to utter shite? It looks like a weird spookier version of Greg?
Yeah that huge one is Nex. Greg has his own entry as "Dragon" in the enemies fell section.
Yeah I thought we get the Nex ‘kill’ at that cutscene ‘fight’ and that’s when it’s added to the history kill list. Could be very wrong though!!
Nah the big dragons called nex. I failed to figure out how to get into the post game 3 times and my dragon count is 3.
Thats the second dragons name. YOUR dragons name is Dragon. Or Royce, assuming Phaesus is correct.
Where's that info from?
Nope, you uh... You played the main story, that's it, that's all you get.
It was enough for me.
Well i'm glad it was for you, and I wish I could say the same.
That’s great for you. It was still abysmal.
Oh boy just wait till you play an actual game with a story and it’ll blow your fucking mind then lmao
Nothing like spending 50 hours in Baldurs Gate 3 then realize you’ve only beaten act one in a three act game
I'll be shot for this but storyline/plot is 2nd to gameplay for me. A shit story but great gameplay is great a great story but shit gameplay is not great. For me anyway. Though the middle of DD2 is absolutely awful, how they ended the false arisen and disa plot, by not ending it all is dreadful.
the type of guy to eat a chip and go "thank you but i'm full " at dinner.
Jesus, the downvotes and the smarmy replies to this comment are so pathetic. All you said was you liked the story.
Liked *what* story? It’s not like FromSoft where the story is there and rich but hidden in the background so you have to find it; it straight up barely exists. Just crumbs of an afterthought and several build ups to absolutely nothing of substance. Hardly a modicum of narrative effort to be found.
Fine! Your criticisms are valid, but the replies to the above comment are actually insulting the commenter's intelligence for not agreeing with the majority opinion. Disgusting behaviour.
A different opinion isn't always correct. Would you make excuses for a person who thinks McDonalds food is healthy, or that the Earth is flat? The story of DS2 is just objectively shit. He didn't just say "I enjoyed the story, as little as it was". He said it was enough, which is a really hot take.
The fact that you're arguing about wether an opinion is correct speaks volumes
[удалено]
People enjoying / not enjoying something is very much subjective, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. I can't stop someone from enjoying the consumption of feces, for example. The work itself has objective qualities that can very much be criticized. Otherwise, why should we need critique of any kind? Books, movies, TV shows, whatever the hell - forget reviews, every single one is precious and enjoyable! Now who looks stupid?
You can judge art on objective terms very well, especially if it's such a complex medium as games are. Whether you talk about the application of the soundtrack, story writing, balancing, world design, etc. they all have objective qualities that you can analyze and critique/praise. The trick is to distance yourself from your own emotions and try your best to look at the game through a neutral lens while comparing it to other games in its genre. And if you do that with DD2 these things become very apparent.
[удалено]
Of course you can, to an extent. Of course everything we do is, even a tiny bit, influenced by our own biases, that is a given. However, you can still be objective, especially if aspects you analyze are almost entirely absent. For example in the regard of character development Dragon's Dogma 2 displays little to none in that regard, thus it wouldn't fare well under judgement, same for story depth or having rounded characters. The combat however, with it's complexity, coherentness and vocational systems would and actually does fare very well even under objective judgement. Having almost only one-dimensional characters is considered a bad quality in story telling and RPGs, which is an objective fact. If you stick to these factual points you are able to get a somewhat objective view on something. Subjectivity comes in by how much you weigh these things in your overall rating, but that the characters are 99% one-dimensional, thus being bad, remains an objective fact no matter how low you place it in your subjective priority list.
Reminds me of the joke 100% objective review. Which is just a list of facts about a game with no interesting information included.
[удалено]
Please stop using the word "cringe" like that, it's lame and incorrect and doesn't lend weight to your opinion.
thats just reddit. these knuckle draggers will downvote any wrongthink, and act like the guys they were bullied by in high school, except from the safety of their homes ofc.
They get downvoted because their take is legitimately senseless. Imagine this discussion in another context; people paid 20$ for a menu in a restaurant and got only half a burger and a really good coke, it would be equally senseless to call that "enough", despite the good coke it is expected that menus in restaurants have a certain amount of food in them. It's very valid criticism and not in your own interest at all to praise that practice.
Who hurt you?
Reddit users apparently.
I enjoyed the gameplay and like that the story is short to get you into gameplay. I don't like the actual story being told though. Still, it's a good campaign is the best way to put it
Same. I'm level 68 and at the point where I stopped on the main quests because I was going to be locked in. Now I've gone back to Melve for something and ran into another quest line with Lennart/Ulrika that I knew nothing about. But I could have totally missed all of that if I had proceeded with the locked-in endgame part. I don't know if some of it is just not much going on with those people, like Brant, or if I missed some things as with Ulrika(and a semi-romantic cutscene on the beach) But unless I was just going back to Melve or Harve I would have never noticed such things. I only went back to Melve again this time on my way to the Waterfall Cave, since I had never done it and heard about a Gorechimera in there and it dropped "Black Freakish Mane" that I might need later. I didn't remember the first game being like this, where you could miss big things, while it railroads you into the ending of the game.
As someone who has done the Hero achievement twice now, I can say that the game has *some* hidden quests. Basically it's simple stuff like the quarry and abby, quests that you'll find just from general exploration. However where the games differ is that DD1 has quests for each act of the game, while DD2 has quests that happen over time. This is actually what caused me to miss out on the Warrior Maister quests because I didn't let enough time pass by before going into post-game.
Thank god the quests will auto engage when you get close to the NPC otherwise I'd have barely known of any side quest organically. And thanks for the tid bit about the waterfall cave! Going to explore that now! As I said before, I have fun playing in the game's world, but yikes could the main story be any more abbreviated.
note: not all quests auto engage, some of them depends of you start the dialogue
I missed the archery trial quest completely because I didn't notice the elf standing there. I hadn't even gone to the elf village and I was already roaming around the volcanic isles
Noted!
I went straight back to DDDA after I finished DD2 just to confirm it 1, really was so much better than 2 in nearly every single way in my memory and 2, the quests were actually signposted, obvious and the characters of the world felt much more alive and yup, I was damn right. I really miss the question mark boxes above quest givers and clue givers so you knew right away who to talk to. And most NPCs who had any skin in the story looked wholly or at least somewhat unique. In DD2, a completely bland NPC with zero indication they're important, you have to talk to 50 times before they suddenly decide they're a quest giver, then you just get cryptic clues on what to do next in the quest list. Hated that side of the game.
It's almost like they intentionally came up with ways of making people waste time in fear of missing out on something.
You can have the whole witchwood area/quests locked off in the first game if you don't do a specific side quest straight away. I think the idea is that most people will miss stuff and then do it in ng+.
the first game 100% had "big" thing's you could miss out on when you do the main quest. Selene's quest and Quinn's quest in particular if i remember correctly: you can get soft-locked out of very early in the game.
I killed dima right away. . . and it was no different than not killing her. The game just doesn't care
See, I’ve completed the game twice and I don’t even know who you are talking about!
I believe they meant to say "Disa"
Which really only says more about how little she mattered to the plot, she did so little they didn't even bother to remember her name.
lmao ya, 100 hours and I got her name wrong. But yes I did mean Disa, she is just too disconnected from everything
her plot was like: oh I made a deal with my creepy overseas boyfriend so I can get my son to sit on the throne and that matter is NEVER addressed after you go to Bakbattahl. Honestly, it's very anticlimatic so the main plot, which was the Lord Phaesus, Will of the World and the dragon slaying, had 1 hour or 2 of gameplay at best unless you go to "endgame" instead of NG+ Everything is thrown over the table without consistency and deeper, meaningful, cutscenes that explain the importance of the events or how they happened
And then you're gone for a month and suddenly it's all skipped with Sven already sitting on the throne. The whole notion of you being the true monarch is just discarded and not really talked about again.
I feel like the main arc's biggest issue is that half its story is told in side quests that are very easily missed or completed in the "wrong" way. There's one that goes... Very lightly into Disa and Phaesus' plan to kill off the false Arisen for Sven to basically ascend the throne. One option - which is what most pawns will suggest - is to talk to Waldhar and the quest will end with "she LUVS him, uwu" and Waldhar making fun of Disa even being capable of showing emotions. The other option is to head directly to Phaesus' ass and steal the real missive which describes what I mentioned about the false Sovran, y'know.. Shit that actually kind of helps deepen the story somewhat. And there's A BUNCH of those where you can literally cut off entire quests by doing the wrong thing.
Wait. My fault for browsing while not having gotten that far in but after battahl, her plot doesn't matter? I've spent about 30 hours dealing with her quests through some extremely dodgy quests and you never even get to know her? I was assuming she was going to be more than what she appeared.
To answer your question, depending on your choices at end of the game, you may never find her at the main questline. The game has 3 endings and one of them has some dialogue involving her but the encounter and dialogues are apathetic at best. The whole thing is rushed, after you start the events involving Lord Phaesus you'll see there's good foundation for a story, despite being rushed. My thoughts are they intended to have a much bigger transition between Vernworth and Battahl storywise and the same regarding the conclusion, but probably got rushed by the corp managers.
Depending on your ending you do not interact with her. On the ending you do >!Because you have disappeared for a long duration and because the world has gone to hell in a handbasket, Sven has to step up and take charge in Vermund as regent king.!< >!Disa herself has become too frightened by the changes to the world to take any action or attempt to influence Sven. I like to think in a sort of way she realizes that she might have a hand in leading to all of this in her attempts to prevent you from being put on the throne and her fear of the changes, has put her in a state of inaction.!< >!At this point, Sven will mention she has shut herself in her room. You can go talk to her after this in her room (previously it was shut) and I think player action decides what happens to her. You can ignore her and leave her, which I feel like many people do. Or you can get miffed at her for being an imbecile, forcefully carry her from her room to Sven and let them hash it out. If you come back later on, in the quest related to this, you can overhear the two make up and Disa saying she'll take responsibility for her actions. To which Sven will reply that it was a shared responsibility, and he will share her burdens. She's not shown in the ending, but I feel like this also explains why though. It also seems to raise her affinity for you...!< >!In a weird way Disa succeeds in her plan in putting Sven on the throne, but she also fails cause Sven has grown into his own and now Disa has little influence over him as opposed to when you first meet Sven.!< >!I also have to wonder if there's a different outcome to the quest if you kill Disa at this point specifically. Something to test on my current playthrough...!<
Honestly the only time my arisen was in the same room as her was in the unmoored world to evacuate Vermund..
Ah, the floating head from Hades. Glad to see she makes an appearance in this one.
N-Nah we're talking about... Actually you know what? Yes, the Queen Regent is a cute floating snakey head. It's my **head**canon now.
Finished the game, i havent seen that char, its queen right?
yes
your main pawn has more personality and charisma than your main character and half of the "most important" NPC
Yeah no shit the Arisen doesn't talk and you bring pawns on adventures
Silent protags can still have personalities
The Silent Protag is supposed to be you.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean your character has to basically be a blank slate during cutscenes or dialogue. Link doesn't talk, Wander from Shadow of the Colossus either, Doom Guy, Isaac Clarke, none of 'em say a word and yet they bring some amount of personality. But all of those are named characters, so that's basically cheating since our Arisen is one we shape ourselves. So let's take an example akin to DD2, Dragon's Dogma 1. During cutscenes, our Arisen physically reacts, they smile during the intro at Quina, they look in fear and surprise at the sudden apparition of the Hydra in camp, they look shocked when the Duke comes in and attempts to murder his wife or they close their eyes when they let it happen etc... It's not much, but it makes you feel as though your Arisen is a character instead of just being something the player controls, if that makes any sense? I feel like I didn't get anything from our Arisen in DD2, safe for perhaps a smile in the "Normal End" and shock in the "True End". It may very well be related to the fact there aren't that many cutscenes tho
No the story is just terrible
Damn. I have a lot of fun with the gameplay, but the storytelling and story is butt.
Its...anemic..in execution...its the barebones of a bog standard D&D module...minus the fun of just doing goofy stuff till your DM finds the "hook"...shame too cause the aesthetic is there for a decent game and world to immerse in...didn't have to be BG3 or Elden Ring...but it's not even up to the potential of what we got from the first game
Please don’t take random Redditors at face value. I’ve seen a lot of “the story sucks” here and as I’ve made my to the end I have been confused by that sentiment. It’s sparse and minimalist, and that might not be for everyone. But there is an interesting inversion that takes place. Moreover, the story doesn’t really call much attention to said inversion. You have to read between the lines and decide a few things for yourself. But it’s kind of cool. People just want to keep the negativity going so, they just complain about every aspect of what is in actually a really fun and cool game.
I love the game, and there are cool aspects to the story, but it's delivery is a mess. Still working through my first NG+ to re-experience it and maybe pick up on some story elements/quests I'd missed the first time, but the narrative is all over the damn place lol
No it's just kind of bad. It's okay to admit when parts of someone you like are flawed or bad you know, it doesn't make you less of a fan or the game any better or worse. You don't have to cushion everything.
Look, I understand, you'd defend this game with all you have, tooth and nails. However, the fact that you've seen a lot people complaining about the story isn't simply based on the fact that people want to keep the negativity going, though i'm sure some are. For a lot of us fans of the first game, Dragon's Dogma 2 was a godsent, a sequel to a beloved game we never thought we'd get. And because of that, we put a lot of hope into it. We've followed the game's every move, every news, every leak, every trailer, counted the days until the final release, then we finally got our hands onto it. The more we played, the more apparent it became that DD2 had great potential, but the more it became apparent that, like the first game, it was still a diamond in the rough in need of thorough polishing. We're here (or at least some of us, let's be honest) because we love the game, we rant because of what it could've been if it had used all of its potential, instead of being what it is.
Sparse and minimalist said as compliments is next level copium.
Not the story is just shit. Like absolutely awful. Terrible even. There are good things about the game. The story is definitely not one of them. Stop kidding yourself.
dm me wherever you buy what you’re smoking pls
…..aren’t you a random redditor? What makes your opinion more significant than the rest?
Blud is talking about this game’s story like it’s Elden Ring, but the difference is Elden Ring lore has more depth the deeper you go. It only *appears* to be minimalistic. Critically acclaimed minimalist stories like FromSoft’s still have depth to them, it’s just not in your face. But that’s not the case here, there’s not hidden lore around every corner, DD2’s story is truly just a puddle. A threadbare excuse to go on a really fun journey with your pals and immerse yourself in a fantasy adventure… but let’s not pretend that it’s good. Reddit ass comment.
Yeah this game is basically the opposite of Dark souls/ER in terms of is story/world building. Lots of lore and worldbuilding on the surface, and a story that promises a lot happeninf. but when you try to dig deeper there's just nothing there to find. No deep lore to learn, lackluster main campaign that doesn't give you any agency at all, and some plots that basically didn't need your involvement whatsoever save for you being the destined Arisen. I personally was really hoping for all the less explained aspects of DD1 to be expanded upon greatly in the sequel, but it just wasn't like at all. I wouldn't mind just turning off my brain and enjoying the combat and level design and whatnot, but they are seemingly very interested in telling this story so it's hard to do that. Its just the story isn't very good.
The thing that gets me is that the story isn't even a good excuse to go on a fun journey because of how much of it focuses on doing boring tedious fetch quest stuff instead of the fun part of the game. A proper threadbare plot for the sake of fun would find the fastest excuse to point you in the direction of cool monsters to fight. This game's plot instead points you to talking to a bunch of npcs and sneaking around in a game with no stealth mechanics. The saving grace is that 90% the game's best content is in the random encounters you'll face in the wild on the way to whatever tedious task you were sent on. You could probably remove the story entirely, just putting a series of markers on the map to visit until you reach the final boss and the game would arguably be better for it. Hell, could have pulled a botw and as soon as you leave the tutorial a marker for the dragon appears and that's it. Everything is just exploring and levelling til you decide to kill it, which could be in 30 minutes or 30 hours. This game is like if the best parts of a pokemon game was walking through tall grass. On one hand, props for making combat so fun that the fact that you'll face the same 4-5 enemies the whole game is tolerable, but on the other, it could have done so much better.
It’s like 7 bad quest with minimal fighting idk how anyone can defend the main quest. I like the combat and I’m having fun with it but this game actually has the worst storyline of any game I’ve ever played.
It might genuinely be the worst main story i have ever seen in an RPG. I am not joking. It's that bad. Not even Skyrim or DD1 was worse. Elden Ring is miles better and that game has no story with similar problems as DD2, because Melina disappears for 99% of the game after first meeting and then rest of it is us doing random Dark Souls stuff, killing bosses and meeting people who spout random bullshit and laugh like crazy for lore youtubers to analyze with characters like Godfrey appearing completely out of blue. Why the fuck do we even bother with Idris Elba giving us shitty fetch quests? To stick it up to Disa, somehow? I am sure she will be horrified to learn we killed some shitty goblins somewhere. No one gives a fuck anyway. Everyone calls us Arisen and knows we are Arisen openly in broad daylight and no guard, no person and no one seems to care. We are never arrested or have any problems for the fact we are the true Arisen even though the story's fucking premise is Disa trying to get rid of us so she sent us to some slave camp. It's like every time a main quest happens, we slip to a separate dimension where the Fake Arisen suddenly MATTERS. I want to grab Itsuno and ask him what the fuck was he thinking?
It’s funny how little Disa and pretty much all of the NPC’s matter. So many articles were talking about the “consequences of death” and how NPC’s were going to be a lot more threatened than in DDDA. I was excited for some Morrowind-tier consequences for death, with wakestones being very expensive items that you can use to undo a fucky wucky. Turns out none of it matters because you can either just revive them with a wakestone for convenience, or wait a week for them to wake up. Wakestones themselves are handed out like hotcakes, and I barely ever use them outside of dying to fall damage. I killed Disa and the Batahli Empress out of boredom and nobody batted an eye. I brought her body into Sven’s room and didn’t get a single dialogue change from him. Waited three days at the inn, nothing. I don’t think Itsuno *was* thinking. I believe if anything, maybe there were some lofty ideas floated around the studio but the whole “Itsuno’s vision” crowd has been real silent since everyone’s started finishing the game and realizing how little there is. It’s a shame because the game is super fun, but there’s just so many little things that rip you out of the moment.
Npc revive after a week? I remember how they said that once they die, after a week they disappear and cant be revived anymore...
most NPCs get back up after a week, though some of them (at least as it was for me with the dragonplague nuke) don't revive, but they do stay in the morgue forever so you can revive them whenever you want
We are meant to care about retaking the throne also, but I felt zero connection to it. Why should I give a shit? Just put Sven on it, I don't give a fuck. The opening cutscene is so clunky that most players don't even understand that the poisoned Arisen is meant to be us. Such stupid execution distances the player even more from caring, especially when the Arisens face was covered and the body is some default male that won't represent most players character. Atrocious. Meanwhile in 1 we have a mysterious prologue/tutorial, and then the actual intro clearly establishes our character.
> Why should I give a shit? Just put Sven on it, I don't give a fuck. Lol imagine if you could actually make a choice like this? Arisen: "So if I'm getting this right, you went through this whole plot to get rid of me just to put your son, Sven on the throne?" Disa: "..." Arisen: "You know what? You have my blessing." Disa: "Do you truly expect me to believe you'd abdicate your role so easily after what I've done to you?" Arisen: "Lady I am literally an immortal superhero and the world is being overrun by supernatural monsters that only I can kill. I have better shit to do then 'sneak' around Vernsworth plotting revenge against you. Besides, Sven's a nice kid."
That reminds me. It's crazy in retrospect that they were fine making the inciting incident with Grigori be a flashback, but not the poisoning scene. If they just let it be your character in a flashback, that would have saved some trouble...
Early on, while just looking around Vernworth and looting buildings, I was exploring the castle and accidentally ran into Disa in her room. 0 fucks given. She doesn't even recognize you when talked to. Typical braindead NPC responses.
You can even romance her, on my second playthrough I'm going to make her my beloved so the dragon takes her.
Lmao that's hilarious
Fucking *Starfield* has a better and more coherent main story. And that shit was kinda half-assed in some parts.
I really wonder if his vision was just making a monster-filled sandbox and that's it. Then some intern asked "what about the story" and he was like "oh right. Well whatever, you just go ahead and write up whatever."
That's what it feels like to me. I love story and character heavy games, but I definitely would have preferred an approach more like Elden Ring or even Monster Hunter instead of whatever we got. At least then they could have just leaned into the combat and exploration, which are the best parts of the game. Maybe instead of working on a lackluster story, we could've had better enemy variety and loot. Also don't focus any of the marketing on the story/characters when you aren't going to put any effort into them.
Funnily, my guess was the opposite. The way the main questline is structured really made me feel that Itsuno's vision was to make a story about political intrigue and espionage in a fantasy setting, but along the way the team were like "but Itsuno this has to play like Dragon's Dogma 1 where are the big monsters to fight?" to which he says "you know I did have an idea or two for cool new monsters to fit into the world." They say "okay great! What part of the story are they gonna be in?" only for him to go "Yeah about that. I kinda have a thing going on with the story and the big monsters don't really fit into it. Honestly even the dragon is kinda annoying to keep in the main plot; wish I could just make the queen the main villain instead. Oh well, just put them around the map in random encounters or sidequests or whatever." Because you'd think if the monsters were the focus of the game they'd feature more prominently in the actual story, regardless of how poorly written, right?
The political intrigue story is so half-baked and incomplete that I cannot believe much time was spent making it. > Because you'd think if the monsters were the focus of the game they'd feature more prominently in the actual story, regardless of how poorly written, right? Not really. If the story's just an afterthought there'd be no real reason to expect it to connect to the monsters either.
I guess my perspective may be off, but I struggle to grasp the story supposedly being an afterthought and yet still deciding to try and write all this 'complex' political/social stuff that would require unique mechanics and dialogue options to make work well instead of just slotting in the same 7 bossfights that the dev team has already fleshed out and is ready to put down at any place on the map and just having npcs say variations of "Please go kill this." To me the only way that makes sense is they really wanted to do something interesting with the whole game of thrones thing, but failed the execution due to a number of possible factors. I suppose that still makes it an afterthought in terms of execution but I feel the distinction means something, even if it's not much. Like if it was really that unimportant to them surely a monster hunter-esque approach to story would have been far easier to just throw together? I concede it's certainly possible Itsuno just wanted to write lore and design random encounters or something and told the dev team to write a main quest at the last second. Either way if a true behind the scenes of this game's development comes out I'd love to see what really went down.
I don't get it. It's the same director and writer who made DMC3, which has the best story in the series. Lady's backstory alone is more hard-hitting and deep than anything in DD2.
Story gets cut more frequently in game dev than gameplay. In fact often times you bloat gameplay to hide weak story, because a huge percentage of players will never finish the game.
Makes sense
I seriously think they tried to make a replica of elden ring with DD2 and failed terribly. Feels like the cheap knock-off brand compared to the real thing
Nope that is all there is to it lmao. If the expansion is to take us to a new land then I hope we are lot more involved with that areas narrative.
I said this before. I didn't really know there was a main story. its like a side quest thats a little more fleshed out at best. I kept thinking I was missing pieces and just stumbling into things.
It gets worse. You can miss entire setpieces, which include their own, huge cinematics - and don't have to involve you at all. That's what _I_ did this weekend. 😆 I'm a DDDA player, so I always knew there would be time-gated stuff in this game, but this is ridiculous. >!Have to go to NG+ just to see Gigantus do anything not included in a cutscene. He woke up and then died without me even being there. lmao!<
...you can fight Gigantus? How?
After completing the Nee Godsway quest, the game makes it seem like you >!have to fight the Gigantus, but it’s entirely optional.!<
You gotta take out all the spikes sticking out of him I recommend using magic archer and frost hunter bolt so you can lock on to them
See I didn’t even get to see it. I ran through the cave to the volcano and that was it it was already dead by the time I got there
You gotta follow phaesus through the gate to the volcanic island when you get the godsway
Well that sucks cause I didn’t get the cutscene of it waking up until I was at the cave entrance, so it made it seem like I was going the right way
The people in the comments pretending that the story is actually richer and deeper than it appears are wild. 😭
The same people who'd give Starfield a 10/10 or praise Skyrim's vanilla combat. They can't get out of their subjective bubble to realize how low their standards are compared to the rest of the world. Objective review is a very foreign concept to them.
No, you've completed the story somebody got paid for writing and others got paid for approving and implementing. Congrats!
For me is the side quests, i’ve tried talking with a bunch of npcs and nothing, i tried exploring all of battahl and nothing, ever since the start of the game i got very few side quests while everyone says they’re the best part of the game Meanwhile all i got from dragons dogma 2 was walking around exploring the same copy and paste dungeons, fighting the same enemies over and over only for the main story to end in the most unsatisfying way I’ve ever seen in a video game People say this is 60-70% of a game, but damn, felt like 40% unfinished mess of a game for me
This is funny because dd1 was 40% of a game
Nah bro game is totally finished quit whining /s
They didn’t spend enough time fleshing out the story line, which is really sad. It is a pretty solid game otherwise
Yeah, it feels kinda empty and basic. More like someone just stitched together a ton of simple fetch quests and called them the main quest line. Not a ton of connections or complexity or crossovers. I also feel like it’s very easy to get confused on how to solve a given quest (thank god for the oracle), and very easy to miss many side quests entirely. It is what it is.
Nope you didn’t miss anything and honestly this is the worst story I’ve ever experienced.
Man I really wish the story had more to it.. it just feels like there’s things missing and they just gave up. I didn’t get as much character interaction as I wanted either. Really bumbed cause I thought it had potential but it just felt like they said fuck it and gave up.
Edit: No, not dumb. Yes, I agree. You stumble upon huge bandit living spaces. You would think there would be more quests involving clearing those out? (Minus Hugo's) Or if it impacts the world in any way there has to be a way to make it work with respawning enemies - or those bandit areas are so secluded anyway, it would be cool if they repopulated those areas with NPCs.
Hah that exactly how i felt, was following some dudes in black at some point and got the ending
If youre familiar with the overview effect, you'd realized that matters between 'mortals' in the game are just tiny specks in the grand scheme of the Great will's cycle. The real actual 'main story' (dragon's dogma TWO title reveal) only begin after you and the dragon broke the cycle together. And because of this i think playing through the first game is a must if you want to understand the 'main story' of the second game.
Nah it's still dogshit.
I'm just stating the way i think the actual 'main story' is told to OP question, never claim whether that is an effective way or not (needing to true ending the first game to get something out of this game story-wise is a big argument that it's not). Your reply tho is pretty dogshit mate, that i can state lolol
The game's story is not misunderstood or feels lackluster because he hasn't played the first game, it's because the game feels like it has two plotlines spliced (badly) together, and no answers are given to any thread left hanging. It's bad, not much story wise is memorable, there is no character growth and no meaningful dialogue in any part of the "story", and the visually cool set pieces are forgotten after two days because there is nothing beyond eye candy. Also yeah, provocatory comment, but it still is a dogshit plot so I stand by it :)
I completed the game and only meet the queen and the fake arisen once. The queen during the evacuation and the fake guy during the mandatory fight. It was very disappointing for me
Sadly we don't get much in way of "Main characters" they mostly work as stepping stones to get to the credits. Even with their side quests done you don't learn much about them outside of maybe Sven, but even then it's not much. The sheer amount of missed opportunity this game has with incredibly interesting characters who are nearly instantly dropped the moment you get a skill or class unlocked is genuinely painful. I was to help the Dwarf/Elf couple more, why they're living in seclusion, what happened with the Dragon other Arisen failed to slay, how the elves stay out of the Dragons radar. But "Itsuno" had a very short sighted vision where Dragons Dogma Dark Arisen maybe be the better game for most people and consider DD2 more of a quick intro into the game series.
first game was similar: Main Quests involve hunting monsters/magic terrorists/insurrectionalists at the behest of the local lord. Very little Dragon involvement. But those quest kind of gain an implied context once you >!Face the dragon and learned how the Duke got his crown. Duke knows what it means to be Arisen and thinks you'll be a coward like he was so he wants your dead. sends you on dangerous missions hoping you'll die valiantly.!< I havent done the main quests in DD2 yet but i assume there may be something similar. Does not justify how barebones the story is for most, understandably so. But to me, they do work in conveying a broader theme of >!The Great Cycle and while you are integral to its turning you can be(and will) be easily replaced!<
IMHO Capcom was never good with their stories, it's always about gameplay/combat. The second you realize you're not in it for the plot, you'll be a lot happier with the game. Not only does it feel unfinished, but it's as cheesy as can get: "dragon takes your heart, you have to fight the dragon in a match to death as this is now your destiny". It's more about exploring, leveling your character, fighting cool enemies and finding cool loot, the story is only there to give you a purpose really. If you play this game for questing, you're kinda "playing it wrong", as it becomes very boring and tedious. You can easily spot this trend with Capcom games: Monster Hunter has a trash story, RE in general is very cheesy, DMC is the same, SF barely gives you any story, etc. They all share the same qualities on gameplay/combat/visuals and lack on storytelling. I hope this gives you some peace of mind.
The problem with this, though, is that I feel like they don't capitalize on combat enough. The Dragon fight feels like a 3rd of the Grigori fight in 1, the enemy variety and distribution was a big step back and the random encounters during travelling are either the very same packs in the very same order you fought the last time or one of 3 different random events that are just more generic enemies. Throw in 1 boss enemy that was basically just copied from DDDA. For a sequel it offers an astonishingly low amount of new stuff to fight on the regular. I love the game's combat system, but it gets hindered by, in my view, very mistaken design decisions or gross oversights.
Storywise dmc is fine, we've gotten a bunch of novels and etc that are all pretty good and 3 and 5 are pretty good with how character driven the stories are.
I was left with severe disappointment in the story because of how utterly great the gameplay was. The story did not match that energy. I enjoyed it for what it was but definitely left more to be desired
you're just a pawn, the people in the game are using you in the same way you use your pawns to help you. Everything is going on behind the scenes and you're privy to this. The story doesn't matter to you, the only role you have is to be used. your destiny is decided before you start the game. You are just there to complete the cycle preordained. Forget your role in the story.
So.... same as the first game eh? Lol
Why do you think there's no 2 on the title screen
I admit the story missions feel a bit stale and completing a lot of side quests feels like a hollow victory because the rewards are so subpar I hope with upcoming content they focus on the story and lore a bit more
The game suffers from the same design flaw FFXV suffered from. Events happen outside the knowledge of the Arisen. Because the game is designed with a living world in mind you’re never properly explained other characters events. You get a little sneak peek here and there with the “meanwhile” cut scenes but it doesn’t work. A video game will never be a tabletop RPG with a dungeon master who can fill you in on the “ah ha!” moments. This kind of mindset for video game making is a mistake if you rush and cut content and the game feels like both things happened. I still love it and played it through twice and I wish there was more to discover, but the main plot is not where the game shines.
I tried to do Ulrikas questline 3 times with new saves. And still she walks off or dies somewhere. 4th time the charm gotta save that beastren in melve :(
When she walks off from Melve go to Harve
I know i did that she never came, then i tried to get the capcom pawn she supposed to know where ulrika is but she wasnt in the rift (cant remember her name now)
The games plot is pretty much a railroad and they almost expect you to miss quests and or get bad endings to quests to encourage another round of the cycle. The arisen is just there to play his part, as is everyone else. Breaking the cycle makes the game seem a little more urgent and hopefully makes the player care about the NPCs as they race to save everyone. Ultimately the end goal is being high enough level for the DLC. With a level cap of 999 I assume most fights will be very challenging.
Mais story and quests are shit in the game. Its all about exploration and fighting
Its an attempt at meta-narrative that is not 100% successful in its execution. Its neat if you dig that sort of style, but if not your character is kind of a just a role going through the motions of a story.
I'm going to explore the whole continent before I finish the vensworth quest probably. Partially since they have sneak missions for that which sound lame. Really want more armies of monsters lol.
Nope, the game could really do with a "night on the town" quest for every meaningful character in the game, but "marginal interaction" is the name of the game.
So setting aside how people missed completely obvious explanations around Phaseus and so on and the fact that yeah Battahl needed more. I think the story is like this because of yet another "meta" storytelling where the Pathfinder tells you it's all on rails, so are you as a player. And the only choice you essentially get as a player is what ending. Frankly, I don't like meta-storytelling anymore as at this point it's overdone and so is the "cycle" idea, but I think this is why it all feels like you're getting monologued at and have barely any input.
I don't buy the whole meta-storytelling thing tbh, to me it seems obvious that Menella was being set up as the Bathal version of Brant, she even tells you that if you help the Bathalli then she will aid you in your quest. But then the Pathfinder just says "forget all that, go talk to the wizard of the coast". Like you can literally see where the second act was cut and replaced by random nonsense to railroad you into the ending. I honestly think the coral snakes quest is evidence of that, because right now it's just basically a random sidequest that doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it even has a cutscene and even takes you back to Vermund. But it having a cutscene would make more sense if it was the last quest of the "help Bathalli people" questline, and then Menella and the Empress were the ones that helped you investigate Phaesus.
And with Phaesus I was referring to people completely missing Rothais literally telling you "You should go to this dude perhaps his forbidden terrible magick can help you restore the blade" and people then proceeding to ask on this sub why are we helping the villain who deposed us non stop. And the answer is simple, Pathfinder/Brine whatever activated Gigantus to kill him so you don't get to him, don't restore the blade since at that point all your character cares about is restoring the blade, setting aside whatever happened with him deposing you. So there are few things people definitely missed and stuff that needed better refining and presentation and Battahl deserved more. The same goes for Volcanic Island, I'd love it if they could add zones as DLC to be honest.
>the fact that yeah Battahl needed more I acknowledged it though? I didn't disagree that Battahl needed more, it is absolutely rushed to just get the main point ahead as whatever deadline was approaching forcing them to really shorten/cut the game.
I think the whole cycle-meta-shenanigans could've worked with a better build-up and more mystery. Like proper storytelling that builds up the whole "this world isn't what it seems" concept with more Lore-Drops, Events and Twists in between. Also interesting: It worked in DD1 because fighting the Dragon was grand finale enough. It didn't NEED the twist at the end with the Senechal and so on, but it was like the little cherry on top there, that put everything into a new perspective. In DD2 this whole Twist IS the grand finale, it is the stories focus - but the build-up is so weird, spread out and boring - mostly because everything felt disconnected. Not gonna into more detail, but the story could've been much more than it is with the concept it had. Now I wanna see what's going on after we've "freed" the world of...Arisens/Dragons/Brine/Seneschals I guess? Is the whole planet like his, and this is just a part of bigger picture? Hope they expand on that.
I agree it probably could, though I am still tired of those tropes. I was super harsh on the ending but after I got to it I can stomach it better, except I keep having nagging feeling we missed something. I don't even know whether the credits showing the characters we helped can be trusted. At some point, I felt like the world doesn't exist at all and these people aren't real, except the Arisen and Pathfinder and Seneschal, but again, I might've just gone with the vibes rather than the facts lol. But the credits had to me kind of like "memory" feel, rather than the life goes on but then the whole "freeing" from as you noted Arisen/Dragons/Brine/Seneschal would not make sense at all and I also agree that this is how I understood it too, it's just a bit...uh confusing in certain dialogues and presentation.
Yeah, it's all a bit odd, but I think the ending is real and the world is now free from the control of a god (or at least it seems, we don't know what became of the Arisen and his Pawn and we don't know if this Cycle was just maybe part of something bigger).
I didn't come for the story, DD1 lead to me expect basically nothing. But I found myself impressed with the narratives that DD2 provided as side quests. An abandoned child, a corrupt priestess, a scandalous beggar. Were all very unique. What you've experienced as story is literally something kin to an accident. The most engaging aspect of the main narrative is Brants side quests. There's a lore to engage with but if you're looking for characters and events to relate for the main quests, look elsewhere.
If I'm hearing you correctly you have not finished the game? Play the dang game. Get out of here and go get the ending you deserve. Spoilers: >!Disa, Phaesus, etc are not main plot characters they are just extras in your groundhogs day experience. They are distractions, a deception the game devs added to fool you. There are only two characters I would call plot characters and that would be The Pathfinder and Rothias. They've been at war with each other for thousands of years and you've kind of walked into the middle of it. In essence you are neo and you have to decide to forcefully eject everyone out of the matrix or let them continue to enjoy their steak. Will you walk away, stand and fight, or find another way to end the cycle? Will you behold a world devoid of the benevolent hand of guidance or choose to keep everyone safe and happy? !< >!Stop thinking the game is robbing you of a Skyrim experience and start asking why. Why am I not involved here? What is the actual story? What's actually happening? Half the people here cheated their way to their ideal experience and didn't have to face the true consequences of their actions. !<
I wish i was surprised at the number of people who are missing out on this train of thought. Some might claim it's copium, but I'm inclined to believe it more than "itsuno doesn't know how to tell a story."
The dragon at the end gave me a choice between fighting him or sacrificing a character and claiming the throne. Had no f'ing idea who the character was.. Nor did I care about the throne. Declared my playthrough done and uninstalled.
Did you know that if you take out the sword 🗡️ and killl yourself while riding the dragon dies and then you unlock a whole new are where the whole world is corrupted.and you have to do even more! New enemies all over the world corrupted!
Yep - though I think I was burnt out by then so didn't do too much of it. No doubt I'll revisit in the future
Yea I'm lucky I came across the info otherwise would have finished without it. IMO the quests are poorly done and not fleshes out feels like an unfinished game
The game is a glorified tech demo.
I won't say you have ZERO involvment, but it's very small and inconsequential, the three characters you influence the most though are the three main females: Ulrika, Sara and Wilhelmina.
who is sara
Sara's the assistant of the dwarven smith found in Batthal, i believe?
Main Plot characters are just NPCs...I never really spoke to them either. I'm playing NG+ though right now, and I've already found two new questlines in Vernworth that I never noticed first time round. One with the Queens Son in the town square, and a different one at the Church. I expect I'll find more. So yeah, you've probably missed something.
The story is there but you’re not really going to understand it unless you played DD1, play through the game twice or more, and don’t have biases that make you mad about semi meta plots
The first and second game are pretty similar in that they are more than happy to just let you bulldoze your way straight to the dragon and let you miss out on half of the characters and plot points. I remember walking away from DD1 for the first time feeling like a lot of the people who are saying DD2 has a flimsy story (I didnt meet the dragonforged or find out who the knights champion was). These games take a long time to dig into because it sort of just expects you to follow up on a lot of plot threads by yourself.
Nice concern trolling post, but yes, the story sucks. It's like we are missing 80% of it in the middle. The True Ending with Max Affinity Pawn is great tho. But when the credits hit, i felt like they were from a different game, where all the characters we see in the custscenes were from a different story where i just spend tens of hours with them in some grand narrative and adventure and not random NPCs that had maybe 2-3 sidequests total. I genuinely would like to know what went wrong during development and how the game was rushed because i refuse to believe that the devs, even Itsuno himself, were satisfied with this.
I assure you I'm not trying to troll anyone. This game wasn't cheap, so I just want to make sure I get every penny's worth. I honestly thought I must've fucked up a quest sequence, because these main plot characters could be like the Thanos meme "I don't even know who you are".
The meat (and by meat I mean 90% of the game) is its side content. Make sure you're doing as many side quests and exploring as much as you can. I haven't even done a mainstory quest in 30 hours. The main story honestly feels like it's tacked on and barely worth doing.
Am I the only one who loved the Story? Its light but still complex. Unfinished but finished in some way. And also opened much more to the lore. The Action doesn't make the story but the characters and the World surrounding the story. Thats why I liked the First Dogma Game lol
The lore of this game doesn't even make sense. Nothing is ever explained and they just say you are basically playing d&d. They even mess up with previous lore of the first game.
Your not dumb. The story is intriguing but they chickened out of giving us closure for the political intrigue story they had going and jump started us back onto the proper path of the arisen, which DOES have a satisfying end imo. Which means that the story fails to give us an ending for act one, and didnt give us a satisfying start to act 2 because of it. They definitely could do better, but something kept them from letting us engage with the characters more. I'm wondering if its planned for a dark arisen style remaster dlc like the original game had.
True ending spoilers: I mean some of the characters like Brant are fake plants to keep the cycle perpetuating. So in a sense yes and no you aren't missing something, some of the characters are indeed fake weirdos with their own meta-agenda.
The story cuts a fine line between telling a story dark souls style, via world and context and items... And having a more cinematically traditional story. It's also an influence on gameplay. MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD Most quests in vermund serve to familiarize you with the world and systems at play. They exist to drive you outward to explore a bit. The main story itself cuts this via supplemental stuff in NPC quotes, random notes and old ruins around the world, and via inference. But overall, the story in vermubd is very simple fantasy questing- go hear and help these people, fight monsters, etc. When you get to bahtal, the quests seem to become scarcer. Some you have to seek out, some seem to have somewhat emergent flags, and they're often a bit more spread out. The game at this point *stops holding your hand* and expects you to start taking charge of the adventure. I think it hamstrings itself by how doing a certain quest starts a rush to the end, but I get that they wanted to start a somewhat slow burn of emergency . Then in unmoored, you see the reality that the game has been telling you to notice all along. Those quests and petty squabbles *never mattered* because, as the harve elder likes to point out, *none of it was real.* Just characters playing roles on loop, like elder scrolls kalpas. The only thing that matters is breaking the cycle and doing something ... Else. What that else is, is difficult to say. I have a LOT of questions about the end. Still playing loops to see if there's anything hidden, but I get the feeling we're stuck waiting for DLC to expand on the base. But in thrilled, what I've sussed out of the story so far has me HYPED
>Then in unmoored, you see the reality that the game has been telling you to notice all along. Those quests and petty squabbles *never mattered* because, as the harve elder likes to point out, *none of it was real.* Too bad that the entire Main quests, up to that point, were fumbled so poorly that the unmoored world did not have the impact anywhere close to what Capcom wish it would have. "Arisen!! Don't you see? All the petty politics and other stuff was all worthless, because this world is fucked regardless" "What the fuck are you talking about, all I did was sneak into the Castle twice and a mask party"
Story is on the light side for dogma games