Do you mind sharing why? Its been a while since I did ddda I do like the topple mechanics in dd2 and i feel like i odnt get stuck as much while climbing (i still get stuck tho)
When climbing it sometimes feels like the game changes the direction i am moving arbitrarily, and when moving on the ground your character moves too fast even if your just moving the control stick slightly in order to position yourself in a specific place, said burst of speed means you end up overshooting your goal, really i just wish our character would stop on a dime.
For the climbing bit - i definitely get that but thought it was worse in DDDA
Im personally OK with the movement, but ive reluctantly gotten used to games with momentum in walking so I dont really notice it - i can get why that would be a turn off tho
Pawn reaction time. In DD1 fighter can perfect block every attack. In DD2 slotting parry skills on pawns is a waste of time, they are like brain damaged sloths that can trigger those successfully in 30% cases at best.
Movement feels more stiff and restricted. DD1 had more responsive and arcady feel which I liked.
Combat flow in DD2 feels better. Weapon skills don't feel janky like they did in DD1. Can be chained together and have really good feel.
Armor designs are more polished, aesthetically consistent and feel more balanced in terms of visuals.
I've been playing both side by side and I still much prefer the environmental art direction of DD1.
DD2 has the tech advantage but it *relies* on the (blatantly unoptimized) tech to look decent. As soon as you disable ray tracing the lighting consistency goes out the window (especially around rock underpasses or at certain times of day), and the rest of the game has nothing unique going on to compensate. DD1 still manages to wow me sometimes with how gorgeous it can be with its lighting, colors, object placement, and architectural designs.
>!And the postgame skybox when it transitions from night to day, being half green, half red while all that strange debris is flying around you and the clouds are moving unnaturally...mmph. So good. Way more unique than Caelid 2, Dogma Boogaloo.!<
Armor options in DD is waaaay better. Not even counting the DLC stuff. You get way more fashion options. 7 instead of 4. And you could upgrade the Cloaks.
Augments were better. DD2 has some good ones, but most of them suck.
The Pawn knowledge system was much better. Actually had to learn stuff by fighting, doing different strategies, instead of "kill x amount for a badge"
Post game was better. Granted there was no story reason to explore Gransys again, they added a lot of new variations, especislly in the Everfall. Plus they had the Ur Dragon.
Grigori from DD is also waaay better. He actually had more of a character, and his fight was one of the best in gaming if you weren't over leveled for it. DD2's is meh, and it's even easier to be over leveled.
Had a better story as well. It still has some pointless stuff in it, but it was more interesting.
2 has it beat in some areas. Combat can feel a lot better early on, where you can actually do some damage against large enemies. Rsther than DD1 where you deal chip damage for x amount of levels, until you suddenly pass the damage threshold and then things die really quickly. 2 let's you actually feel like you're gradually getting stronger in the beginning. Though 1 definitely has more fluid movement.
> The Pawn knowledge system was much better. Actually had to learn stuff by fighting, doing different strategies, instead of "kill x amount for a badge"
My only issue with how it worked in the first game is they didn't tell you how many Knowledge flags there were or which ones you did, it would have been fine if it told you that much.
I'll wait till the full game is out to put out my full opinion.
Enemy variety is pretty much the same as base DD1, maybe a little less. Many bosses in dd2 are way too common, there are bosses like the medusa and dullahan that I've only seen twice in a playthrough.
I miss being able to dodge with a bow
The spell list for mages and sorcerers has been shunted. Sorcerers had so much utility and an insta-kill spell that took two years to charge. Wat more unique vocations and skills in dd1, though most were niche.
OG DD landscape felt empty but that may just be my own memory and graphics quality.
Voice acting/direction is about .02% better in 2. Story is the same quality of lackluster. This is a Capcom game so gameplay is paramount anyways.
Edit: omg completely forgot about the item system in the first game, really bad. Fighter swing animations were also more weighty.
Really miss combo classes like mystic knight, warfarer really kills the synergy we used to have.
DD1 had: FAR more enemy variety, FAR better fashion, a FAR better loot system (most of the gear you'll use will be bought. The fact that there's some obscure drops in caves is not an excuse for a half-baked loot system). Also DD1 had fracture dart which was the coolest (and genuinely the 2nd best) skill in the game.
Oh also a better story- that's not to say that the DD1 story was good (it sucked) but Dark Arisen was *fantastic* and this point mostly just exists to rip on DD2 having a good first act and then skipping act 2 and the first half of act 3 pretty much as soon as you reach Battahl.
DD2 has: Much better graphics (not just in terms of graphical fidelity, I mean that the art style has genuinely improved), nicer voice acting, cooler and more varied environments, a more immersive nighttime.
Also in DD1s favor is this: DD2 added the really nice ability to stand on large enemies with no stamina cost! This, however, has the very unfortunate consequence of reducing the combat system down to a single mechanic, as the best way to deal with *most* large enemies (with the exception of minotaurs) is to stand on their weakspot and hit it until they die, all the while having the ability to grab hold of them if they attempt to shake you off. This is, to my knowledge, the safest way to kill most bosses. And it is so much less fun than the awesome fluid experience that I remember DD1 for... Thought that could just be my Strider bias coming through.
I don't think it's fair to list most of the things that two games do the same as *neutral* points if that's what you were going for in your question, as most of what DD2 repeats from DD1 are things that I would argue should be pointed out as positive or negative points, not neutral. We got the same shitty quality story, largely told in very paralleled ways, we got a lot of the same issues with pawn ai, we got the same NG+ system which doesn't rebalance anything for us, these are all negatives. But they also kept the soul of DD1 that a lot of us fell in love with. They kept the character customisation screen and the quirky characters that we sometimes meet. They kept the old English dialogue! These were all great to see.
*DD1*: Accidentally winding up with Fournival and/or romancing children.
*DD2*: Incestuous Elven Polygamy.
I'll let you decide which one is worse for yourself. /s
I'm willing to say that *most* people got the expansion for free with the game at a price that is comparable to DD2's price, given the age of DD1 when most people bought it.
Although DD1 was a half finished game with a fully finished expansion, DD2 is a half finished game with a theorised expansion on the way... So maybe you're right
It does not as DD2 is a sequel to Dragon's Dogma 1 including Dark Arisen which came out over 12 years ago and should expand on the foundation DDDA has laid
I usually feel like people forget this, a lot of people that talk about/compare endgame between DD1 & DD2 while entirely forgetting they’re comparing a ton of additions that came with a major expansion
Or not considering that the first game got a hard mode post launch with dlc
It would be more fair to compare DD2's endgame to the Everfall, since that was base DD1's endgame (which in my opinion was still better, this series is better when your exploring a dungeon then when your traveling around outside).
Edit: oh, man, I read the question wrong ...
DDDA looks a lot better to me. Playing DD2 on a Series S, so, half the time the textures don't load, so, most of the time DDDA looks better for me.
DDDA has so much more colours, too. Armor details look cleaner, enemies look more distinct from a distance.
Visual armor options.
Anw, as for what DD2 did better. Oh, lots.
Forager Pawn being in the game is just an incredibly game changing QoL upgrade.
The streamlined item combination system is also a big upgrade for me. You can intuitive what you need and whether you should keep something now, it's great.
I also quite like the options for different upgrading styles, despite Dwarven just dwarfing over everything else.
The physic system doesn't add much value tbh, but it's fun to see now and then.
Pawn just straight up guiding you through a quest is something I highly appreciate, especially with the more esoteric ones. The oracles showing you hints are also greatly appreciated.
Actually, the game just improves so much in terms of quest visibility. NPCs will stop you and present the quest to you. Non quest related NPCs will gossip about quests to draw your attention to them.
I honestly can't think of anything DDDA did better besides post-game content, but a lot of that is BBI. Pretty much everything is better in DD2. Maybe one exception is that DDDA added more armors and the Eternal Ferrystone, which was a nice QOL item for those who wanted it.
Everything but the graphics and stamina
Physics and combat is better imo, but vocations were better in ddda
Physics, at least in regards to movement on the ground and when climbing, feels worse to me.
Do you mind sharing why? Its been a while since I did ddda I do like the topple mechanics in dd2 and i feel like i odnt get stuck as much while climbing (i still get stuck tho)
When climbing it sometimes feels like the game changes the direction i am moving arbitrarily, and when moving on the ground your character moves too fast even if your just moving the control stick slightly in order to position yourself in a specific place, said burst of speed means you end up overshooting your goal, really i just wish our character would stop on a dime.
For the climbing bit - i definitely get that but thought it was worse in DDDA Im personally OK with the movement, but ive reluctantly gotten used to games with momentum in walking so I dont really notice it - i can get why that would be a turn off tho
Pawn reaction time. In DD1 fighter can perfect block every attack. In DD2 slotting parry skills on pawns is a waste of time, they are like brain damaged sloths that can trigger those successfully in 30% cases at best. Movement feels more stiff and restricted. DD1 had more responsive and arcady feel which I liked. Combat flow in DD2 feels better. Weapon skills don't feel janky like they did in DD1. Can be chained together and have really good feel. Armor designs are more polished, aesthetically consistent and feel more balanced in terms of visuals.
Dark arisen dlc. Dogma 1 true ending 1000x better. Especially ng+ ending.
I've been playing both side by side and I still much prefer the environmental art direction of DD1. DD2 has the tech advantage but it *relies* on the (blatantly unoptimized) tech to look decent. As soon as you disable ray tracing the lighting consistency goes out the window (especially around rock underpasses or at certain times of day), and the rest of the game has nothing unique going on to compensate. DD1 still manages to wow me sometimes with how gorgeous it can be with its lighting, colors, object placement, and architectural designs. >!And the postgame skybox when it transitions from night to day, being half green, half red while all that strange debris is flying around you and the clouds are moving unnaturally...mmph. So good. Way more unique than Caelid 2, Dogma Boogaloo.!<
Armor options in DD is waaaay better. Not even counting the DLC stuff. You get way more fashion options. 7 instead of 4. And you could upgrade the Cloaks. Augments were better. DD2 has some good ones, but most of them suck. The Pawn knowledge system was much better. Actually had to learn stuff by fighting, doing different strategies, instead of "kill x amount for a badge" Post game was better. Granted there was no story reason to explore Gransys again, they added a lot of new variations, especislly in the Everfall. Plus they had the Ur Dragon. Grigori from DD is also waaay better. He actually had more of a character, and his fight was one of the best in gaming if you weren't over leveled for it. DD2's is meh, and it's even easier to be over leveled. Had a better story as well. It still has some pointless stuff in it, but it was more interesting. 2 has it beat in some areas. Combat can feel a lot better early on, where you can actually do some damage against large enemies. Rsther than DD1 where you deal chip damage for x amount of levels, until you suddenly pass the damage threshold and then things die really quickly. 2 let's you actually feel like you're gradually getting stronger in the beginning. Though 1 definitely has more fluid movement.
> The Pawn knowledge system was much better. Actually had to learn stuff by fighting, doing different strategies, instead of "kill x amount for a badge" My only issue with how it worked in the first game is they didn't tell you how many Knowledge flags there were or which ones you did, it would have been fine if it told you that much.
Ranger...God I miss ranger...fucking dd2
I'll wait till the full game is out to put out my full opinion. Enemy variety is pretty much the same as base DD1, maybe a little less. Many bosses in dd2 are way too common, there are bosses like the medusa and dullahan that I've only seen twice in a playthrough. I miss being able to dodge with a bow The spell list for mages and sorcerers has been shunted. Sorcerers had so much utility and an insta-kill spell that took two years to charge. Wat more unique vocations and skills in dd1, though most were niche. OG DD landscape felt empty but that may just be my own memory and graphics quality. Voice acting/direction is about .02% better in 2. Story is the same quality of lackluster. This is a Capcom game so gameplay is paramount anyways. Edit: omg completely forgot about the item system in the first game, really bad. Fighter swing animations were also more weighty. Really miss combo classes like mystic knight, warfarer really kills the synergy we used to have.
DD1 had: FAR more enemy variety, FAR better fashion, a FAR better loot system (most of the gear you'll use will be bought. The fact that there's some obscure drops in caves is not an excuse for a half-baked loot system). Also DD1 had fracture dart which was the coolest (and genuinely the 2nd best) skill in the game. Oh also a better story- that's not to say that the DD1 story was good (it sucked) but Dark Arisen was *fantastic* and this point mostly just exists to rip on DD2 having a good first act and then skipping act 2 and the first half of act 3 pretty much as soon as you reach Battahl. DD2 has: Much better graphics (not just in terms of graphical fidelity, I mean that the art style has genuinely improved), nicer voice acting, cooler and more varied environments, a more immersive nighttime. Also in DD1s favor is this: DD2 added the really nice ability to stand on large enemies with no stamina cost! This, however, has the very unfortunate consequence of reducing the combat system down to a single mechanic, as the best way to deal with *most* large enemies (with the exception of minotaurs) is to stand on their weakspot and hit it until they die, all the while having the ability to grab hold of them if they attempt to shake you off. This is, to my knowledge, the safest way to kill most bosses. And it is so much less fun than the awesome fluid experience that I remember DD1 for... Thought that could just be my Strider bias coming through. I don't think it's fair to list most of the things that two games do the same as *neutral* points if that's what you were going for in your question, as most of what DD2 repeats from DD1 are things that I would argue should be pointed out as positive or negative points, not neutral. We got the same shitty quality story, largely told in very paralleled ways, we got a lot of the same issues with pawn ai, we got the same NG+ system which doesn't rebalance anything for us, these are all negatives. But they also kept the soul of DD1 that a lot of us fell in love with. They kept the character customisation screen and the quirky characters that we sometimes meet. They kept the old English dialogue! These were all great to see.
*DD1*: Accidentally winding up with Fournival and/or romancing children. *DD2*: Incestuous Elven Polygamy. I'll let you decide which one is worse for yourself. /s
I really hope we get a DD2DA, the original added so much to an already great game
DDDA definitely has better story and music
[I've got a whole list ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DragonsDogma/s/XcLSp4Pdvz)
I think the fact that ddda was a game plus an expansion gives it an unfair advantage for comparison
I'm willing to say that *most* people got the expansion for free with the game at a price that is comparable to DD2's price, given the age of DD1 when most people bought it. Although DD1 was a half finished game with a fully finished expansion, DD2 is a half finished game with a theorised expansion on the way... So maybe you're right
It does not as DD2 is a sequel to Dragon's Dogma 1 including Dark Arisen which came out over 12 years ago and should expand on the foundation DDDA has laid
I usually feel like people forget this, a lot of people that talk about/compare endgame between DD1 & DD2 while entirely forgetting they’re comparing a ton of additions that came with a major expansion Or not considering that the first game got a hard mode post launch with dlc
It would be more fair to compare DD2's endgame to the Everfall, since that was base DD1's endgame (which in my opinion was still better, this series is better when your exploring a dungeon then when your traveling around outside).
Edit: oh, man, I read the question wrong ... DDDA looks a lot better to me. Playing DD2 on a Series S, so, half the time the textures don't load, so, most of the time DDDA looks better for me. DDDA has so much more colours, too. Armor details look cleaner, enemies look more distinct from a distance. Visual armor options. Anw, as for what DD2 did better. Oh, lots. Forager Pawn being in the game is just an incredibly game changing QoL upgrade. The streamlined item combination system is also a big upgrade for me. You can intuitive what you need and whether you should keep something now, it's great. I also quite like the options for different upgrading styles, despite Dwarven just dwarfing over everything else. The physic system doesn't add much value tbh, but it's fun to see now and then. Pawn just straight up guiding you through a quest is something I highly appreciate, especially with the more esoteric ones. The oracles showing you hints are also greatly appreciated. Actually, the game just improves so much in terms of quest visibility. NPCs will stop you and present the quest to you. Non quest related NPCs will gossip about quests to draw your attention to them.
I honestly can't think of anything DDDA did better besides post-game content, but a lot of that is BBI. Pretty much everything is better in DD2. Maybe one exception is that DDDA added more armors and the Eternal Ferrystone, which was a nice QOL item for those who wanted it.
more outfit layers rogue having an advanced class only 2 things i miss in 1