Dragon´s Dogma 2 - Some Thoughts.

Introduction

So, like I said in my GOTY list, I had this text almost done for a while, but there were parts of it which I was not satisfied and that why it took so long. This isn’t exactly a review, more likely me articulating what I felt about it. It will include a lot of spoilers, so please be warned.

There were a lot of expectations and proverbial “big shoes” to fill for Dragon's Dogma 2, due to the cult status of the first game. Released in 2012 and later added to Steam in 2016, Dragon’s Dogma 1, was a sort unique take in open world action rpg, with a lot of jank, ambition and Berserk references.

Dragon's Dogma 2, released in 2024 (May) sometimes described as Hideaki Itsuno´s real vision for the first game, hit a bit strange… Not a bad game, I enjoyed my experience with it, however I do have mixed feelings about parts of it. While visual impressive and featuring many game systems which the first game introduced, such as pawns, there are some issues in story pace and execution among others, which I will talk about.

But let's begin with the world, since is such important element for the game. In fact, one reason that make me choose this topic, was to start try to articulate something:

When people talk about “Open World Games”, there is sometimes a tendency to generalize the lot, often even falling in a bit of ahistoricity, often in the form of thinking this is a recent “thing”, when in reality, not, because games which feature an openness of space, or a more free-roam ability, are much older than one can imagine and can exist in different degrees.

Why I am talking about this? My point, and I will elaborate more about this whenever I talk about Elden Ring, is that I don´t think there isn't such thing as a single or a “standard” of “open world” v(or anything between in terms of begin open) design, but rather, each game, might need it own take depending on their own vision. What one game does, don't mean it will work in the other and sometimes, even small things, such as how the game handle Fast Travel can make games stand out.

Beyond this, worlds in games, and again I don’t mean, just the open ones, but all in between, often need to find a good balance between two things, first: the player focus, where things and systems exist for the sake of the player (but often only make sense of for the player), result in spaces which might be time efficient, better paced or convenient, that when used right is powerful and necessary, but can in excess or poor usage, look artificial or inorganic, because the world stop making sense (as much I like Skyrim, it weird that every dungeon is a circle, even if it makes exploring it more “easier”).

To make things complicated, this excess of player focus can be viewed, in a shallow understanding, to be “better” design, due to the aim on the player’s own convenience, even if dangerously could lead to the worst experience in the end…

The other is the world focus, where things and system exist for the world, often in disregard of the player, meaning that thing can be inconvenient (like NPCs having a cycle of day and night, causing the player to have deal with closed shops), but this results in sometimes dynamic or reactive spaces (when based on systems) of maybe spaces which feel more engaging and evocative (due placement, world building, exploration), as things are position or exist make sense for the world (this isn’t about begin “realistic” but rather about cohesion), but again, might be perceived as inconvenient for the player.

However, again, a shallow understanding of this aspect can result in people mistakenly taking those as “worst” design, because it appears to “waste” player time, since it is about systems which don’t direct aim at the player, even if improve the immersion.

Both elements are important and most times should exist in balance, sometimes with one helping the other, so you don’t notice and the whole thing feel cohesive. Think how Fromsoft place its shortcuts.

Dragon's Dogma 1 had a fairly compact but robust world, while not a survival game, it was about travel and attrition, you need to plan carefully, as night were not just dark, but dangerous. Fast Travel, was not really a thing, as you had only very limited resources which allowed that, and only in the Dark Arisen expansion, they add a more permanent way of fast travel, but still it was a rare resource.

These elements give Dragon's Dogma its uniqueness as an open world game, a combination of openness, plus the way travel in the world feels, while it found a good balance between the two focus (player and world, but leaning more in the later). Keep in mind, around the time that Dragon's Dogma 1 was released (either the first time, or when it was added to Steam), both Oblivion (2006) and Skyrim (2011) were already out and often the ones which Dragon's Dogma 1 was most compared too and those two featured a much more standard Fast Travel. So, you can see how by not using much of it, Dragon's Dogma sort find it own expression.

Now, the world of Dragon’s Dogma 2, does not deviate far from that… in general… except the world is bigger, but not that big. But there are some differences.

The World, the People and Travelling around.

You see, the world it is split in three major areas, Vermund, a northern temperate region, mostly composed of forests, cliffs and mountains, a southern one, Battahl, featuring arid theme, with cliffs, mountains, but some forests in borders. A third one, Agamen Volcanic Island in the south-eastern region, past the Battahl, featuring a bit of the greener themes, but plus as the name suggest, some volcanic motifs.

There are clearly “gates” between said regions. Now, you can sort found ways around said gates, but you can see that the idea is to block progression until you reach certain states of the main quest. Meaning that your travel range will be most times limited to a smaller area (the one which you will be), as there are few moments where between areas might be required, however there will be some backtracking. This can produce a bit of oddness, as places which plot might suggest being far, are quite close, but the path can be weird, like the Sacred Harbor, which is quite close to Vermond, put the path is not that simple. Note, this isn't a bad thing, much by contrary, is quite cleaver.

The terrain follows a natural transitions, but due to mountainous terrain the world can feel claustrophobic, you often find yourself being flanked by mountains and cliffs everywhere. Still, strange as it is to say, sorts work well, sure your line of sight is often blocked, but this keep a sense of mystery as you move around. Oh, it is important to point out, that water, or better saying, anybody of deep water will be fatal to anyone, due to the Brine, an eldritch monster which hides there.

Moving to settlements, you have three major cities and a handful of small villages, besides this, you got tons of caves and lesser quantities of ruins. Unlikely the first game, where there was only one kingdom, now there are three clear distinct cultures, with Vermont begin a more standard medieval human realm, beastern (which were sort meant to appear in the first game, but never did, until now) realm of Battahl, plus a smaller elven realm, the Sacred Arbor.

However, the game sometimes struggles to give you the sense that the world have “layers”, by that I mean, a sense of deeper history, in ways you have in a Fromsoft or an Elder Scrolls game. Instead, it almost feels like the world exist for the first time, which isn't true, because there is a past history and a rather big “layer” it just the game struggle evokes that feeling or even rise the question. So it can feel you sometimes have ruins for ruin’s sake. Please, I don’t mean the game should give a full answer for all of this, but it could simply suggest, hint or evoke one and let the player wander.

This often reveal itself when stuff exist, but also no one appear to address it, like a place called the “Ancient Battleground” which you visit, but never know why the place exist or village full of undead, or even the vast ruins in front of Battahl. Now, there are theories that some places, beyond one particular spot, are meant to be references to the original Dragon's Dogma world. However, this doesn't work very well, sure the one spot which we talk later, is clearly a place from the previous game and the reveal is quite cool, but the others are difficult to pinpoint, unless you remember how the map look like and even that still just a maybe.

That leave us with the NPCs and enemies which you can meet up, most of NPCs remain in settlements, where they have their own schedules (limited to their current place, but some move around), but don't react much (unlikely in an ES game, per example, they don't mind you opening chests in their houses or anything, in fact I think they don't even react to begin throw out of a cliff). They can die, either by monster spawning inside the towns or some other reason, if that happen, you can use a Wakestone to bring them back. But things can get complicated, as while one can be used if you spot them dying quickly, in other cases you need to find another NPC which handle the morgue and then use a stone there. In my own experience, I never need to do this, but I heard people have to do it or even miss a quest due to them dying.

Much like in the first game, you can build relationship with them, by giving gifts or doing quests, but unlike the first game, where you activate interact with them more, and this often resulted in your “beloved” begin the least expected person, here this does not seem to happen at all.

But with a general idea of the world geography and its design and NPCs, let's move to how you travel in this world, since it a big deal in Dragon's Dogma:

For a lot of people, it is about using resources, finding your way in and out, deciding if you risk travel by night or not. So the majority of travel will be by foot, but you got the Ferrystones, which allow you one use fast travel, to a fixed place, or anywhere you put another item, the rarer Portcrystal.

Now, you might have read about how Hideaki Itsuno told IGN, what he feels about travel in games, “Just give it a try. Travel is boring? That’s not true. It’s only an issue because your game is boring. All you have to do is make travel fun,” , but what he says is a lot longer (https://www.ign.com/articles/dragons-dogma-2-director-explains-why-less-fast-travel-can-be-a-good-thing) but often never mentioned, only the first part) and quite key to understand was likely the aim in both the first and the second game:

“That’s why you place things in the right location for players to discover, or come up with enemy appearance methods that create different experiences each time, or force players into blind situations where they don’t know whether it’s safe or not ten meters in front of them.” (https://www.ign.com/articles/dragons-dogma-2-director-explains-why-less-fast-travel-can-be-a-good-thing)

We will analyse this later, but for now just keep in mind.

At the time the initial part was often evoked against Starfield, the later part, however, was often never mentioned, but these declarations would sort turn against them…

… Because Capcom did not favour to itself it by the confusing addition of the item shop, while nothing new (I don't mean it is good, it just they did that before), they have doing this in Resident Evil and Devil My Cry. However, in Dragon's Dogma 2, things get extra confusing and very easy to people create outrage about it, due the game own obscure mechanics and a lot of people not being familiar with the first game, so you can see people making up stuff about how the game hid the fast travel in the cash shop, which is a plain lie.

In Dragon's Dogma 2 by just playing you will have more than enough of both Ferrystone and Portcrystal to basically mark all major places and still have spare ones, making buying more pointless (also you can't even buy huge quantities anyway…) and everything could be bought ingame anyway.

Moving on from this, the game does add two new things, Camps spread around the map, where you can use a new item, the Tent, allowing you to rest and even use collected items to make food. This is important, that due to the way in which your health works: as you take damage, your maximum health diminish, until you reach either a camp or inn. However, Tents are a thing you likely buy one and forget, since while there are more types, the actual impact isn’t noticeable. The food aspect is fine… as it a good way to put to use stuff you have gathered along the way in exchange for some buffs.

Problem might be that there is simple way too many Camps, and since Tents have unlimited uses, the friction often can feel trivial in later parts of the game, as you like have enough healing items and a large health poll, and can even make inns, not that useful (they are also quite expansive), except as a place to have a hard save.

OK, let me explain, Dragon’s Dogma uses two save modes, a constant auto-save and one which you activate inside inns, in those places you can set a more traditional save, which you can fall back to instead of the last auto-save. This can be a bit confusing, since the save in the inn will likely be an old save, while the auto one will be the most recent.

They also added a new way of travel, the Ox Cart, which can take you to the majority of the settlements in the game, it follows it own schedule and isn't always safe, as you can get ambushed during the said travel and in fact the cart can get destroyed forcing you to go by foot.

Now, walking around the world you come across with mostly other player’s pawns, often in their one small parties or going solo and an occasional merchant, but also enemies. On this part, there are some problems, Dragon’s Dogma 2 have a limited rooster of enemies, repetition is an issue, combat is fun enough to soften a bit, but you likely face over and over again, and most of them, either monsters or bosses are from the original game.

Due to the limited rooster, it can get very easy and repetitive, specially later on, as enemies feel more like annoyances, even the bosses. To make things even more complicated, while between how the combat, classes and skills work, there are a plenty of things you can use, you might still end using one or two skills over and over again.

Returning to the later part of Itsuno´s quote, in fact, in the game, the way which it spread out it encounters, it is a mix of fixed and dynamic ones (enemies can spawn in several places or times, in fact sometimes inside cities). And overall it works well, but it suffers from enemy repetition. So between the limited enemy roost, lots of camps, the travel friction less up a lot, sure you still have to out watch for health and supplies, but this becomes more trivial as the game progresses. Still, despite this, it works, as going around with your main pawn and friends still a lot of fun.

Character Creation

I know it a bit strange to have this in a separated section, but while writing, I could not find a good spot to place this part which felt natural.

While Dragon's Dogma 1 featured around nine vocations, with three being the base ones: Fighter, Strider and Mage, followed by the advanced vocations of Warrior, Ranger and Sorcerer and then ending with the hybrid vocations, of Mystic Knight, Magick Archer and Assassin. In Dragon's Dogma 2, sort features four basic vocations: Fighter, Thief, Mage and Archer, while the advanced and hybrid vocations were joined together in the following list: Warrior, Trickster, Warfarer, Mystic Spearhand, Magick Archer and Sorcerer.

Now you might notice, that gone is Strider, as it got split in two vocations, the Thief and Archer, but you might also notice that while there is a Thief vocation, there is not an upgraded version of it.

Unlikely in the first game, you now need to complete a quest to unlock some of those vocations and some of them are limited to the Arisen (meaning pawns can't use it). Those quests aren't hard, in fact, some of them I completed by accident, but some are very easy to miss due to begin out of the way.

I feel that maybe more that in the first game, you likely reach maximum Rank in almost every Vocation very early on due to the larger world, therefore more enemies, meaning you find yourself deciding to either keep using it (which can be tedious), or keep changing very early on. The result is weird, unlikely the first game, where taking a path felt more like making a choice (but you still can change to any) giving you a sense of agency and self-expression, here you like always take almost every vocation.

This maybe by design, one of the vocations, the Warfarer seam based on this idea, as this one allow you to mix and match skills of all vocations you unlocked. To the point, that this vocation was meant to a final one.

With all that said, each Vocation still plays pretty fun, featuring a good selection of skills, however, it is, as I said, above, easy to fall in use one or two skills over and over again, as some of the other feel too specific and at each time, since you can only have four selected. I feel this might be a sort of common issue, where games while give you tools, but they struggle to make you use them, as fall back to standard attacks is simple too easy. Which is bad, because in case of Dragon's Dogma, combat is pretty dramatic and part of it identity, when things go right, you will be climbing over huge monsters, breaking parts of them and so on. And those moments still happen, but repetition of enemies will be an issue.

Quests and Story and lots of Spoilers.

With the stage set, I can, at last, talk about the game main history and quests:

For quests Dragon's Dogma 2 sort uses several systems at once, sometimes they have timers, sometimes they are quite flexible and could be made out of a rigid order, but sometimes (majority) not, sometimes they require multiple prerequisite quest and often might have different outcomes. There is a somewhat bare-bones system of dynamic quests, which in my experience, most end in NPCs asking me to take them somewhere else. Like the first game, a NPC can create copies of quest items, which you can give instead of the real one, but I never actually find a use for this in neither game.

Quests can be easily missed, almost too easily so, which by itself, isn't bad, as it solve a player lead issue of trying to do everything even if isn't the idea, improves pacing and overall time and give you new things to explore in new play… however… is also not very well communicated and sometimes lead to confusion.

Then there is a somewhat odd pacing in the overall story, things start fairly good, but once past Battahl, which feel like a bit slog, due to the excessive amount of enemies there, suddenly the story is coming to an end. Even side quests, specially of the NPC quests, have a bit of this odd pacing.

After finishing Ulrika's quest (Dragon's Dogma 2), I could not avoid compare with Madeleine’s quest (from Dragon's Dogma 1), the later felt to have its steps better distributed, as you reach the end, only by the near the end of the game itself, making the whole require a lot of commitment during the process. Ulrika's quest, however, end fairly soon and once done, there was nothing else, until the end, she sort stand somewhere with a huge anime blush, or show up in my house asking me to take her back somewhere else.

The game main plot is sort made of two parts: first is how the player, the true Arisen, is being cheated from it own destiny, since there is a conspiracy which created a fake Arisen as a puppet, since in this world, the kingdom is ruled by the Sovran which must be an Arisen. The second is about the esoteric nature of the world of Dragon’s Dogma, with the cycle of the Arisen and the Dragon and it many aspects. While the plot build up this idea, that you are working to claim your rightfully position, very little come of it, and the whole things feel weird, your antagonists are so physically close to you, that you can’t wonder why they don’t take action, and how many times you can sneak in the palace without them noticing you…

Now, I suspect, that the whole concept behind this part of the plot of “let's create a fake Arisen”, is meant to be about people messing up with stuff they don't understand for their own short gains, ignoring the obvious elephant (or in this case Dragon) in the room. Because while Pheseus have a contingency plan and appear to understand what is going on, no one else, seam to have one or care.

This might also be a retread of the Duke Edmund´s plot in the first game, since again you have this idea of people claiming to be something which they aren´t. I feel that maybe they missed a chance with the Fake Arisen, there was a lot that they could do with him, they could play a classic “Kagemusha” story, with him begin initially aware he is a fake, until he believes he is the real deal. Or at least had a comical scene with him bailing out when ordered to fight against you. But rather, while you find out how he is, he still fight you in the end. Anyway...

The problem here might be that while you have the Dragon striking in Melve leading to the player becoming the Arisen, and later being captured as the starting point, once that is done, the Dragon sort vanishes from the plot save indirect interactions. The oddness is increased due to the nature of cycle one can expect both the Dragon and later the Pathfinder would take lightly people messing up with this, but not really, the Pathfinder even help you to escape. But his can be explained by both of them knowing that this all for naught.

Also there isn´t anything like the Salvation Cult from the first game, meaning save that attack on Melve, he does not do much, meaning he appears much less of an issue… which feel that weakens the whole “there is a bigger problem we are ignoring”.

However, there is a good twist, the few times the Dragon interacts with the player, he is sort of trying to push the player against the Pathfinder for reasons which become clear much later, but in a very vague way which is easy to miss, as you don't know what is the deal with the Pathfinder until much later.

On the second part, the more esoteric one, is much about the already mentioned cyclical nature of this world, with the Dragon and the Arisen, however, you also now have the Pathfinder, which you will meet several times and this kind throw a twist in the great scheme of the plot. Here you have the reason why the game title changes from just “Dragon's Dogma”, to “Dragon's Dogma II”:

This is sort because the Pathfinder is all about keeping the cycle as it is, in fact, he is so obsessed with this, that even the Dragon can’t stand the guy any longer (which sort explains the way he acts, but again, it is so vague that is easy to miss out), it only when you try to break it, is that when Pathfinder turns the table and begin the events which lead to the Unmoored World and the title change.

But fans of the first game might notice, omitted from the equation appear to be the Seneschal, in the original game, he was, in a very simplified way, a previous Arisen which raised to godhood. There was a whole plot about how the Arisen could become the next Seneschal, by defeating it. So what happened? Turns out, he didn't vanish, it just takes a whole while until you find Rothais, the once Seneschal, the deal is that he once he tried to break the cycle causing the Pathfinder entered in action.

Small Note: This is actually really easy to miss, due to a what appear to be a translation error, the DD2 wiki claims (https://dragonsdogma2.wiki.fextralife.com/Rothais):

• According to some recent translations, the existing English translations actually mislabel Rothais as the "King of Vermund. While it may be true that he was the first King of Vermund, it is incorrectly worded in the English translation. This is because in the original Japanese dialogue, the Rivage Elder uses the word: "Kaiou" to address Rothais.
• Kaiou, can be directly translated into English as "World King". In the original Dragon's Dogma game, "Kaiou" was used as the title for the Seneschal. This leads to the fact that the Pathfinder, who seems to act the part as Seneschal, is actually a false Seneschal that is trying to hold the world together with a false cycle.

Another minor character, the Rivage Elder, confused me for a while, since I think that he was the Seneschal, but no, from what I understand, he is a previous Arisen which the community speculates that he failed in the Unmoored World.

There is the Dragonplague, a new game mechanic, where Pawns can contract a disease, which cause to become agressive and can turn them in lesser dragon and causing a lot of havoc… but I never had to deal with this and I don't think they ever explain it very well.

Anyway…

I mentioned the Unmoored world, so what is?

… If you take a certain decision in the one of the final quests, this trigger a sequence of events that lead to the True Ending, which involve using the Godsbane as per tradition. This mess up with the Pathfinder's plans, which in anger, torn the world apart to start it all again. This equivalent to the Everfall part of Dragon’s Dogma. But a rogue-like section instead of a dungeon, where you have set things you can do, but only a very limited time to do it so. Dying here, without a Wakestone, can result to start this section from the very start of it.

In Unmoored World, the water is gone (and the Brine too), allowing you to explore a huge section of the map and face some high level enemies and find some rare loot. But this is running out, as unless you help, many places and NPCs will be gone as destruction draws near. So you must rush to several places and rescue them by doing a quest and defeat a boss or two, leading them to safe post, and there the game reveals it biggest layer, the place you go is the very ruins of Gran Soren of the first game, which where underwater for most of the game.

In this section, you either can run or use your more that enough Portcrystals, you likely set before, and Ferrystones to quickly reach each city (In fact, I think that is how the game expect you do to it so, given the ton of them which you will come across as you play in this section).

While there is some high level enemy and loot, maybe by the time you reach this section, there is, depending on which level you reach this section and your resources, maybe little reason to look for either in this later part of the game. Once all you wish to do is done, then is to put an end to the cycle.

After a long cinematic sequence with the Talos and some more events, your pawn turns in a dragon, helping you catch up with Pathfinder. A very dramatic conversation and plot revelations happen in the back of the Dragon as he is flying away. Sadly, I found this, very distracting, you see, I had a crash during the part, so I had to redo it, while I tried to both pay attention, move around to a very specific spot, worrying about another crash, all while the credits play on top and the music plays. Once you hit him and yourself again with the Godsbane, the cycle is at last broken and the epilogue plays…

The epilogue feel a bit odd… at first look great, the world return to normal and you got a sort of ending slide show… but this end creating weird questions:

• So, everybody was holed up in that ruins of Gran Soren, which may I remind you where in the middle where once was a sea. When (and how) they left and when the water returned (or where the water was)?
• The elves whole quest in the Unmoored World is all about their tree dying, and you had to seed to plant in those ruins, so it as all for naught? I mean, the water returned, so they pick up the seed and transport back?
• Ulrika’s quest is about finding a new home after forced to flee from Melve due Disa's actions, so she finds this new home and then goes back to the old one?
• Turn out that Disa's plot of putting her son on the throne was actually a good idea? I mean, her son become the ruler anyway.
• One thing that remains unclear, what actually happen to you and your pawn? I mean your pawn sort turned in dragon and you…

However, there are actually some cool parts, seeing the Rivine Elder sealing way, suggesting that the Brine is indeed gone, in what might be a potential DLC suggestion, if we ever got one…but more of this later.

Conclusion

In the end, the overall story suffers from pacing issues, like I said way above, it starts well, but past Battalh, feel a bit rushed, several NPC plots end way sooner that expected, while other such as Pheseus have confusing developments, where he is initially build up as an antagonist, but in the end he is not, I think...

Some NPCs, such Ulrika and others, have not much to do or say past their quests. Meanwhile, the game appear convinced that you are really going to help Hugo, whose quest line is quite long and confusing, since it is easy to being unable to finished because you missed some other quest. Which was what happened to me…

The concept of the Pathfinder sticking so hard to keep the cycle is good, but… we never know why he does this, in fact keep or break it, is not much discussed at any moment, that the Unmoored World is sort a consequence of the Arisen’s actions (even if indirect) is never bring up (in the original game, if memory didn't fail me, some NPCs do blame the player for the Everfall). While there is this idea of the world being trapped in a cycle, the world itself doesn't show any sign of being tired (save the Dragon and the few NPCs aware of it).

I think, that the idea was that several places and even character were meant to be equivalents of their counterparts in the first game, which is a cleaver idea if that what they meant, it ties well with the idea of cycles and that the game itself is a sort sequel and remaster of the first. However, the execution is odd, some ties are obvious as the ruins of Gran Soren, but maybe the others, without a map of the first game and a good memory it is hard to tell.

Some NPCs might follow archetypes of the first game, like Wilhemina is sort like Madeline, Pheseus is sort like Elyson, but many don't have clear counterparts, or there are new NPCs with no equivalent in the first game (or vice and versa). Also, this requires you remember all of them. Then, there might be an intention, that while places and archetype follow, they aren’t meant to be the same, so they diverge. Or maybe they were just reusing concepts…

To make things more confusing, the way in which Dragon's Dogma 2 was advertised suggest it was in an alternate universe of the first game, which can mislead players in thinking it was a whole new story, instead of a stealth sequel/remake, so you might not be looking for connections.

Now, it is a bit late, but let's talk about time, to make my stance clear, I believe, that a game need “the time that is necessary” no less no more, because, every story and game, have it own needs, some stories are short others are long. Everyone loves talking about cooking, but some foods do need more time to cook than others. Dragon's Dogma 2, in a general way, isn't too long, no, even its open world is fairly contained, to the point that in some part of the plot it gets funny as the distances are fairly short. Ulrika leaving Melve to another village is treated as this huge deal, but the village she runs off is not that far, just a walk way… another time you help a scholar flee from the Vermond dungeons, only to hide him in a ruin hilarious close to the city itself. While some quest might have a bit of back track, or it is odd structure can feel it go a bit too long, it's never too much.

What I feel is that the story need to be a bit longer and therefore, have more time to explore some aspects and characters. I say this because, in the end, I did enjoy my time there and some of the characters did have a lot of potential. In terms of it dimensions, the world feel fine, despite some enemy repetition, travel and exploration is fun and the downtime it offers works well, and again, going from A to B, is part of what make Dragon's Dogma.

As a sequel to a long waited game, it might feel in some aspects a bit disappointing, depending on expectations, about what about my own ? While I played the first game, it was a long time ago, and much like everybody else, I did enjoy it a lot. When the new game as announced, I thought to maybe play it again, but I felt that rushing it, while playing other stuff would be a bad idea.

I still plan to do a new, fresh play of the first game at some point. But back to what I expected, I sort went blind, following only a handful of news about the game and once in a while looking at the game official site. Once the game released, admit I was surprised by it performance issues which I read about, since they were using their own engine, to be fair, my own experience was fine, I had some FPS losses, mainly inside Vermond, but nothing major, the only crashes I got were at the very end.

The game itself is pretty good, the world (despite some issues of suggesting a deep story) is well-designed, exploration is fun, character creation and the pawns still very fun, the story, however, is a bit trick, I feel that it have some pacing issues and certain points struggle to stick, while some characters don't hit the same land, making certain revelations and scenes weaker.

Maybe what happened is that Capcom was sort trying to both create a sequel and remake at the same time, but in the end, it might not commit enough to neither, it misses certain aspect of the first game as a remake, while might don't improve enough on what it uses as a sequel. Another thing that could have happened, is that games which often end labeled as “jank” (in the sense of often over ambition but with potential flaws), might found themselves in a complicated space, pressured to somewhat drop what actually make them unique, in the name of polish and standardization.

While now Dragon's Dogma 1 is a cult classic, reviews for the first game where mixed, often viewed as jank game, without polish, it story and characters sometimes labeled in different degrees of bland, complains about the lack of Fast Travel, but also, it was viewed as game with ambition, the combat was praised as where the pawns.

Also, funny enough, remember I said that the first game had it fair share of Berserk shout-outs? Those still exist, mostly in the form of massive swords and depending on one interpretation, the Unmoored World is one to the Eclipse, but that is it, while the first game had from armor to NPCs and even some plot point from Berserk, those are absent here…

So, in the end, I feel that while Dragon's Dogma 2 struggle to evoke parts of what made the first game such a classic, still got other right, exploration, travel, pawns battles and visuals are excellent, enough that despite some issues in story pacing and repetition, the game still very good. Would I recommend? That is where I struggle a bit, sure I liked a lot of what I saw, but unlike the first game, I don't think that things branch out as they did before, therefore I less to try or experiment in a new play. So, my suggestion might be give a try the first game and them, then the second game. But its not not a bad game.

A final question which remains is: will Dragon’s Dogma 2 have it own expansion? Its own version of Dark Arisen? While the game did do well, and community noted some potential hints, such as changes on Steam Database for the game, with Hideaki Itsuno, leaving Capcom, leave a bit of question in the air, did it is already ready? Do they even have anything? Giving the silence, my guess is maybe not… I expected something to show up in 2024 TGS or the Game Awards, but nothing happened. It still can happen, maybe this year, but how knows?