Why aren't there more games like Dragon's Dogma?

...

cause devs don't usually strive to make shit games

>given the money it needed
At the time dragon's dogma was capcom's second most expensive game right behind RE6. It got the money it needed.

>4 years later

The guy who wrote this can't be serious.
Lol no.

That's because of bad management, the game didn't get the budget it needed because it's very unfinished.

Lol yes.

It's unfinished because the dev wasn't experienced in making that kind of game and they also had to first make the tools to create it. The character creator alone took six months. I know you want to believe capcom was being a fuck but this time they weren't.

>but user, you faget, how do you know these things?
Articles and itsuno's GDC presentation where he talked about the development of dragon's dogma.

TW3 is garbage man i don't get the boner for it. dumbed down TW2 with MMO gameplay, and Geralt controls like an RC car.

>The character creator alone took six months
This is a useless stat because you don't know how many people were working on it.
>it took one guy six months to do a lot of work
Isn't really worth mentioning.

I didn't say Capcom messed up but they didn't finish the game.

What exactly do you mean by similar?

The character creator had shit like procedural animation to account for all the different body types you were able to make. I'm willing to bet they had more than one person making such a big part of the game.

There were budget cuts to what was originally planed, if capcom had given them enough money the game would have bee twice as long, the same fucking article mentions this.

Because most people don't actually like playing as loli mage
Yeah I know it's hard to stomach but most of humanity has shit taste
All we can try to do is try to make them see the light

>if capcom had given them enough money
Capcom doesn't have infinite money. Even with the cuts it was still more expensive than any other game save for 1 and that was a high profile sequel. The team got good money, cutting so much out of the game is on them.

>loli mage
did you even play the game?

I think the problem was that the game was too big for them.

I blame consoles.

>Not being powerful enough to turn into little girl

Didn't do it for me, I really tried to like it but it felt like I'd seen and done everything after reaching grand soren, since in RPG adventure games I like to thoroughly explore the world before continuing with the main game I'd already killed chimeras, the drake/dragon, ogres, trolls and thousands of wolves, side quests were boring and didn't feel any motivation to continue with story, magic is flashy but ultimately repetitive and boring, you end up with whatever spell kills faster.

>mfw playing Dragons Dogma

What went so right bros?

Because it's shit. Boring combat and abhorrent quests. Only reason people are stroking its dick is because it was console exclusive for some time.

Woah... That meme perfectly described how I feel about the Dragons Dogma.

Is this meme new or something? I haven't seen it anywhere until recently when a lot of people started using it!

What is the meme called?

Also, yea. Dragons Dogma really DOES make you say "ooft!"

Try BBI the game gets really good once you have enough level to kill shit there, also try doing the quests that lead to defeating the dragon and play on hard if you don't find the combat challenging enough.
Why?

Kys

>Why?
Might have something to do with consoles being inferior to even a mid range pc.

OOFT, that's a pretty hot meme friendo!

...

>try out brontide
>Hey, this is pretty cool
>Does almost no damage, an ingle, levin or comestion is far more powerful

Am I just using it wrong?

It's funny.

Dragon's Dogma set out to be DnD: the RPG. It's in the very name, DD.

And it succeded. Not any other RPG has ever come close to being DnD-like than Dragon's dogma.

Even Baldur's gate which is the DnD mechanics literally in a game.

>Dumbass faggot has the attention span of a goldfish
>WOW I FORGOT WHAT THE PLOT WAS ABOUT XD
>These people are paid to write reviews
>These people influence developers

I'm not sure what's worse, video game "reviewers" or Valve playtesters

I don't get people who don't get Witcher 3.
I understand every reason why people shit on Witcher 3, but I can't imagine playing through it and not feeling shit when Wolven Storm plays etc.

I will tell you what Witcher 3 does well, it gives people what they actually want. Most people don't want tight gameplay and interesting gameplay mechanics, they are actually eagerly awating virtual reality and ultimate escapism.

In that sense Witcher 3 is exactly what people want, it's a game that tries it's best to immerse you in it's unique world with great art direction, interesting characters and a...well mediocre storyline, but on top of that it gives you the typical bag of "You can do anything!" features that you expect in a modern open world RPG, plus on top of that it provides choices that matter more than they usually do in modern games...

Basically what I am saying is that Witcher 3 might not be the best game, but it is a good experience for people who want escapism and slowly all of the AAA gaming seems to be going in that direction as opposed to being just cinematic.

>but on top of that it gives you the typical bag of "You can do anything!" features that you expect in a modern open world RPG
You can't do anything if it isn't part of a quest or scripted encounter.

When I want escapism, I want a game with tight gameplay and interesting gameplay mechanics. Why would I want to simulate a virtual reality as boring as the real one?

>Far more risen than Skyrim
>This is considered a negative
I hate you games journalists, I hate you so much.

People can't get into DD for the same reason people can't get into Monster Hunter usually, but to a lesser extent.

It partially has to do with the fact that majority of players came in with different expectations and partially because DD really doesn't know what it wants to be.

The quests and characters are generally more shallow than even that of Skyrim, ignoring the brilliant Grigori, it is basically a DnD murderhobo dungeoneering simulator most of the time...which is fine, but it gets boring and you do feel as if you've seen everything unless you are really invested in it's combat system, which despite being great can get repetative in my opinion.

It's meant for saurians and ogres mainly.

What are you talking about, there are plenty of shit games out there.

> Start DD first time today
> Change vocation to sorc, because why not
> Realize I have no sorc weap, can't cast shit
> Whatever, do escort quest anyways
> Kicking, punching, throwing bandits off cliffs

..is a weaponless build possible??

Yes but it wouldn't be fun.

I tried it on an Ogre and it was trash. Comestion was far more effective.

I meant cyclops

You know the answer to this and the questions you are posing.

Because most kids these days are depressed shallow messes that want to experience something and are experiencing mid life crisis in their fucking twenties somehow.

You know exactly why people want a pseudo virtual world where they get to choose between two hot sorceresses that have rich backstory, or a daughteru, or a band of broskies that your character has had many adventures with.

I guess I am projecting, but most people that I've asked felt the same and that is why a lot of the players had "whithdrawal" effect one TW3 ended.

I almost can't play competitive games unless they are played with friends and a lot of single player games with great gameplay mechanics just bore me unless there is something more to hold me. I am experiencing this with DOOM right now, I really appreciate how they managed to combine modern shooters with the gameplay of older Arena shooter style gameplay, it has a lot of flaws and is still pretty casual in a lot of it's aspects unless you are playing on harder difficulties, I also dislike that the game design boils down to
>walk a bit
>big fight
>walk more
>bigger fight
>etc.
But still, it's great and the kind of game I would enjoy...but I am already starting to get tired of it because there is nothing to hold me other than the gameplay, in fact it is comically opposed to the notion of modern vidya storytelling and because of that I can't properly enjoy it despite the fact that I know it's better and truer to it's DOOM essence this way.

Fuck I don't know what I am talking about anymore and sorry if a lot of it makes no sense, I am drunk at 4 am shitposting on Cred Forums. Just saying that if you don't want escapism in waifu and daughteru filled worlds your personal life and mind is in a pretty good shape.

The problem with modern gaming is that it's still viewed as a single medium...or maybe it's the other way around, the problem is that we still divide up mediums and we don't perceive each work on it's own merits of what it's meant to be.

A lot of the "cinematic games" are doing what they strive for and clearly they succeed because people are enjoying them. Audiences and reviewers are in the wrong for rating games like Journey and Quake on the same merits, whoever reviews DD should either enjoy games with more crunch to it's gameplay or be a person that understands what the game tries to achieve and how well it does that. This reviewer is neither of those.

Good action games don't sell. Bad action games sell a shitload. Do the math.

just play dragons dogma 2
they even have a new class that punches things

>Dragon's Dogma set out to be DnD: the RPG.
You're fucking retarded. Dragon's Dogma isn't even a RPG, it's an action-adventure grindfest, where every quest is a kill/fetchquest, with VERY minor RPG elements.

DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW

Lightning will stun a cyclops, nothing stops an ogre except for 4 penises

>whoever reviews DD should either enjoy games with more crunch to it's gameplay or be a person that understands what the game tries to achieve and how well it does that. This reviewer is neither of those.
It's much more simple than that. Whoever enjoys games should understand the differences between fucking genres. Dragon's Dogma is not a story focused RPG, it's not even a RPG. It's a fun action game with dungeon crawling elements and is one of the best games in its genre, but that's it. Expecting actual roleplaying from it on the level of Fallout or a story on the level of Mask of the Betrayer is fucking retarded and people who do this need to fucking hang.

youtube.com/watch?v=OBxqtAVRUmE

If by DnD the RPG you mean
>One off session where people just murderhobo around
Then yes, it is that, it's a game of some DnD 3 point whatever based system like Pathfinder with sole purpose of killing monsters.

It's nothing like a good campaign of DnD or any tabletop though, Planescape torment is closer to that.

>Whoever enjoys games
I meant "whoever writes reviews".

>tfw you agree with everything that guy said
I mean I still like the game, but it gets WAY too much credit on Cred Forums

The reason why people do this is because genres are usually not good enough to define what a game is like and because Devs themselves market the game and it's genre wrongly.

DD marketing is to blame for both it's poor sales and it's reception with the general audience.

>It's nothing like a good campaign of DnD or any tabletop though
DD is like a good h&s D&D campaign. You know, a campaign where you just murder goblins for loot to kill ogres to get loot to kill giants to get loot to kill dragons. DD is literally a h&s campaign done right and by h&s I mean the original meaning of the term - a RPG campaign focused purely on combat with next to no actual role-playing (solving different situations in different ways befitting your character's skills).

nothing like running around as male mc and 3 fm pawns, sure you have to rescue them from ogre rape a few time but after the first couple of encounters you learn it well.

untill BBI when your the one that elder ogre goes to rape, thats when i learnt to feel a little bit of compassion for those soulless fuckdolls

I agree, it's that, but that's not what people associate RPGs with primarily, at least not in this day and age, especially seeing how abstracted and fluffy systems are becoming more popular than systems with more crunch.

>The reason why people do this is because genres are usually not good enough to define what a game is like and because Devs themselves market the game and it's genre wrongly.
So what you mean is that game reviewers are either incompetent bumblefucks, who know nothing about vidya genres and cannot classify a game properly or are shit-eating brown-nosers, who don't have the guts to call out devs on the bullshit genre classification of their game for the purpose of marketing. Yeah, I agree.

>because it's an objectively poor RPG with minimal roleplaying?

This is not what videogame roleplaying is about.

You're retarded if you think that videogame roleplaying should strive to get as close to P&P as possible. A game needs to be designed, balanced, scripted, etc. It can never adapt on the fly, bend rules and go completely off the rails like a human DM can.
So thinking that a roleplaying videogame should focus on you "roleplaying" like in P&P is stupid.

>but that's not what people associate RPGs with primaril
And that's where the problem lies: people are too fucking retarded to know the difference between a RPG and a h&s game (or, to make it more understandable for mongoloids who think that h&s refers only to diablo clones: a h&s RPG campaign).

I get what you are saying and yeah it took me 3 re starts to get into it and while a lot of the side characters are shallow the good parts of the game really make it for me and i came to love the game quite a lot but i understand why some people can't get into the game as some others do.
There's a ring that makes you punch harder but i'm not sure if i would try to kill a wyvern or a gorecyclops with punches alone.

Yes, I am saying both of these. Though in case of DD it was more of publisher fucking up the marketing than the Devs themselves.

On top of that I truly feel like DD could have been better if they would have bigger budget/more time.

I bet you play a lot of borderlands and DOTA.

the term "roleplaying" itself came from PnP, you brain-dead cretin. You cannot separate roleplaying from its PnP meaning, otherwise you'll just end up with a different term.

In PnP, roleplaying refers to acting in-character for the character you've built. This means not only "cosmetically' interacting with the party or NPCs in a way that befits your character (i.e. you roll a boisterous bard who hits on all the "ladies" in the party and cracks jokes left and right), but also interacting with the NPCs and the game's challenges mechanically in a way that befits your character. That's why the game employs various skillchecks that act as barriers for alternative quest/encounter solutions, i.e. alternative solutions that are used by a player who has a specific character build to stay in-character.

Games like Fallout do this very well, games like DD do not.

>You're retarded if you think that videogame roleplaying should strive to get as close to P&P as possible
Vidya roleplaying can't be PnP roleplaying, but it can strive to be immersive and give you at least a partial feeling of meaningful choice making. It is not as open as roleplaying in PnP's but it works if world, characters and story are good enough...actually fuck that, often times it is more open that some railroady campaigns.

DD didn't strive to do that but calling vidya "roleplay" stupid is just wrong. The fact that people enjoy CRPGs and even newer games like NewVegas on those merits is a proof of that.

>Because most kids these days are depressed shallow messes that want to experience something and are experiencing mid life crisis in their fucking twenties somehow

Excuse me user, I don't appreciate you sharing details of my personal tribulations on the internet.

>Just saying that if you don't want escapism in waifu and daughteru filled worlds your personal life and mind is in a pretty good shape.
What if you crave it but have been resisting for 10 years?

There is nothing private to share, what you are feeling is what majority of people are feeling.
Again this is anecdotal evidence and projection mostly but majority of people of my generation are experiencing some sort of hardcore existential crisis on masse, it's like an epidemic.

Good job in that case.

>the term "roleplaying" itself came from PnP, you brain-dead cretin.

And? If you stare yourself blind on the naming you're even more retarded than you initially came off as.
Take a fucking look at RTS, there is no fucking real time strategy going on there.

>Games like Fallout do this very well, games like DD do not.

Oh, nice to know the universe made you the judge. RPGs can only be one thing and if they're not then said videogame is shit, right?
Oh man, it's a good thing we have such an open minded intellectual to help us sort things out.

Having choice is fine in videogames. However you have to realize that with each choice you strangle the storytelling.
For example the kind of story you can tell in videogames greatly diminishes the more options you have in terms of character creation.
The more races you have avaliable during character creation, the less the races themselves will matter, meaning that choice you did at the start doesn't matter.

Point is the retard is saying that DD is shit because it doesn't focus on roleplaying. DD instead focuses more on how you play the game, but he can't even see that.

It was a joke, but yeah, you're right.

I don't really get it myself. Why is there such an epidemic? I was somewhat surprised to hear how common it was.

But I just don't get it.

post your pawns and arisens

>And? If you stare yourself blind on the naming
Then use a different name or term, idiot, because the term "roleplaying" means exactly what it means in PnP for anyone at least somewhat familiar with the genre.

>However you have to realize that with each choice you strangle the storytelling.
Again, you are retarded and know nothing about the genre. You can have deep roleplaying with a linear as fuck story. Just look at Age of Decadence, if you want to enlighten your dumb ass. Roleplaying refers to resolving quests, potential combat encounters and minor interactions with the gameworld and NPCs in a way that befits your character. That's it. All these interactions can lead to different outcomes, or they can lead to the same outcomes that get chained together to form a linear story, you just solve problems in different ways.

Most of our existence we as a species didn't even have time to contemplate, well, our existence. Philosophers were usually well off and in the most developed countries of their time.

Now that information is becoming more and more available, opinions and ideas of others are laid out everywhere and the biggest concern for many of the millennials is not to end up as a neet, we have more time to think and absorb information, so much information that we get oversaturated with it. We get to experience whole lifes worth of content in a relatively short period of time and soon everything feels same and lifeless. We crave for more new content to make us feel alive yet the world can't produce new content at that speed. Add to that constant nostalgia over for some content felt the first time we experienced and you get a depressed generation that had everything it needs to be happy but is somehow still fucking sad.

stop making Dragon's Dogma threads you stupid niggers

it attracts neo-Cred Forums shitposters every time and starts the same shit every time

if you want to play it then make your own fucking decisions

and remember, they're masterworks all, you can't go wrong!

The universe is cruel.

>let's ignore Witcher 3
>but Witcher 3 does so much more!

This happened to the Eldar in 40k. It led to them wanting to experience new sensations so badly, that they ended up turning their society into a nightmarish murderfuck machine so depraved and sickening even the ancient cultures of Earth would find it repulsive.

That's where we're headed.

>mfw humanity will create the real life Slaanesh

Is Risen any good?

It's a proper Gothic game for 2/3 of the game, then it shits all over itself in the last third of the game, becoming a straightforward murderfest.

...

Fine by me. I wouldn't mind being a space marine or something. Maybe then I'd be to busy murdering to be depressed.

>the term "roleplaying" itself came from PnP
And?
>You cannot separate roleplaying from its PnP meaning
Actually you can, it's the entire purpose of RPG as a video game genre.

Roleplaying games started as a specific type of board game, but the RPG genre of video games only inherited that name because they use the same mechanics (turn-based battle systems, putting points into skills to give a higher chance of success at tasks, individual resource management, and so on), and no-one had anything better to call them. The vast and overwhelming majority of what you and everyone else call RPGs only share these same mechanics with PnP, none of them (yes, none of them) have the same amount of freedom and fluidity and most of them don't even try to.

It's exactly the same with how Hack 'n' Slash came to refer to games like Diablo (before people misused it to death anyway), a term originating in tabletops that carries a related but still different meaning when applied to video games. Educate yourself bitch ass nigger.

Because there is only one Hideaki Itsuno

Thread theme, who else /flyingintofree/ here?

youtube.com/watch?v=SZNbabKjKpA

>Actually you can, it's the entire purpose of RPG as a video game genre.
No, you can't, because the whole genre of vidya RPGs has grown as an attempt to simulate PnP RPGs, you mong.

>but the RPG genre of video games only inherited that name because they use the same mechanics
The genre of vidya RPGs started as an attempt to simulate the PnP RPG experience in a very limited fashion, you fucking cretin, it's not just about the mechanics like having stats that affect your combat efficiency. The only PnP RPG aspect that early "RPGs" tried to
simulate was dungeon crawling with other aspects like actual roleplaying (i.e. multi-solution quests where aletrnative solutions depend on you character build) being left out.

>and no-one had anything better to call them.
They were called "RPGs" because they tried to simulate PnP RPG experience in a very limited fashion.

Literally everything you spout is wrong, you should unironically just hang yourself, imbecile.

Also, stop pulling strawmen and derailing the "argument", you shit-eater. The original "argument" was about how vidya roleplaying is different from PnP roleplaying, which is false. Vidya roleplaying is just very limited in scope, but the concept is the same as in PnP. Now go get that rope, mongoloid.

becouse DD is boring shit.

what a retarded shitty post you've made.

people literally can't control themselves from constantly fellating that game and I just don't understand it
it's like the modern Ocarina of Time, a pretty good game that somehow got way more acclaim than it deserves.

What are you talking about, OP?
There are plenty of shitty games out there

>people literally can't control themselves from constantly fellating that game
It's a story focused action game, of course normies who consume shit like GoT are going to fellate it. The only sad part here is that this game is hailed as the "best RPG ever" by the same shit-eating normies when it's an action game with barely any actual roleplaying.

>The only PnP RPG aspect that early "RPGs" tried to simulate was dungeon crawling with other aspects like actual roleplaying (i.e. multi-solution quests where aletrnative solutions depend on you character build) being left out.
Either you've phrased this terribly or you just contradicted your entire post by stating the only difference between early RPGs and tabletop RPGs is everything that defines what a tabletop RPG is supposed to be being different from everything that defined what a vidya RPG is.

>Also, stop pulling strawmen and derailing the "argument", you shit-eater. The original "argument" was about how vidya roleplaying is different from PnP roleplaying
And the origins of the term explain exactly why vidya roleplaying is different from PnP roleplaying.

You have a very poor grasp of what words mean, your arguments amount to, "No," and you're mad as fuck son.

If there are no more games like "x" the answer is always the same.

(((investors))) don't think this type of game is profitable enough to get a good and fast return on investment.

Personally, I only get bothered when people go MUH WITCHER in discussions about games that let you make your own character. Geralt is great and all, but I don't want to be told to go play a Witcher game when I want to be making my own characters.

>the only difference between early RPGs and tabletop RPGs is everything that defines what a tabletop RPG is supposed to be being different
It's not different, it's pretty much entirely absent in early vidya "RPGs", which is why I called them "RPGs" in the first place. Early vidya "RPGs" simulate only one aspect of PnP RPG experience, the actual roleplaying is absent. You don't even have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old, you're literally retarded.

>And the origins of the term explain exactly why vidya roleplaying is different from PnP roleplaying.

No, it doesn't. Either provide me with the definition of what vidya "roleplaying" is supposed to be or stop spouting nonsense.

>Early vidya "RPGs" simulate only one aspect of PnP RPG experience, the actual roleplaying is absent.
Which is exactly what I've already said and you've disagreed with multiple times now. Are you genuinely fucking retarded?

>Which is exactly what I've already
No, you didn't, you dumb nigger. What you've stated is
>but the RPG genre of video games only inherited that name because they use the same mechanics
which is false, because the mechanics of actual roleplaying were absent from the early "RPGs". These early "RPGs" had no multi-solution quests where your character build would influence what alternative quest solutions you can and cannot do, like in Fallout.

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about, I'm tired of you being wrong all the time, so just shut the fuck up.

>where every quest is a kill/fetchquest

in what world.

Brontide is only good if you have 3x casters and they all use it at the same time.

OK, I confess, escorting that dumb blond loli bitch around Gran Soren was fun and wasn't a kill/fetchquest, but it was more of an exception, than the rule, when it comes to overall quest design in DD.

>These early "RPGs" had no multi-solution quests where your character build would influence what alternative quest solutions you can and cannot do, like in Fallout.
I never said they did. The mechanics they did use which gave them the name RPG were directly referenced in my first post, to recap
>(turn-based battle systems, putting points into skills to give a higher chance of success at tasks, individual resource management, and so on)
These mechanics are the core of what makes a video game RPG, and as you've already stated yourself they're separate to the core of what makes a tabletop RPG.

You have serious trouble understanding basic text. Stop being such a retard.

Brontide has high stagger and pings multiple hits if the enemies are large enough; try using it against a giant enemy with some decent melee pawns.

Better than Witcher 3 and Skyrim. I still enjoy those games, tho

>These mechanics are the core of what makes a video game RPG
That's it, I'm done "arguing" with you, because you're retarded. The core mechanics that actually make a game a RPG are the roleplaying mechanics - the presence of multi-solution quests/encounters/interactions/whatever where your available alterantive solutions are dictated directly by your character generation and advancement choices (i.e. your character "build, defined by the distribution of skills/stats/perks/alignment/whatever").

These are the mechanics that allow you to act in-character relative to the character you define during character generation, the mechanics that allow you to roleplay. A game having stats, skills and other worthless statistics that influence only your efficiency in combat without providing alternative solutions to said combat in general, is not a RPG. It's a game of X genre with some shallow RPG elements and the absence of actual roleplaying.

Now shut up, seriously. You're just dumb and I don't want to "argue" with your retarded self any more.

>The core mechanics that actually make a game a RPG are the roleplaying mechanics - the presence of multi-solution quests/encounters/interactions/whatever where your available alterantive solutions are dictated directly by your character generation and advancement choices
But you've already agreed to the fact that the first vidya RPGs (which defined what the genre means) didn't include any of that, and you've completely ignored the fact that the majority of what we call vidya RPGs and the majority of videogame RPGs since the very start don't do that. This is why videogame RPGs are different from tabletop RPGs and always will be, this is why stuff like Final Fantasy (with set characters and stories and barely any free interaction) are still RPGs. The term is and always has been used to define gameplay mechanics in videogames, completely and wholly separate to the tabletop definition, and you saying, "No I don't like that," doesn't change any of it one fucking iota you petulant autist.

>But you've already agreed to the fact that the first vidya RPGs (which defined what the genre means)
Stop. I take my words back, you don't even have the reading comprehension of a 9 year old. The early "RPGs" don't define shit. They don't define neither what a PnP RPG is supposed to be, nor what a proper vidya RPG like Fallout is supposed to be. They're shitty attempts at simulating a single aspect of PnP RPG experience - the dungeon crawling aspect or the h&s campaign in general.

>and you've completely ignored the fact that the majority of what we call vidya RPGs and the majority of videogame RPGs since the very start don't do that.
The "RPGs" since the very start are irrelevant, because they're not RPGs, you dumb nigger. They don't define shit. The first proper RPG I can name is Fallout, because it's the first game calling itself a RPG that had proper multi-solution quests where your stats heavily influence what quests can be solved in which ways. You can also argue that Wasteland 1 was the first RPG, but the multi-solution "quests" in that game were extremely shallow.

>This is why videogame RPGs are different from tabletop RPGs and always will be
Proper vidya RPGs are not different in spirit, you dumb nigger, they're just different in scope. Instead of a potentially infinite number of ways to solve quests in PnP, you get a limited set of solutions that depend on your character build in Fallout. The scope is different, the spirit and mechanics are the same. Of course, this is not true for early, pre-Fallout "RPGs" that didn't have any roleplaying to begin with.

>this is why stuff like Final Fantasy (with set characters and stories and barely any free interaction) are still RPGs
no, they're not, because there are no multi-solution quests where your character build matters. The only thing stats define in most jRPGs is your combat efficiency. If you want to argue about whether jRPGs are proper RPGs or not, you could have brought up Devil Survivor with its massive C&C arsenal, but you know nothing about the jRPG genre as well.

>The term is and always has been used to define gameplay mechanics in videogames, completely and wholly separate to the tabletop definition
No, it wasn't you're literally talking out of your ass, you retard. Read up on Sawyer's interview on this topic, he explains it in a way so that mongoloids like you can understand. In short, he says that what we used to call "RPGs" back in the day are not RPGs at all, but shallow h7s games and dungeon crawlers and he's 100% right.

Now, for the tenth time, just shut the fuck up with your retardation.

I just leave this review here

youtu.be/T2BNxpYz9rk

Not like DD had that many sidequests but some of them are really fucking good
>escort a little girl around town with no fighting in a game where you're usually killing dozens of goblins before even getting to your proper objective
>sneak into the chambers of the duke's wife at night while evading guards
>everything to do with foreshadowing the Windbluff Fort uprising; being asked to retrieve a lost letter because it details the revolt plans (bonus points for having a guard try to intercept the letter because he's in on it), being asked to deliver a request for supplies where the amount you're given is a codeword for when the revolt starts, the early game quest that ties Julien to the revolt where you tail him
>feed an ogre a goblin so ladythieves will like you

It's the non-fetch quest stuff that always ends up being the most interesting to do, even if stuff like the Griffin Quest is fun. But there's maybe 10 quests like that in the game anyways. Even the ones I mentioned could easily be expanded on.

Punchring is pretty much only useful if you're a wizard who ends up fighting a golem. Put on punchring, take off staff, punch golem. It's good to have, though.

So does the fighter ever get a simple defensive dodge move like the strider? I can use that fighter maneuver that performs a dodge+counter attack very well, but sometimes I just want to get out of harm's way quickly without performing a counter and so far I have no clue how to do that.

Also, this game's combat system is really good overall and shits all over both Skyrim and all Witcher games.

>Clearing out all the sidequests for the achievement
>Need to do lady thieves quests
>But I'm a man so they stab me on sight
>Put on dress
>They now talk to me

Played the everloving fuck out of DD on 360.
Even got to see Ur-Dragon 1.0

I love Dragon's Dogm but it couldn't scratch my itch for swinging around big swords Berserk style

>tfw can't cleave enemies in half

>Also, this game's combat system is really good overall and shits all over both Skyrim and all Witcher games.
The director of Dragon's Dogma also directed DMC3/4, so you're basically getting action game gameplay from an expert of action games.

>no gibs or corpse effects besides ragdollings or disappearing (into ashes etc)
A missed opportunity, not having gobs of goblin splatter you after a Grand Bolide.

>western release never

only think i don't like about that is the chimera is just standing there taking a bunch of hits when in the 1st game all 3 parts would be going crazy and trying to hit you