So I picked up Dragon?s Dogma the other day. It?s a very good game all around. Not necessarily one for the ages, but definitely better than it could have been and well worth the $60 price tag.
As a long-time Elder Scrolls fan, it was impossible to avoid comparing it to Skyrim, however, and, to my very pleasant surprise, it actually held up pretty well. I wouldn?t say it?s as good as Skyrim, but it definitely gets a few things right that Bethesda could learn from. It must be said, though, there is one significant thing Capcom needs to learn from Skyrim for the (hopeful) sequel.
First off, the biggest thing TES could learn from Dragon?s Dogma is simple: Make Combat Satisfying. As much as I have loved the Elder Scroll series, combat has always been back-burner stuff. It?s there and it gets the job done, but it?s never been anything special. Skyrim, imo, has the best combat the series has seen thus far, but it still falls short of being much of a star. Dragon?s Dogma?s combat, on the other hand, is the primary reason to play the game. Which is good, since there isn?t much else to do in it, but that?s another story.
The reason DD?s combat is noteworthy is how satisfying it is. Whether it?s scaling a Cyclops to stab it in the eye, or dropping a hobgoblin that was about to pick on your mage, there is a sense of empowerment and satisfaction with almost every action. It?s fast, and engaging, and all those other buzzwords. The next TES game could gain a lot if it borrowed a few tricks from DD.
The other thing DD gets (mostly) right that Skyrim falters on is companions. Even though the setup is a little weird (emotionless, lifeless, pseudo-humans sworn to do my bidding? Er, OK), the Pawns in DD are some of the best implemented companions in a non-turn-based style game (no Dragon Age does not count since it?s essentially based on the turn-based structure). The fact that they are actually helpful, necessary even, and can even utilize different tactics based on the type of enemy you?re facing makes them incredibly noteworthy. Despite having no personality at all (and seriously needing to STFU ? Yes I know the Cyclops has but one eye. WHAT DO YOU THINK I?VE BEEN STABBING!?!?!?), they manage to be the most believable companions I?ve encountered. The companions in Skyrim simply don?t act human, at all. They immediately charge in your line of fire, blast you with spells, and generally cause more mayhem than good. I like the fact the game includes them, but would prefer them to be more believable.
That?s all well and good, but what about the thing I said Skyrim could teach DD? Well, if you?ve played both games much, you probably already know:
World Building.
Whatever faults TES has, the thing that keeps drawing me back is the world. Tamriel (the continent the Elder Scrolls series takes place on) feels like a real place. It has a rich history, a slew of different cultures, and feels generally fleshed out (ok, so the people who inhabit it tend to feel wooden, but come on, I?m trying to make a point here?). Spend some time reading the 300+ books in Skyrim and you get a feel for just how deep the creators went when making this thing. You feel like everything and everyone in the world has a place and a history.
That?s something that DD lacks.
Gransys is nice enough and open enough. It just feels sterile. I?d like to know more history so I can ground myself in that world. Give me some references here. Yes, you do learn some history from the story missions, but it?s plot specific history. It gives the feeling that only you and the important plot characters really exist. No one else really has any back story or relevance.
That?s what DD needs to work on for the sequel. Make me care about Gransys. Make me feel like it?s worth saving. Sure the combat is fun, but I need more context. Make me want to fight that Gryphon because it?s threatening a village of people I know rather than simply because it?s an awesome fight (it is a great fight, but that?s beside the point).
And make job quests more purposeful. Rather than making me kill X number of wolves. Spawn a beefed up one (Or an especially aggressive pack) and tell me it?s been harassing travelers on the road from Cardasiss and Gran Soren. As simple as Skyrim?s Radiant quests are, they at least give some context to what they are about.
Personally, I like both games a great deal. I think they both have something valuable to give, and would simply like their sequels to learn a few tricks from the other so they can be even better.
As a long-time Elder Scrolls fan, it was impossible to avoid comparing it to Skyrim, however, and, to my very pleasant surprise, it actually held up pretty well. I wouldn?t say it?s as good as Skyrim, but it definitely gets a few things right that Bethesda could learn from. It must be said, though, there is one significant thing Capcom needs to learn from Skyrim for the (hopeful) sequel.
First off, the biggest thing TES could learn from Dragon?s Dogma is simple: Make Combat Satisfying. As much as I have loved the Elder Scroll series, combat has always been back-burner stuff. It?s there and it gets the job done, but it?s never been anything special. Skyrim, imo, has the best combat the series has seen thus far, but it still falls short of being much of a star. Dragon?s Dogma?s combat, on the other hand, is the primary reason to play the game. Which is good, since there isn?t much else to do in it, but that?s another story.
The reason DD?s combat is noteworthy is how satisfying it is. Whether it?s scaling a Cyclops to stab it in the eye, or dropping a hobgoblin that was about to pick on your mage, there is a sense of empowerment and satisfaction with almost every action. It?s fast, and engaging, and all those other buzzwords. The next TES game could gain a lot if it borrowed a few tricks from DD.
The other thing DD gets (mostly) right that Skyrim falters on is companions. Even though the setup is a little weird (emotionless, lifeless, pseudo-humans sworn to do my bidding? Er, OK), the Pawns in DD are some of the best implemented companions in a non-turn-based style game (no Dragon Age does not count since it?s essentially based on the turn-based structure). The fact that they are actually helpful, necessary even, and can even utilize different tactics based on the type of enemy you?re facing makes them incredibly noteworthy. Despite having no personality at all (and seriously needing to STFU ? Yes I know the Cyclops has but one eye. WHAT DO YOU THINK I?VE BEEN STABBING!?!?!?), they manage to be the most believable companions I?ve encountered. The companions in Skyrim simply don?t act human, at all. They immediately charge in your line of fire, blast you with spells, and generally cause more mayhem than good. I like the fact the game includes them, but would prefer them to be more believable.
That?s all well and good, but what about the thing I said Skyrim could teach DD? Well, if you?ve played both games much, you probably already know:
World Building.
Whatever faults TES has, the thing that keeps drawing me back is the world. Tamriel (the continent the Elder Scrolls series takes place on) feels like a real place. It has a rich history, a slew of different cultures, and feels generally fleshed out (ok, so the people who inhabit it tend to feel wooden, but come on, I?m trying to make a point here?). Spend some time reading the 300+ books in Skyrim and you get a feel for just how deep the creators went when making this thing. You feel like everything and everyone in the world has a place and a history.
That?s something that DD lacks.
Gransys is nice enough and open enough. It just feels sterile. I?d like to know more history so I can ground myself in that world. Give me some references here. Yes, you do learn some history from the story missions, but it?s plot specific history. It gives the feeling that only you and the important plot characters really exist. No one else really has any back story or relevance.
That?s what DD needs to work on for the sequel. Make me care about Gransys. Make me feel like it?s worth saving. Sure the combat is fun, but I need more context. Make me want to fight that Gryphon because it?s threatening a village of people I know rather than simply because it?s an awesome fight (it is a great fight, but that?s beside the point).
And make job quests more purposeful. Rather than making me kill X number of wolves. Spawn a beefed up one (Or an especially aggressive pack) and tell me it?s been harassing travelers on the road from Cardasiss and Gran Soren. As simple as Skyrim?s Radiant quests are, they at least give some context to what they are about.
Personally, I like both games a great deal. I think they both have something valuable to give, and would simply like their sequels to learn a few tricks from the other so they can be even better.