[QUOTE="Trinitarian"][QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]The game isn't some dumbed down shooter rehash, so of course it would be too complicated for those who want their hands held all the way from beginning to end, who want to run around shooting things and who don't want to think beyond 'me have gun, me go boom boom' I'm going with my gut feeling for the game, and the gut feeling is that I'm going to enjoy the game a lot. And that gut feeling has never let me down. I don't pay attention, nor care, about the reviews from 'professionals' who regard boring junk like Rockstar's games as incredible and the yearly shooter rehashes as the greatest thing ever. I'll just follow my heart and my gut feeling instead. It's more reliable.Smokescreened84
well i'm hardly that type of gamer. My favorite game then gen on the xbox is Dark Souls. It doesn't hold your hand and offers up a fair fight although it be unforgiving. The review i read noted that dragon's dogma has been compared to many games like skyrim and dark souls. However, it mentioned that combat seemed like players running around like their heads cut off.
Or that the game world itself is shallow and their is no depth in the RPG elements. Well, given how high my hype meter was running for this game i was hoping it would get instant critical success and that's not because i want to play games with high scores to make me fell good inside. It was because good reviews usually means that particular game in that genre will deliver on the selling points. And the major "hook" in this game is the pawn system, which was reviewed as being a super fiscal addition, sadly.
Well, at the end of the day i will be looking at the metric score and player reviews. I just can't simply afford to risk buying this game new without the assurance this game is what i'm lead to believe. I'm sure i'll be picking this game up soon after release but i'll still be playing the crap out of dark souls. However, if Dragon's Dogma had co-op it would have been a day one for me no questions asked. Whoever it was that decided that this game shouldn't have co-op and went for the pawn system should be fired cause this game could have been the dark souls for capcom.
They worked on this game for the entire cycle of this generation and i'm afraid all that hard work will be for not because of the down right stupid choice not to include co-op. I'm 99.9% sure that if co-op was in this game with classes diversity being a must against a hard PvE it would have made millions of more dollars compared to it now being at risk of a failed investment.
This game has so much potential i just hope its not a total waste.
I'm glad it doesn't have co-op and multi player in general, not every game needs such a thing. It would have taken away a lot of the resources for the single player. It's good that they've focused on the single player. We need more single player focused games, not less. Instead of dismissing the game as a 'failure' because it won't cater to the COD/Halo crowd who keep demanding such a pointless feature and are catered to far too often - like the boring multi player slapped onto Mass Effect 3 and other titles having a pointless multi player slapped on just to market to the COD/Halo crowd, why not actually play the game for yourself and form your own opinion by playing the game? Rent it out if you're not sure about buying it, but don't dismiss it just because it doesn't have an unneeded multi player slapped on where it isn't needed.well i knew it not having multiplayer from the get go, but i'm sure if it had it it would have been an instant hit like monster hunter or dark souls. And just because something has mulitplayer doesn't mean it caters to cod/halo fans. Think of dark souls, thats like the holy grail of what i'm talking about. Any child just can't pick up dark souls multiplayer and kick ass.
You have to plan out your character and know what the hell you are doing to get good. I've played 200 hours of dark souls and i'm finally kicking ass in PvP and its a very rewarding feeling. So, you can't just dismiss multipalyer like that. When you have a game like dark souls having multiplayer it makes dam sure you spend a lot of time getting the equipment and skills need to be effective. Now with multiplayer aside, i can appreciate a great signal player game if it doesn't have online features.
I loved skyirm even with all the hate it gets over the internet but that was a game dedicated to signal player only yet it still catered to the casual crowed unlike Morrowind. Now, it seems from some early reviews that dragon's dogma signal player aspect is really watered down from the quest, the story and the main hook, the pawn system.
Thus, from my statement we can conclude that just because a game focus just on singal player doesn't mean it will be epic, skyrim cause in point. And just because a game includes some online actions, doesn't mean it negates singal player, dark souls is case in point. And to use ME3's online co-op is just an example of one devs lazy attempt at a good online co-op but does not entail every devs attempt, again, dark souls. Ah well, worst case is i get to play dark souls for 1000 hours as i plan to lol. I was just hoping dragon's dogma was going to be skyrim/dark souls hybrid as many people were making it out to be and early signs indicate it wont. However, i'll be watching it closely to see what the community at large views it and not just by some reviewers.
Log in to comment