Dark Souls, The Witcher 2, Dragon's Dogma, Kindoms Of Amalur

[Havok]

FIGHT!

No seriously, I need some Starkisms, and Fordness and Andospasms (and others, don't be discouraged just 'cause I didn't mention you) to help me decide which one to get.

I am infinitely disappointed with Madden 13 and have finished the story on Arkham City... so as I will have video gaming time on my hand for the next 5 months without Madden, I require assistance.

Some starter questions:

TW2 is obviously a sequel. Do I need to play the first game or does it have exposition?

What are the different aesthetic styles of each game? i.e., like compare to a period in history. There are certain "looks" I just don't like spending time staring at no matter how good the game may be. (I hate Renaissance styles for instance. So like AssCreed 2.7 or whatever one is was, was really annoying to play)

Who wins for LARGEST WEAPONS AND SHOULDER PADS!!!!1!!!!?

Most of you guys kinda have a feel for what I like I think, which is why I am asking for your opinions and assistance in my purchasing decision and also because, unlike you thieving fucks in Australia, I can't just return the game in a couple weeks when I am done playing it and say "I didn't like it".

[General Zod]

Kingdoms of Amalur is fun but there's a lot of side-quests that you can really just skip. I still haven't finished it yet but I've probably sunk about 50 hours into the game. It has a very "WoW" feel to it but with better combat.

You should probably play the first Witcher game because it's awesome but it's PC only.

[Losonti Tokash]

I've only played part of Witcher 1 and didn't have any trouble following the story of 2. It's not like ME3 where the previous entries never happened, but the context is usually clear enough or it has some exposition so you'll be fine. It also has an absurd amount of explicit nudity.

I haven't played DS or KoA but Dragon's Dogma is pretty sweet and you should get it more than any of the other three.

[Stark]

Dragons Dizzy and witcher are mid medieval typical cloaks and mud stuff. No pantaloons. Dark souls is Japanese and thus is mid medieval wih mud but also magicky-fantasy look to it. DD and Dark Souls have dressup - it's better in DD but Dark Souls has no class limitations.

Flow-wise DD is quest based and similar to ME etc in broad strokes of get quest go to place chop mans, whereas Dark Souls is a bit more abstract, set your own goals, find your own pace thing.

[Vendetta]

KoA is an odd cove. The combat is fun for a while but even on hard the challenge does drop out of it pretty fast, and the most interesting bits of setting stuff are right at the start (The whole concept of the House of Ballads, who are basically bards who, because everyone is an immortal who keeps being resurrected, continually retell their greatest stories by reliving them over and over, and who can't do anything else because of fate, is really unique and cool).

But after the first area things stop being interesting for a pretty long time until the very end, when it kinda picks up again.

Still, it was more interesting than Skyrim, and I spent ages on it because there was nothing else interesting going on at the time.

[Thanas]

TW2 does not require you to play the first game, since none of the choices you make in the first game actually matter.

[weemadando]

I've played a few demos, but nothing of the full games.

Dragon's Dogma and Dark Souls are the two most intriguing ones - complex combat and less of the open world shenanigans.

However they did seem to have that lovely bit of Japanese obtuseness to them.

The Witcher 2 is by all accounts a good game (espcially post the big patch) and I love the first one. So, maybe?

[Vendetta]

Witcher 2 starts off really hard. I hear the challenge curve is backwards and it gets easier later, but combat is actually quite annoying at the start, and it's totally dependent on you spamming manual saves because checkpoints are miles apart.

[Stark]

DD is apparently getting hard mode patched in soon, so it's replay ability should go up. It got too easy for me midgame.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'll also vote for Witcher 2. It's one of the better games i've played this year. Witcher 2 goes for a "realistic" medieval setting blended with some fantasy elements. It's well written, looks great, and doesn't get boring fast.

Dark Souls is, eh. I've tried it and I can't say I got into it. I like aspects of the combat system and balancing, but other things like the 8-bit levels and bosses i'm not such a fan of. Lookswise it's almost totally dungeon crawler stuff. Lots of castle corridors and sewers, etc.

[Stark]

Even people who enjoyed the first one described Witcher 2 as opaque and boring, and the first one was so dense and boring I never finished it. The crap combat doesn't help.

[CaptHawkeye]

Witcher 2 has an equally heavy narrative but the combat is more interesting. The biggest problem I had was that it had an agonizingly long tutorial that was basically 1/3 of the game. So pacing was still crazy.

I had the opposite experience with the series those people had. I never finished Witcher 1 because it was so boring. I found Witcher 2 to be much better.

[Thanas]

I loved TW1 for the narrative. TW2 is a bit more forced to me.

[Ford Prefect]

Dragon's Dogma rocks boats. I really loved how combat 'felt' and the story is kind of interesting but really vague lol. I've been meaning to get back to it and give my pawn some skills again. You should borrow her Hav, she'll fuck things right up for you :v

[Losonti Tokash]

Holy shit, how did we forget the pawn system? Dragon's Dogma let's you hire your friends' sidekicks to join your party and help you out. Depending on what monsters they've fought they'll change their behavior and yell out tips, and if they've previously done a quest you're on they'll help you complete it.

[Jordie]

It got too easy for me midgame.

Where are you in the story? Once you defeat the Dragon and get to post-game it gets much more difficult. Weapons that would one hit kill everything else beforehand will become next to useless against the new enemies that show up. And dragons, dragons everywhere!

Holy shit, how did we forget the pawn system? Dragon's Dogma let's you hire your friends' sidekicks to join your party and help you out. Depending on what monsters they've fought they'll change their behavior and yell out tips, and if they've previously done a quest you're on they'll help you complete it.

Tips, help out? If they're a high enough level and have good enough gear they'll do everything. In my first fight with the hydra I just stood back wondering WTF I was supposed to do and then a hydra head came flying at me.

Friends' pawns also don't cost any rift crystals (ingame currency for hiring pawns at a higher level than you are) either. If your friend has a pawn that's more than 10 levels infront of you you can hire them for nothing instead of a 9, 999, 999 RC (impossible amount) it would normally cost you.

[Ford Prefect]

Where are you in the story?

He's looped all the way back around to the beginning. Stark, Los and I had Drizzadogs since release lol

Something to keep in mind with hiring strong pawns is that it slows down your leveling pretty significantly. When I was still playing regularly I was pretty far behind Stark and Los in terms of levels. Not so much that they totally carried the game, but enough that my Arisen and pawn had issues in speed of growth. Admittedly because my pawn spent pretty much her entire career as a Warrior and Los' pawn spent a lot of time as an Archmage before switching over to Warrior, she is a lot better optimised for swording guys. Like she's thirty levels behind and doesn't have any of the endgame Ur-Dragon gear, yet was only marginally behind in raw damage output. Just damage output though lol. Vocation can have a pretty significant impact on stat growth.

[Stark]

Shhh Ford, he thinks that's post game. He hasn't finished it. And it's a bit sad things like grim goblins are actually a threat due things like knockback and stomping, and nothing in the first two thirds of the game does it. The game could easily have been hard and challenging (like the idiot gaming press said it was), but it's not. Even the Ur Dragon is more an endurance match than a challenge.

I mean it's almost like putting hydras in the game once, despite them being a cool enemy to fight.

[Jordie]

I mean it's almost like putting hydras in the game once, despite them being a cool enemy to fight.

Hydra's in the Frontier Caverns post game, a quest from the Cassardis notice board activates its spawn and there's an Archydra in one of the Everfall chambers.

[Stark]

Are you trying to be obtuse? The point is they recycle the easy monsters by the dozen and wasted their time designing some harder, interesting ones you see once. Why? Why does the game do cool and interesting things once or twice and spend 80% of the time with the same four basic enemies? Are you even able to understand this question?

[Zinegata]

Quick run down of the three games I've played:

Dragon's Dogma has a completely nonsensical story (Gainax ending really) and doesn't really bother too much to pretend that it isn't a game; although that's actually a good thing in some cases (i.e. you automatically get gold forwarded to your account when you complete a quest, instead of running back to some quest-giver). But the combat is fairly exciting (until it becomes repetitive like everyone else has pointed out; hopefully the hard mode patch mentioned by others fixes that) and the Pawn / Class system does at least let you switch fairly easily between classes to vary your play which is a good thing. If you're primarily looking for shiny combat without too much frustration, this is probably the best game.

Witcher 2 desperately needs a tutorial to teach you how the combat system works, because it can be unforgiving but quite rewarding. Story at least attempts to form some semblance of plot. Mini-games are generally bad. If you're looking for a game with some kind of story and are willing to forgive rough edges in its combat/mini-game system, then it's probably for you.

I really want to like Dark Souls, but it's simply not feeling as polished as Demon Souls - where the real excitement is not merely the tough combat, but also the clever level design. It's still a good game if you're looking primarily for a challenge combat-wise, but the story is very sparse and the "minimalist" excuse is kinda stretching it; and the levels simply don't have the same "Wow, they really thought this through" feeling you get from Demon Souls.

Aesthetically, Dragon's Dogma tries to be dark but ends up high fantasy with really nice clothes for your main. Witcher 2 and DS are more dark and have less fashionable clothing options (although Dark Souls is uglier).

[Tasoth]

Dragon's Dogma does some nice things, like letting you climb monsters to hit weak spots and the class system is fun and gives you goals if you have OCD. The Mystic Archer class is probably my favorite fantasy character type ever, as well. But the combat gets repetitive, as stated, and you don't see the enemies change until after the dragon fight, which was a huge let down.

Dark Souls I really like. It's difficult, but as you play the levels and learn the game, it's satisfying. You're not going to run into mobs and steam roll them like you can in DD around midgame, and even enemies in the starting areas will remain a threat if you aren't careful. But there is nothing that really points out where you're supposed to go and the bosses can be down right frustrating in their ability to kill you time and time again.

[Zinegata]

That's one of my frustrations with Dark Souls. Its open-endedness doesn't really work. Demon Souls may get flak for being essentially just 5 dungeons, but they're very good dungeons that each have their own unique feel (i.e. one is a creepy tower full of Mind Flayers, the other is a grand castle with lots of Knights and human enemies).

Also, for a game with a really sparse story, it also established what you're supposed to do very well; and it even outlines what happens if you just give up (you become a bitter soul trapped in the Nexus, who eventually fades into nothingness)

Plus, there's some subtle ways that Demon Souls "teaches" an observant player. I really loved the first level of the first dungeon in Demon's, particularly this aspect:
Spoiler

From your starting position, you are faced with three giant closed gates, and a small narrow, and very linear path leading to actual enemies.

In most games, those giant gates are just pieces of scenery. But once you complete about 1/3 of the level, you'll discover a way to open one of the three big gates. And you can now use the opened gate to skip the first 1/3 of the level in case you die and go back to the start point. Eventually, you'll be able to open all three of the initial gates - each one leading to a shortcut.

The brillance of this design is that it teaches you an important lesson about this game: There are zero placeholder doors / gates. If you can't open it right now, you'll find a way to open it later. And once opened, they either lead to a shortcut or some special area with loot.

There are even huge gaping holes in the ground that at first glance may seem like traps, but in all cases you'll eventually find a way to access the bottom of those holes; which also lead to shortcuts / goodies

[Stark]

Thanks for all that info about a game nobody in the thread cares about!

I agree with Tasoth; outside the bosses themselves (many of which are piss easy, some of which are retarded) Dark Souls flows pretty well. It's nowhere near as hard as the nerd idiot press liked to screech, and the only real differences between it any any other adventure game is the way it handles levels and the way it conflates money with xp. Its fun to explore when you might actually lose, unlike the endless streams of piss-easy games (or those based too much on spreadsheets).

[Zinegata]

Quit your whining. I'll plug what I want as a tangent to the bad flow of Dark Souls .