Current Events > Never played Dragon's Dogma or Kingdoms of Amular. I own both.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Traditionally I haven't played a ton of third person RPGs

Aside from Fable and Witcher 3, which I both love

Should I give em a shot? And if so which one?

---

Kind of surprised you'd pick up Amular considering it's origins

---

Is it Dark Arisen?

---

BignutzisBack posted...

Kind of surprised you'd pick up Amular considering it's origins

Why? I bought it several years ago apparently.

Gurifisu posted...

Is it Dark Arisen?

I believe so yeah

---

Play Dragon's Dogma on PC and rent muh pawn

---

Both are good games.

---

I don't know anything about KoA but Dragon's Dogma had some of my favorite combat from that gen. If you're looking for narrative and character development it doesn't have much, but if you wanna fight & climb on (mostly) traditional fantasy RPG monsters then it's super fun. Good variety among the combat classes and they all feel different enough/have enough unique skills to be worth trying out. The pawn system is cool if you're into creating characters and you can hire other people's pawns as well, which grants them RC (currency) and whatever gear/items you decide to give them. It also handles postgame/NG+ really well.

---

Dragon's Dogma hands down.
In fact, play it twice :)

---

Honestly I think they're both overrated.

Kingdoms of Amalur was originally supposed to be an MMO and it very much plays like a single player version of one. I got so bored in its massive empty maps with basic quests.

Dragon's Dogma is a little more engaging, but it suffers from limited diversity of enemies and after you fight a few big troll things it gets repetitive. The idea of the story is cool but the execution of the plot is kinda shallow. The big draws here I think were supposed to be the Pawn system (training and developing your NPC teammates and then trading them out to other people to be able to further train and develop them, and you could do the same for their NPCs; it's cool I guess but... again, kinda like playing an MMO where you just have no way to communicate with the other "players") and the idea of tactically attacking enemies based on their attack patterns and vulnerable spots (but I can only recall maybe a half dozen different types of enemies so that also becomes stale fast).

---

I have dragons dogma da on 360, ps4 and switch...

I put well over 100 hours into the 360 version and never beat it.

Picked up first the PS4 then switch versions on deep sales because I need to finish it.

Its a great game, but I was more into the fights than the story which is why I poured a bunch of time into it originally without finishing it.

---

The combat in Amalur is great.

---

their both worth playing tho overall id say it comes down to what you really value more in an rpg. the combat or everything else. both games have fun and fast combat, but DD takes it up to 11 with more classes, more abilities, more customization in terms of party design (if you want to roll with that) and more interesting enemies to fight and its replay-ability is built on those aspects (so NG+ would mean new enemies and bosses while being able to further level character classes). KoA's combat is also fast and fun, but its extremely easy to over level (i dont know if the new version fixed this) making over half the game a cakewake on any difficulty. with that how you actually approach combat doesnt really change much which makes it more repetitive.

as far as everything else for either of them is kinda meh tho KoA has more stuff to do in general.

Dragons dogma is awesome. Sucks they had to rush it out but the gameplay and post game were amazing.

KoA was just sorta... ok. I remember being really disappointed with it but that was mostly cause I was way too hyped for it.

---

Dd is the better game but that's mostly because it's better balanced than koa

I'm installing both.

Did KoA just now.

Gonna do DD next

---

Doom_Art posted...

Why? I bought it several years ago apparently

It originally was the vision of MLB pitcher Curt Schilling. That was all five and dandy until after he retired an came out as an unapologetic racist, to the point where baseball hall of fame refuses to induct him despite easily having good enough stats. Don't know if that would bother you or not tbh

---

BignutzisBack posted...

It originally was the vision of MLB pitcher Curt Schilling. That was all five and dandy until after he retired an came out as an unapologetic racist, to the point where baseball hall of fame refuses to induct him despite easily having good enough stats. Don't know if that would bother you or not tbh

Ah, well perhaps that'd have given some pause had I known

But eh, once the cow's been milked, there's no stuffing it back up the udder

---