Dragon's Dogma as a whole, and especially 2, are acquired tastes imo. When reviews were coming out in 2024, everybody was talking about 'friction.' The game wasn't particularly difficult (imo), but it reaaaaally punished you for being unprepared. Making a long journey and taking the dangerous route isn't bad, but you need healing implements and maybe a camping kit partway through the journey. You don't *always* need an elemental weakness BUT you might come across a slime that takes no damage unless you hit it with some fire magick.
The game's also a bit obtuse, imo its side quests are fun where it doesn't tell you EXACTLY where to go and what exactly to look for. It allows for creativity and for you to have to think through what you're doing, but I think it's a bit obtuse in how it communicates in that vagueness at times. It wants the classic approach of quest design, but it is so close that I basically give it to it.
That being said, the games improved some of that obtuseness and friction. You have an eternal ferrystone now that makes fast travel easier (I liked the lack of it at launch, but near endgame it does really become draining). New inclinations can make oxcart travel safer. Performance is way way better than at launch (My PC now has a 5080 and it runs great on 4K. My old GPU was a 3080 TI and it ran it pretty good maxed out on launch, but the game struggled in cities. Before my upgrade there was a noticeable improvement.). Also, the story has some interesting parts, but I really don't think it sticks the landing. There are interesting ideas and it really tries to play with the idea of it being a re-telling/re-imagining/remake(?)/sequel to Dragon's Dogma 1, but I do think it falls flat in that regard. But honestly, I really recommend just treating it as setting the vibe and creating some setpieces. There are some parts to the story that feel like they want a From Software approach to storytelling that I can't quite put words to, but it almost feels like they misunderstand what works about those games' approaches. It's serviceable and bold in what it tries. In my opinion, the main, surface level, concept of DD2 is better than DD1's, but the endgame/high concept of the story of DD1 is better than DD2 (leaving Dark Arisen's story out just for fairness while we're waiting for DA2).
Where DD2 really shines is its combat. The classes all feels amazing to play, there's quite a bit of freedom in how you build your character (which the upcoming expansion seeks to improve). I really don't think there's anything quite like it in terms of how visceral it feels and just the sandbox of its gameplay. Blocking multiple attacks from enemies, countering, then skewering them with a longsword. Using a magic duospear to launch a goblin at a harpy with telekinesis. Seeing an enemy running to your sorcerer charging a spell, then jumping on the enemy's head and shooting them with an arrow, only so your sorcerer can call a meteor down on a troll is just an amazing feeling that I have never felt in any other game. There are some issues imo, the knockdown animations are a biiiiiit long in the tooth and can take you out of a flow state, and knockdown resistance basically becomes mandatory as an upgrade. Enemy variety also could be better, frankly. But this is an amazing, strange AAA game that I think is worth checking out if you like action and fantasy. I don't begrudge anybody who doesn't like it. I just also think there's so little like it. As somebody who played the original Dragon's Dogma 1 on 360 back in 2012, I honestly never thought we'd see a sequel, but god am I happy with what we got.
