Grigori was a much better Dragon.

[cypher]

After finishing Dragon's Dogma 2 and watching this video i came to the conclusion that Grigori is a much, much better antagonist. Why did they choose to not use Grigori and instead use a bland generic dragon instead ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-JiCGeISvE

[Corbie]

coz you don't know how dragons appear

[Meron]

NGL the voice for the dragon in DD2 sounds like they have a lung disease.

Also the dragon had far less of a presence in DD2. All of it was backloaded and unlike DD1, which as you can see has many cutscenes to emphasize the dragon, in DD2 most if not all of it is him monologuing while flying.
It's very cheap.

[cypher]

Originally posted by Corbie:

coz you don't know how dragons appear

wym ? a dragon appears when an Arisen is defeated by the Seneschal.

[Corbie]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Corbie:

coz you don't know how dragons appear

wym ? a dragon appears when an Arisen is defeated by the Seneschal.

yep, and how they can use Grigori when they already dead

[cypher]

Originally posted by Corbie:

Originally posted by cypher:

wym ? a dragon appears when an Arisen is defeated by the Seneschal.

yep, and how they can use Grigori when they already dead

but this game is a reboot.

[Snailor Lazzy]

Originally posted by Meron:

NGL the voice for the dragon in DD2 sounds like they have a lung disease.

Also the dragon had far less of a presence in DD2. All of it was backloaded and unlike DD1, which as you can see has many cutscenes to emphasize the dragon, in DD2 most if not all of it is him monologuing while flying.
It's very cheap.

This right here is one of my main complaints about the game, tbh. Though you only encounter the dragon at the start and end of the game in DD1, he has a constant presence. Everything you do is to fight the dragon and everything important that happens in the main story is in some way or another connected to the dragon. In DD2, the dragon is so far removed from the story that even your first encounter with it is shown as a flashback.

[can'tdecide]

I think it's not that Grigori was a better dragon, they are all driven and created by the same person If the lore is consistent with the first game still.

It's that they made 0 use of this dragon and his connection to the arisen at all....He appears in the beginning, is mentioned a couple of times and then you kill him at the end...theres no middle bits like in DD1 where he talks to you by thought as you progress your journey. You don't have encounters with him at different story points like in the first either. He literally has no presence in the game at all. They misused the dragon in this game which is why he feels so bland and irrelevant for the most part.

I think it was a huge blunder on the dev teams part. Using Grigori for a different Arisen would't make much sense though. Each cycle is meant to have it's dragon and corresponding "chosen" arisen.

[Corbie]

Originally posted by cypher:

but this game is a reboot.

who told you this?

[Smug Kot]

Grigori was the only thing that was holding the awful and terrible story of DD1, meanwhile DD2... yeah, we have this poor excuse of a dragon.

[cypher]

Originally posted by Corbie:

Originally posted by cypher:

but this game is a reboot.

who told you this?

is it not ? i played it assuming it was a reboot, hence why at the start of the game the title is Dragon's Dogma, and only when you unlock the secret ending the title changes to Dragon's Dogma 2, because then you are playing the sequel and doing something different from Dragons Dogma 1.

[Snailor Lazzy]

Originally posted by can'tdecide:

I think it's not that Grigori was a better dragon, they are all driven and created by the same person If the lore is consistent with the first game still.

It's that they made 0 use of this dragon and his connection to the arisen at all....He appears in the beginning, is mentioned a couple of times and then you kill him at the end...theres no middle bits like in DD1 where he talks to you by thought as you progress your journey. You don't have encounters with him at different story points like in the first either. He literally has no presence in the game at all. They misused the dragon in this game which is why he feels so bland and irrelevant for the most part.

I think it was a huge blunder on the dev teams part. Using Grigori for a different Arisen would't make much sense though. Each cycle is meant to have it's dragon and corresponding "chosen" arisen.

Yeah, there was one point where I thought the dragon was speaking to me, but it turned out it was just a drake that was nearby out of sight that for some reason triggered one of its dialogue lines. But it made me think: how cool would it have been if the dragon spoke to you randomly throughout the game, commenting on what you're doing?

[Corbie]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Corbie:

who told you this?

is it not ? i played it assuming it was a reboot, hence why at the start of the game the title is Dragon's Dogma, and only when you unlock the secret ending the title changes to Dragon's Dogma 2, because then you are playing the sequel and doing something different from Dragons Dogma 1.

nope, its like one of many universe

[Acode]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Corbie:

who told you this?

is it not ? i played it assuming it was a reboot, hence why at the start of the game the title is Dragon's Dogma, and only when you unlock the secret ending the title changes to Dragon's Dogma 2, because then you are playing the sequel and doing something different from Dragons Dogma 1.

Its not a reboot. Its a sequel set in an alternative world and its timeline is very possibly set after the first game because big spoiler: if you take a look at the Seafloor Shrine you notice, its actually the ruins of Gran Soren Castle

[cypher]

Originally posted by Acode:

Originally posted by cypher:

is it not ? i played it assuming it was a reboot, hence why at the start of the game the title is Dragon's Dogma, and only when you unlock the secret ending the title changes to Dragon's Dogma 2, because then you are playing the sequel and doing something different from Dragons Dogma 1.

Its not a reboot. Its a sequel set in an alternative world and its timeline is very possibly set after the first game because big spoiler: if you take a look at the Seafloor Shrine you notice, its actually the ruins of Gran Soren Castle

wait so that beastren Arisen that we find there is supposed to be our Arisen from the first Dragon's Dogma ?

[Acode]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Acode:

Its not a reboot. Its a sequel set in an alternative world and its timeline is very possibly set after the first game because big spoiler: if you take a look at the Seafloor Shrine you notice, its actually the ruins of Gran Soren Castle

wait so that beastren Arisen that we find there is supposed to be our Arisen from the first Dragon's Dogma ?

I don't think so, not after the "true ending" of the first game anyways, if that was the canon ending. It's difficult to say who that Arisen exactly is besides of what he tells us, but its very unlikely that he's supposed to be our Arisen from the first game. Like very very unlikely.

Also the Everfall or more like the entrance to the Everfall is present there as well, just collapsed.

Anyways, judging from those things, its I think pretty safe to say, that Dragon's Dogma 2 is set a good bit after the Story of the first game.