DD2 > DDDA ? are you serious ?

[Roumata]

I need to tell it, i never played Dragon's dogma serie before DD2.
I liked DD2, played it around 100 hours but at the end i was frustrated because i wanted to play however i had absolutly no more challenge with fights and encounters.
So i decided to have a look at Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen.
And what a surprise. Despite the graphics, a game from 2012 can't compete against a game from 2024, but despite the graphics, nothing is better in DD2.
There are much more monsters, much more bosses, and mainly much more challenge ! the game is hard, no doubt, you can't start it in hardmode, but in ng+ you can choose hard mode and that will be a fully new challenge, just like i would have loved on DD2.
More over, Dark Arisen is again much more difficult than the hardmode on DD1, so finally you have some challenge from the start of DD1, then in your NG+ game in hard mode, then in Dark Arisen in normal Mode and Dark arisen in hard mode.

Finally i just can't understand why in DD2 they didn't give us some challenge.

And don't tell me that we can't compre DDDA and DD2, DD2 should have bring something more not something less than the game from which he has been developped.

At the end, i can't imagine that there will not be a DLC for DD2, because they don't have to look far, just look at their own first game and they have everything to make a great DLC.

However i still can't understand why is there no hard mode in DD2.....after having played DDDA, i can't understand what make them forget that or think that players won't need it !

My advice for all of you who start the Dragon's Dogma series with Dragon's Dogma II ----> go and buy and play Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen, you will be so happy to find everything back plus much more and mainly challenges ! You will have much more reason to farm, to make NG+ games and you will get much more fun on the long way.

[Vlka-Fenryka-7th]

Originally posted by sam:

This game needs a post game time sink badly. DDDA hit it perfectly.

There is evidence that Capcom has something planned for post-game because there are quite a few doors in the game that are blocked with rubble, at least two of these doors are in the dried up sea.

[Luxinae]

It's one of my biggest problem with the game, it is too easy to the point where it is ridiculous because to balance that, the game is throwing so many enemies at the same time.
Being ambushed by 2 ogres, 1 griffin, bandits and skelettons, all of them trying to kill your party is really killing my immersion.
Moreover, some bosses are so common they don't feel unique anymore. Griffins in DD2 for example aren't mythical bosses, they are annoying birds at best.

[Lavian]

Originally posted by JtDarth:

It's almost like most the newbies are entirely unaware that DDDA was a re-release that packed in a MAJOR expansion with major changes throughout not just the new added areas, but the old ones as well.

As someone who has DD1 and DDDA on PS3, and beat DD1 multiple times before DDDA was released, I'm calling ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on this, with a citation to go with it:
https://dragonsdogma.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon%27s_Dogma:_Dark_Arisen#New_Content_and_changes
Those aren't major changes to the base game. They essentially tweaked some stats/growth and added BBI and its related content (monsters/equipment/looted skills/upgrades).

Otherwise Hard Mode does indeed matter, and that's part of DDDA, but I would still take DD1 on normal over DD2 if I had to pick (fortunately, I don't have to pick, and I still like DD2).

Also, Hard Mode isn't some big overhaul. In DDDA it amounts to a damage multiplier against the player, a stamina use debuff, and KD resist buffs for the enemies. It's not complex. Acting as if we can't have possibly expected DD2 to have something similar, just because DDDA was an expansion (that only came out a year later, by the way), doesn't really hold all that much merit.

That aside,

Originally posted by Roumata:

There are much more monsters, much more bosses, and mainly much more challenge ! the game is hard, no doubt, you can't start it in hardmode, but in ng+ you can choose hard mode and that will be a fully new challenge, just like i would have loved on DD2.

You can start in Hard Mode. While the initial difficulty select prompt on first game boot doesn't have this option, simply picking Hard Mode from the main menu will start you in Hard Mode.

[NegativeZero]

DD2 really is a completely lackluster sequel. It's ridiculous that they charged $70 USD for a game that is in many ways worse than the original.

[Sylph]

Originally posted by NegativeZero:

DD2 really is a completely lackluster sequel. It's ridiculous that they charged $70 USD for a game that is in many ways worse than the original.

don't tell that to the white knights. i have over 100 hours and i happen to agree that the game isn't worth 70$. only played as much as i did because of the first game and while dark arisen was the definitive, this is still crap in comparison. we waited 10 years and got a buggy mess. it's solid underneath the issues

[JtDarth]

Originally posted by Lavian:

Originally posted by JtDarth:

It's almost like most the newbies are entirely unaware that DDDA was a re-release that packed in a MAJOR expansion with major changes throughout not just the new added areas, but the old ones as well.

As someone who has DD1 and DDDA on PS3, and beat DD1 multiple times before DDDA was released, I'm calling ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on this, with a citation to go with it:
https://dragonsdogma.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon%27s_Dogma:_Dark_Arisen#New_Content_and_changes
Those aren't major changes to the base game. They essentially tweaked some stats/growth and added BBI and its related content (monsters/equipment/looted skills/upgrades).

Otherwise Hard Mode does indeed matter, and that's part of DDDA, but I would still take DD1 on normal over DD2 if I had to pick (fortunately, I don't have to pick, and I still like DD2).

Also, Hard Mode isn't some big overhaul. In DDDA it amounts to a damage multiplier against the player, a stamina use debuff, and KD resist buffs for the enemies. It's not complex. Acting as if we can't have possibly expected DD2 to have something similar, just because DDDA was an expansion (that only came out a year later, by the way), doesn't really hold all that much merit.

That aside,

Originally posted by Roumata:

There are much more monsters, much more bosses, and mainly much more challenge ! the game is hard, no doubt, you can't start it in hardmode, but in ng+ you can choose hard mode and that will be a fully new challenge, just like i would have loved on DD2.

You can start in Hard Mode. While the initial difficulty select prompt on first game boot doesn't have this option, simply picking Hard Mode from the main menu will start you in Hard Mode.

The stat growth changes were a substantial change, and there were additionally changes to weapon and item stats, and the changes to augments were actually MASSIVE in their effect on player capability. There were, in fact, changes throughout the game as part of the dark arisen expansion, that had substantial effect on not just the BBI areas, but overall game balance, noticeably lowering player power progression via limiting options for multipliers and raw values of multipliers.

DD2 is not actually easier than DD1. They have the same difficulty curve.

'more monsters and stuff'
No. Both DD1 and DD2 lean on the same basic monster list of goblins, wolves, harpies, bandits, and minor variations.
For big monsters, in DD1 without Dark arisen we have: Cyclops, Lich, Chimera, Ogre, Cockatrice, Griffon, Golem and Drake, with Wyrm showing up in a quest, iirc. Dragon and Ur-dragon are variant of each other, but also only show up as one-location encounters, with Urdy in particular being supposed to be a community-wide health sponge raid boss. Post game adds as new monsters: Evil eye, Hydra, Metal Golem (which I view as mechanically different enough to matter) Wyvern and some variants of existing big monsters, typically with one or two new moves but increased stats. I don't really know that I should count the lesser dragons seperately, as they are variants of the same critter.
We have 15 there, if we include draconics as separate, and don't count the post-game variants. With them not separate, we have 12.
DD2 has:
Cyclops, Lich, Chimera, Ogre, Minotaur, Griffon, Dullahan, Garm, Golem, Medusa, dragon, diseased drake, and Drake. Drake folds in both wyvern and wyrm parts into it's design in DD2, instead of having three versions of the same critter. Post-game adds a couple one-offs but is generally same list outside of that, with gore variations not being restricted to just post-game as it was in DD1. Without counting the diseased drake separate, we have 11. The SAME NUMBER as DD1, when we account for DD2's Drake being a fusion of the wyrm, drake, and wyvern from DD1. Oh, wait, I forgot the sphinx, bringing the number up to 12.

Even adding DA in, we get mostly variants, with Garm, Gazer (who is technically an evil eye variation and is arguable if he should be counted or not), Living Armor, Death and Daimon basically being the only truly new and different things.

People claiming there is some notable difference in enemy variety between DD1 and 2 REALLY haven't actually looked at the lists. The main difference is actually that DD1 has FEWER encounters with most of it's critters and even basic enemies are rather lower in encounter density. DD2 actually has a lot MORE variety in basic enemies, with more variation in bandit types and goblins no longer being just 'normie and hob, + normie king) and now also having the leapers as a distinct and behaviorally separate subtype.

I literally failed discs on DD1 and DA on original console versions because I played them so much, then turned around and put more time into the PC version. The difficulty curve and enemy variety are about the same. I do not understand the level of stupid people are showing when it comes to hating on DD2, and about the only thing I can figure, is that people went in with unreasonable expectation with DD2.
It is, much as the first was, an experimental passion project from one of their veteran devs, that is being used to test the in-house engine in ways it's not designed for. Both MTframework and REenging were not designed for full open-world support. Both Dragon's Dogmas did that anyway.

Dragon's Dogma 2 does not have the same level of budget and internal backing as something like SF6 or a mainline/remake RE does. It's not the game's fault when you set your expectations unreasonably high.

[Raven]

Originally posted by JtDarth:

Dragon's Dogma 2 does not have the same level of budget and internal backing as something like SF6 or a mainline/remake RE does. It's not the game's fault when you set your expectations unreasonably high.

I don't think most people had too high expectations. I would have assumed with common sense that DD2 had built upon DDDA and instead they deleted most of it! Don't get me wrong I enjoy the game but I have a huge laundry list of complaints myself. Number #1 being lousy mouse and keyboard support. #2 Having lousy choices for pawn voices. Who thought it was a good idea to tie voice types to inclinations?! Ugh

[\Forever Alone/]

Originally posted by JtDarth:

Originally posted by Lavian:

As someone who has DD1 and DDDA on PS3, and beat DD1 multiple times before DDDA was released, I'm calling ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on this, with a citation to go with it:
https://dragonsdogma.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon%27s_Dogma:_Dark_Arisen#New_Content_and_changes
Those aren't major changes to the base game. They essentially tweaked some stats/growth and added BBI and its related content (monsters/equipment/looted skills/upgrades).

Otherwise Hard Mode does indeed matter, and that's part of DDDA, but I would still take DD1 on normal over DD2 if I had to pick (fortunately, I don't have to pick, and I still like DD2).

Also, Hard Mode isn't some big overhaul. In DDDA it amounts to a damage multiplier against the player, a stamina use debuff, and KD resist buffs for the enemies. It's not complex. Acting as if we can't have possibly expected DD2 to have something similar, just because DDDA was an expansion (that only came out a year later, by the way), doesn't really hold all that much merit.

That aside,

You can start in Hard Mode. While the initial difficulty select prompt on first game boot doesn't have this option, simply picking Hard Mode from the main menu will start you in Hard Mode.

The stat growth changes were a substantial change, and there were additionally changes to weapon and item stats, and the changes to augments were actually MASSIVE in their effect on player capability. There were, in fact, changes throughout the game as part of the dark arisen expansion, that had substantial effect on not just the BBI areas, but overall game balance, noticeably lowering player power progression via limiting options for multipliers and raw values of multipliers.

DD2 is not actually easier than DD1. They have the same difficulty curve.

'more monsters and stuff'
No. Both DD1 and DD2 lean on the same basic monster list of goblins, wolves, harpies, bandits, and minor variations.
For big monsters, in DD1 without Dark arisen we have: Cyclops, Lich, Chimera, Ogre, Cockatrice, Griffon, Golem and Drake, with Wyrm showing up in a quest, iirc. Dragon and Ur-dragon are variant of each other, but also only show up as one-location encounters, with Urdy in particular being supposed to be a community-wide health sponge raid boss. Post game adds as new monsters: Evil eye, Hydra, Metal Golem (which I view as mechanically different enough to matter) Wyvern and some variants of existing big monsters, typically with one or two new moves but increased stats. I don't really know that I should count the lesser dragons seperately, as they are variants of the same critter.
We have 15 there, if we include draconics as separate, and don't count the post-game variants. With them not separate, we have 12.
DD2 has:
Cyclops, Lich, Chimera, Ogre, Minotaur, Griffon, Dullahan, Garm, Golem, Medusa, dragon, diseased drake, and Drake. Drake folds in both wyvern and wyrm parts into it's design in DD2, instead of having three versions of the same critter. Post-game adds a couple one-offs but is generally same list outside of that, with gore variations not being restricted to just post-game as it was in DD1. Without counting the diseased drake separate, we have 11. The SAME NUMBER as DD1, when we account for DD2's Drake being a fusion of the wyrm, drake, and wyvern from DD1. Oh, wait, I forgot the sphinx, bringing the number up to 12.

Even adding DA in, we get mostly variants, with Garm, Gazer (who is technically an evil eye variation and is arguable if he should be counted or not), Living Armor, Death and Daimon basically being the only truly new and different things.

People claiming there is some notable difference in enemy variety between DD1 and 2 REALLY haven't actually looked at the lists. The main difference is actually that DD1 has FEWER encounters with most of it's critters and even basic enemies are rather lower in encounter density. DD2 actually has a lot MORE variety in basic enemies, with more variation in bandit types and goblins no longer being just 'normie and hob, + normie king) and now also having the leapers as a distinct and behaviorally separate subtype.

I literally failed discs on DD1 and DA on original console versions because I played them so much, then turned around and put more time into the PC version. The difficulty curve and enemy variety are about the same. I do not understand the level of stupid people are showing when it comes to hating on DD2, and about the only thing I can figure, is that people went in with unreasonable expectation with DD2.
It is, much as the first was, an experimental passion project from one of their veteran devs, that is being used to test the in-house engine in ways it's not designed for. Both MTframework and REenging were not designed for full open-world support. Both Dragon's Dogmas did that anyway.

Dragon's Dogma 2 does not have the same level of budget and internal backing as something like SF6 or a mainline/remake RE does. It's not the game's fault when you set your expectations unreasonably high.

I personally don´t like tone depicting others options stupid etc. Even more when their concern is there to complain. Like fact how game is set this game lacks lot of synergy what make´s game worse. Like you counter monsters there is like two monsters what you can kill one time. Lesser dragon and sphinx. What limits variety a lot even more when there is is no easy repeat killing them around. Again. I´m not hating game sake of variety of enemy. But problems is how these all collide.

If there was perhaps after NG+ change of core monsters in world where advanced variants would appear more than normally or something. That would made monster issue lesser problem. "BTW didn´t there was evil eye on normal game as well." huge variant in DLC.

But back my point is. This game is not god awful. But there is clear problems with it. How systems work together to simply how Capcom ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over this game´s potential and ability to sale. Like game´s gotten black mark of hate simply DLC alone. How limited scale this game was released with small amount of people from normal group. Like don´t get me wrong. I´m not been unreasonable to say i understand why people call this remaster or re-skin of first one. Even thought i personally see this game good but not good enough to be released this state. When RTX 4090 asus strix with i9-13900k cannot run it. When recommended says "Intel Core i7-10700 / AMD Ryzen 5 3600X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 / AMD Radeon RX 6700"

Again. I was not in hype train and hating this game because of it. My exceptions we´re same as DD1 even then game feels lacking. That simply is how game been done what make´s simply problems worse.

So you know i have 202 level arisen in this game so you know i have played this a lot.

Like quick fixes to game to me would be.

- Add easy access stronger variants of monsters. More access gore chimera and lesser dragons etc.
- Give NG+ player ability skip slog and roadblocks. Like give RC ability buy items to get past border watch and infinite ferrys stone. "I hate how DLC ruined this system."
- Make leveling worth doing with out cheese. Like honestly when i have to play ranger with two ng++ rings to xp and buffs to level up effective way. That is toxic. Advancement is purpose why some play.

[Pink Eye]

Originally posted by JtDarth:

It's almost like most the newbies are entirely unaware that DDDA was a re-release that packed in a MAJOR expansion with major changes throughout not just the new added areas, but the old ones as well.

Cool story, except the original title still had:
- Layered Armor
- 6 Skill Slots
- Ur Dragon, which would get harder and harder each time it dies in the online version; but also reward you with unique loots if defeated
- Everfall, a gantlet of unique hard end game enemies
- More spells, more enchants
- Dungeons: Catacombs, Shadow Fort, Bluemoon Tower, Altar of the Water God, Ancient Quarry, Greatwall, Tainted Mountain, Frontier Caverns, Withwood, Soulflayer Canyon; tell me again what memorable dungeons DD 2 has that isn't caves.
- Notice Board quests that have you revisit old locations to fight new end game bosses
- Post game that doesn't have a time limit on the end game content in the open world

Oh yeah, and most importantly, the first game doesn't cost seventy dollars and actually runs better.

[wesnef]

Originally posted by Chris Mintz-Pie:

Originally posted by Dollmaker:

If you want to make the game harder you can use Custom Difficulty Mod, it allows you to tune up a lot of stuff to make the game significantly harder.

But yeah, until some DLC or something, the vanilla game is easy af.

Unpopular opinion; you shouldn't have to download mods to fix/add basic things that should already be in the game.

Counter-opinion - no game can possibly meet the preferences of every player (even notoriously "hard" games have people saying "bah, it's easy"), so mods are a great way for the desires of *everyone* to be met.

[alexissixela2302]

Yup and adding insult to injury.... DD1 actually as a proper final boss fight. DD2 doesn't for whatever reason

[Lavian]

Originally posted by JtDarth:

Originally posted by Lavian:

As someone who has DD1 and DDDA on PS3, and beat DD1 multiple times before DDDA was released, I'm calling ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on this, with a citation to go with it:
https://dragonsdogma.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon%27s_Dogma:_Dark_Arisen#New_Content_and_changes
Those aren't major changes to the base game. They essentially tweaked some stats/growth and added BBI and its related content (monsters/equipment/looted skills/upgrades).

Otherwise Hard Mode does indeed matter, and that's part of DDDA, but I would still take DD1 on normal over DD2 if I had to pick (fortunately, I don't have to pick, and I still like DD2).

Also, Hard Mode isn't some big overhaul. In DDDA it amounts to a damage multiplier against the player, a stamina use debuff, and KD resist buffs for the enemies. It's not complex. Acting as if we can't have possibly expected DD2 to have something similar, just because DDDA was an expansion (that only came out a year later, by the way), doesn't really hold all that much merit.

That aside,

You can start in Hard Mode. While the initial difficulty select prompt on first game boot doesn't have this option, simply picking Hard Mode from the main menu will start you in Hard Mode.

The stat growth changes were a substantial change, and there were additionally changes to weapon and item stats, and the changes to augments were actually MASSIVE in their effect on player capability. There were, in fact, changes throughout the game as part of the dark arisen expansion, that had substantial effect on not just the BBI areas, but overall game balance, noticeably lowering player power progression via limiting options for multipliers and raw values of multipliers.

DD2 is not actually easier than DD1. They have the same difficulty curve.

They really weren't. As you may notice, it mentions mostly nerfs to Assassin, and some adjustments to Magick Bow stats, as well as high level (as in 100+) growth on the Magick Archer.

As far as difficulty curve. Maybe, maybe not. I've got too much experience to judge at this point. That wasn't the point though. The fact is that Dark Arisen wasn't some SUPER MAJOR overhaul that DD2 couldn't hope to possibly compare like some of you are making it out to be. It's an extra dungeon with some extra loot, some stat tweaks here and there, and Hard Mode.

'more monsters and stuff'
No. Both DD1 and DD2 lean on the same basic monster list of goblins, wolves, harpies, bandits, and minor variations.
For big monsters, in DD1 without Dark arisen we have: Cyclops, Lich, Chimera, Ogre, Cockatrice, Griffon, Golem and Drake, with Wyrm showing up in a quest, iirc. Dragon and Ur-dragon are variant of each other, but also only show up as one-location encounters, with Urdy in particular being supposed to be a community-wide health sponge raid boss. Post game adds as new monsters: Evil eye, Hydra, Metal Golem (which I view as mechanically different enough to matter) Wyvern and some variants of existing big monsters, typically with one or two new moves but increased stats. I don't really know that I should count the lesser dragons seperately, as they are variants of the same critter.
We have 15 there, if we include draconics as separate, and don't count the post-game variants. With them not separate, we have 12.
DD2 has:
Cyclops, Lich, Chimera, Ogre, Minotaur, Griffon, Dullahan, Garm, Golem, Medusa, dragon, diseased drake, and Drake. Drake folds in both wyvern and wyrm parts into it's design in DD2, instead of having three versions of the same critter. Post-game adds a couple one-offs but is generally same list outside of that, with gore variations not being restricted to just post-game as it was in DD1. Without counting the diseased drake separate, we have 11. The SAME NUMBER as DD1, when we account for DD2's Drake being a fusion of the wyrm, drake, and wyvern from DD1. Oh, wait, I forgot the sphinx, bringing the number up to 12.

Even adding DA in, we get mostly variants, with Garm, Gazer (who is technically an evil eye variation and is arguable if he should be counted or not), Living Armor, Death and Daimon basically being the only truly new and different things.

People claiming there is some notable difference in enemy variety between DD1 and 2 REALLY haven't actually looked at the lists. The main difference is actually that DD1 has FEWER encounters with most of it's critters and even basic enemies are rather lower in encounter density. DD2 actually has a lot MORE variety in basic enemies, with more variation in bandit types and goblins no longer being just 'normie and hob, + normie king) and now also having the leapers as a distinct and behaviorally separate subtype.

I didn't even say anything about all this.

That said, Hydra > Medusa. The Hydra/Archydra is one is one of my favorite bosses in any video game. Medusa isn't a suitable replacement.

The reason that DD2 feels like it lacks variety in comparison with DD1 is actually a matter of density and size. DD2's map is more densely populated and 4x the size, so you spend a lot more time fighting the same things over and over again.

That's really neither here nor there for me. I liked having more breathing room in DD1 between fights, but this isn't a particular complaint of mine in DD2.

I literally failed discs on DD1 and DA on original console versions because I played them so much, then turned around and put more time into the PC version. The difficulty curve and enemy variety are about the same. I do not understand the level of stupid people are showing when it comes to hating on DD2, and about the only thing I can figure, is that people went in with unreasonable expectation with DD2.
It is, much as the first was, an experimental passion project from one of their veteran devs, that is being used to test the in-house engine in ways it's not designed for. Both MTframework and REenging were not designed for full open-world support. Both Dragon's Dogmas did that anyway.

Dragon's Dogma 2 does not have the same level of budget and internal backing as something like SF6 or a mainline/remake RE does. It's not the game's fault when you set your expectations unreasonably high.

I don't really give a damn what DD2's budget was. I'm sure it wasn't less than DD1, and as mentioned, DDDA only came out a year after DD1. It's not like some super long tail of development that fine-tuned the game over years and years. It's literally just an expansion that came out a year later, and the changes in it weren't that major. The biggest deal was BBI being a super dungeon and Hard Mode (which again, is pretty much just multipliers applied in a few places).

[Urtoar]

Originally posted by JtDarth:

Originally posted by 1CMF:

While I side with you that the DD2 hate train feels generic and artificial at times, I will take a devils advocate approach and say, DD1/DDDA/BBI, had 12 something years between DD2, so DD2 should have taken those lessons learned and built upon it, not repeated the same issues.

So I understand the complaints, but I do think they can be over exaggerated.

Problem: DD2 was not in dev for 12 years. Nor was there some universal consensus on what was charming jank and what was badness that should have been done away with.

Most the die-hard fans wanted DD2 to be 'DD1/DDDA, but more of it', and that is what we got. Rough edges and all. I'd rather have the rough edges then soulless 'polish', personally.

idk how you think DD2 is DDDA but more. they gutted nearly all of the systems cut all of the character out of the world. the only improvements were in graphics and some core skill changes. everything else is lesser. we got quantity over quality. people are upset because capcom said this was going to be the True Dragons dogma how can it be that when they changed soo much for the worse. the die hard fans got played.

[Sylph]

Originally posted by Urtoar:

Originally posted by JtDarth:

Problem: DD2 was not in dev for 12 years. Nor was there some universal consensus on what was charming jank and what was badness that should have been done away with.

Most the die-hard fans wanted DD2 to be 'DD1/DDDA, but more of it', and that is what we got. Rough edges and all. I'd rather have the rough edges then soulless 'polish', personally.

idk how you think DD2 is DDDA but more. they gutted nearly all of the systems cut all of the character out of the world. the only improvements were in graphics and some core skill changes. everything else is lesser. we got quantity over quality. people are upset because capcom said this was going to be the True Dragons dogma how can it be that when they changed soo much for the worse. the die hard fans got played.

yup i finished this and yeah dark arisen even on the xbox one was better than this lol. ran better too. need to do my pc run while i wait on patches for my ng+ solo no pawn run

[1CMF]

Explain what "systems" were "gutted".

AI Pawn learning? Wasn't that debunked and it was simple inclination shifts?

Less inclinations? There were honestly far too many and fluff.

Limited skill slots? That is due to vocation identity and unique weapon types per vocation. (Some people hate it I guess, but it git rid of some homoginization)

Less skills? Again reduced fluff. Again some people liked the fluff but these are two good debate points. I see why they did it, but is it a good or bad move?

Affinity? Still exists.

Pathing for npcs. Still exists.

Cloth animation? I duno I'm stretching here.. weather, day/night, romance? Dodging?

What "systems". Instead of exasturbated words like gutted and broad terms like systems, explain.