So basically, less people will like this game, so its better? That's the sum of your arguement? Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying Dragon's Dogma, but I've put literally hundreds of hours, if not thousands, across all of the Elder Scroll's titles. That doesn't happen with a bad or inferior game.
I can promise you, no matter how good Dragon's Dogma is, it's not going to get the same mileage. It lacks the sense of exploration that Elder Scrolls has. Sure, you can find all sorts of neat, empty areas, but that's it. Nothing else to see here. Move on. The only area you can really claim Dragon's Dogma is better in, is combat. Everything else is inferior.
What "mechanics" does Dragon's Dogma even have that an Elder Scroll's title doesn't, besides the combat engine? Uh, climbing? That's about it?
No. I'm pointing out that a highly marketable product and a high quality game design don't have to align.
Honestly, a lot of people (not on GAF, I'm speaking generally) have already pointed to the success of Skyrim as proof it's the best game ever, the new standard by which all "RPGs" must be judged, etc. Skyrim, which was basically targeted for a huge opening to sell as much as possible in the first six months. With marketing, aesthetics, theme, even the character on the game's cover designed to draw in as many people as humanly possible and get rid of the 'stigma' of RPGs.
Does any of that automatically mean Skyrim is also a superior game? No, not necessarily. Just that it was given all the attributes of a superior marketable product.
I didn't say that Skyrim (or Oblivion) were bad games. Though I would guess you can find plenty of arguments among Elder Scrolls fans that they are worse in a lot of ways than they ought to be, and inferior in basic design concepts than Morrowind.
This isn't a 'hipster' argument where a game is good because it's unpopular.
If it were possible to enhance the design of Dragon's Dogma further so that it eased in and appealed to more players, didn't frustrate them, that'd be great. If it could be expanded to fully equal the popular sandbox nature of the Elder Scrolls games (and those hundreds of hours of replayability), that would be all the better.
But just because it may not be as marketable as some other games, doesn't mean it isn't a great game.
In terms of what's great about its mechanics and design, it's not just me - the thread is full of people that I can see, citing stuff like: combat, enemy variety and design, no level scaling, intricate world with extremely dense resolution of exploration and discovery, intense risk-reward for exploration and taking chances on pushing further, and the scary night time play. Not just on GAF either; I've pursued threads on multiple forums and plenty of people are saying the game is so much better than just about anything else so far in all those areas and a few others.
It's clear you think the game is inferior in every way except combat, and that Elder Scrolls has superior exploration and discovery. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for and what you consider rewarding to find.
What the Elder Scrolls series does well is providing a box full of tools to play with, and essentially construct the kind of game you want to pretend it is (note I do not use "pretend" in a negative sense). Even if there's no real gameplay point or use to building the wizard who only casts debilitating magic, you can do that.
What a lot of people are appreciating about Dragon's Dogma is that its design is still free form, but a lot tighter than that. Exploration is more dangerous and tense thanks to non auto-leveled creatures, etc. The dynamic events that pop up can be intricate in how they play out due to the resolution of the combat system.
Note here that saying "just the combat is good" is like saying "just half the game is good". "Combat" in a lot of games like this feels tacked on and rudimentary, not baked well. Combat in DD is half the game or more - it's not just about your character having some good looking moves, but an elaborate system involving intelligent enemies that cooperate in groups, prey on one another, party members who actually do stuff in combat and interesting scenarios where they create dynamic combinations and a whole lot more.
Nevermind that the game is a living, breathing AD&D bestiary that's fully playable and evokes the monsters and tropes better than many/most actual AD&D licensed games, lol.
(The joke here is that you'll see a lot of people fuming over the pawn AI being dumb, like "WHY NO HEAL?" what goes unstated is how often it works, and how much people playing the game quickly take for granted the complex interactions and teamwork that dynamically form. The first time someone sees a dead giant falling over, and a pawn run over to drag an injured pawn out from under it, tends to blow minds.)