Topic: Sp apparently, the Japanese "are not happy" with Dragon Quest IX DS

[Infernal Monkey]

This is no surprise. The series has shifted to action based fighting. The Japanese hate games that make them do stuff. Naturally they're not happy! Back to 40 /40 Nintendogs!

[18 Days]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Sorry but I'm going to say this but the more I hear about this the more I think.  "Dragon Quest: Crystal Chronicals"

QFA.

I also think Children of Mana.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Kairon. The Mana games have always sucked. They arn't relevent to this debate.

[Strell]

Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I seem to recall they were unhappy with FF XII as well.

Ho ho ho.

what? I remember one of these famitsu polls among its readers saying this was the best game of all time, with only one Zelda game in the top ten and super mario bros like in the 20th place or something. the top ten consisted of a bunch of DQ and FF sequels, further proving japanese's poor taste.

The difference to change a turn based game into a real time game than doing the opposite is that the former is a change for the better , and wasn't DQ8 the first one to do that anyway? people seemed to have got over it from the sales of the game.

You're mixing up what I said with something else.

Prior to FF12 coming out, they did the same sort of polling, and lots of people said they were unhappy with the game being changed over to the gambit system.  There was also a lot of anger over how difficult the game supposedly is.  

After the game came out, all of that negativity vanished, because I guess the game is good (I haven't played it).  

Point being is that what happened before and what happened after the game was released were completely opposite of one another.  

That is what I'm making light of.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell Prior to FF12 coming out, they did the same sort of polling, and lots of people said they were unhappy with the game being changed over to the gambit system.  There was also a lot of anger over how difficult the game supposedly is.

If someone said, in my presence, "That RPG is really hard." I'd punch him/her to the ground.

RPGs AREN'T hard. They're time consuming. Any game where you can beat the last boss with your stats and a random number generator is not a difficult game.

Well, difficult to stay awake, maybe...

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell Prior to FF12 coming out, they did the same sort of polling, and lots of people said they were unhappy with the game being changed over to the gambit system.  There was also a lot of anger over how difficult the game supposedly is.

If someone said, in my presence, "That RPG is really hard." I'd punch him/her to the ground.

RPGs AREN'T hard. They're time consuming. Any game where you can beat the last boss with your stats and a random number generator is not a difficult game.

Well, difficult to stay awake, maybe...

I'm sorry but RPGs CAN be hard if you are not prepared or don't know what you are doing.

It's true that you can beat the monsters by leveling up, but that process can be long, arduous and hard for some. And pray that the developer doesn't put a boss that constantly surprises you with unexpected attacks.

That's another thing, knowing how and when to attack, how to use your turns, conserve your items and use your super attacks is also vital to the challenge.

So I think its unfair to bash those that think a certain RPG is hard because they couldn't figure out or are having trouble leveling up.
 

[Smash_Brother]

See, that's the difference between "reflex" and "strategy", and when Japanese gamers shy away from reflex, it worries me because Japanese devs drive the gaming industry and if they all shy away from real-time games, I think it will be insanely detrimental to gaming.

DQ9 being real-time is a blessing, as far as I'm concerned, as it can involve levels and such, sure, but skilled players can overcome greater obstacles with skill, reflex and timing without needing to rely purely upon stats to succeed.

[Ceric]

I think the point is that the last gen they all shied away from Strategy.  Real-time to me in an RPG equals "I press button lots ha-guk."  If I want to play and Action Adventure game then I play one, even though besides Zelda that Genre is going down as well.

As I stated before I like my RPG's to involve some strategy to get things done.  I also like mini-games in the combat as well, think any RPG that has Mario in it, to keep it fresh and give me something to improve reflex wise.  I'll stop there.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
If someone said, in my presence, "That RPG is really hard." I'd punch him/her to the ground.

RPGs AREN'T hard. They're time consuming.

Fire Emblem begs to differ...

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok Fire Emblem begs to differ...

Fire Emblem begs me not to punch it to the ground!

But seriously, FE is a game of careful planning and observation, but it's still a turn-based game which doesn't involve reflex or timing.

While I'm not saying these games aren't worthwhile games, I am saying that I don't like it when Japan shies away from the genre.

[Artimus]

Fire Emblem is a strategy RPG. Goodness. Strategy games ARE hard because they require good strategy. Regular RPGs require nothing but patience.

[Ian Sane]

I think an RPG can be hard if the game is designed in such a way that you can be totally screwed.  I've given up on a few RPGs because I saved in some area where it won't let me leave unless I beat some boss, but I lack the experience and/or items required to beat him.  In my mind that's poor game design but it would still qualify as hard.

I disagree that a game requires skill or reflexes to be challenging.  I see nothing wrong with a game getting it's challenge from puzzles, strategy or problem solving.  Now I agree not every game should be like that.

RPGs with real time battles usually are total horsesh!t because they just combine that worst aspects of both systems.  While slow a turn-based system allows one to have more time to think about their next move and since often RPGs require you to go through menus it allows you to do that at your own pace as well.  Real-time is obviously quicker and provides more control and it feels more like you're really doing something but because of the timing nature of it you're limited in the complexity of what you can do.  Real-time RPGs usually are just a test on how fast you can navigate through menus with the clock against you.  It would be like a Zelda game where when you stopped to look at your map the enemies continued to attack you.  Screw that.  That's not fun, that's crap.  At that point the challenge of the game comes from fighting its design and that's a sign of a lousy game.

[Sir_Stabbalot]

What constitutes a "regular" RPG?

[Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think an RPG can be hard if the game is designed in such a way that you can be totally screwed.  I've given up on a few RPGs because I saved in some area where it won't let me leave unless I beat some boss, but I lack the experience and/or items required to beat him.  In my mind that's poor game design but it would still qualify as hard.

I disagree that a game requires skill or reflexes to be challenging.  I see nothing wrong with a game getting it's challenge from puzzles, strategy or problem solving.  Now I agree not every game should be like that.

RPGs with real time battles usually are total horsesh!t because they just combine that worst aspects of both systems.  While slow a turn-based system allows one to have more time to think about their next move and since often RPGs require you to go through menus it allows you to do that at your own pace as well.  Real-time is obviously quicker and provides more control and it feels more like you're really doing something but because of the timing nature of it you're limited in the complexity of what you can do.  Real-time RPGs usually are just a test on how fast you can navigate through menus with the clock against you.  It would be like a Zelda game where when you stopped to look at your map the enemies continued to attack you.  Screw that.  That's not fun, that's crap.  At that point the challenge of the game comes from fighting its design and that's a sign of a lousy game.

I am Requiem, and I approve this message.

Then again, who's to say you can't have both Ian? If any game system could blend them(other than the Wii), then it's the DS.

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
What constitutes a "regular" RPG?

Level-based characters and command combat. A strategy RPG is like Fire Emblem and Tactics where the combat is done through character placement as well as attack. Action-RPGs have the character leveling and basic combat types (attack, magic, item, etc.) but include a real time element. The Mario games would be half regular and half action (more the former, though). Some idiots think Zelda is an RPG, but it is absolutely not. It totally lacks the ability to customize your character which is an ABSOLUTE necessity (considering that's where the original tabletops began). The character customization is why a game like Diablo is an RPG despite having nearly full-action combat. Same with MMORPGs.

[jasonditz]

I'd have been a lot more worried about the move to real time if Namco hadn't been doing such a splendid job with real time battles in RPGs for the past decade plus.

It's not like Enix has no experience with it either. Star Ocean for the PS2 was real time and that's a damn fine game. with a bit of refinement I'm sure it can work.

That said, I do still tend to prefer turn based RPGs because I think they age better. Maybe I'd be more convinced of that fact though if I hadn't been playing Tales of Phantasia on the GBA for the past 3 weeks though

[vudu]

BUMP FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

It seems Square-Enix heard the cries of millions of fans and have changed the battle system of Dragon Quest IX back to turn-based.

Quote
It was previously thought that battles would be switching from the traditional turn-based ones to real-time encounters, but according to Jeux-France, that's not the case.

Quote
While the game was originally an action RPG, Square-Enix has now gone with a turn-based style closely resembling Dragon Quest VIII. The online play is the same way, but it allows you to plan attacks with the other players in your party, or you can make your own move decisions.

Link & Link.

EDIT:  You can also change characters' facial expressions to accurately portray the transition from happy-go-lucky child living in a small village to broody hero destined to save the world.

[Adrock]

Whatever, as long as it sells.

I'm not really a DQ fan. I just like the idea of Nintendo serving the competition.

[Kairon]

Oh! That's nice to hear. I much prefer turn-based since real-time brings back lukewarm memories of FF:CC on the GC.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[that Baby guy]

I was rather excited about the real-time fights.  I'm still excited about the game in general, I'll be able to play an RPG online with a friend or two, but after playing through Tales of Symphonia with another person the entire time, I have to say that real-time co-op fights can be pretty fun.  I just hope that this works out alright.  Online co-op turn-based battles?  I just don't see much of a difference between letting someone else choose the best move or choosing the best move youself.

Did anyone else try out Final Fantasy III (US) on the SNES, and use the two player mode?  It's boring.  It just seems like there isn't a difference.  I get the same vibe from this now.  I just hope seeing a video changes that vibe.

[Louieturkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Did anyone else try out Final Fantasy III (US) on the SNES, and use the two player mode?  It's boring.  It just seems like there isn't a difference.  I get the same vibe from this now.  I just hope seeing a video changes that vibe.

I didn't even know there was a two player mode on the SNES FFIII.  What does it entail?

[Kairon]

NOTHING. LOOK AWAY. LOOK AWAAAAAAAY.

Yeah, the FF3 2-player mode was... a waste of space.

But the sense I'm getting from all I've heard about DQIX is mroe Final Fantasy XI MMO than FF3 two-inputs.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[couchmonkey]

I hope this will turn out well, but I agree with thatguy...turn-based fighting just doesn't sound like a recipe for an exciting online game.  Maybe Square Enix will have to create a spin-off to try out the real-time concept.

At the same time, I'm happy, because I never really cared about the online component and it seems like turn-based RPGs are a dying breed.

[that Baby guy]

The FF3(US) two player mode basically switched control of characters of your choosing to the second controller, but only during battle mode.  There's nothing special about it.  YOu activate it through the config menu.

Anyways, I don't see too much difference between this and that.

[NWR_pap64]

Aw crap...I was so looking forward to playing the new engine.

Stupid fanboys.

They should definitely make a DQ spin off game with a real time engine. I would've loved to have seen how they handled real time battles.

Oh well, at least it will help sell more DSs.  

[Smash_Brother]

There goes my sale.

Break the mold and try again, Square.