Dragon Quest IX announced for DS

[Myoti]

My bad. I misread what you said. The purpose of my original statement was to point out that Square itself was capable of such a thing.

No biggy, and yes, they indeed are. Hopefully they'll be able to do such again sometime, possibly in a different franchise (to avoid fanboys... I'm half joking =p ).

[Tommy]

...it was turn based, it was involved, and it was amazing.

I agree with every part but the latter.

Myoti, it is quite ironic for me to bash an RPG. The only RPGs I have played and not enjoyed to the fullest are Super Star Saga and Partners in Time.

The Paper ones are good yet seem like the same game, and Super Mario RPG in my mind is the best (has nothing to do with Square...well, actually it does, but it doesn't have everything to do it.).

Now don't get me wrong, FFXII was a good game but the changes IMO made it seem like it wasn't an FF game. I just don't like the battle system AS MUCH. I used to believe Square-Enix made the best dang RPGs around and all the others are "breaks" from them and I still believe that...at least a majority of 10 and under.

I just didn't like the changes FFXII received compared to the other stuff. I still believe FFXII is a good game, but not as good as the others.

I'm just mad Dragon Quest had to sink on the RPG Titanic with Final Fantasy as well. The RPG Titanic sinks into the ocean of unnecessary change. I haven't played Dragon Quest IX yet, but I'm just angered over the fact that it's receiving a change when it is part of a series that has been known for remaining the same.

Check the thread on Arlong Park. It's become a giant FFXII hatefest. I fully intend to continue that trend.

For someone who hates FFXII, you sure got far into it.

[Myoti]

I'm just mad Dragon Quest had to sink on the RPG Titanic with Final Fantasy as well. The RPG Titanic sinks into the ocean of unnecessary change. I haven't played Dragon Quest IX yet, but I'm just angered over the fact that it's receiving a change when it is part of a series that has been known for remaining the same.

The game isn't even out yet.

That's all I'm going to say.

[Nate]

The game isn't even out yet.

That's all I'm going to say.

Double standard. How many times have I heard you say "This game is going to be awesome!" and it wasn't out yet? If we can't say something sucks before it's out, you can't say it rules before it's out.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I was never into the Dragon Quest series, but I will say that change in a battle system can be refreshing. But I for one prefer the ATB system. I believe it requires a lot of more strategy in comparison to real time. Don't believe me? Go compare WoW or FlyFF or FFXII to something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Final Fantasy 7.

[Nate]

Final Fantasy Tactics requires ten times more strategy than any other Final Fantasy. Hence its classification as a "Tactical strategy RPG." I don't think any of the other Final Fantasy games have that classification.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Final Fantasy Tactics requires ten times more strategy than any other Final Fantasy. Hence its classification as a "Tactical strategy RPG." I don't think any of the other Final Fantasy games have that classification.

And I fully agree with you. No arguments there.

[Nate]

Oh, whoops. I misread your post. XD;; Sorry about that, man. I'm kind of out of it tonight.

[Cognitive Gear]

I was never into the Dragon Quest series, but I will say that change in a battle system can be refreshing. But I for one prefer the ATB system. I believe it requires a lot of more strategy in comparison to real time. Don't believe me? Go compare WoW or FlyFF or FFXII to something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Final Fantasy 7.

Ever heard of RTS? Real Time Strategy. Generally far more strategic than any turn based game in real time.

Also, I wouldn't categorize the ATB system as turn based. Although it doesn't fit real time; either.

*silently prays for FFTA2 on DS to support WiFi vs play*

[Mr. SmartyPants]

[quote="ikimasu"]Ever heard of RTS? Real Time Strategy. Generally far more strategic than any turn based game in real time. ]
Pfffttttt, you be quiet now or I'll zergling rush you.

[Cognitive Gear]

Blue Dragon = Dragon Quest reborn.

Nate has a reason to get a 360

[Nate]

Yep, I've seen Blue Dragon before, and it has pretty much made me convinced that I will buy a 360 sometime in the near future.

Well, that and Sneak King.

[Myoti]

Double standard. How many times have I heard you say "This game is going to be awesome!" and it wasn't out yet? If we can't say something sucks before it's out, you can't say it rules before it's out.

Which is why I quit saying that quite some time ago.

I was naive in the past, but I still prefer to give things a chance before flaming it.

But I for one prefer the ATB system. I believe it requires a lot of more strategy in comparison to real time. Don't believe me? Go compare WoW or FlyFF or FFXII to something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Final Fantasy 7.

On every FF game featuring the ATB system, all I recall doing was getting the most powerful stuff I possibly could and spamming it during battle. It worked. Not much strategy required there (unless "preplanning" somehow counts, but that's not as much 'strategy' involving the system itself).

FFT definetly requires more strategy.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Yep, I've seen Blue Dragon before, and it has pretty much made me convinced that I will buy a 360 sometime in the near future.

Well, that and Sneak King.

For me it's one more reason to get a 360. *Wants Gears of War badly*

[Tommy]

I prefer PS3 or Wii over 360. Well, I prefer PS3 over it, but I don't prefer the price.

Blue Dragon looks like it will be the next Chrono Trigger.

Myoti, you should probably reread what I said or something. I said I was mad that a changeless series had experienced a change. It could be a good change, it could be a bad change, but it's the fact alone there IS a change that bothers me.

Do you agree with me the gameplay of Dragon Quest as remained the same for the past score, and do you also agree every single one has been a great game?

The one series that stuck to the core of true RPGs and never gave into change is now being molded and shaped into another Final Fantasy XII.

That I do not like.

So I'm not saying, "This game is gonna suck...BLEH!" I'm saying it depressed me that the guys behind Dragon Quest had to follow the tide and change everything like most RPGs have instead of sticking true to the genre.

Kae, at least we still have Wild ARMs (Which, by the way received a dramatic change. Wild ARMs 5's gameplay will be the same as 4 which was different than the first 3).

[Nate]

Do you agree with me the gameplay of Dragon Quest as remained the same for the past score, and do you also agree every single one has been a great game?

If you remember earlier, Myoti said he had no interest in the Dragon Quest series until now.

Kae, at least we still have Wild ARMs (Which, by the way received a dramatic change. Wild ARMs 5's gameplay will be the same as 4 which was different than the first 3).

Yeah. That was a change I liked though. The battle system was still turn based and added a tactical type element too, which was great. And the action on the battlefield thing was cool (it's a nice change from going, "Why can't my character hop up that ledge? It's like four inches high!"). I hope they bring back the Tool system from the earlier Wild ARMs games though...I didn't like the Tool system in 4.

[Tommy]

Oh, well, Dragon Quest is pretty much is for everyone who enjoys a classic turnbased RPG, and it doesn't get any more classic then the Dragon Quest series in the video game RPG world. For anyone who likes amazing epic adventures with a deep plot that changes itself constantly to try to get everyone to play it (coughFinalFantasycough), you will find it inferior.

WA4's tool system was fine, it just wasn't used enough. If every other room required it, I would like it better than WA1-3's. The side scrolling was a nice touch though, but it would've been sick if enemies tried to attack you and you could shoot them like a Shoot 'Em up and if they hit you, you got surprised in a battle.

Off topic...

[Myoti]

Myoti, you should probably reread what I said or something. I said I was mad that a changeless series had experienced a change. It could be a good change, it could be a bad change, but it's the fact alone there IS a change that bothers me.

Which is, in turn, what bothers me.

Do you agree with me the gameplay of Dragon Quest as remained the same for the past score, and do you also agree every single one has been a great game?

I wouldn't know. From what I've heard of some of them (well, DQVIII at least), they were good. I can acknowledge that and say they were, but as Nate pointed out, I never did care much for them (I cared enough to finish the first game, though, which is ironic since I didn't beat the original FF till it's GBA remake).

Thus the reason I'm actually interested in this one. It introduces some game-mechanics that could potentially be pretty good (doesn't mean they will be, but it's still interesting).

[Nate]

Anyone here remember the Hershey's "Change is Bad?" ad campaign? It had a classroom full of kids and their really nice teacher was replaced by an evil woman. There was another where a group of fifth graders playing baseball started talking to their coach about endorsements and going on strike if their salary wasn't increased.

[Tommy]

Kaemmerite, that post pwnd.

It's okay, Myoti, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't care much about the downfall turn based RPGs to understand.

[Myoti]

It's okay, Myoti, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't care much about the downfall turn based RPGs to understand.

Stating I think "change can be good" is not the same as saying we should "throw out" everything else.

[Tommy]

Change CAN be good, but the sole reason Dragon Quest is such a great series its because it has always been the RPG series that has stuck to its roots no matter what.

It's basically there to show us a series that stays the same and how different all the others are that changed. This is the one series that should've been left untouched.

Square-Enix probably felt like they wanted their games to be popular to more people.

Basic proof that Square Enix wanted Dragon Quest to get fans from different genres to play their stuff is the simple fact Myoti has NOW taken interest in the series because of IX.

I guess Dragon Quest just wants to fit in.

[Cognitive Gear]

Actually, if you compare Dragon Quest sales to Final Fantasy sales, you will find that the Dragon Quest series just doesn't sell well in the west by comparison. I think that Square-Enix sees this, and like any company wants to increase sales. What are the two best ways to do this?

1. Put the game on the newest console with the largest install base of consumers: ie the DS.

2. As long as the game remains the same; sales will never increase. Eventually the consumer will get bored of the one-trick pony. However, by teaching that pony one new trick, you gain alot of attention.

I'm not saying it's a good thing for the fans, I'm saying that it's a good business decision. The japanese consumers will buy it regardless. In the west, they only have ground to gain. As seen in the following quote, Square-Enix is about money; not about the dream.

When a company with ten employees grows to employ a thousand people, a lot of things change, of course. The most important thing then is making money. When Squaresoft employed ten to twenty people, the most important thing was to make something interesting and entertaining. All the people were following their ideas and their dreams or did what they thought was right. A company with a thousand employees can't be run on dreams anymore.

I beleive that is why there is this (apparently un-needed) change.

[Tommy]

Didn't you post that in the other thread?

Yes, I understand that will increase sales, but all there accomplishing by that is destroying all that is Dragon Quest. A side game I can handle, a new series on the DS, I can also handle, but a straight-forward Dragon Quest game? No.

I think they have enough money with FF and while I'm at it, the Square Enix label sells as well as the name "Final Fantasy".

[Mr. SmartyPants]

the Square Enix label sells as well as the name "Final Fantasy".

Then by that logic, Ehrgiez, the Mana series, Dragon Quest, and Star Ocean all have sold equally as the Final Fantasy titles in the U.S.

[Tommy]

Ehgriez has a SquareSOFT label, DUH! (Jk)

A quantity of the Mana games sold under the title of "Final Fantasy" so yeah, pretty much.

Dragon Quest as a whole? Of all I've seen, only VIII has a Square-Enix label and I heard that sold as well as an FF game. That's just by rumor, you could probably easily pull up an oposing article.

Once again, only Star Ocean 3 has the SE label, and that sold pretty well for the most part. It failed to FF though so I guess using your logic, you pretty much just proved me wrong for the most part.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Ehgriez has a SquareSOFT label, DUH! (Jk)

Pffttt. Anyway Square/Squaresoft was better off before becoming Squeenix.