Jump to content
Dragon's Den Community

Flaight

Denizens
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Flaight

  • Rank
    Slime Slayer

Previous Fields

  • Awards
    1699
  1. Is there monster recruting?

    You have too much to think about already without the monsters, don't worry.
  2. Not another DW/DQ game on the DS!

    I know how you feel mate, as I too am in your generation and feeling the process of aging. As optimistic as I was about DQ9 on DS (I like DS), deep down there was a part of me which felt uneasy about putting such a huge, historically important brand on an under-powered DS. I felt that somehow it will dilute or marginalize the Dragon Quest brand. Late last year I was in Japan for a month and got DSi XL and DQ9 while I was there... now 200 hours pumped into DQ9, I can happily report that I have completely forgotten about the fact that it's on DS. If anything, DQ9 works very well BECAUSE it's on DS. Obviously the multiplay side of the game is easier to achieve in Japan as there is a massive take up there - I have friends to play with and lots of strangers walking around with it on pass-by mode. Just to give you an idea, I would cross the big x-zebra crossing in front of Shinjuku station (JR East entrance area) and 3 guest slots fill up immediately. So I'd exit the inn and restart the pass-by mode and cross the zebra crossing again... and BANG 3 more guests. Let's hope that it will propagate well in the west. I will be playing the UK version all over again when it comes out in English. I guess a pass-by guest would be that much more special, because in Tokyo it's a given that you'll pass somebody during the day. Playing it with mates (if you have any) is great, both to be helped and in helping those who've started playing after you. You can power-level or be power-leveled (in a fun way), and it's not gimmicky like I thought it would be. It serves a very good purpose in relieving the exp/gold grind and it's actually very, very fun. And the improvement is immediately noticeable on single play when you are back in single play. I've lost count of how many times I've met my mates out in a cafe and helped or be helped. There is a clear line between single and multi player in such a way that you can play alone and have fun, but there is another dimension to the fun when you get into that side of things. Also it makes it easier; doing everything alone is possible in theory, but there's too much in it. I never thought I'd say that about a DS game...! It works BECAUSE it's DS. That's my conclusion. I was wrong; it's not a bad idea to put it on DS. Rather it is enlightening. My respect for the brand has gone up infinitely since I got it (as if it could go up any further) and the days when I used to worry about getting it on DS feels like a petty accident from a decade ago. I couldn't have praised them more for their decision. On a side note, DSi XL is great too, though I still tend to favour the small DS when out and about.
  3. They are very different, DQ and FF. In the end, I play both and I don't think of it as choosing 1 over the other. I'd prioritize DQ if I can only get 1 game though, but that's because I know what I'm getting from DQ. FF is a much more mixed bag and as much as some of them awe me, it presents more risks to my gaming experience. One thing I do get annoyed about criticisms directed at DQ is when people say DQ is daft because it's simple. Missing the point really. That said, we live in a gaming world now where more complication = better. So there's this competition of "Mine's more complicated than yours" thing going on, which goes right over my head because I never enjoy games based on its simplicity or complexity. In the end, as I said earlier, FF is about a theater directed by the creator, like watching a movie. DQ is more about your own personal journey, like reading a book. They can coexist perfectly happily.
  4. Personally, I see a few levels to this conflict. On one layer, it's the good old argument over new vs old. You see that debate on politics, cars, food, music, and of course games. On another layer, it's the philosophy behind the DQ design. In this sense, DQ is in a difficult position because their base development philosophy has been about the unchanging "feel" of the world, where you develop your affinity to. Anybody who has dipped himself in that world long enough has experienced a cosy sensation that feels right at home. FF philosophy of constantly morphing itself into the new environment lends itself better to the constantly changing technology. The advantage of the DQ philosophy is ultimately it's never changing. While the antics change somewhat as well as various different systems thrown in, there is something of a permafrost at its core. A very beautiful permafrost too, which we have all become accustomed to. That constance together with casual story telling often results in a journey of your own, where every gamer ends up with different experiences despite the fact that it's the same story. What some professional reviewers are demanding it to do is to change that permafrost, and to me, that is missing the point of DQ. This inflexibility is both the feature and disadvantage of DQ. The advantage of the FF philosophy is that it's about being ambitious with the design and it's unafraid of big changes. FF revels in its constant self reinvention and openly welcomes all new ideas and technology to its own benefit. The disadvantage is that FF lacks identity. You never know what it's about, because it looks and feels different every time it appears. I've always enjoyed DQ and FF. I've enjoyed DQ for its ability to host my very own journey in a comfortable, familiar environment regardless of which version of DQ I pick up. Also I've enjoyed FF for its exploratory attitude and constant reinvention of itself. I enjoyed them both, because they coexist happily side by side. They are not "the same kind of RPG" for me, as one offers something distinct that the other does not. In the end though, in the mainstream the FF has an advantage because it's more in line with the short-sighted fizzy pop culture we have today. Patience and sentimentalism carry little value now, and in their place we have spontaneous excitement and fast-food attitude. DQ, in contrast, is like a very long, good book. They both work, but it's harder for DQ to gain new friends in today's climate.
  5. My apologies as I think someone asked this before, I recall seeing a post years ago on it. But I can't find one at the moment. Where can I find a fairly indepth explanation of how weapon/spell damage are calculated, against armour and stats? I just want to take a good look at them, so any of the series will do (1 to 8), but preferably 4 onward as perhaps they'd be more interesting. (I think there may have been a walkthrough with such section?)
  6. Comparing DW4 (NES) to DQ4 (DS)

    Ok... just as I thought, regarding the slot machines. I must admit I'm no good with monster arena either... but better.
  7. Is SE trying to bury DQ?

    I think it boils down to your view of DS and of DQ, in terms of graphics dependence. For over 2 decades, graphics development was at the heart of gaming advancement (not everything, but nevertheless). We are seeing something quite remarkable in this era as Nintendo began to turn that around not only in theory, but also in practice. Many people have not come to terms with this yet and I get the impression that you fall into this category. I'm not denying your view of gaming, by the way. Don't get me wrong. I myself know many who take a dim view of games development that doesn't mainly revolve around graphics. Other examples of this exist too. For instance, Wii has taken criticism for not being "next-gen"; such views only derive by ignoring other factors which constitute as advancement. That's just a difference of opinion and focus. Let that be so. That's why there are many consoles to choose from. The point I'm trying to make, is that in this era what constitutes as games development has panned out into 2 dimensions from 1. Gone are the days when games advancement revolved around mainly graphics processing. This turn-around will not sit well with some people for a long time as it fundamentally goes against 20 years of games advancement; you are too used to the way games have advanced linearly and you can't shake that off easily. Yet, whether you like it or not, it is happening. 3D games cannot become 4D, then 5D. There is also so much you can improve visually, and Nintendo latched onto this pitfall very early on. Sales figures of Wii and DS vindicate them, if necessary. It is on the back of that development that SE announced the next DQ. That's the 'context' in which the next DQ appears. If you don't get that 'context', you will likely to misperceive the 'overall picture' as well. If graphics was the point of DQ, it would've been on PS3. So what does this mean for DQ in itself? I don't know to be honest, until I see the next one out. But for some reason I'm not worried, because the joy I've gotten out of DQ series has never been the graphics. There is a cosy feel to DQ, in its blend of style, music and character work. Together they form a unique worldly feel that is not replicated elsewhere, and that underpins the beauty of DQ series. That hasn't changed from 1 to 8, despite the massive changes in graphics power. How can that possibly be, if it were not for its focus away from processing power. Thus, I don't think DS's technical limitation has any relevance, unless you are missing the point somewhere along the way. If it were FF, now that would be something else, because FF has been built on a different idea from day 1. I won't go into that here as I have done years ago (and I don't want to make this post any longer!).
  8. Comparing DW4 (NES) to DQ4 (DS)

    Does anybody know if the fruit machines cheat? I haven't played the PS remake so I don't know how it was there, but if you know how it was in PS remake as well please do share. Though I've only played the casino in chap 2 (on DS that is) I get the feeling the odds are generally so against me that it isn't worth it. There is the best armour in the chap2 for like 2500 coins, I'm beginning to think it's cheaper to just buy the coins directly rather than gamble... I know it's like that in real life but I was kind of hoping there'd be more point ingame.
  9. DQIV Sells 1,000,000

    One thing lead to another and I landed myself in Japan for the release of DQ4DS, but didn't have time on the day so I went out to buy it the following day. It turns out, it was sold out locally as they weren't getting enough copies. But still plentiful in central Tokyo. Not surprised about that as it is a remake. On the other hand, it was a pleasant (or unpleasant considering I couldn't get it locally) surprise that it could sell out anywhere, even outside the central area. Then again, I did get the feeling that there was a reasonable demand for it. It's nice to see it do well, Im enjoying it atm As for FF3DS, it was a good remake... if a little old school. But for me that's what made it good. In a way I've always been afraid that older DQ wouldn't go down too well now in the west as RPGs have moved on too far for them to be appreciated. At least I can see why some younger gens (especially those who are suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) would find it a bit tedious to walk around entering random fights to level up.
  10. Dragon Quest IX for Nintendo DS

    Well said. Personally I think it's the best move out of all options. There has been a huge discussion at various points in the past, including on this board, about what DQ tries to achieve and the philosophy behind its gameplay design. FF type RPG has become more widely received today and the philosophy of gameplay design is utterly different. I've been feeling over the years that the graphics-obsessed development of gaming favours FF type. In turn, it's a likely graveyard for DQ philosophy. In the days when graphics was just a guideline for your imagination, DQ ruled the scene. Because in there was a player's world and player's personal experience. It was about your perception of the story, and that journey was yours alone. There aren't many games that attempted to go in that direction. DQ is a rare few. Mother/Earthbound series kind of attempted this too, but it fizzled out as a series. Graphics obsession in recent years took that focus away to just more visual, theatrical play, which is clearly helped by multimedia development (graphics, audio and video). Now that is the only thing many gamers are able to appreciate. By narrowly persuing graphics, something precious died during the past decade. So much so that many gamers now don't even know how to feel the sentiments DQ series tried to convey. Does that mean DQ9 will definitely be a success? No. We don't know that yet. But what I can say is that environmentally DS takes focus away from graphics, and that gives way for nurturing other aspects of gaming, including the almost-forgotten philosophy of DQ.
  11. Best Story

    Like I said, I think the key to loving DQ5 is not knowing what it's about AT ALL, as it was the case with me since I played it straight off the shelf when it came out. Otherwise DQ4 is probably a safe bet, because the element of surprise is not as important so you would still enjoy it whether or not you know what happens.
  12. Best Story

    5 ... but, I have the feeling the element of surprise is one huge part of that story. And these days spoilers are too easy to come by.
  13. Hehe yeah that's true as well. I guess it's meant to be a hard choice. As for DQ5, I'm one of those who adore it. In my opinion, DQ5 has a massive impact if you really get into it. I believe there are personal differences in this sort of thing. For instance, when I read a book I tend to go so deep into it that I forget about real life. I'm so immersed in it that I would suddenly come out of it, look around and realise the sun's going down and my room is getting too dark to read. But I also know many who don't seem to have the same experience reading a book. If you get that deep into DQ series, they're all pretty impressive. Sure they aren't as flashy as FF, but it has such a strong sense of the world. Among them all, in such ways, DQ5 was the most effective one for me because it was one hell of a journey being the main character, spanning over so many years and even generations.
  14. Funny you say that, becauase I was thinking something very similar. I think the problem I would find with DW/DQ III is that if I removed the 'nostalgia' element, I don't know how much I would enjoy it. I do remember loving its story, as you say, but that's probably because it was one of the first very involving game at the time. Later on FF III would challenge it (and do so extremely well), but at the time DW/DQ III was undoubtedly unique. So in that sense, I agree that its story was interesting. By the standards established later on, however, I don't know how it would come across to other people who didn't play DW series in chronological order. That added to the fascinating nostalgic element DW III produced when it lead you to the good old DW I world. I also agree about DW/DQ V. Not too sure about the system, it felt somewhat weak now I think about it, but I loved the story too much to care about the rest. The span of its story impressed me. It was such an epic with a twist, if you really became the character (which is the selling point of DW anyway). At the end of it I felt so comfortable in its world, I didn't want to come out. The realization that I had beaten the game and I have to move onto another game upset me
  15. I couldn't have put it better myself and I totally agree with the whole thrust of your view. DW/DQ has always been about you being the main character, unlike many others like FF where you're "watching the character" (as opposed to "being the character"), and DQV was very special for me because of its strong story element probably because it was the first with a decent twist in the plot. For this reason, the gamers who preferred to "watch" and could never feel that they were the main character never really enjoyed DQV (and DW in general). That said, I also agree with some people's views that DQV somehow lacked game system (like character class dynamics). If you're a kind of player who tend to get into the game through character development rather than story involvement, then DQV was probably not so good. System wise I loved DWIII. I remember becoming obsessed about making a character with very specific combination of spells/combat class. DWIV - nice structural story. Its diversity in characterization was phenomenal at the time, probably because I naturally compared it to DWIII. I liked the presentation of the world in DWVI and VII. Not too sure about the system in VI, but overall I still liked it. VII took me a while to get into due to the weird camera system (at the time). Otherwise it was great, retained the decade old tradition while feeling more modern in a PSX way. I lost count of how many times I died in DWII particularly right at the start More than enough for a life time. And it took me ages to figure out how exactly you find the first companion (that was cryptic the first time, wasn't it?). DWI - I remember absolutely and utterly hating dungeons. That stupid lighting system. but I loved the world, particularly the journey to the biggest city at the very south. If I had to pick 1 - Nostalgia wise DWIII. But the most impressive was DQV due to its story (particularly when you find out who you were looking for, and great build up up to that point).
×