Jump to content
Slimeknight

Dragon Quest 11 Definitive Edition coming to Xbox and PS4.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Plattym3 said:


Do general Squeenix people even count though? I'm not sure, but do Squeenix people even work on the nuts and bolts of DQ? Does FF7r2 even affect our series at all?

Would hope DQ12, Erik Monsters, DQB3, and DQH3 are all in the works. That'd help me through this time.

 

I would imagine it’s like Atlus where there are different teams for the different series.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plattym3 said:

Do general Squeenix people even count though? I'm not sure, but do Squeenix people even work on the nuts and bolts of DQ? Does FF7r2 even affect our series at all?

Would hope DQ12, Erik Monsters, DQB3, and DQH3 are all in the works. That'd help me through this time.

 

Ever since DQ10, SE has been using their internal teams for DQ production.  They also now own all the development kits as early as 2013, as DQ7 3DS does not have a copyright label for Arte Piazza, which is why Arte PIazza's tool kit, which was formerly Heartbeat's development tool kit, was used for DQ11 3DS, and 2D mode (even has the SFC SFX, like the boomerang and slash sounds specific to DQ's 6 and 3 SFC, and DQ11 3DS's 3D mode's battle system looked identical to DQ7 3DS's with the early 3DS pictures, and it looked like an enhanced version after).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Enix

They used to have I think 8 teams, then expanded to 12, then consolidated and reworked them over time into currently 4 teams.  You'll find them in the Development Organization section:

Creative Business Unit II is led by Yuu Miyake who was the head of Business Division 6 and focuses on the Dragon Quest, Nier and Bravely series, as well as arcade games. The department comprises the former Business Division 6 (Dragon Quest series, Nier series), Business Division 7 (Lord of Vermilion, Gunslinger Stratos) and Business Division 11 (Bravely series, Octopath Traveler).

Creative Business Unit III is led by Naoki Yoshida who was the head of Business Division 5 and focuses mainly on MMORPGs. It mainly comprises the former Business Division 5 (Final Fantasy XI, Final Fantasy XIV, Dragon Quest Builders series).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YangustheLegendaryBandit said:

I would imagine it’s like Atlus where there are different teams for the different series.

It's kind of a mixture.  They used to do it that way, especially as they expanded divisions.  Like new divisions would run offshoots or new brands.  Then they reconsolidated and FF games are split between various divisions, and there's one that's online only.  Like while it doesn't say it in the Wikipedia article anymore, Dragon Quest X is handled by Creative Business Unit III, and they actually used the Crystal Tools engine for both FF14 and DQ10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Erdrick The Hero said:

Apparently it's using the low detail Switch assets on all platforms.

Apparently it's using the low detail Switch assets on all platforms. If this is true, I might buy the XBox One version. I don't usually play games on XBox but I would do my next DQXI run on XBox One as thanks to Armour Project, Square Enix, and Microsoft thanks for finally getting together and putting DQ on the platform. Wish they would have done so last generation when I had a 360, but better late than never.

 

If they do end up using the original PS4/PC assets for the ports I'll be going with the PC version again, since I don't have an XBox One X.

Well I understand the assets will still be low detail the official FAQ stated that the Resolution and FPS will be the same as what was capable in Vanilla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Dragon Quest XII will be released for all platforms at the same time instead of having fragmented releases like with Dragon Quest XI. But of course, this is Square Enix we're talking about. So I really don't have much hope.

And please no timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest XII. I can see Sony  trying to get timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest XII since Sony has been really aggressive in terms of timed exclusivity. And I can't count out Nintendo since Nintendo's willing to pay for timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest games as shown with Dragon Quest XI S.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dakhil said:

I hope that Dragon Quest XII will be released for all platforms at the same time instead of having fragmented releases like with Dragon Quest XI. But of course, this is Square Enix we're talking about. So I really don't have much hope.

And please no timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest XII. I can see Sony  trying to get timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest XII since Sony has been really aggressive in terms of timed exclusivity. And I can't count out Nintendo since Nintendo's willing to pay for timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest games as shown with Dragon Quest XI S.

I'm not sure S was a timed exclusivity deal. The game was supposed to launch on Switch alongside PS4 and 3DS but Unreal Engine wasn't ready for Switch yet. The extra content was thrown in as an apology for the delay/thanks for waiting. XBox probably wasn't in the picture at all until recently, all of a sudden they are focusing on Japanese games.

 

 

That said, I've been rethinking this. I don't think I'll buy another copy of S unless they upgrade the graphics to original PC/PS4 levels of detail, regardless of system. I don't want to support such laziness in development from a AAA studio/publisher. Especially with my favorite series - I don't want them to think it's OK.

If they released the extra content as DLC for the original version on PC, with no graphical downgrades, I would've snapped it up right away.

Edited by Erdrick The Hero
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Erdrick The Hero said:

I'm not sure S was a timed exclusivity deal. The game was supposed to launch on Switch alongside PS4 and 3DS but Unreal Engine wasn't ready for Switch yet. The extra content was thrown in as an apology for the delay/thanks for waiting. XBox probably wasn't in the picture at all until recently, all of a sudden they are focusing on Japanese games.

 

 

That said, I've been rethinking this. I don't think I'll buy another copy of S unless they upgrade the graphics to original PC/PS4 levels of detail, regardless of system. I don't want to support such laziness in development from a AAA studio/publisher. Especially with my favorite series - I don't want them to think it's OK.

The initial trailer for Dragon Quest XI S during the first Nintendo Direct of 2019 did mention at the end that Dragon Quest XI S was launching exclusively on Nintendo Switch on autumn 2019, which suggested that Nintendo did pay for timed exclusivity for Dragon Quest XI S.

Square Enix probably put Dragon Quest XI S for Xbox One and Xbox Game Pass considering Dragon Quest XI S pretty much bombed in sales in Japan and in the West. And Square Enix probably wanted to recoup costs for optimising Dragon Quest XI S for Nintendo Switch.

I have no intentions for buying Dragon Quest XI S on PC myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've personally lost patience with DQ games graphically hindering themselves for Nintendo consoles. Stick with Sony or PC. Nintendo's install base is not worth the time or effort. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

I've personally lost patience with DQ games graphically hindering themselves for Nintendo consoles. Stick with Sony or PC. Nintendo's install base is not worth the time or effort. 

 

That’s objectively not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with concessions made to graphics for specific hardware if it's necessary for the game to run. But that's not the case on XBox One, PS4, or PC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eal said:

That’s objectively not true.

Well DQ V on PS2 is the best presentation of the game, same with DQ VIII and DQ XI yet if you want the most complete experience your forced to play the DS 3DS ports which in DQ VIII case looks hideous. And having played XI S and Vanilla on 4 PRO 4K, Vanilla is superior in every category of presentation other than sound mix. And now we are getting XI S but we're forced to suffer with less than stellar assets? Its ridiculous to have to jump through these hoops just to placate a specific user base.

Edited by Black Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

..3DS ports which in DQ VIII case looks hideous.

No it doesn’t. It looks fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, YangustheLegendaryBandit said:

No it doesn’t. It looks fine.

I've played both, emulated PS2 looks significantly better and I love the extra content of the 3DS version, just wish it was in an HD remaster or something similar, instead of only on the 3DS which looks extremely dated. If its good for you great but it could be significantly better if they just tried. I want the fan base to grow and the Nintendo install base is not the place for DQ to continue to grow nor is it the appropriate console to release the "Definitive Edition". It what world does it make sense for the Vanilla to look better than the Definitive Edition, its a joke. I don't mean to rant, its just frustrating because when SE tries, DQ games look BEAUTIFUL. I love DQ/Toriyama's art design and I want to see it in the best presentation possible, every time. 

Edited by Black Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Well DQ V on PS2 is the best presentation of the game, same with DQ VIII and DQ XI yet if you want the most complete experience your forced to play the DS 3DS ports which in DQ VIII case looks hideous. And having played XI S and Vanilla on 4 PRO 4K, Vanilla is superior in every category of presentation other than sound mix. And now we are getting XI S but we're forced to suffer with less than stellar assets? Its ridiculous to have to jump through these hoops just to placate a specific user base.

I understand wanting the game to look nicer, and I don’t really get why it isn’t, but that’s Square Enix’s fault. As far as I’m aware, Nintendo isn’t forcing this on SE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eal said:

I understand wanting the game to look nicer, and I don’t really get why it isn’t, but that’s Square Enix’s fault. As far as I’m aware, Nintendo isn’t forcing this on SE.

No, I know its not Nintendo fault, I just don't understand the logic or desire for SE to bend over backwards for Nintendo's install base. 

Edited by Black Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

I want the fan base to grow and the Nintendo install base is not the place for DQ to continue to grow nor is it the appropriate console to release the "Definitive Edition".

The best way to grow a fanbase is by making a game available on as many systems as possible. They showed the game at E3 and put the Hero in Smash. That’s how you grow a fanbase.

1 minute ago, Black Knight said:

No, I know its not Nintendo fault, I just don't understand the logic or desire for SE to bend over backwards for Nintendo's install base. 

How is making the game look not as good as it can look on other consoles bending over backwards for Nintendo fans? Anyone who’s gonna play the game on Switch likely already has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eal said:

The best way to grow a fanbase is by making a game available on as many systems as possible. They showed the game at E3 and put the Hero in Smash. That’s how you grow a fanbase.

Thankfully Smash seems to have brought more attention to the series than even XI S did which is surprising. I hope the interest keeps up I'd love for more releases and am looking forward to the new ones. I don't mean to come off as negative, I love my Metal Slime 3DS and Lotto Switch but I am damn tired of buying Nintendo console for one series lol 

7 minutes ago, eal said:

The best way to grow a fanbase is by making a game available on as many systems as possible. They showed the game at E3 and put the Hero in Smash. That’s how you grow a fanbase.

How is making the game look not as good as it can look on other consoles bending over backwards for Nintendo fans? Anyone who’s gonna play the game on Switch likely already has.

Because it should not be the foundation for the "Definitive Edition"

Edited by Black Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I couldn't care less about less about this newfangled HD graphics thing. Give me pixelated RPGs any day. Give me portability any day. My greatest 2 periods of RPG growth in my personal play history were (S)NES and 3(DS), so I'm fine with Nintendo Switch getting everything. This push for better and better graphics is absolutely rediculous. It makes games cost far more and development time take forever. It's a big reason why I don't care about AAA games. Give me all the Indie and classic stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plattym3 said:

Honestly, I couldn't care less about less about this newfangled HD graphics thing. Give me pixelated RPGs any day. Give me portability any day. My greatest 2 periods of RPG growth in my personal play history were (S)NES and 3(DS), so I'm fine with Nintendo Switch getting everything. This push for better and better graphics is absolutely rediculous. It makes games cost far more and development time take forever. It's a big reason why I don't care about AAA games. Give me all the Indie and classic stuff!

I love the 32 bit presentations of 1-6. I was really impressed with how good the Switch ports of 1-3 look, But I was even more impressed with how XI looked on my PRO(same with Heroes + Builders 1 and 2) and VIII emulated on my PC. So I guess I spoiled myself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say Dragon Quest is analogous to Nintendo consoles like how Final Fantasy is analogous to PlayStation consoles since all the mainline Dragon Quest games are released on Nintendo consoles. And so far, I feel like Nintendo has been more aggressive in marketing Dragon Quest than Square Enix has (I hope that changes with Dragon Quest XII).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Well DQ V on PS2 is the best presentation of the game, same with DQ VIII and DQ XI yet if you want the most complete experience your forced to play the DS 3DS ports which in DQ VIII case looks hideous. And having played XI S and Vanilla on 4 PRO 4K, Vanilla is superior in every category of presentation other than sound mix. And now we are getting XI S but we're forced to suffer with less than stellar assets? Its ridiculous to have to jump through these hoops just to placate a specific user base.

  1. Super Famicom versus Playstation 2 are two distinctly separate generations of systems.  One is the 16-bit era, one would have been classified, though they dropped the "bit" aspect, as the 128-bit era.  We're talking a giant leap in hardware capability, so to use this as a determining factor as though somehow Nintendo was holding back Dragon Quest V's appeal and visual greatness by keeping Enix and Yuji Horii from making a time machine and only making the PS2 version in the future...then sure, ok, that's a wild argument.  C'mon, that's not a serious point.
  2. Dragon Quest VIII on the 3DS was held back visually because of the New 3DS not being popular enough to develop the 3DS version on.  Considering that, the cost to functionality of Nintendo's handhelds was usually the benefit over Sony's systems.  The dual screen capability is something I drastically prefer to the PSP, though I cannot adequately compare to the Vita.  There's also the factor of Nintendo's systems generally being more popular, and Sony shooting themselves in the foot with proprietary memory cards that jack up system costs to almost impossible levels.  Do you want a Nintendo 3DS with 5 games, or a Sony Vita with just a Memory card?  Same price.  Do you want a Nintendo DS with 8 games, or a Sony PSP with a decent Memory card that can actually hold a few games, rather than just...one, and a few extra saves.  So in lieu of Nintendo's mishandling of the New 3DS, where DQ8 could have allowed for a near 1:1 graphical port, alongside the extra goodies, then sure, that's a reasonable argument, but it's still a great version to play, on a solid handheld system, which is a compacted system, so it's going to be less generally powerful than a home console.  I don't care as much about graphics if the downgrade is minimal, and it still looks amazing, and the added content makes it by far the best version.
  3. Dragon Quest XI, ok, sure, but it still looks amazing on Switch, and on the Switch Lite, at times i actually prefer the visuals to my PS4 Pro, and to a lot of PC photos I've seen, just due to the way the screen density of pixels presents the same graphics.  Even so sure, it's a downgrade, but the bonus content and QoL adjustments make it worth their time.

As Eal points out, how is Nintendo at fault for SE not willing to shell out for an experienced team that could handle the job of transferring the PS4 assets back in, and upgrading the Switch specific assets to match them?  Then filling in gaps with other map elements and functions inherent to the Switch version, without any errors?  Without complicating the save process?

They're not.  That's on SE, not Nintendo.  Horii as well, as he would have had to sign off on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plattym3 said:

Honestly, I couldn't care less about less about this newfangled HD graphics thing. Give me pixelated RPGs any day. Give me portability any day. My greatest 2 periods of RPG growth in my personal play history were (S)NES and 3(DS), so I'm fine with Nintendo Switch getting everything. This push for better and better graphics is absolutely rediculous. It makes games cost far more and development time take forever. It's a big reason why I don't care about AAA games. Give me all the Indie and classic stuff!

I’m predicting that the next generation is going to be a breaking point for AAA. They’re only going to take longer to develop and cost more to make, so that most of the big budget games will become console exclusives funded by either Sony or Microsoft.

The fact that the Switch continues to sell well means developers and publishers will want to keep putting games on it, and most of these current gen ports are already too much for the Switch to handle, meaning that the Switch is going to be totally left in the dust. This will result in us getting a lot of mid-tier, AA games on Switch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eal said:

I’m predicting that the next generation is going to be a breaking point for AAA. They’re only going to take longer to develop and cost more to make, so that most of the big budget games will become console exclusives funded by either Sony or Microsoft.

The fact that the Switch continues to sell well means developers and publishers will want to keep putting games on it, and most of these current gen ports are already too much for the Switch to handle, meaning that the Switch is going to be totally left in the dust. This will result in us getting a lot of mid-tier, AA games on Switch.

I think given what the PS5 is actually offering, I'm not so sure I agree on your first point.  MS, I can see that, as the nature of their system is just raw power, which so far the PC market keeps going down that path, and it's an unfortunate bottleneck, as raw number crunching is VERY expensive in terms of hardware, and has VERY hard limitations and caps.  We're actually seeing the literal ceiling of what's possible with current hardware on PC.  They're not using tricks to skirt around this, much as with the trick of splitting the processor into multiple sub-processors to get around the bottleneck of decreasing gains and actual processing power, even if the actual design of the chip would allow saying 3 -> 5ghz.  Well, that 1~3 ghz was an 80% increase in processing, but the 3->5 is only a 20, or 25%.  It's diminishing returns.

We're seeing new tricks like simple textures and fast swapping of complex textures, which unfortunately, the Xbox Series X's hardware, cannot pull off in real-time, so we'll still see those transition points.  However, the PS5 can, and thus the transition points will be harder to spot.  Something PC cannot do for another 10, maybe even 20 years, as current trends aren't adopting the same general architecture of the PS5, and by the time it is, it will take that much of a time gap for it to become the widespread standard.  I'm not talking SSD's as gaming adoption, or high bandwidth SSD's in particular,  I'm talking about Mobo Bios I/O transfer rates, which isn't a thing right now in the PC market, except in very expensive boards, and even then it's not universal, and thus still bottlenecked.  So PS5 will make it easier to develop for, and general adoption of universal toolkits, like UE4, does make multiplatform MUCH easier to synchonize, with minimal effort, and thus reduced cost.

So I see it the opposite.  The exception being Nintendo and multiplatform, which for right now, will be a stopgap if studios don't see much profit in the porting.

Why do you think Nintendo has allowed a lot of leaks and discussions of whatever the potential Switch Pro will be?  They know full well the current system can't handle the next generation of games.  They know they'll have to come up with a new system to keep the Switch going for 8 more years, as they planned to, when they said 10 years for the Switch 2 years ago.

The question becomes, do they wait out a new chipset?  How to handle the transition, as they notoriously bungled the New 3DS, just as they bungled the DSi, and in many respects, the same issues brought down the WiiU, which was really an overclocked Wii.

Edited by ignasia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think the Switch assets look fine, I'm only upset because the high detail assets already exist and aren't being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ignasia said:
  1. Super Famicom versus Playstation 2 are two distinctly separate generations of systems.  One is the 16-bit era, one would have been classified, though they dropped the "bit" aspect, as the 128-bit era.  We're talking a giant leap in hardware capability, so to use this as a determining factor as though somehow Nintendo was holding back Dragon Quest V's appeal and visual greatness by keeping Enix and Yuji Horii from making a time machine and only making the PS2 version in the future...then sure, ok, that's a wild argument.  C'mon, that's not a serious point.
  2. Dragon Quest VIII on the 3DS was held back visually because of the New 3DS not being popular enough to develop the 3DS version on.  Considering that, the cost to functionality of Nintendo's handhelds was usually the benefit over Sony's systems.  The dual screen capability is something I drastically prefer to the PSP, though I cannot adequately compare to the Vita.  There's also the factor of Nintendo's systems generally being more popular, and Sony shooting themselves in the foot with proprietary memory cards that jack up system costs to almost impossible levels.  Do you want a Nintendo 3DS with 5 games, or a Sony Vita with just a Memory card?  Same price.  Do you want a Nintendo DS with 8 games, or a Sony PSP with a decent Memory card that can actually hold a few games, rather than just...one, and a few extra saves.  So in lieu of Nintendo's mishandling of the New 3DS, where DQ8 could have allowed for a near 1:1 graphical port, alongside the extra goodies, then sure, that's a reasonable argument, but it's still a great version to play, on a solid handheld system, which is a compacted system, so it's going to be less generally powerful than a home console.  I don't care as much about graphics if the downgrade is minimal, and it still looks amazing, and the added content makes it by far the best version.
  3. Dragon Quest XI, ok, sure, but it still looks amazing on Switch, and on the Switch Lite, at times i actually prefer the visuals to my PS4 Pro, and to a lot of PC photos I've seen, just due to the way the screen density of pixels presents the same graphics.  Even so sure, it's a downgrade, but the bonus content and QoL adjustments make it worth their time.

As Eal points out, how is Nintendo at fault for SE not willing to shell out for an experienced team that could handle the job of transferring the PS4 assets back in, and upgrading the Switch specific assets to match them?  Then filling in gaps with other map elements and functions inherent to the Switch version, without any errors?  Without complicating the save process?

They're not.  That's on SE, not Nintendo.  Horii as well, as he would have had to sign off on that.

I understand all the points you made and agree with most but in NO way does XI S look better docked or undocked than Vanilla on Pro. Certain areas like inside the painting fighting Dora in Gray look fine but outside areas like Champ Sauvage look choppy even docked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...