Dragon Quest Swords, could this actually be a big title?

[Julius Seeker]

A big title that will sell a few million copies? Earlier when the concept was unveiled, I think most people here just sort of dismissed the title, I know I did.

Personally I can understand how this game might not appeal to some people here. I remember Kali stating that he thought the title was going to be crap. Don has always disliked DQ games as well (I think). Though I have always liked them, personally. I didn't play the first two, but I played 3, 4, 7, and 8 and liked them all thoroughly (I didn't finish 7 and 8 myself, yet, but I have seen them finished). It seems the game has a lot more to it then just going along and slashing Dragon Quest monsters on rails. There's a magic system, equipment, towns, and you can interact with parts of the environment along the way, just differently.

Rather than going around and walking up to everything in order to interact with it, you just point and click it. For example, a towns-person, you just have to point at the person, click, and you can talk that way. Orwhen you're outside, and you see a bush (for example) you can point and click and the character will shake it, you might get an herb (healing item); or point and click treasure-chests to open them.

Gamespot had the following to say about the title:

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/rpg/dragonq ... id=6170647

"If this all sounds too simple don't fret, the game appears to have some depth to its systems to keep things interesting. You'll find different items ranging from health or mana restoration to equippable gear. In addition you'll be earning experience and gold from defeating enemies which we expect will come to affect your character's attributes.

As far as the presentation goes, the visuals in the game are gorgeous and sport a clean, detailed look that's in the same vein as Dragon Quest VIII. The characters are large and colorful with solid animation so far. Special effects to punctuate the combat action are shiny and well done. As far as the environments go, the forest we journeyed through featured impressive color gradients and lighting. The audio appears to be a dramatic mix of simple tunes and suitable bombastic rock that suits the action well.

Based on what we played, Dragon Quest Swords is shaping up to be a cool Wii title. The game's mix of simple gameplay mechanics and light RPG elements make for a solid and accessible experience. While fans of the series will obviously get the most out of the title, even non DQ loyalists will be able to appreciate exploring new places and stabbing things. Dragon Quest Swords is slated to ship this July in Japan for the Wii with a US release to follow later in the year. "

I wasn't really looking forward to the game before, but it has certainly been on my mind lately. I want to see what towns are like in this game, especially after reading this gamespot article. I'm looking forward to hearing more about this title.

[kali o.]

I didn't say I "thought" it would be crap - I stated it Will be crap. Swords is nothing more than Kenshin revisited.

I also said the RE:UC would be on rails...so watch me go 2 for 2.

[Zeus]

I have very little hopes for this DW bastardization. It seems to be nothing more than a ploy to use the name of a series on a system that won't get it to get some quick cash

[Julius Seeker]

I have very little hopes for this DW bastardization. It seems to be nothing more than a ploy to use the name of a series on a system that won't get it to get some quick cash

Dragon Quest: Rocket Slime turned out to be really good, and Gamespot has positive opinions on the latest build of Dragon Quest Swords (which is vastly improved over the last one, which in turn was vastly improved over the first one we saw), so what are you going on?

[Zeus]

I have very little hopes for this DW bastardization. It seems to be nothing more than a ploy to use the name of a series on a system that won't get it to get some quick cash

Dragon Quest: Rocket Slime turned out to be really good, and Gamespot has positive opinions on the latest build of Dragon Quest Swords (which is vastly improved over the last one, which in turn was vastly improved over the first one we saw), so what are you going on?

Slime is actually another example. A very quickly forgotten game that used the DW name to get noticed. Good or not isn't the point, it's the fact that it's a forgettable game that's using the licence to get noticed. The Wii game looks to be the same. They're not extensions of the brand so much as an attempt to cash out on the brand.

[Julius Seeker]

Slime is actually another example. A very quickly forgotten game that used the DW name to get noticed. Good or not isn't the point, it's the fact that it's a forgettable game that's using the licence to get noticed. The Wii game looks to be the same. They're not extensions of the brand so much as an attempt to cash out on the brand.

How do you know any of this? Do you have access to Square-Enix's market plans for the game? You under-estimate the potential popularity of a voice acted Dragon Quest title in Japan, Dragon Quest 8 in Japan did not have any voice acting. This game also looks VERY much like a Dragon Quest game, make no mistake.

Here's a trailer of the latest build of the game: http://media.wii.ign.com/media/826/8268 ... 90420.html

[Nev]

I have very little hopes for this DW bastardization. It seems to be nothing more than a ploy to use the name of a series on a system that won't get it to get some quick cash

Dragon Quest: Rocket Slime turned out to be really good, and Gamespot has positive opinions on the latest build of Dragon Quest Swords (which is vastly improved over the last one, which in turn was vastly improved over the first one we saw), so what are you going on?

Slime is actually another example. A very quickly forgotten game that used the DW name to get noticed. Good or not isn't the point, it's the fact that it's a forgettable game that's using the licence to get noticed. The Wii game looks to be the same. They're not extensions of the brand so much as an attempt to cash out on the brand.

I beg to differ, much as I kind of hate to. I'll take a good knockoff license title over shitty original IP any day of the week.

The innovation in the game industry, Zeus, is going to come from people like you and me, most likely - small, independent developers who have little to lose and therefore a greater willingness to take risks.

I was at an E3 panel about this very topic two years ago - the developers were blasting the publishers mostly for not taking enough risks, and the publishers were mounting what I thought was an exceptionally well-thought-out defense against what I kind of felt was a lot of selfishness on the devs' part. Jason Della Rocca (the then-president of the IGDA, I think) ran roughshod over the stated panel topic and used every excuse he could to blast the publishers for not innovating, and many in the audience seemed to agree.

The thing is, licensed titles sell. If you're a publisher, your business is not game innovation. Not even a little bit. You can make it one of your objectives to publish innovative titles, but the business of game publishing is making money, and they're not developers. And - as I keep saying - original IP is a risk no matter how you slice it, a BIG risk.

I am willing to bet there are fifty good original-IP titles released in the last year that you've not played, or even heard of, because these studios can't afford the marketing or advertising that the biggies get. I haven't played them either, because I have a hard time looking to spend fifty bucks on untried titles these days. And I bet you do too - not sure, perhaps you can tell me of your indie gaming experiences and prove me wrong - but the fact is that quite a few gamers buy the way I do.

A lot of publishers have a lot of money, but it takes $10 million and up to produce a AAA title these days, at least as far as I know. Let's pretend you're a liason at a publishing company and someone comes up to you with some completely original IP. Then someone else asks if you want to publish the next game in their moderately established series, with sales around 200,000 per title or so. You're under pressure to produce on your bottom line - as all publishers are, constantly - and if you don't produce, you're likely to be fairly quickly replaced (as I imagine publishers who can't produce quickly are). Would it seem rational to take the risk - sticking your neck out in the name of innovation when you might lose your job if it busts?

If you're talking about Square itself, the development business is a rough one. I don't blame them for wanting a few sure bets. And as long as a game is fun, and enjoyable, I don't see a thing wrong with "milking" a franchise the way you're talking about. It's a great way to produce a more guaranteed revenue stream that you can then put into your "risky" titles later.

I really, really think you're taking kind of the "arrogant developer" standpoint here. "Blah blah, more innovation, licenses suck" - but you're ignoring some harsh realities of the way the industry works.

My mom used to say about working in the motion picture industry, whenever people would bitch about the latest rehashed Hollywood blockbuster, "Excuse me, we are not the National Endowment for the Arts. We are the *motion picture industry* - emphasis on industry!" And she's right, and the principle is valid here too. It's a business.

If someone wants to produce a $10M AAA title that is risky as all get out, I really don't blame anyone in the game industry for telling you that you can't do it with their money. It's not your money - it's theirs. They have a right to do what they like with it, but even more than that, I think their business sense is a bit sounder than yours here. It's really easy to bitch about how there isn't enough creative original IP out there - I also kind of think it's bullshit. If you want to see a $10M AAA title that takes the kinds of risks you want to see, then go hustle for the capital. Venture, angel investors, whatever. Start a business and make it yourself if you have to.

But bitching about the industry in the way you are is just ___ing cherry-picking, man...seriously. It's too easy and whiny, and it's not really sensible either. Also it's not likely to do a goddamn thing to change anything.

My two cents.

[Blotus]

I think we can all agree that the Japanese will buy anything with Dragon Quest in the title. And since it's on the super hot Wii, it'll be an instant million seller. Hell, Wii Play sold over a million copies and it's a glorified demo. Meanwhile, Zelda sales struggle there.

I'll never understand the taste of the average Japanese gamer. Nintendo should collaborate with Namco Bandai and release Gundam Play on the Wii or DS. It will have four minigames including Robot Onion Chopping, Robot Air Hockey, Robot Molesting an Underage Girl (no, it's okay! She's a witch), and Robot Take the Train to the Office.

Famitsu will give it a perfect 40/40.

It will receive an average Gamerankings score of 3.2.

It will sell 50,000,000 copies.

[Eric]

I think we can all agree that the Japanese will buy anything with Dragon Quest in the title. And since it's on the super hot Wii, it'll be an instant million seller. Hell, Wii Play sold over a million copies and it's a glorified demo. Meanwhile, Zelda sales struggle there.

I'll never understand the taste of the average Japanese gamer. Nintendo should collaborate with Namco Bandai and release Gundam Play on the Wii or DS. It will have four minigames including Robot Onion Chopping, Robot Air Hockey, Robot Molesting an Underage Girl (no, it's okay! She's a witch), and Robot Take the Train to the Office.

Famitsu will give it a perfect 40/40.

It will receive an average Gamerankings score of 3.2.

It will sell 50,000,000 copies.

This post delivers.

[Nev]

I'm *so* looking forward to Robot Take The Train To The Office.

[Flip]

Oh man, post of the year!

[bovine]

I don't understand why no one bought Okami. That game was fucking GOLD!

[Zeus]

Nev, I agree with the whole business side of it and I'd likely do the same if I were a publisher too. But I'm not, I'm a gamer and a game hobbyist. From what I can tell, this new DQ game is nothing more than a cash grab. It's taking an old plug-and-play game, updating it graphically, and releasing it with the DQ name to make money. It's not really innovative.

Sure there are tons of reasons to milk franchises, but you'd at least like to see changes along the way. Introduce some new gameplay elements, try a new type of genre for the series, add SOMETHING that isn't just a copy of some other game. And don't forget, you need to keep having new IPs if you're gonna milk them.

We all bitch at Capcom for making slight changes and re-releasing games in semi-sequel format, but at least they're trying to update the genre and make it better. Look at the most recent 2D Mega Man platformer or 2D Street Fighter game, it's night and day compared to the original. At least they try to bring something new.

Then you look at games like Mass Effect or Bioshock. I don't know a huge amount about them, but are they really offering anything new? Gears at the very least added the "hide and shoot" gameplay as the core of what is basically an FPS. They tried, even if it is very little. It's a little different than in Rainbow Six or other similar attempts in the past. Prey tried (and failed) with the portal system. But that seems to be all FPSs are adding now, slight changes to the same formula. It's why I'm generally bored with them. They have to at least TRY something new.

It's just with the increased budgets we get decreased innovation, which is bad for the industry. At least try to introduce something significant to the genre OCCASIONALLY.

[Zeus]

I don't understand why no one bought Okami. That game was fucking GOLD!

Between this and Lotus' post, you essentially get more proof that the majority of gamers aren't us, aren't "hardcore". That's why you gotta cater to the masses, even create games specifically for them.

That's an essential part of what we're trying to do with our game. Appeal to the casual while leaving enough room for the hardcore

[Nev]

Nev, I agree with the whole business side of it and I'd likely do the same if I were a publisher too. But I'm not, I'm a gamer and a game hobbyist. From what I can tell, this new DQ game is nothing more than a cash grab. It's taking an old plug-and-play game, updating it graphically, and releasing it with the DQ name to make money. It's not really innovative.

Sure there are tons of reasons to milk franchises, but you'd at least like to see changes along the way. Introduce some new gameplay elements, try a new type of genre for the series, add SOMETHING that isn't just a copy of some other game. And don't forget, you need to keep having new IPs if you're gonna milk them.

We all bitch at Capcom for making slight changes and re-releasing games in semi-sequel format, but at least they're trying to update the genre and make it better. Look at the most recent 2D Mega Man platformer or 2D Street Fighter game, it's night and day compared to the original. At least they try to bring something new.

Then you look at games like Mass Effect or Bioshock. I don't know a huge amount about them, but are they really offering anything new? Gears at the very least added the "hide and shoot" gameplay as the core of what is basically an FPS. They tried, even if it is very little. It's a little different than in Rainbow Six or other similar attempts in the past. Prey tried (and failed) with the portal system. But that seems to be all FPSs are adding now, slight changes to the same formula. It's why I'm generally bored with them. They have to at least TRY something new.

It's just with the increased budgets we get decreased innovation, which is bad for the industry. At least try to introduce something significant to the genre OCCASIONALLY.

Well, it really depends on what people will play, and who you can get hired to do the design...as I'm sure you know, developers are a dime a dozen, but good ones are few and far between...

I don't know. You have some good points. But I still think innovation is more of a risk than you give it credit for - I mean, look how crapped-on Square got for the Final Fantasy XII demo. Gamers say they want innovation, then scream every time someone changes something in a way they didn't agree with.

Three months later, the game comes out, and hey surprise it's great! But because the whole picture wasn't present in the demo, nearly everyone crapped all over it - you included, if I remember right. I'm sure it turned out all right for Square in the end, but they had to be sweating after the response to the demo.

Like it or not, a lot of game buyers, and some of the more vocal internet-board posters, are still teenagers. I'm sure you've seen enough "LOL xxxx game sux0r piece of shitty shit!!!!!" posts to see what can happen to a poorly marketed or underfinished demo. Of course the teenagers are immature, and possibly wrong, but it's still bad press, and bad press has a way of making the suits at any enterprise nervous - and possibly rightfully so.

I agree innovation is a good thing, but there are obstacles in the way. If you can figure out how to get to take risks without exposing your shit to some 15-year-old who can barely spell correctly but will gleefully spend the next three weeks of his after-school hours posting about what a piece of shit your game is, let me know.

(By the way, this kid is also failing most of his classes at school, and would end up setting fire to the building if you gave him a computer and told him to try making a game himself, but it doesn't matter, because there are a thousand more just like him reading the same message boards, ready to believe him and pick up the meme - and they're right in the middle of your target demographic.)

[Julius Seeker]

Wii Play sold over a million copies and it's a glorified demo.

It's sold over a million here too, and close to a million in Europe.

[Julius Seeker]

It's taking an old plug-and-play game, updating it graphically, and releasing it with the DQ name to make money.


but at least they're trying to update the genre and make it better. Look at the most recent 2D Mega Man platformer or 2D Street Fighter game, it's night and day compared to the original.

I am willing to bet that the Dragon Quest Swords game is a MUCH larger improvement over previous titles than any Megaman game has been. The original Megaman came out over 20 years ago, I should hope they have made some sort of advancement.

Although I disagree on the latest Street Fighter games being improvements, I didn't like them at all. It is likely no one else did either since the last Street Fighter game that sold well was Super Street Fighter 2 on SNES which sold 2 million copies even. In comparison, Mortal Kombat 3 (released around the same time) sold 2.87 million copies, and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, which came out only a few years ago, sold over 3 million copies (2.17 million on PS2 alone).

[Flip]

I don't understand why no one bought Okami. That game was fucking GOLD!

Between this and Lotus' post, you essentially get more proof that the majority of gamers aren't us, aren't "hardcore". That's why you gotta cater to the masses, even create games specifically for them.

That's an essential part of what we're trying to do with our game. Appeal to the casual while leaving enough room for the hardcore

Enter the Wii...

[kali o.]

Then you look at games like Mass Effect or Bioshock. I don't know a huge amount about them, but are they really offering anything new?

Maybe you are just using poor english, but did you actually just insinuate Bioshock and Mass Effect aren't "breaking any new ground"?

......

[Zeus]

Nev, I agree with the whole business side of it and I'd likely do the same if I were a publisher too. But I'm not, I'm a gamer and a game hobbyist. From what I can tell, this new DQ game is nothing more than a cash grab. It's taking an old plug-and-play game, updating it graphically, and releasing it with the DQ name to make money. It's not really innovative.

Sure there are tons of reasons to milk franchises, but you'd at least like to see changes along the way. Introduce some new gameplay elements, try a new type of genre for the series, add SOMETHING that isn't just a copy of some other game. And don't forget, you need to keep having new IPs if you're gonna milk them.

We all bitch at Capcom for making slight changes and re-releasing games in semi-sequel format, but at least they're trying to update the genre and make it better. Look at the most recent 2D Mega Man platformer or 2D Street Fighter game, it's night and day compared to the original. At least they try to bring something new.

Then you look at games like Mass Effect or Bioshock. I don't know a huge amount about them, but are they really offering anything new? Gears at the very least added the "hide and shoot" gameplay as the core of what is basically an FPS. They tried, even if it is very little. It's a little different than in Rainbow Six or other similar attempts in the past. Prey tried (and failed) with the portal system. But that seems to be all FPSs are adding now, slight changes to the same formula. It's why I'm generally bored with them. They have to at least TRY something new.

It's just with the increased budgets we get decreased innovation, which is bad for the industry. At least try to introduce something significant to the genre OCCASIONALLY.

Well, it really depends on what people will play, and who you can get hired to do the design...as I'm sure you know, developers are a dime a dozen, but good ones are few and far between...

I don't know. You have some good points. But I still think innovation is more of a risk than you give it credit for - I mean, look how crapped-on Square got for the Final Fantasy XII demo. Gamers say they want innovation, then scream every time someone changes something in a way they didn't agree with.

Three months later, the game comes out, and hey surprise it's great! But because the whole picture wasn't present in the demo, nearly everyone crapped all over it - you included, if I remember right. I'm sure it turned out all right for Square in the end, but they had to be sweating after the response to the demo.

Like it or not, a lot of game buyers, and some of the more vocal internet-board posters, are still teenagers. I'm sure you've seen enough "LOL xxxx game sux0r piece of shitty shit!!!!!" posts to see what can happen to a poorly marketed or underfinished demo. Of course the teenagers are immature, and possibly wrong, but it's still bad press, and bad press has a way of making the suits at any enterprise nervous - and possibly rightfully so.

I agree innovation is a good thing, but there are obstacles in the way. If you can figure out how to get to take risks without exposing your shit to some 15-year-old who can barely spell correctly but will gleefully spend the next three weeks of his after-school hours posting about what a piece of shit your game is, let me know.

(By the way, this kid is also failing most of his classes at school, and would end up setting fire to the building if you gave him a computer and told him to try making a game himself, but it doesn't matter, because there are a thousand more just like him reading the same message boards, ready to believe him and pick up the meme - and they're right in the middle of your target demographic.)

Never played the FFXII demo....or the game itself yet. I've never posted an opinion beyond "I don't care much about the FF franchise anymore"

Yeah, but the same time you get innovation that everyone loves. Mario Party was essentially a new type of game that was very well received. It's old hat now but when the first one came out it was new and great. Same with Mario Kart or even Guitar Hero, although Hero was more of an evolution of music games rather than an introduction of a new genre.

And there is a difference between innovation in terms of a whole new genre and evolving a genre as well as the degrees of it. I've talked a lot about Nintendo vs Capcom where you see Nintendo taking whole new risks by introduction completely new genres and radically changed gameplay (the "revolutionary" idea) vs Capcom which adds very little to each iteration and takes it time with its changes ("evolutionary" gameplay). You have to at least try.

That was actually my point with FPSs. They really are only trying slightly different things that seem more to help them stand out rather than evolve the genre. Prey was a perfect example of this with its portal system. Take those away and it's hardly different than Doom. But the system wasn't well done IMO so it hindered as much as helped the gameplay. That's no evolution but rather just an attempt to be different. And Kali, I was actually asking the question about Bioshock and Mass Effect as I haven't read too much on them.

The end of the day, my point is that you have to try, especially if you're a bigger company. And Squeenix really isn't even though they really need to right now IMO, FF12 notwithstanding (I haven't played it so I can't judge). DWMonsters really isn't, it's a gimmick. FFT was....at the time. Considering that company is basically the king of the console RPG, what they heck are they doing to move the genre forward?

[Nev]

Square isn't selling very well. As someone else noted on here, the FFVII remakes flopped, and even Kingdom Hearts II and FFXII performed, according to Square, "under expectations". I'll go dig that article up if anyone wants me to.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Square is in trouble somewhat, Zeus. My guess is that they're steadily losing ground to Atlus at this point, especially since Odin Sphere...

But it takes time for a giant to topple, if they are going to.

As far as "you have to try to innovate" goes, bull shit. You don't, at least not in the short term. Knockoffs sell.

In the long term you do, in order to avoid becoming cliched or stale - which is exactly what's happening right now with Square in some sense, and why they're not selling very well! I mean, are you just unhappy that they're still respected as a developer or something? Because I think they should be. Their games don't look particularly easy to make, and tend to have very, very high production values - which isn't easy at all, as you hopefully know by now...do you think they should instantly become hated because they're not taking risks all over the place? As I said, my guess is that they *are* in trouble already. You upset because they're not in it deep enough?

I still just get the sense that you want your own viewpoint to dominate here. But that's not how the market works, and I'd disagree that it's even how gaming works. A lot of people really enjoy certain titles that you would call derivative. I've never played Rocket Slime or even heard of it before now, but it's got an 8.8 on Metacritic. My guess is that means that at *least* a few million people around the world absolutely loved it (since it is a Dragon Quest game). And thus, I think it's colossally arrogant, and somewhat hater-ish, of you to imply that the game should never have been released just because it's a franchise title.

I mean, what right do you have in that area? Seriously. People like what they like, and the MARKET is the arbiter of what comes out. Not you! Not even a little bit. Do you really think your opinions are that important in this context? Why should someone else not play Rocket Slime just because you don't like it? They're not you. Thankfully, no one is going to change their buying habits based on your say-so - and amen to that! - but you seem to think that they should, or that the market should change its ways based on your opinion. I think it's kind of selfish of you, as I've been saying, and kind of immature too...you're smarter than that, man.

Pity but what Tort isn't still here. He would've knocked you on your butt for the "Square is the king of the console RPG"! comment...he's been playing Atlus games for years...

I can't comment on the FPS thing 'cause I don't play them...

[Oracle]

Although I disagree on the latest Street Fighter games being improvements, I didn't like them at all. It is likely no one else did either since the last Street Fighter game that sold well was Super Street Fighter 2 on SNES which sold 2 million copies even. In comparison, Mortal Kombat 3 (released around the same time) sold 2.87 million copies, and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, which came out only a few years ago, sold over 3 million copies (2.17 million on PS2 alone).

Street Fighter 3 has seen very limited release and was mostly pushed on the Dreamcast. Street Fighter 3 has a HUGE following, but it's mostly arcade-based. I think Street Fighter 3 is a VAST improvement over the #2 and the Alphas.

[Zeus]

Square isn't selling very well. As someone else noted on here, the FFVII remakes flopped, and even Kingdom Hearts II and FFXII performed, according to Square, "under expectations". I'll go dig that article up if anyone wants me to.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Square is in trouble somewhat, Zeus. My guess is that they're steadily losing ground to Atlus at this point, especially since Odin Sphere...

But it takes time for a giant to topple, if they are going to.

As far as "you have to try to innovate" goes, bull shit. You don't, at least not in the short term. Knockoffs sell.

In the long term you do, in order to avoid becoming cliched or stale - which is exactly what's happening right now with Square in some sense, and why they're not selling very well! I mean, are you just unhappy that they're still respected as a developer or something? Because I think they should be. Their games don't look particularly easy to make, and tend to have very, very high production values - which isn't easy at all, as you hopefully know by now...do you think they should instantly become hated because they're not taking risks all over the place? As I said, my guess is that they *are* in trouble already. You upset because they're not in it deep enough?

I still just get the sense that you want your own viewpoint to dominate here. But that's not how the market works, and I'd disagree that it's even how gaming works. A lot of people really enjoy certain titles that you would call derivative. I've never played Rocket Slime or even heard of it before now, but it's got an 8.8 on Metacritic. My guess is that means that at *least* a few million people around the world absolutely loved it (since it is a Dragon Quest game). And thus, I think it's colossally arrogant, and somewhat hater-ish, of you to imply that the game should never have been released just because it's a franchise title.

I mean, what right do you have in that area? Seriously. People like what they like, and the MARKET is the arbiter of what comes out. Not you! Not even a little bit. Do you really think your opinions are that important in this context? Why should someone else not play Rocket Slime just because you don't like it? They're not you. Thankfully, no one is going to change their buying habits based on your say-so - and amen to that! - but you seem to think that they should, or that the market should change its ways based on your opinion. I think it's kind of selfish of you, as I've been saying, and kind of immature too...you're smarter than that, man.

Pity but what Tort isn't still here. He would've knocked you on your butt for the "Square is the king of the console RPG"! comment...he's been playing Atlus games for years...

I can't comment on the FPS thing 'cause I don't play them...

I was speaking from a gamer and business point of view. I was simply giving my opinion of what I want. And having strong convictions and strongly expressing your opinion is not the same as enforcing your opinion on others.

I don't hate big corporations which seems to be an underlying point in your post. Sure I slam Sony and Microsoft all the time but that's 'cause they use something other than the quality of their products to sell their stuff. What I insist on is quality. Don't try and sell me something that's of lower quality just 'cause you can. I want to see the corporations spend their time and effort in creating a good product. It's the lack of quality that I get pissed off at, especially when it's from a big company that has the means to keep up their quality should they choose to do so.

And if you have money and it's a focus of your business, you can keep up with your competition. Why do you think an innovative company like 3M is constantly at or near the top in its market? For that particular company, it is a part of their mission statement to innovate and, correct me if I'm wrong on the figures, they dictate that 30% or so of their revenues are to be spent on R&D. They make it a point to look forward and to stay on top.

And I'm slamming Squeenix now 'cause their products are continuously dropping in quality (my point of view). They've decided to concentrate on production values - which I've NEVER said aren't great - and not on the depth/gameplay, which is what they were so good at before. And I mean right up to and including the PSX.

I just downloaded Aegis Wing, that freebie shooter on XBLA. It has decent, hi-res graphics, but does that mean it's better than Gradius 3 or R-Type 3? It's not even close to those in terms of quality. Of course, it's a 3-month game available for free made by a bunch of interns, but the point stands. Production values do not make up for lack of quality. And that's what's happening with Squeenix right now.

Also, by a lot of your arguments above, we should simply take sales figures as a measure of quality. I've actually made that argument in the past and Seek uses it all the time but remember, I'm talking from a fanboy point of view, not from a businessman point of view. So, does that mean that Tetris is the best game ever made?

And along with that, as a businessman, I can clearly differentiate between what I want and what the masses want. When I make my game, I'll cater to them. When I discuss the success of a product, I'll refer to its sales. But when I'm talking from a fanboy point of view, what sells or what is popular doesn't matter. It's all about quality to me. And by definition, what is "quality" is subjective.

BTW, I've always liked Atlus and have the vast majority of their releases.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a multi-million dollar company. I'm sure they know their business better than I do. I'm just saying that from my point of view, they're wrong.

[Nev]

(sighs)

...Look, if you're just speaking as a gamer, I'll retract all my criticisms. I'll admit to kind of talking to you as if you were a full-time developer, since you're now working in the indie scene. And yeah, to be honest, while I thought the battle system was quite innovative in FFXII, the basic gameplay still hadn't changed, and I'm having a hard time getting psyched up to actually finish it. We should talk on IM sometime - I think I'm probably taking out a few of the criticisms I have of Jason Della Rocca and some of the developers I've met in general on you...

[Don]

FF12 is a huge innovation in terms of instilling a temporal aspect to RPGs. Ironically it is easily negated by overleveling. For example take any of the 'berserk' bosses that enrage and hits 10 times a round at the end, you'll need 2 guys casting Curaga to just wore off one round of berserk attacks, probably at different times (e.g. one Curaga on the 5th hit and one at the 10th hit). This is fundamentally different from the traditional model where time freezes and the boss attacks you 10 times, and then you pick up the pieces after (cure, raise, whatever). The flow of combat in FF12 is far above any RPG I have seen. You can actually see like a 6 hit combo being countered every hit and follow the action/reaction. Ironically it didn't even do that great, which suggests innovation isn't really valued.

It's funny someone mentioned Megaman. Originally the Z series were trying something pretty gutsy in terms of story by making X the last boss. After talking about it the designers decided they'd lose sales from the little kids if X was the last boss, so they scrapped the idea. The Megaman series, after the X4 or later eras, have a very subtle undertone that Dr. Light's utopia is really some kind of dictorial regime where X rules absolutely. The Legends world is supposed to be final outcome of the Megaman universe, and what happens there? The *Master* rules absolutely from Elysium, and reinitialize (e.g. wipe them out) the human beings whenever they didn't behave the intended way. Megaman is a perfect example of innovation bowing down to sales. In the end they rather crank out another low budget game for a stable ~100K sales than coming with a really cool game that'd wrap up everything up (and unable to make sequels!)

[Nev]

Ironically it didn't even do that great, which suggests innovation isn't really valued.

Zeus, ya listening?

[Julius Seeker]

Although I disagree on the latest Street Fighter games being improvements, I didn't like them at all. It is likely no one else did either since the last Street Fighter game that sold well was Super Street Fighter 2 on SNES which sold 2 million copies even. In comparison, Mortal Kombat 3 (released around the same time) sold 2.87 million copies, and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, which came out only a few years ago, sold over 3 million copies (2.17 million on PS2 alone).

Street Fighter 3 has seen very limited release and was mostly pushed on the Dreamcast. Street Fighter 3 has a HUGE following, but it's mostly arcade-based. I think Street Fighter 3 is a VAST improvement over the #2 and the Alphas.

Ah, I don't really know much about Arcade stuff. The ones I played were for Dreamcast, drove me nuts =)

Wii Play sold another 249K in April here in North America placing 4th overall for the month. It's currently the second best selling Wii game here, the first is Super Paper Mario, same as Japan.

[Blotus]

Although I disagree on the latest Street Fighter games being improvements, I didn't like them at all. It is likely no one else did either since the last Street Fighter game that sold well was Super Street Fighter 2 on SNES which sold 2 million copies even. In comparison, Mortal Kombat 3 (released around the same time) sold 2.87 million copies, and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, which came out only a few years ago, sold over 3 million copies (2.17 million on PS2 alone).

Street Fighter 3 has seen very limited release and was mostly pushed on the Dreamcast. Street Fighter 3 has a HUGE following, but it's mostly arcade-based. I think Street Fighter 3 is a VAST improvement over the #2 and the Alphas.

Ah, I don't really know much about Arcade stuff. The ones I played were for Dreamcast, drove me nuts =)

It is a vast improvement, I told you before Seeker. Just because it didn't sell because of the reason Oracle listed, combined with the fact that when it came 3D fighters were all the rage (1998: Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur), doesn't mean it wasn't a huge improvement over SF2. It was. SF3 is to SF2 as Soul Calibur is to Toshinden.

[Oracle]

Street Fighter 3 has seen very limited release and was mostly pushed on the Dreamcast. Street Fighter 3 has a HUGE following, but it's mostly arcade-based. I think Street Fighter 3 is a VAST improvement over the #2 and the Alphas.

Ah, I don't really know much about Arcade stuff. The ones I played were for Dreamcast, drove me nuts =)

It is a vast improvement, I told you before Seeker. Just because it didn't sell because of the reason Oracle listed, combined with the fact that when it came 3D fighters were all the rage (1998: Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur), doesn't mean it wasn't a huge improvement over SF2. It was. SF3 is to SF2 as Soul Calibur is to Toshinden.

Gooooo NECRO!

[Zeus]

Ironically it didn't even do that great, which suggests innovation isn't really valued.

Zeus, ya listening?

I never disagreed that the masses don't want innovation. Why do you think shitty licenced games and sequels (good or bad) sell so well? The games industry lives and dies on brand name, visuals, and licences 'cause that's what the majority of the population (what I refer to the "masses") wants.

And I've always maintained the difference between gamers like us and the masses. Sales don't equal quality IMO 'cause the masses don't necessarily look for quality.

It's really no different from other forms of entertainment.

[Don]

Sales don't equate to quality unless a game you like is selling well, then it does.

But really, why should the designer of Megaman make a game where X is the bad guy and lose sales from the little kids that are playing Megaman Battle Networks where Megaman is their hero? That's the exact reason the designers cited when designing the Z series, and it sucks but they got to sell their game somehow. The whole ZX series is like negative innovation to the Megaman series but I'll bet you it does at least as well in terms of sales as the Z series. Why innovate when you can shamelessly leverage your legacy stuff?

[Don]

A little bit more on innovation from the Megaman universe...

There has always been a lot of Megaman spinoff mangas because it is usually brainless way to make some extra money off a popular franchise. The X series spinoff are all pretty much garbage since I've read them all, except the X4 one. Based off the greatest Megaman game ever that still starred Megaman, it gives the author a lot of room to work with. The author did a fantastic job, elaborating on a lot of the things that's never explained in the game itself.

The Repliforce was actually overwhelmingly powerful, which explains why Sigma had to manipulate the Hunters to fight against Repliforce. Frost Walrus is said to be able to take on Sigma 1on1. He was executed by the General for attacking civilians, showing that as the game suggests, Repliforce is an organization that values honor above all.

The author filled the backgrounds on many events, like how Colonel and Zero met, why Zero and Iris are lovers, who Magma Dragoon is, etc, etc. But it is also the only Megaman manga I know of that was discontinued before it was done. Why? I don't know, but I suspect the scene where X comes in Ultimate Armor and ripped Slash Beast's head off and says this is the fate that awaits traitors could have something to do with it. Never mind that this is the correct interpretation of the ultimate outcome of Megaman X universe, as these are pretty much the same words of Copy X except that was supposed to be the real thing if the developers didn't bail out on the last moment.

So while if you can draw something that has stuff blowing up, you can probably write a Megaman X# manga, the only one that tried to write a story, the X4 manga, was discontinued before it was ever finished. Maybe the author was punished for having too much insight to the Megaman universe, as a lot of what he wrote about eventually became true...

[bovine]

An article on Mega Man games that weren't so good. I'm not the largest mega man fan, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, Don.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3159529

[Don]

I think this article illustrates why innovation doesn't get anywhere. It is a pretty typical stuff on how everything was alright with the world back in the golden age of Megaman 2 and then nothing ever went right after. When you have your hardcore fans stuck lamenting the greatness of something 10 or 20 years ago it's not a surprise that all you're getting is the greatness of something 10 or 20 years ago.

I consider only 3 games before the Z era worth playing: MM1, MMX1, and MMX4. It goes against the Megaman religion to say that MM2 and MM3 sucks but I've found no value out of those games beyond 'good old gameplay' which is present in every other Megaman game that ever existed.

I think developers are in a tough spot. I think if you take the crowd that wants shiny new things, and the crowd that wants things like the 'good old days' like they were 10 years ago, those 2 groups of people probably encompass the largest population of gamers out of any 2 obvious traits you can identify. So this means the optimal game is a shiny new game that plays like something from 10 years ago, and the sales usually support this.

I don't have too much to say on the Megaman series before the Z series because frankly there was never anything of substance beyond the gameplay, and every game basically plays like every other one so once you played one, you've seen them all anyway. I'm pretty sure the Battle Networks which doesn't have a shred of creativity is also the best selling Megaman games ever due to being Pokemon clones.

[Zeus]

MM2 was THE game that made the Mega Man series IMO. The original was a neat, great idea, but the combination of the graphics, music, increased scope, and much more refined gameplay of the second one made it, at the time, one of the top platformers of its kind and is still one of the top platformers on the NES. It was substantially better than the first and wasn't really bested until the X series and MM7, which incidentally was on the SNES. It was also the one that made a lot of people take notice of the series.

BTW, that link by Bovine above is a part of a huge feature on MM by 1up for the 20th anniversary of the first game's release

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3159322

[bovine]

The original Mega Man was also fucking ridiculously hard.... Like, harder than flash man's stage before you've memorized it.

[Don]

I don't remember anything in MM2 being hard related to Flash Man. Are you talking about Quick Man's stage with the instant kill lasers?

Difficulty-wise, MM1 was hard even after you take account of the select instant kill trick. Elec Man and Ice Man can kill you in 3 hits, as well as some regular enemies. You got spikes that are instant kill even through invurnability. I don't remember anything in MM2 that wasn't in MM1. If anything MM1 at least had an ending, MM2 didn't even have that.

Clinging onto the 'good old days' is exactly why nothing innovative ever happens. Frankly even beyond just being the first game, MM1 was a lot more innovative than the later games. For example, it's the only game besides MMX1 where the boss battles are integrated into the Wily stages instead of just having this one stage with 8 teleporters before the last boss.

[bovine]

yes, quickman, my mistake.

[Julius Seeker]

The original Mega Man was also fucking ridiculously hard.... Like, harder than flash man's stage before you've memorized it.

I kind of forget my Megamans, but the first one... Is that the one where there are levels where you literally have to memorize where platforms materialize that appear in random locations throughout a screen.... Like 8 platforms..... And if you miss you fall to your death? Because yes, I agree, that stuff was ridiculously hard.

To explain the section better, on the screen there are several platforms that appear and dissappear, and they do so in such a way that the one you are standing on will dissappear before the next one appears, so you have to jump before the next one appears.... That might not seem difficult, but when you consider that the platforms are scattered in what appears to be complete randomness, and the order in which they appear makes no sense (one will be in the upper right, then the lower left, then up a bit higher on the left, then back down to the middle, etc...) THEN you might kind of understand this. It has been a long time since I played these games though... I still have nightmares about this from time to time.

[bovine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMV8fhnqrT8

[Don]

The problem with the disappearing platofrm isn't reacting to them. It's when you stand on one, and the next one appears directly over your head. If you didn't have that memorized and jumped prematurely, you're now dead. Other than the 'appear over your head' platform you can do all the rest of the stuff by reflexes.

That said there's usually some way out of the platform jumping madness. In MM1 you got the magnet beam which is usually a safer alternative to jumping on invisible platforms.

[Zeus]

I don't remember anything in MM2 being hard related to Flash Man. Are you talking about Quick Man's stage with the instant kill lasers?

Difficulty-wise, MM1 was hard even after you take account of the select instant kill trick. Elec Man and Ice Man can kill you in 3 hits, as well as some regular enemies. You got spikes that are instant kill even through invurnability. I don't remember anything in MM2 that wasn't in MM1. If anything MM1 at least had an ending, MM2 didn't even have that.

Clinging onto the 'good old days' is exactly why nothing innovative ever happens. Frankly even beyond just being the first game, MM1 was a lot more innovative than the later games. For example, it's the only game besides MMX1 where the boss battles are integrated into the Wily stages instead of just having this one stage with 8 teleporters before the last boss.

I played the first one when it came out back in '87. It was very different and very neat at the time, but the second one was FAR refined over it in terms of gameplay. The first one was very rough around the edges and much slower pace than the second one, not to mention not nearly the music or graphical quality. The second one was a real jump up even though it didn't really introduce anything new. It really is a far superior game in essentially every way except originality.

I actually kinda agree on the lack of teleportation room. It was kinda neat to have the re-emergence of the bosses throughout the levels rather than in one teleportation room at the end. But it was more difficult with the teleportation rooms, especially since your energy carries forward from one battle to the next. They took a lot of advantage of that in later games when you didn't have the "right" weapon do nearly as much damage.