If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Dragon Quest VIII

TadrithTadrith MemberFull Members
edited January 2003 in Latest Updates
We're starting off with a tiny bit of information, but the game will undoubtedly get much hotter once we've got more real information in.

In the meantime, what did everyone think of DQ7? Does anyone have any hopes for 8?


Check out the latest coverage for Dragon Quest 8 here...

Comments

  • KyomadoKyomado Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    This could be good and bad really. On one point it's not 2D, this meaning Dragon Quest will become a name in US should it come out. Good old america, we won't play nothing that don't have million dollar FMVs. However, I dunno about the gameplay. It's being developed by the same team that does the dark cloud series, yes? I can see they are using the same cel shading as they use in DC2. I just hope it still has the good old length and gameplay of DQ, and they don't try to put in any strange DC elements. At least they got some of the guys from past DQs on the job. I could just be wasting my time with my doubts though, they may make the best DQ yet!
  • RucainRucain Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    DQ7 was undoubtedly a great game - and Square's *possible* influence with DQ8 might make this game even better. However, I also can't say I approve with the cel-shading. This recent trend kind of disturbs me. I know, I know... cel-shading does not make or break a game (example - Wind Waker). Still, it will be interesting to see how Enix (or Square-Enix for that matter) decides to take the DQ franchise into the future.

    ~Rucain
  • reionprementereionpremente Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I love the manga look to it. But, is it just me or does the hero in the picture look a little too much like a male version of Ukyo from Ranma 1/2? laugh.gif

    But seriously, I really like this 3D engine idea... it may REALLY get the series revitalized over here in the states!
  • RadioDazeRadioDaze New Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Now I know there will probably be a great many flames over this, but imo, the DQ series has been slowly dying over the past years. Basically, its a tired old series which makes its sales by sticking to the nostalgic format of super deformed gaming. Where series like Final Fantasy have at least tried to grow and stretch to new ideas, DQ has always remained the same, for better or for worse. Lets just hope this will be the DQ that makes the jump and actually uses the PS2 to its advantage, a feat which DQ7 did not. (and thats an understatement).
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Lets just hope this will be the DQ that makes the jump and actually uses the PS2 to its advantage, a feat which DQ7 did not. (and thats an understatement).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    There's a reason DQ7 didn't take advantage of the PS2 hardware: it was a PSX game.
  • sniffysniffy Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I don't know if this game will fare as well in 3D. 3D tends to reduce a game world to a small collection of screens and narrow locations, and doesn't allow the player to get a feel for entire areas. With 3D usually comes a point & click, non explorable worldmap. The DQ world has always been really large and involving, with 3D, you just can't get that feeling without making everything seem like an empty virtual world. I have never been a fan of MMORPG perspective in an RPG.

    Also DQ games have always been very long, and had a lot of gameplay. Again 3D tends to make the games shorter, and with less gameplay(to me anyway)

    But opinion aside, the game looks fantastic, the artists really captured Akira Toriyama's style, and the towns look to retain that cozy look that made Dragon Quest games so cool to play. Nothin like villagers and simple life. Lets hope there are a lot of items and quests to go along with it, assuming it even makes it to the United States.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Uh, Dragon Quest VII was in 3d.

    Also, if Dragon Quest were really getting tired and worn-out, I doubt Dragon Quest VII would've been the highest-selling PlayStation RPG in Japan.
  • SirLuciusSirLucius Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I hope they get a REAL user interface. I don't need a menu to figure out of I want to talk to someone or go down stairs :P


    That aside, I LOVE good cel shading. When it looks as good as a detailed sprite I see no reason not to use it in fact. If that ss is real, then the cel shading looks very stylized personaly and I consider that a very good thing. Bad cel shading is when you have someone doing a Jet Grind Radio clone, but I don't see that here.
  • mogforevermogforever Banned Banned Users
    edited December 2002
    im very excited to see these pics.ive always been a big fan of cel shading.looks like the series is finally taking the big transitional change for the better.certainly looks better than dqvii but we'll have to wait to see what else changes in the gameplay to determine if its better overall than dqvii.
  • MonCapitan2002MonCapitan2002 Avatar Captured Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I think the game looks good, it certainly looks better than its predecessor. ?I look forward to learning more about this game.
    LordBilbanes.png
    Please help my city grow. Estharopolis - Population | Industry | Transportation | Security | Environment | Business
  • RadioDazeRadioDaze New Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Quote ?
    Lets just hope this will be the DQ that makes the jump and actually uses the PS2 to its advantage, a feat which DQ7 did not. (and thats an understatement).


    There's a reason DQ7 didn't take advantage of the PS2 hardware: it was a PSX game.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Well obviously if you actually tried to read what i was talking about, you would have gotten around to realizing that i was talking about DQ7 not taking advantage of the psx...and i was stating that i hope DQ8 takes advantage of the system its being released on (in this case, the ps2). Besides, isnt it just obvious looking at DQ7 that its a psx game? Why bother making wothless posts which state the obvious LordBrian?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Also, if Dragon Quest were really getting tired and worn-out, I doubt Dragon Quest VII would've been the highest-selling PlayStation RPG in Japan.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    And in reference to Rico's retarded little comment, that makes my point exactly. ?The japanese will eat up anything with the name Dragon Quest, no matter if it was a piece of #### with a DQ logo slapped on it, the fact that Enix keeps rehashing the same old system and style for their Dq games proves just that. ?How much do you think Enix spend making a game like DQ7 compared to what Square put out for something like FF7-9? (seeing that we're talking about psx games here) ?Its obvious things dont change because japanese gamers doing care, so why would enix bother changing something that would be more work and money on their part? Are ?you not forgetting that Enix is in the game to make money, not artistic pieces of media. Thats why one of the reasons why DQ never made it big over in NA, gamers here arent going to take the same old rehashed thing years over.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RadioDaze @ Dec. 25 2002,21:29)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Quote ?
    Lets just hope this will be the DQ that makes the jump and actually uses the PS2 to its advantage, a feat which DQ7 did not. (and thats an understatement).


    There's a reason DQ7 didn't take advantage of the PS2 hardware: it was a PSX game.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Well obviously if you actually tried to read what i was talking about, you would have gotten around to realizing that i was talking about DQ7 not taking advantage of the psx...and i was stating that i hope DQ8 takes advantage of the system its being released on (in this case, the ps2). Besides, isnt it just obvious looking at DQ7 that its a psx game? Why bother making wothless posts which state the obvious LordBrian?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I'm sorry for not reading your mind and seeing that you meant the PSX, when the only system you mentioned in your post was the PS2.

    By the way, speaking of people who can't read properly, don't use profanity. This is your first and only warning.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it sucks.

    There is a limit to how many times someone will buy something on brand name alone if they continue to be disappointed. It would seem to me, and I'd think it's a quite logical thought, that if the Dragon Quest series had really been nothing but tired and lifeless rehashes, it wouldn't have lasted for seven games, and the last one certainly wouldn't have outsold every prior incarnation and set new PSX sales records. But then again, you've labeled me retarded. For all I know, you think each and every one of those four million Japanese is retarded. And, of course, since Dragon Quest is, by objective standards, a piece of excrement, that would be the only logical conclusion.
  • RadioDazeRadioDaze New Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    You dont think the DQ series of lifeless rehashes? Have you even played any of them?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"It would seem to me, and I'd think it's a quite logical thought, that if the Dragon Quest series had really been nothing but tired and lifeless rehashes, it wouldn't have lasted for seven games[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Even heard of Rockman? How many games and side series has it spawned? And yet it's still hugely popular, and it's relied in the exact same formula since the 80's. ?Yes, Japanese gamers will buy anything, and there are countless examples to prove it.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I've played all seven main games, have beaten six of them, and worked on one. And no, I don't think they're lifeless rehashes. If they were all lifeless rehashes, why would II have multiple party members, III have a class system, and IV-VII all have relatively innovative and new methods of storytelling (Chapter system, generations, dream world, reconstruct world)? While, certainly, most of those individual things had been done before in a RPG, their execution was fresh and had twists. Why would they bother to add new features like a day/night cycle (The first one in a console RPG, as I recall), progressively more complex casinos, mini-games, the ability to use tamed monsters in combat (Well before Pok?mon), the wagon... ? Do I really need to go on? Besides, Dragon Quest I, II and III were a trilogy, as were IV, V, and VI, and it's usually not a good idea from a design perspective to radically alter the way the world works for no good reason in the middle of a story.

    There are 9 games in the main Rockman series -- Six for the Famicom, one on Super Famicom, and one on PlayStation. Have you even played any of them? Because although the last two Famicom games became stale, there were huge differences between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. Similarly, although I've not played 8, 7 and 9 were different from each other and had new additions. The spin-offs were also fairly innovative in their own rights, especially Mega Man Battle Network.

    I think the issue stems from the fact that using a base formula does not intrinsically make something a mindless rehash -- Something which you don't seem to be able to grasp.
  • CastomelCastomel Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Meh, sorry to harsh on you Rico, but DWVII has the pacing of a staggering mule dying of thirst. I can't stand it, and despite the somewhat weak arguments offered here, I tend to agree that Dragon Warrior sells strictly because it's Dragon Warrior (I mean, come on.. there's laws regulating the sale of the bloody things).
    Whoa! Slow down there, tubby! You're not on the moon yet!
  • JoshieJoshie Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I used to be a huge DQ follower, but... I dunno. DQ7 made me sad. It felt like some kind of joke. The fans who loved it to death remind me of the people out there who actually believe our president is inspiring. tounge.gif Enix tended to really use hardware to its best when it could, DQ5 being an exception. On NES, games like DQ3 and DQ4 really made the console shine, and who can look at DQ6 and DQ3remix and think Enix took the easy route? Then DQ7 pops out with 3D towns that were better rendered than, oh, the similar Xenogears engine, but had really bad camera controls and restricted rotation (I HATED that). The world map was insulting. What the hell was up with that fake mode7 look? I always looked at DQ games as really putting a console to use, but DQ7 felt like it was just trying to imitate an SNES--in other words, it tapped very little console power. Even the soundtrack disappointed me; it had a very small selection of songs for such a long game, and the sampling was depressing compared to Suikoden, Xenogears, and FFT.

    I'm not all giddy about these new PS2 screenshots. I can't imagine why anyone would be--it's all the exact same screenshot everywhere. We don't know what conversation looks like, maps look like, battles look like, anything. Just that one shot. And frankly, the hero looks dangly and geeky looking, like a stretched out version of DQ7's hero. I hope to see him from some more angles, and I hope we're allowed to take that rediculous thing off his head. It clashes with the rest of his outfit, and I miss the free-flowing hair of DQ3 and DQ6. tounge.gif
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Then DQ7 pops out with 3D towns that were better rendered than, oh, the similar Xenogears engine[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I'd hope the towns were better rendered. Xenogears came out in early 1998, and DQ7 came out in the latter half of 2000.

    That said, I'm not really sure that DQ7 did present better-looking towns. From what I remember, they were pretty boring to look at, and I can't even really remember most of them clearly. Xenogears towns, on the other hand, still stand out clearly in my mind as full of life and interesting designs. But, then, I haven't played either game in a while, so it might just be a false memory.
  • JoshieJoshie Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Yeah, at first I wrote just "better," but I corrected myself and wrote "better rendered" upon noting that Xenogears towns were all-around better presented. My point was that DQ7's actual 3D engine was better, though the designs may not have been quite up to par.

    A lot of people respond to DQ7 criticism with remarks like how it's all about story and gameplay, but even there, DQ7 disappointed me, especially after I finished DQ6 (which, imo, had the best DQ *story* of all, tho it didn't feel as epic as the Roto saga). DQ7's story is shallow and pretty contrived, with weak attempts at emotional impact (the Prince leaving your party, etc). And unlocking new areas was really really fun...for the first 40 hours. Then it because ever so tedious. Don't get me started on the whole satan/god thing going. Weeeaaaaak. And did anybody else think that final dungeon felt EXTREMELY un-DQ?
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Two quick things:

    1. Dragon Warrior VII did tax the PSX hardware. There were times in which we had to reedit areas of the script because there wasn't enough RAM to load the entirety of the dialogue, leading to total and unrecoverable freezes. And wait, restricted camera motion in towns? Gorges is the only one that pops into my mind, and then, only around the bridge area. That's one of the reasons why it taxed the hardware so much: It actually had complete rotation in a lot of places, as opposed to Xenogears' set of fixed camera angles that you could switch between.

    2. You're still unlocking towns after 40 hours?
  • JoshieJoshie Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I'm pretty sure the dungeon in the very beginning had restricted camera rotation. And several other places as well.

    Also, I'm one of the guys who spent 150 hours playing DQ7. I'm the guy who likes to master as many classes as possible, as well as find as many secrets as possible. And I can't remember for the life of me how far in I was at 40 hours. Why are you nitpicking? Makes you sound like a politician.

    And if DQ7 was really taxing the hardware, I question the talent of the designers. A game which such low visual appeal shouldn't be very demanding. I would've much rather seen it use the power to make a great presentation, rather than suck it all up to spit out a modern 16-bit feel. tounge.gif



  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Oh, of course a lot of the dungeons have restricted camera movement. You didn't mention them prior to this except to express your displeasure with the last one, though. If you consider that nitpicking, then fine -- I'm just responding to what you wrote, not what I think you might have meant to say, maybe.

    I asked about the times because unless you're taking a lot of time to do optional stuff (which you clearly are) you should be almost done with the game after that amount of time. It seems rather silly to me to complain about still unlocking towns after forty hours when you've admitted that you're taking the supererogatory route through the game.

    Quite simply, I believe the fact that the game taxed the PSX is more indicative of the weaknesses and age of the system rather than the developers. While it's true that they could've offered 'better' graphics by changing the presentation of the game, someone at Enix clearly wanted an engine that could handle full rotation of several areas. They also could have chosen to emphasize graphics over convenience (For instance, taking a Xenogears-like approach and not preloading hardly anything, leading to long battle and even menu load times). Although this is a matter of personal taste, I'd much rather play a game which (even if it's poorly paced ;P) doesn't waste my time (Like FF9's 30-45 second battle transitions, and that's being generous).
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rico @ Dec. 30 2002,16:14)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Although this is a matter of personal taste, I'd much rather play a game which (even if it's poorly paced ;P) doesn't waste my time (Like FF9's 30-45 second battle transitions, and that's being generous).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I will assume that by battle transitions you mean "going from the world map into battle, to the point where you make your first menu selection."

    If FF9 takes your PSX 30-45 seconds, something is seriously wrong with either A.) your PSX, B.) your FF9 disc(s), or C.) your judgement of time.

    My guess is C.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Transitions. Not just the opening one.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rico @ Dec. 31 2002,08:11)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Transitions. ?Not just the opening one.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Okay, you're going to have to explain to me what you mean, cause I'm a bit confused. What other types of battle transitions are there?
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Eh, I'll dig out FFIX after I sleep for a bit, but generally the end-back-to-map transition takes a good five seconds or so.
  • Red XIVRed XIV Member Full Members
    edited January 2003
    I guess you could call me something of a born-again Dragon Quest fan. I loved the series back on the NES, but by the time DQ7 was about to come out in Japan, I was pretty disdainful of it. Then I played DQ5 & DQ6, and remembered why it was that I used to love the series: despite the overemphasis on level-building and weaker stories than FF games, they're fun. I can't exactly put my finger on why, but the utterly standard battle system is just as fun as that of the FFs, and the stories were quite enjoyable despite the lack of character development. Unfortunately, DQ7 was not so fun. Even by DQ standards (or at least the standards defined by DQ4-6), the characters were flat & uninteresting, and the pacing was awful. Previous DQs weren't exactly fast-paced, but they generally managed not to put the "drag" in Dragon. And the characters in DQ4-6 might not have been particularly deep, but they still managed to be interesting. While I take back my statements from a few years back about the DQ series as a whole, my pre-play assessment of DQ7 seems to have been quite accurate. The poor non-battle graphics (and easily the most uninspired character designs Akira Toriyama has ever cranked out) do indeed seem to have been a symptom of a larger problem, a "we don't need to do our best, they'll buy it regardless" mentality which is quite obviously not conducive to great games.

    Hopefully, DQ8 will be more like 5 & 6 than 7.



  • JoshieJoshie Member Full Members
    edited January 2003
    I vote for more like DQ6. biggrin.gif Yanno, I'd like to see some new way of looking at RPG worlds. It's gotten so boring. 2D is great because of being able to see in all directions and stuff like that, while 3D lets you notice smaller details about the world (even tho it simultaneously seems to make the world feel less detailed). Then there's this cell shading stuff that's supposed to make 3D feel 2D, and it's all just so blah. Where are the innovators?
Sign In or Register to comment.