Quantcast
Dragon Quest XI S reviews: Meta 90, OC 91

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Dragon Quest XI S reviews: Meta 90, OC 91

Wyrdness said:
Pinkie_pie said:

What makes you think i dont own a switch? I played it on the ps4 and finished post content. It took me over 100 hours so the game already had more than enough content. If adding a few stuff after 2 years deserves the better score so should ff15 royal and many others.

FFXV didn't have QOL and gameplay adjustments over the other versions DQXI does which makes the game better to play through you're ignoring every other factor here it's not just more content it's QOL changes and gameplay fixes on top of more content and a classic 2d mode. I have the game on PC and the changes are welcomed ones.

People concerned about inconsistent scores should look into if it's the same reviewer for both versions. Different reviewers can have different opinions even if they work for the same publication.

But there were quality of life and gameplay adjustments in FFXV Royal Edition that were not in the game that was reviewed at launch.

A few examples:
- Letting you take control of your other party members during combat.
- Fully controlling the car.
- Control a boat. Fishing from the boat
- Options to change font sizes to enhance readability.
- Aranea as a playable character.
- New difficulty modes.
- New story sequences, quests, dungeons, skills, etc

This goes without saying, but content added to the game through DLC/updates months/years after release is not reflected in the scores it got months/years ago.

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2019

Around the Network
Hiku said:

People concerned about inconsistent scores should look into if it's the same reviewer for both versions. Different reviewers can have different opinions even if they work for the same publication.

But there were quality of life and gameplay adjustments in FFXV Royal Edition that were not in the game that was reviewed at launch.

A few examples:
- Letting you take control of your other party members during combat.
- Fully controlling the car.
- Control a boat. Fishing from the boat
- Options to change font sizes to enhance readability.
- Aranea as a playable characters.
- New difficulty modes.
- New story sequences, quests, dungeons, skills, etc

Read what I posted again I said over other versions available not that the were non as those are in the standard versions as free updates/DLC unlike here where the other versions have no such option as of right now reviewers take this into account as well as what FFXV RE has was also on other versions.



Hiku said:
Wyrdness said:

FFXV didn't have QOL and gameplay adjustments over the other versions DQXI does which makes the game better to play through you're ignoring every other factor here it's not just more content it's QOL changes and gameplay fixes on top of more content and a classic 2d mode. I have the game on PC and the changes are welcomed ones.

People concerned about inconsistent scores should look into if it's the same reviewer for both versions. Different reviewers can have different opinions even if they work for the same publication.

But there were quality of life and gameplay adjustments in FFXV Royal Edition that were not in the game that was reviewed at launch.

A few examples:
- Letting you take control of your other party members during combat.
- Fully controlling the car.
- Control a boat. Fishing from the boat
- Options to change font sizes to enhance readability.
- Aranea as a playable character.
- New difficulty modes.
- New story sequences, quests, dungeons, skills, etc

This goes without saying, but content added to the game through DLC/updates months/years after release is not reflected in the scores it got months/years ago.

It should go without saying, that if the main example you're trying to use is a game that to this day is still such a large, flawed and unfinished mess, to the point the director of the game couldn't handle it anymore and decided to leave the company, then your argument is on shaky ground to begin with.

Fact is, you're not really comparing apples to apples here; as you've said, all of the content from the Royal Edition has been added to the game after release over time, and all of it was/is available separately for original owners of the game.
As of now everything in the definitive edition of DQXI is exclusive to that version, and it's a tightly knit package of substantial improvements, adding more polish on an already well-rounded and high-quality game.



StreaK said:
I gotta add my 2 cents here.

Face it guys, it's simple. They scored it higher simply because it's on the switch....and, obviously, it has less reviews (over half less) than it did on PS4. It has a lot of room for the rating to go down still.

This 100%. 4 early points in Meta is nothing for a "definitive" edition that runs at a lower resolution. I have plated this game on the Pro a year ago. It still won't sell as well in the West as a lot of people picked this up for cheap on PS4 and PC over the year. I highly doubt there is a lot of people who waited the year to play this other than the die hard fans and want to play it on a handheld system. 



Wyrdness said:
Hiku said:

People concerned about inconsistent scores should look into if it's the same reviewer for both versions. Different reviewers can have different opinions even if they work for the same publication.

But there were quality of life and gameplay adjustments in FFXV Royal Edition that were not in the game that was reviewed at launch.

A few examples:
- Letting you take control of your other party members during combat.
- Fully controlling the car.
- Control a boat. Fishing from the boat
- Options to change font sizes to enhance readability.
- Aranea as a playable characters.
- New difficulty modes.
- New story sequences, quests, dungeons, skills, etc

Read what I posted again I said over other versions available not that the were non as those are in the standard versions as free updates/DLC unlike here where the other versions have no such option as of right now reviewers take this into account as well as what FFXV RE has was also on other versions.

I know that's what you said. But you did not state that you believe reviewers "do not take into account" content that was added in a previous version.

Why would they not take these things into account? Because they, or the readers, may have experienced these before?
If that's the case they would would not take into account any content that was experienced in any prior version.

Nier: Automata port for Xbox One:

Story: Same story again. So can't take that into account. 0/100
Graphics: Same. 0/100
Gameplay: Same. 0/100
Music: Same. 0/100

If anything, some outlets are debating if they should go back and renew certain reviews again after a while, because of these kind of updates. As these days some games significantly evolve after release, or are not complete on release.
The reasoning I've heard against doing this is because it wouldn't be worth the effort, as most people who would read the review or buy the game already have.



Around the Network
Blood_Tears said:
StreaK said:
I gotta add my 2 cents here.

Face it guys, it's simple. They scored it higher simply because it's on the switch....and, obviously, it has less reviews (over half less) than it did on PS4. It has a lot of room for the rating to go down still.

This 100%. 4 early points in Meta is nothing for a "definitive" edition that runs at a lower resolution. I have plated this game on the Pro a year ago. It still won't sell as well in the West as a lot of people picked this up for cheap on PS4 and PC over the year. I highly doubt there is a lot of people who waited the year to play this other than the die hard fans and want to play it on a handheld system. 

Actually sales in the west for the game were rather lackluster compared to expectations, and most sales were from Japan.  Also the game had a poor release window with a lot of competition on PS4.

Having said that the release window on Switch is a lot better and many people (myself included) passed on the PS4 version to wait for the Switch release.  Either way, it is a win for SE because the game will undoubtedly sell very well on Switch.  I would not be suprised in the least if it sold more in the West for this version however, and that is good for everyone as it shows increased interest in an IP that SE seemed to think had a smaller audience outside of Japan.

No matter what version you prefer, if you are a fan of DQ and do not live in japan, you should be cheering this version of the game on rather than downplaying it.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Hiku said:

I know that's what you said. But you did not state that you believe reviewers "do not take into account" content that was added in a previous version.

Why would they not take these things into account? Because they, or the readers, may have experienced these before?
If that's the case they would would not take into account any content that was experienced in any prior version.

Nier: Automata port for Xbox One:

Story: Same story again. So can't take that into account. 0/100
Graphics: Same. 0/100
Gameplay: Same. 0/100
Music: Same. 0/100

If anything, some outlets are debating if they should go back and renew certain reviews again after a while, because of these kind of updates. As these days some games significantly evolve after release, or are not complete on release.
The reasoning I've heard against doing this is because it wouldn't be worth the effort, as most people who would read the review or buy the game already have.

What are you even on about? Are you even reading what you're replying to? The first line about not taking into account content that was added is the complete opposite of what I posted as if you read my post you'd see I flat out said they took new content and changes into account that's the whole point this reply tells me you didn't know what I said at all you've just tried to read between lines that aren't there with your reply.

Side by side the new elements in DQXI S aren't in the other version that factors into the score, XV doesn't have that situation it was more of a GOTY type deal.

Last edited by Wyrdness - on 27 September 2019

Shaunodon said:

It should go without saying, that if the main example you're trying to use is a game that to this day is still such a large, flawed and unfinished mess, to the point the director of the game couldn't handle it anymore and decided to leave the company, then your argument is on shaky ground to begin with.

It was more of a 'flawed and unfinished mess' on release day.
Royal Version is a better game than FFXV was at launch, even if it's still flawed and unfinished, etc. 

Shaunodon said:
Fact is, you're not really comparing apples to apples here; as you've said, all of the content from the Royal Edition has been added to the game after release over time, and all of it was/is available separately for original owners of the game.
As of now everything in the definitive edition of DQXI is exclusive to that version, and it's a tightly knit package of substantial improvements, adding more polish on an already well-rounded and high-quality game.

Not all of it. But for the sake of this conversation, let's say Royal Edition had nothing but the content previously added for free or through paid DLC.

That content has not previously been reviewed. It's one thing to criticize a game mechanic in FIFA 19 that has not improved since the review of FIFA 18. But another to ignore content that was never reviewed to begin with.
Reviews are not written for any one specific demographic. Whether it is people who played the previous version, or those who will try it out now for the first time.
If they would only be written for the former, and content from prior iterations is disregarded because 'they already played it', then straight ports with no improvements whatsoever would yield very strange reviews, where every piece of content form the game is disregarded in the review. 0/100. Same game.

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2019

Wyrdness said:
Hiku said:

I know that's what you said. But you did not state that you believe reviewers "do not take into account" content that was added in a previous version.

Why would they not take these things into account? Because they, or the readers, may have experienced these before?
If that's the case they would would not take into account any content that was experienced in any prior version.

Nier: Automata port for Xbox One:

Story: Same story again. So can't take that into account. 0/100
Graphics: Same. 0/100
Gameplay: Same. 0/100
Music: Same. 0/100

If anything, some outlets are debating if they should go back and renew certain reviews again after a while, because of these kind of updates. As these days some games significantly evolve after release, or are not complete on release.
The reasoning I've heard against doing this is because it wouldn't be worth the effort, as most people who would read the review or buy the game already have.

What are you even on about? Are you even reading what you're replying to? The first line about not taking into account content that was added is the complete opposite of what I posted as if you read my post you'd see I flat out said they took new content and changes into account that's the whole point this reply tells me you didn't know what I said at all you've just tried to read between lines that aren't there with your reply.

So you did not suggest that FFXV RE reviewers did not take into account the content that was added to the older version?

You mention 'read between the lines', but how else am I supposed to know why you're bringing up content added to the previous version through updates/DLC, when you didn't explain how you think this affects the review process?

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2019

Hiku said:
Shaunodon said:

It should go without saying, that if the main example you're trying to use is a game that to this day is still such a large, flawed and unfinished mess, to the point the director of the game couldn't handle it anymore and decided to leave the company, then your argument is on shaky ground to begin with.

It was more of a 'flawed and unfinished mess' on release day.
Royal Version is a better game than FFXV was at launch, even if it's still flawed and unfinished, etc. 

Shaunodon said:
Fact is, you're not really comparing apples to apples here; as you've said, all of the content from the Royal Edition has been added to the game after release over time, and all of it was/is available separately for original owners of the game.
As of now everything in the definitive edition of DQXI is exclusive to that version, and it's a tightly knit package of substantial improvements, adding more polish on an already well-rounded and high-quality game.

Not all of it. But for the sake of this conversation, let's say Royal Edition had nothing but the content previously added for free or through paid DLC.

That content has not previously been reviewed. It's one thing to criticize a game mechanic in FIFA 19 that has not improved since the review of FIFA 18. But another to ignore content that was never reviewed to begin with.
Reviews are not written for any one specific demographic. Whether it is people who played the previous version, or those who will try it out now for the first time.
If they would only be written for the former, and content from prior iterations is disregarded because 'they already played it', then straight ports with no improvements whatsoever would yield very strange reviews, where every piece of content form the game is disregarded in the review. 0/100. Same game.

Well this articulates what you're trying to say better than your other post what you're ignoring here is although RE is a better version of the game first reviewed the are factors that can stop it scoring higher for example in the years FFXV was released we had BOTW, Horizon, Nier:A etc... games that changed the shape of standards for open world games so by the time RE was releasing the standards had moved on some what as reviews also look at how something stacks up to what's out. DQXI released after such games adhering to the standards set by them and since it's initial release these standards haven't moved on as significantly as things did post FFXV as a result RE felt like it was playing catch up while DQXI S just feels like a better version.

Last edited by Wyrdness - on 27 September 2019