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

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

Hiku said:

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?

You do something simple you ask.

The confusing part is not what I've said it's people using XV because when you say older version it's means nothing when that version has the same content you're arguing in comparison to the version reviewed at launch while we're looking at the version when RE released when you're comparing them. Reading your other reply is what actually helped me understand what you're trying to argue.



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:
Hiku said:

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.

That's an understandable point. And I'll add one example to it. A reviewer could feel disappointed that in the several years since the game originally came out, and with all the work that went into the DLC and the updates, they mostly used those resources to address the less crucial problems of the original.

I also remember 'the passage of time' and the things that come with it (new games, advancement in technology, etc) being commonly cited as a reason why a gaming magazine I used to read commonly gave late but somewhat improved port a lower score than the original.

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2019

Hiku said:

That's an understandable point. And I'll add one example to it. A reviewer could feel disappointed that in the several years since the game originally came out, and with all the work that went into the DLC and the updates, they mostly used those resources to address the less crucial problems of the original.

I also remember 'the passage of time' and the things that come with it (new games, advancement in technology, etc) being commonly cited as a reason why a gaming magazine I used to read commonly gave late but somewhat improved port a lower score than the original.

I've been saying since RE released that had the game been delayed and released years later in the form RE launched in it and had the cancelled DLC in the season pass would have been received a lot better. I think the development was just chewing up money and they wanted it out the door but they did so at a time where in the long run it gave a negative perception as looking at the open world games that have come out since 2016 (RDR2, BOTW, HZD, GOW, N:A) they all knock it out the park, I don't know if IGN still do their second opinion reviews like they did before.



Wyrdness said:
Hiku said:

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?

You do something simple you ask.

The confusing part is not what I've said it's people using XV because when you say older version it's means nothing when that version has the same content you're arguing in comparison to the version reviewed at launch while we're looking at the version when RE released when you're comparing them. Reading your other reply is what actually helped me understand what you're trying to argue.

If I'm already feeling bad about adding posts to an off topic discussion, and I think it seems likely you mean one thing, I'd rather address it right away.
If I'm wrong, no problem. Just tell me what you actually meant.
But if you don't, and instead focus on bashing the poster for it, it'll just take longer.

Regarding your second paragraph here, I'm still not sure why you think this 'means nothing' when reviewing the game, considering reviews of games with nothing but identical content to the previous version receiving the same scores.
Though maybe that's best to start a new thread over, if you guys still want to discuss this in depth.

Though I understand and agree with the point you made about the time passing since the release of the original working as a negative against it.

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 September 2019

Hiku said:
Wyrdness said:

You do something simple you ask.

The confusing part is not what I've said it's people using XV because when you say older version it's means nothing when that version has the same content you're arguing in comparison to the version reviewed at launch while we're looking at the version when RE released when you're comparing them. Reading your other reply is what actually helped me understand what you're trying to argue.

If I think it seems likely you mean one thing, I'd rather address it right away than ask.
If I'm right then we saved time. If I'm wrong, no problem. Just tell me what you actually meant.
But if you don't, and instead focus on bashing the poster for it, then there's a problem.

Regarding your second paragraph here, it still does not tell me why you think this 'means nothing' when reviewing the game, considering identical ports with nothing but identical content to the previous version receiving the same high scores.

Though I understand and agree with the point you made about the time passing since the release of the original working as a negative against it.

In regards to identical ports it can depend on a number of things like the outlets reviewing for example the X1 version would have more Xbox specific outlets reviewing while no PS and PC specific outlets will be reviewing as well as the number of reviews which likely could be less than the other versions if the are no repeat reviews from multi-platform outlets, if an identical version was ported to PS5 I could see it scoring lower (although not by muc) due to outlets doing repeat reviews and the identical content being more noted by them. N:A is also one of the best games of the gen as well it's part of the line up that has helped shaped the new modern standard which thus far hasn't shifted much so high scores for another version during this time wouldn't be too surprising, another factor is N:A is also a unique game the aren't really any games out there like it so even with shifting standards it still would retain a certain appeal when compared to other games.



Around the Network

Wait a minute why this thread from DQIXS review turned into Playstation fans meltdown thread?

Wanted to know why it scored higher than PS4 version?

1. There are only 25 reviews for the switch vs 84 reviews for PS4
2. Graphically not much changed from PS4 to Switch aside from resolution output 900p to 720p but getting a new graphical feature of 2d mode
3. Performance is pretty much identical that locked at 30 fps
4. New Story content for every character
5. New improved orchestrated soundtrack for the west
6. New Japanese VA
7. QOL improvement such as speed modifier
8. Bunch of extra contents like lying NPC and etc



Wyrdness said:

In regards to identical ports it can depend on a number of things like the outlets reviewing for example the X1 version would have more Xbox specific outlets reviewing while no PS and PC specific outlets will be reviewing as well as the number of reviews which likely could be less than the other versions if the are no repeat reviews from multi-platform outlets, if an identical version was ported to PS5 I could see it scoring lower (although not by muc) due to outlets doing repeat reviews and the identical content being more noted by them. N:A is also one of the best games of the gen as well it's part of the line up that has helped shaped the new modern standard which thus far hasn't shifted much so high scores for another version during this time wouldn't be too surprising, another factor is N:A is also a unique game the aren't really any games out there like it so even with shifting standards it still would retain a certain appeal when compared to other games.

Yeah, I said the same thing earlier about considering not only if the outlets are different, but if it's the same reviewer in cases where the same outlet reviews the game again.

And that's what I think is a common reason for inconsistent scores. And people seemingly not considering this when bringing up the subject.



LGBTDBZBBQ said:
Wait a minute why this thread from DQIXS review turned into Playstation fans meltdown thread?

Wanted to know why it scored higher than PS4 version?

1. There are only 25 reviews for the switch vs 84 reviews for PS4
2. Graphically not much changed from PS4 to Switch aside from resolution output 900p to 720p but getting a new graphical feature of 2d mode
3. Performance is pretty much identical that locked at 30 fps
4. New Story content for every character
5. New improved orchestrated soundtrack for the west
6. New Japanese VA
7. QOL improvement such as speed modifier
8. Bunch of extra contents like lying NPC and etc

And we have a winner...



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

Random_Matt said:
Shiken said:

Someone's bitter about the exclusive content I see.

Nah, frame rate far outweighs that. 30/sub 30 is barley playable, should always be an automatic penalty in reviews, the only reason it is not is to keep the console gamers happy. 720p and crappy visuals, more point docking should occur, PC versions should always come on top, period.

Framerate does matter, but you are taking this to a ridiculous extreme. 30 FPS is fine for most games. Games are reviewed according to the hardware they are on. Removing points from a PS4 game because it can't do 4k and 60 FPS at the same time, is as asinine as removing points from an OG Gameboy game because it's monochrome. Can you imagine a reviewer in 1996 being like, "Poke'mon is great fun but it doesn't display in full color, so I'm docking points here, even though no GB model at this time can display in full color!"



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

This is obviously the Nintendo bias, any game on the switch gets extra points from the critics, I have never seen a old game being rereleased at full price getting a higher score especially when it doesn’t perform as well, graphics aren’t that important but the frame rate makes a big difference, people also complain about loading times, the game has extr content but dq games tend to overstay it’s welcome so I don’t see it as an improvement, the only thing I really like is the the soundtrack but that’s because the original music was unacceptable, the n64 sound quality was a big fu from square Enix.