A203D said:
Yeah i was reffering to the art style, which is why the western auidence who are unaware of DQ think the games are aimed at children, of course they are not. but i'm sure a lot of kids are interested in it as well. i have no problem with the art style since theres a lot more depth to the game once you've played it. i just dont like the battle system - too repititive. not exciting enough for me. although its okay, i dont condemn it, i think for the series to be popular in the west the battle system has to become more accessible. since a lot of western gamers wont level grind, which is what i had to do. simplicity does have its merits and perhaps if the difficulty was changable (easy, medium, hard) then the the gameplay could be made more accessible for the west! |
In all honesty, if SE had marketed the games correctly, Akira Toriyama's art style would be a plus and not a minus. I mean, all the Dragon Ball Tenkaichi Budokai games sold over a million in America. And of course, I don't think I need to tell you how successful Chrono Trigger was.
All SE needed to do was make a commercial simply saying 'From the creators of Dragon Ball and Chrono Trigger'. Bam, game sells an extra 500,000 on name recognition alone. But no, SE is stupid and thinks only Final Fantasy can sell any of their games.
Also, like Kemsus said, many people in the west who actually played DQ have whined that its too hard. Specifically I can recall complaints about Dormageus in DQVIII or Bjorn in Dragon Quest V. Nearly every DQ game has that one 'mid game boss' that stomps you the first time and you realize the whole game can't just be played with buffs and heals. And many MANY people quit the game at those points.
Yakuzaice said:
You mean like AC Brotherhood that scored a whopping 2 points (3 for the PS3 version) better than Kirby and Donkey Kong on Metacritic? Yup, some awful bias there. Actually the user scores put both Kirby and DK lower than the Critic score. Guess that means the general public actually deemed them worse than the biased reviewers. (just a note, I don't put any stock in user scores personally) |
Hence why I don't really consider Metacritic to be an accurate source for review scores. Not that review scores should be followed in the first place, which was my point. But on avg, Metacritic scores are lower than the 'avg' because of the reviewers who give games random 3.0 when everyone else givers it a 8.5-9.0. And like you said, the user scores which are even worse (like people giving the game a 1.0 just to make the score go down).
My views were just based on what I saw on the three 'major' review sites. Namely IGN, Gamespot and GameTrailers. And like I said, they've even flat out said they downscore games because they compare them to the HD games.
As for why I think they shouldn't. That's just personal opinion. I think each systems games should be compared to ONLY the games on that system. I find it pretty stupid that all Wii games have to be compared to this magic level that HD games are suppose to attain, just because they came out at the same time. Especailly since its well noted that Wii is not targeting that audience nor does it have as good of graphics. Its like comparing all PS2 games to Crysis on PC. Oh, but amazingly enough, back in the PS2 days, the PS2 had the highest amount of games over 9.0. Seems they didn't care about graphics back then....
And what will happen once the Cafe comes out? What if it has better graphics than the PS3? Will they suddenly start downscoring the 360/PS3 games a half a point simply because a new benchmark for graphics had been attained? I highly doubt it. If anything, the Cafe will be put under even more scrutiny for reviews, just like the GC and Wii was.
Six upcoming games you should look into:
