^
The drunk streaking guy from SMAP plays DQ?
MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.
^
The drunk streaking guy from SMAP plays DQ?
MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.
| .jayderyu said: yeah, I was very interested in this game, but not sure now. I was really looking forward to it's multiplayer aspect. But that was during the time when combat was more realtime, like Tales of SYmphonia. At least by how they showed in the early videos. But since the whining loud mouthes complained about it. Well it sounds like a classic DQ combat that allows other people to get involved. What the hell is the point of that? Now with the guest system(which is ok by me) it makes even less sense to to use the classic combat system multiplayer. So what's gone from my must buy has fallen to a wait and see on that. |
Most people have no issue if a realtime DQ is developed. The issue stems from the fact that they wanted to make it a mainline game and not a spinoff/side series.
Part of the problem is the focus on the multiplayer aspect though. This classic style with multiplayer doesn't work though. Since guests don't progress there personal stories(just for the host) is there really much a point including? Hypotheticly speaking maybe the game was delayed due the multiplayer aspects. If that was the case and multiplayer turns out a big bomg because it's classic combat. That was money well wasted. DQ combat classic had/has strategy. Mostly in timing, what the point of multiple people when it's just turn selection? What benefit is there when you just choose your action in a sequential order. Sounds like a waste of developement time.
If they are going to put in multiplayer it should be well worth it. It doesn't need to play like Diablo, but there should be a benefit to combat for the extra players. Much like Tales of Symphonia(only one I ever played admitidly) had. A second played was a great advantage to the combat system. Since it allowed for better coordination and cooperation. Throwing in multiplayer and stripping it down to FF4 doesn't add anything except negative developement issues. While I played FF4 multiplayer(I used Sabin) it didn't make the game any eaiser or better. It was a mild amusement. DQ is all about the combat, multiplayer is all about the extra people experience. If the experience isn't any different than the solo play. Then the aspect of the game isn't worth while. That's all it comes down too.
Yes it's nice that players can roam on there own and that part is awesome, but since you can't roam with your own characters what extra benefit does it offer? Since you also need a card for each player. So you might as well travel with the host ayway.
I should have been clear. I would have purchased 3 copies due to the multiplayer(wife, daughter, me) i'm now likely to only buy 1 because of the information wich is lackluster in regards to the multiplayer.
Either do it right(which means almost anything differently) or don't do it all. From everything released about the multiplayer as it is now. It will not be a prized feature for DQ players. Though already from the survey it sounds like not many would have thought it is in the first place.
Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.
I earnestly await the sharp drop in productivity the day the game is released.
My collection of guides on GameFAQs: Read them here
My latest guide on GameFAQs, for Little King's Story! Read it here
when is this coming to america is the question...most anticipated ds game behind spirit tracks