pinata242

I was thinking about the DS's media limitations earlier and it occurred to me that if there was any title they could require an adapter to play a bigger cartridge for, it's Dragon Quest. Hell, they could release a whole new DS revision that reads 2 cards simultaneously and it would sell.

Josh H

Somewhat fair point, but they can use much lower resolution textures, fewer polygon's etc. and take up less pace.

It's of course not going to look as nice, since the DS is only about as powerful as a N64, but I don't think most fans of this series really care that much about graphics in general given it's "old school" roots and vibe that remained so dominant in DQVIII.

PixyJunket

Media storage does not equal game length. Period. Exclamation point.

Setzer

It could be if you dragged it out that long but FF:TA is a rarity.

The point is, games that are designed for portables are made to be portable, not 60hr+ hr epics you play on your console at home. Maybe that will change with DQIX?

Jeremy517

Like Pixy said, that is completely irrelevant to game length.

Setzer

It limits how big of a game world you can make thus how long of an adventure the game is, especially one that is in 3D -- unless, of course, the entire game is taken place in one area?

You want to explain to me why we only had 20-30hr RPG's in the SNES days and then when everything went to CD-ROM media the length of games doubled? You think that had nothing to do with media capacity limitations?

Josh H

Do that many people really even want 60+ hour games?

Length is one of the reasons I've not picked up DQVIII yet. It's just too much time to invest in one game for me.

Even games in the 40 hour range (like the recently finished Okami) I'm pretty tired of by the time I finish them, and I'm sure I'll be the same with with Zelda since that is looking like 50-60 hours for me.

Josh H

I doubt the actual gameplay increase from say Final Fantasy VI to Final Fantasy VII is all that great though.

End save times are inflated by the hours of cgi cutscenes you have to sit through in CD-ROM/DVD era RPGs.

Setzer

The more the devs have to work with, the larger they can make the game world, the larger it makes the game.

Anyways, my point is, this is a portable game and you don't see 60+hr epic RPG's on portable systems. It'll be interesting to see what they do with DQIX but I don't like this move.

Setzer

Man, the game was twice as long as FFVI, even without cutscenes.

pinata242

Really depends on the game, doesn't it? I would much rather play an awesome 60 hour game than 2 mediocre 30 hour games.

I put in 200 hours on DW7 and another 140 or so on DQ8 over just 2 playings. They were great games. I've come to expect that from the DQ series. I have a feeling this one may let me down. But, at least I get to play it for $35 instead of $660!

Jeremy517

Considering that many of those RPGs weren't even as big size-wise as many other SNES games, yes, it had nothing to do with capacity.

Besides, that comparison is stupid. In terms of increasing size, the law of diminishing returns applies.

Josh H

Really. I recall beating FFVI in around 35 hours, and FFVII in just over 40.

I didn't fuck around with side quests much in either game as I'm not one to do that in already long games.

Setzer

If I'm playing an RPG on my console/PC at home I want it to be 50-60hrs. I want an epic adventure, that's why I play RPG's. If people want a short game then play an Action-RPG or Action-Adventure game.

Josh H

I can see that point, but I'd rather play 3 great 20 hour games than one great 60 hour game.

It is more costly, but variety is the spice of life.

Jeremy517

Your lack of programming experience fails you.

Setzer

Wow, I had 25-30hrs on FFVI and at least 50-55 in FFVII and that didn't include defeating the optional bosses or getting the Knights of the Round summons.

pinata242

Well, sure if you're comparing great to great! My example clearing was comparing awesome to mediocre. NO CONTEST!

Josh H

I see that point as well. I was arguing more in terms of sales, in that perhaps if it is a bit shorter it will thus be more accessible and sell more.

But I don't know how many people are put off by the length of the last couple DQ games, so it might not be an issue.

Setzer

Ok, so storage capacity means absolutely nothing to a programmer? A programmer can create an endless adventure with stunning 3D and sound and not have a care for the capacity of the media he's putting it on?

Josh H

I know, I just ignored that. If I don't have time for many long games, I have no time period for mediocre games.

Josh H

You might lose the stunning and sound part, but you were arguing length not how good it looks.

PixyJunket

No, it doesn't.

Go make some video games, find out what all that added space on those CD and DVDs are being used for and post back here with your findings.

Jeremy517

The amount of space taken up by the things that influence game length is so relatively small that it is completely irrelevant compared to other things.

Noonan

I'd have agree slightly with both sides of this debate. I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that this does look like a fun game. The issues is with the fact that they're pushing it out as the next DQ game which is know to be huge, epic RPGs. This offering is not.

After playing the FF:III remake I know it's completely possible to have a great looking/playing RPG on the DS and because of that I am disappointed that this won't be one of them. Imagine if when Rocket Slime came out it was labeled DQ:IX. Although it was a great game, many people (myself included) would not have been too happy with it.