Dragon Quest IX announced as DS exclusive

I guess I'm the only one that is happy with the thought of real time combat.

@Charlie I agree with you that It would've been better if DQ was released on a home console but please know wth you're talking about or at least do some research before you post.

"let NINTENDO put DQIX on the DS?"

um, riiight.

"Nintendo should of released Dragon Quest IX on Wii"

ok...

"specially how poorly I think Nintendo made the remake of the "newly never released in America" Final Fantasy III"

I think you're getting things mixed up here buddy.

"SE/LV5 should of stuck with Sony, and just made Dragon Quest IX for the PS3 instead of handing the reigns to Nintendo, who I believe are falling apart, especially with how poorly the new Zelda is selling."

it would've been nice if it came to the ps3 but you cant fault square-enix for bringing DQ to the most popular system at the moment even tho I think the DS is a pos. As for Nintendo falling apart....uh huh, last time I checked they're the only ones making a profit on hardware and Zelda pretty much has a 1:1 tie in ratio with wii. Some of the nonsense you're spewing is just retarded. Sigh, think I'm going to stop responding to trolls.

I think it will be a great fun game even on the DS. But I hope that the franchise gets some real next gen love as well. Graphics arnt everything but if you can have both why not.

Given the DS's market, the graphics are more than good enough. The people buying the system obviously aren't placing a high priority on graphics, otherwise the PSP would be doing better.

Honestly, if they can take the financial savings on not having done this game on the Wii, 360 or PS3 (savings primarily from graphical asssets) and put it into more quests (content), then very cool.

My thoughts exactly footsteps. This could be a scary precedent if the trend continues. I find myself agreeing with the sony fanboys on this one, DQ9 should have landed on a home console, not a handheld, no matter how capable the handheld may be. Its not about graphics, or even "depth" of play or engaging story. It just seems wrong.

I like the idea of 4p co-op though. Speaking of:

Any news and/or screens of the FF:CC for DS that was supposed to be shown at the same show?

lol jesus christ on a stick you crying hypocrites. "oh I don't care about graphics" "Oh but what about the moving sun and the kicking up dust while walking whaawhaaa"


First of all, why the hell do you think the DS couldn't do those sort of things. Zelda on the N64 had a moving sun (with lensflare!) and moon, different times of day and weather types, starry skies, AND dusty trails. And it still looks atmospheric to this day despite the lower tech specs. People are putting WAY too much importance on processing power for graphics. Art direction is what really matters.

As for the small screen, who the hell cares. Link's Awakening was "downgraded" to the tiny black and white screen of the gameboy, after the SNES' aLttP. And it was awesome! It had great gameplay (-deeper- than the previous Zelda game on inferior hardware, even), it had great tunes (a unique song for every dungeon, which aLttP didn't have), and great art direction. In a lot of ways, it was much more involving than the previous game in part due to the (IMO) better storyline.


So, to summarize: STFU with your bullshit about "downgrading".

from #14
""I mean...who the hell wants to play one of the world's biggest games, on the world's smallest fricking gaming screen??""

#23
""We will mourn ye. Your last game showed such promise. But now you look retarded and are much tinier due to being on a handheld.""

There are advantages to having RPGs on handhelds. Major point being you can play them on the go... or anywhere for that matter. This will attract a huge base of players who appreciate NOT being tethered to their consoles all day long.

And this will fly. Many many ppl actually watch TV shows on ipods' 1" to 2" screen. The DS' screens are much bigger and are crisper with more resolution

To anyone that's been complaining about the lack of depth or length of an RPG because it's on a handheld: have you ever played either of the Golden Sun games?

"52. My 2 year old daughter draws better trees then that."

Congratulations. In that case, you can probably expect your daughter to become one of the greatest artists the world has ever known.

What this means:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2006/12/dragon_quest_on.html

It sounds good to me. Glad to have the flagship title of Enix back to Nintendo fold. As for peeps who saying Sony owned the franchise or sold them to Nintendo... i don't think that's the case. The franchise always belongs to ENIX and they can release to whoever they damn well pleased to. Sony PS2 happened to be the leader for DQVII & VIII... and if we're talking about stealing, we can always say that Sony stole the franchise from Nintendo the first places isn't it? But really that's not the case and should not even be considered or discussed, end of story, period, full stop.

As for other peeps that says that the game is a step backwards... well think of it this way, DQ always evolved in small steps. DQ1 is the granddaddy of Jpnese RPG. DQ2 gave you the party system. DQ3 gave you the character creation, day and night cycle and casino i believe... DQ4, the scenario for each character which culminates to the main character. DQ5 the monster catching and the family generations. DQ6 gives you the class system. DQ7 gave you the map thingy. DQ8... well.. DQ8 gave that individual customization and also the cell-shading.

Now to DQ9, putting the fight to real time can be considered as evolution of the old system and the wifi definitely gonna help too... besides DQ is not just about battle system or how the tree moves etc etc. DQ is about the fantasy themed role playing immersion you got when you turn it on. Unlike FF that strays into the realm of.... scifi meets fantasy, DQ will always be fantasy, about some prince or warriors saving the world from the clutches of evil.. medieval style.

Out of curiosity you griper know sqare-enix is making a FF XII prequil for DS. Ive seen the picks and it looks awsome.

@108

Linkage pls.

Ok, well, not that it matters at this point (the story's a day old, and this comment's just gonna get lost in the shuffle anyway), but I finally managed to hit up my significant native-speaking other and can confirm 100% that this has not been announced as a DS exclusive. Repeat: not announced as exclusive.

The linked story is simply an announcement for the DS release. The end of the story says it "might" appear on the Wii at some point. Other consoles are not ruled out. But there is no exclusivity expressed or implied in the Famitsu article.

Now, again, it may very well end up *being* exclusive. The people who have debated the point with me up to this point have made that argument. But that's not the issue. The entry here says it was "announced as DS exclusive". No, it wasn't. It was announced *for the DS*. That's it. Whether it comes to other consoles is still up in the air.

I don't think Joystiq should be assuming exclusivity in their reporting; they should just be reporting what's in the announcement. If us commenters want to assume exclusivity, that's fine. But there was no announcement to that effect, despite what the headline here says.

"109. @108

Linkage pls."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XII:_Revenant_Wings

I guess some of the people who are not happy about this has a point, but i think you need to think of it in this way.

If SE makes the next Dragon Quest for the PS3 or the Xbox360, which has the most grunt out of the systems out there, i suppose they could theoretically make a more graphically pleasing game. That is true, but what is also undeniable is that they would make less money than if they released for the DS. Now, at the end of the day they are a business. If they made the game for the PS3 and they didn't get the numbers they needed to keep the company afloat, and they had to downsize or bankrupt entirely, now how does that benefit anyone? In the long run, making decisions based on business environment is a much better way than purely on artistic or graphical perspective.

As a DS owner and an RPG fan, I feel that it's worth mention that there are features available to the DS that are actually huge improvements over other platforms. The option of two screens offers a great ballancd of both access and division between menus and stats, and animation. Additionally, touch screen management, speeds up a lot of otherwise tedious actions. Granted at this point we really don't know if DQ9 makes use of these but if it takes full advantage it could improve pacing and efficiency on a level that a graphic boost couldn't. If everything goes well but DQ10 ends up on ps3 I could really see that being the true downgrade.

@107

DQIII had a class system, along with a more advanced party system and all the things that you mentioned.

There were Warrior (high strength, but no magical abilities and low agility), Fighter (high strength, speed, and agility, but no magical ability and limited armor capibilities), Cleric (can cast healing and other benefical magic, but cannot equip heavy armor), Mage (can cast offensive magic, with incredibly powerful spells at the higher levels such as explodet and the BeDragon spell, but is rather weak physically), Dealer (good for identifying what an item is used for, and since DQIII had a hell of a lot of items this was a useful skill, can pick up extra money at the end of a battle, but cannot cast magic and is not as useful in a fight in later stages of the game), Jester (high luck and can class change to Sage without a Zen Scroll, but is pretty much useless in battle as these characters tend to goof off rather than listen to commands), and Sage (can cast all spells in the game, although at a slightly higher MP requirment, and can equip the good weapons and armor) classes. The GBC release added the Thief class (can steal items and gold randomly after battle, find invisible treasure, can tell how many items are left to find in the current floor or building, and can locate the distance to the nearest town). The Hero class was the class of the main character, which was basically a balance of Warrior, Cleric, and Mage. The Hero is the only character that cannot recieve a class change.

Class changes worked at a temple in Dharma (encountered pretty early in the game). Any character over level 20 that isn't the Hero can recieve a class change for free there (although unless the character is a Jester, you can only class change to Sage with a one-of-a-kind-one-time-use item called a Zen Scroll that you need to complete a dungeon to retrieve). When a character changes class, all stats (HP, MP, Str, Int, etc.) are halved and the character keeps all spells learned. However, the character also starts over at level one so they level back up quickly at first. This way, you could start with a warrior and buff up strength, then class change to Sage and have a good spellcaster with higher than average strength. Or you could class change a Mage to a Warrior and have a character that can cast spells and use heavy weaponry. The GBC version had a personality system (use book items and change your chararacter's personality) which helped determine which stats leveled up the most between levels. The possibilities were literally endless.


You could have up to four characters in your party at any given time, but you could also create new characters and exchange them at any time in a Tavern in the starting town of the game.


@Everyone who said something bad about Dragon Quest IX coming to the DS

Dragon Quest/Warrior III for the Game Boy Color was only a Game Boy Color game, and yet it had animations for every monster attack in the game, and the best graphics I have seen out of any game that was made for the GBC. It took an already huge game (two very large overworlds, a large amount of dungeons and towns, MANY items and monsters), and expanded it even further with multiple mini-games (the Pachisi game kicked serious ass), two very large bonus dungeons, new items, the personality system, and an added Thief class. It still remains my favorite video game of all time, beating out any other game for any handheld, console, or the PC.

In short, Dragon Quest III for the Game Boy Color kicked serious ass.

Dragon Quest works on handhelds, I see no problem with Dragon Quest IX coming to the Nintendo DS. I welcome it with open arms.

I think this is great for gamers who like the series because Sony has decided that its fans don't matter enough to make a decent and affordable product, so the average working class gamer can still play it. Personally I only played DQ8 and have not beaten it yet since I had to restart the other day after losing my memory card in my dorm, but I would stop after a good game if it was for PS3.

To those saying the title won't be exclusive to the DS:

http://ds.ign.com/articles/750/750610p1.html

"Also, looking at the game design side of this new Dragon Quest IX, there won't be ports to other hardware."

That's coming from SquareEnix themselves. You guys fail =D

Saying that you can't see the DS screen without a magnifying glass is nothing more than rhetoric... Let's stick with logical arguments. 1. The DS screen is small, however, it is more than sufficient for a decent 3D game. Maybe not as good as the PSP, but it is only a small limitation. 2. Graphical limitations is only a small price to pay; eye candy is good and all, but does not break a game. Speaking of graphics and all, the DQIX is shaping up to look incredibly good. But graphics is still a small price to pay when you consider the benefits: School kids can play four-player on the school bus, in the cafeteria, who knows. This is a big benefit, and Squenix is willing to pay the graphics price for the portability payoff.

Let's look at the options for consoles besides DS

DQ Swords is for the Wii, and, by appearance, focuses on slashing your enemies with the Wii-mote. That's a big departure from the classic gameplay, so Squenix decided to make a spin-off for the Wii to maximize its benefits. Thus, the Wii is essentially eliminated. (Though not technically, but you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket Swords= Wii, Main Story= something else)

We've already discussed the huge production costs for the PS3, and it's far less than a sure-fire console right now. Choosing the PS3 would probably be far more risky than the DS.

XBOX 360 is just out of the question.

This leaves DS and PSP- the PSP is no where near as popular as the DS and has even less choices, where as the DS there are a ton o' innovations you can do.

And last-gen consoles are probably a mistake.

DS looks logical to me, I don't know about you.