Perhaps, but I’m fractionally more likely to be suckered in to preordering a bad game if it looks good than a bad game if it looks bad.
Same here. Problem is, the cheapo studios have figured that out too, and are starting to use a lot perfume. 
On the one hand: shame on us for not doing better homework. On the other hand: shame on them for screwing us.
I give them 100% of the MSRP, I expect 51% of customer satisfaction (I’m not demanding). It’s only fair, right? 
The removal of any random battles is indeed a radical shift in how one plays the game. That is a core element. In addition, the Japanese got the graphical menus used only outside Japan in DQ8. Sure the main interface is the traditional text-based one we’re all familiar with, but once you get below that for multiple items it changes. Then there is the equipment changing to resemble what your character is wearing as well as basic avatar desgin. There is [url=http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_identity.html]some evdience[url] to support that the array of customization seen for avatars in DQ9 would be a turn-off to asian players, but instead it was embranced (notably by females).
And yet the Wii has better sales than both PS3 and 360 combined…
Well for power company’s that’s not true for everyone. It is defiantly not true for what car you buy (no monopoly there), business OSes there is choice depending on what you want to do. A lot of servers are run on Linux OSes, and a lot on Windows. The media development has choices between MacOS and Windows, especially now with the intel macs. The larger government items, well that’s not something most consumers will worry about. Do you know anyone going out to purchase their own personal aircraft carrier?
No DQ8 wasn’t blasted for 3D. It’s predecessor was. If you want, I can find numerous articles on that. My main point though was not that it was contentious, but that the transition from a largely 2D game (for all that DQ7 was 3D, it still had a lot of 2D elements) to a fully 3D one is a massive shift that affects fundamental gameplay aspects.
Hmm…I think it was reaction during 2007 in reaction to Shonen Jump article that said the battles would be turn based, but there would be no random battles. It may have just been short-term emotional response, but that would just prove my point: you don’t always know you want something till you have it.
Then tell me why, across the board, tabletop rpg makers are struggling to get new players. This is in report by expert after expert that they cannot get the numbers of younger individuals to replace the older individuals.
EDITED 4 TIMES: For spelling, grammar, and clarification. Sorry for post editing so much, but I thought it be better than tripling posting.
Also… your quote boxing sucks Jinnai. 
I’m going to have to disagree. It merely gives the illusion of choice. In the end you MUST partake in those battles to gain experience and gold, or you won’t get anywhere. This is in stark contrast to say, Super Mario Brothers, where you could theoretically clear almost every stage without killing a single baddie (except bosses and the oddball stage enemy that is needed to reach a certain cliff).
Letting the player pick their battles, does not change the fundamental game mechanic. Eventually all they did was let the player “see” where the random battles would have previously been invisible. It really doesn’t fool anyone who is accustom to the DQ series, and those who are new to it don’t know it’s “different” as you put it.
Menu changes are an ascetic change for quality of life on the player. That is hardly something someone can claim as a fundamental change in what makes Dragon Quest. There were more menu changes between the Japanese versions of DQ1 and DQ4. No one has ever said that radically changed DQ. It’s an expectation for menu’s to get improved if there’s room for improvement.
If you want to know what upset Japanese gamers, look no further than Amazon Japan. Customized avatar isn’t a large complaint, because that’s optional. What they really hated were things they couldn’t change or ignore: Sandy the fairy primarily. Also in no particular order: not able to change text speed, the graphics for not being the right DQ style (a lot wanted the graphics to go back 2D because of the earlier DQ4/5/6 remakes), the game is too short, single data save, price tag, and having awkward cut scenes.
Outside of Amazon, on 2chan, there’s a huge fear that DQ is being turned into another Final Fantasy.
A topic other threads have covered. That’s because Sony and Microsoft marketed their machines exclusively to hardcore gamers. Nintendo marketed theirs exclusively for the casual. Reality has revealed who really speaks with their wallets and who just whines on gaming forums (then pirates and second hands what they actually want).
OS companies make their main profits off academic/business/government purchases. The consumer market is actually around 30% to 35% the real money. Microsoft dominates the business and government markets. It is easier to employ someone who knows how to use Microsoft Office than it is to hire someone who knows WordPerfect. It’s common business practice to send documents from one company to another, in Word DOC format. Other word processing programs MUST be Word compatible. Word on the other hand, does not have to use whatever proprieties their rivals do. And that’s just Word.
We get reminded this every time someone wants to sue Microsoft for being a monopoly.
You don’t get a choice on what business OS you want, if you’re trying to save costs and overhead. All business do that unless they’re a charity or want to run themselves into the ground. You’re going to use Microsoft, like the other +80% companies do. Most employees getting hired and employers hiring, expect an individual’s expertise to be Microsoft based. Companies that don’t use Microsoft as a standard baseline, do so because their production is very unique or niche. That or they intentionally have a dislike for Microsoft.
As for the whole Mac thing… this explains it better.
It doesn’t prove you point at all: it goes against it. DQ9 was originally active battle turned based (i.e. Final Fantasy style) and utilize a battlefield grid of some sort: that’s why it was delayed for years. The DQ fan base in Japan was [u]ANGRY[/u] at the change. Really pissed, like no pissed of group ever was. Square-Enix changed it back to the traditional system we seen now, because the letter petition was in the millions. The Japanese did not want Final Fantasy garbage in their Dragon Quest: they wanted Dragon Quest. The delay was to completely rebuild the game engine from the ground up. Personnel Square Enix had outsourced, were fired and replace with members from the original DQ teams, for changing DQ and not keeping it the same.
It does however, disprove there’s a “huge uproar” for it. I’m going to have to chalk it up as a “what some people want” instead of a “what everyone wants” as you’re trying to frame it. Also people demanded a device to do what the refrigerator does, at least far back as 400 BC (cold pudding was served back then). If you’re willing to believe the Chinese, they invented ice cream between 2000 to 1000 BC. So yea… before recorded history for some civilizations.
Partially true. DQ9 was built with the Western gamer in mind, but not designed for the Western gamer. See the hoopla about it getting rebuilt during development: too many changes were made, alienating the Japanese. Dragon Quest primary market is Japan, not America and Europe.
As an investor, I will tell you that listening to Iwata talk about a Square Enix product, is like listening to George Bush talk about the Iraq War. :roll: Non-bias info on DQ9 are being reported by NPD and other sales sources. DQ9 must sell at least 1 million copies in the West to be considered a first tier success: that is the standard target number of a first tier title. In fact, the reason why DQ6 isn’t out yet, is because Nintendo fears that having two DQ’s out will prevent DQ9 from reaching that goal (people will buy the other instead - out of confusion or dislike).
Claiming that DQ9 is popular, because of the Western elements, is a tremendously centric view. What do you consider to be the Western elements? You don’t have to go into detail, just enlighten me on what you see as western. Lack of non-random battles? That can’t be it. Going 3D? You mean Japan has no 3D games? That can’t be it. Or are you insinuating that Japan prefers 2D games? That can’t be it either.
Good parts = Western influence? Bad parts = Japanese influence? Please tell me that’s not true.
Obviously. Casual gamers are demographic aged between 20 to 35.
Not according to the demographics. 20 to 35 are the majority who bought those retro WiiWare games. I’ll see if there’s a public release on it that I can link, because I’m under NDA to not post the ones I have (since the data collection was gathered from people’s Wii registrations and credit card info). However retro gaming is NOT an older gamer thing. The “hardcore” are deluding themselves otherwise, and as I’ve already addressed in other threads, the hardcore market is shrinking, not the casual. The majority of Megaman 9 and 10 buyers, as well as the Konami ReBirth series, were between the ages of 20 to 35. Consumer wallets do not lie.
In any event: your citing that teens don’t buy is completely baseless, judging from game polling, as well as the widespread fact that teens aren’t holding the population majority of credit cards.
You’ve been reading the playbook of that failure, Bernie Stolar. I strongly suggest looking him up. Greatest anti-2D moron of the video game industry and is directly responsible for killing the Saturn in America… just as he almost killed the PS1 before that.
The consumer demand for 2D is [u]EQUAL[/u] for the demand for 3D. There is no request for more over the other. The reason why 3D is more prevalent is because of corporate directive – especially Sony – to use the new hardware technologies on the consoles. 2D did not diminish because of gamer desire for 3D: it diminished because of executive boards upset, game makers were not stopping on the 2D production.
Game systems that did not have such business suit meddling – like the Saturn and the NDS – have a multitude of 2D games: the vast number of them huge successes. Sony has been sucking eggs, because of their obsession on the PS3 being so hardware focused (and thus their bias for 3D).
When gameplay elements are bling, we call them gimmicks. Blinking eyes and moving mouths in an eroge, is bling-bling, because it’s not the standard a gimmick.
The little guys ARE the reason why the market exists. Most of the surviving ero makers today, use to be indie or doujin. When the big boys die, there will be new big boys to replace them. That’s been the pattern for three decades. Companies filling the void has never been a problem, and from the current state of things, will not be a problem for quite some time. When all the small companies start dying first, without being replaced by new small ones, then I’ll worry. Because in that scenario, when the big ones fall, there isn’t anyone to replace them. However that is not the case.
Because your statement is fractual. There is no problem in getting tabletop RPG gamers. The “experts” you refer to are businessmen. The actual thing you are asking (or rather they): Why aren’t tabletop rpg BOOKS not selling profitably like they used to?
That is easy to answer. Just several off the top of my head:
#1: Economy. The value of the dollar has dropped dramatically over the decades. The price of book printing has also gone up significantly, what with newer regulations about tree cutting and paper recycling. Core RPG books used to cost $20 a pop, and now it’s not uncommon for them to go $60 a pop. Sticker shock scares the hell out of people. Teens don’t carry $500 on them every time they go to the store.
#2: Pricing. See above. If tabletop books cost $40 to $60 a pop, then it’s in direct competition with console and online RPG’ing. Stupid move. When it’s paper versus technology, technology tends to win out. The sweet spot is $20 to $25 per book.
#3: Sales tactics. This isn’t as bad as it used to be, but somewhat still applies. In the current market, you have to take a sales loss on the core rule book, then make all the profit off sourcebooks. Instead of charging $60 for the core book, it should be $30. Yes… major profit loss. Here’s the catch: if your game is actually good, people will flock to get the sourcebooks. Gee wiz, isn’t that grand?! Many companies are releasing shitty products, so when they do this ¬ñ have a shitty core book ¬ñ the sourcebooks obviously don’t sell. Thus they lose profit across the board. So they charge $60 for that core book.
#4: Piracy. PDF scans… nuff said. Why? Not everyone has $60 to play a game they really want to play. Again: Sweet spot is $20 to $25.
#5: Too many sourcebooks. Ends up causing #4. Also it causes…
#6: Oversaturation. Also known as the curse of WotC. In the past, if you wanted a high fantasy RPG, you basically went D&D. There were others, but they weren’t as plentiful with the material. Today you’ve got D&D, Legend of the Five Rings, Iron Kingdoms, Earthdawn, Exaulted, HackMaster, and lots more. Rather than profits being concentrated to a handful of companies, they are being spread across five or six dozen. That’s because with digital word processing and PDF dowloads, it’s easier to make your own RPG without massive bank funding. The rise in number and replenishment of gamers did happen, but not enough new gamers are being added to match the insanity of companies that wanted a piece of the pie. Basically we got more cooks and food than people who want to eat.
#7: Quality. With so many games to pick from, we can now pick what we want. Previously we got every sourcebook TSR release – garbage or not – because TSR was all we had. Today, if that WotC vampire add-in sucks, we can pick from dozens of other competitors.
#8: Not evolving. Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms are two of the best high fantasy campaigns ever made… but they never evolved. Riding horses and killing dragons is outdated. Newer gamers that came in were not getting what they wanted too (the anime generation so to speak). Look at the “high fantasy” that did survive: Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, and Warhammer Fantasy. People wanted gritty tech and glamour with that magic. The old guard are obviously horrified at this: guns and robots in my D&D!? However the material that marketed to the old school are the ones that died off first: the ones that got on with the times, or able to update with it, are the ones that won. No ¬ñ updating visual graphics in eroge isn’t the same - this is an inherent thing with tabletop rpgs. This is why Shadowrun is bigger than ever, but Cyberpunk is dead: they tried bringing it back, but without understanding why it wouldn’t sell.
#9: Miniatures. They got big. [u]Real big[/u]. The idea of incorporating miniatures is not new… but some RPG’s used them easier than others. That was a huge factor as the pricing for mini manufacturing went down. Some companies, like GamesWorkshop, are miniatures first and books second.
#10: Target market confusion. Forgotten Realms is the perfect example of this. They rebooted the metaplot, and all sorts of gods are dead and nations are gone. This obviously angered the old gamers. Rightfully so. However WotC wants their cake and eat it too: they want to keep the old gamers and add the new gamers, who the “kill 'em all off” thing was done for. Not going to work. First off it only angers the old gamers off more. Second off, it puts back the things new gamers will not like (that’s why you got rid of it). Pick one or the other. Issue is that WotC likes to saturate, and make money off sourcebooks. Rather than have a game like that caters to old gamers, and another that caters to new gamers, then trying to slowly merge them together (or slowly retire the old games system if its hardcore market can’t sustain itself): WotC wants everything to suit everyone [u]right now[/u]. Massive fail. Privateer Press and Games Workshop do it better, and have been massively successful with that.
#11: Turned against each other. WotC is the main guilty party for this, but there are others. Basically the rpg companies turned against each other, and started backstabbing one another. See the differences between the d20 OGL and the 4ED OGL. Or when Paizo - one of WotC’s best friends - became one of it’s most dangerous rivals. Confuses gamers and causes instability… plus ends up doing more of #6.
Knowing all this, now go back and see what those experts are crying about. They’re not giving you the whole picture… just like politicians.
Their whining about not enough gamers is true: only in that there aren’t enough gamers [u]rich and dumb enough[/u] to by every RPG book that’s out there. Gamers today are smarter and spend thriftier. This is why Games Workshop and Privateer Press are two of the biggest dogs on the block, while WotC is far less influential and dominating that it once was in the d20. In a sense, WotC killed themselves by letting the OGL happen. For a brief moment in time, they were rolling in the money, but as soon as the shovelware started and more companies came in to get their share, it all collapsed. The years of OGL was an [u]artificial[/u] golden age - like the housing market. It was doomed the moment it started, because the end result was inevitable. Too much RPG.
Let me prove it to you. Mongoose Publishing made these three games: OGL Horror, OGL Wild West, and OGL Cybernet. I happen to own all three. Do you know what’s the difference between them? The character classes, the equipment list, and a few monsters. Everything else a cut and past from the (free!!!) OGL SRD. Care to take a guess at what those changes were (hint: horror, wild west, tech)? I could probably put all the changes on a mere 20 pages. They charged $35 per copy for this garbage (I paid $2 at a garage sale).
Almost every single RPG company was doing that with OGL. Then they have the balls to bitch why they can’t find new gamers to buy their new products, “like they used too!?” Only after the price of paper went up and the dollar value when down - as well as customers figuring out they were getting screwed - did this stop being profitable. Then they suddenly declared that tabletop rpg was dead. Gee… maybe because they were stabbing themselves with their own knives? :roll:
I agree, moving to 3D is not the only way you can bring things up to modern times. I just say upping the graphics/sound is not enough to modernize the gameplay. Other innovations, like those mentioned, are. They may not be in and of themselves (i haven’t checked how much a part of the gameplay it is), but they are certainly steps in the right direction.
fsdhjksdfhkfd I’m sick of this.
Jinnai, just SHOW US why the eroge market is supposedly dying. Numbers numbers numbers, show me that people aren’t buying, that eroge companies are selling most of their stuff at a loss this year.
While you’re entitled to your opinion and the points you make are certainly true, you are looking at the end result while ignoring the way it affects gameplay itself.
In a random battle system you do not know when or where you will come across an enemy. It could be the next step or run around for 5 minutes before finding one (or waste 5 minutes in an area that has no random spawns). Their is no way to avoid these random encounters without gamey techniques like Dragon Quest’s Holy Water either. With a non-random battle encounter you can spot the enemies and try to avoid them or chose to purposefully fight them. This changes the way you explore an area, especially if it is the former, where a player may try to sneak by a monster who’s blocking a passage by hugging the wall rather than taking a more direct route. You can also decide if you’re being chased to head to another monster and fight them rather than the one that chases you. This adds an element of choice not present in random battles about what mobs you fight and how often you fight directly into the actual gameplay itself. That is why it is a fundamental shift in how the game is played.
I’ll admit the point that one expects menus to improve, but if they were just minor changes you wouldn’t have seen much reaction to the menu changes for the NA release of DQ8. However, I’ll also agree with you, in the grand scheme of things this isn’t as fundamental a change as others.
Yea I know about that. There is indication that that was an organized effort to slam the game though. Not all that hard to do either and if you know how clean your browser or can change your ip, 1 person can post many such results.
And the customized avatar not being a complaint is exactly my point. Historically asian countries have been adverse to this in multiplayer RPGs, but when given the option they aren’t.
Actually, you’re wrong. That would violate anti-trust laws and even MS has to make some show of following those laws. It is exactly because they have the dominate position they must show they do not have anti-competitive practices. Now that support doesn’t have to be perfect not does it need to be for every format out there, but it needs to be there.
Actually your wrong. While that was true in the past, it isn’t as true today. Many European companies don’t do this and many graphical desgin studios. Many servers don’t use it because of the security level in even the most secure windows is not as secure as you can make a linux-based system. Hell even governments don’t require windows anymore. [http://www.osor.eu/news/lv-minister-open-standards-improve-efficiency-and-transparency source] Windows can’t really run supercomputers either. Of course the average business owner will still use windows, but its not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.
I agree 100% with that, but none of that disputes my point that there was complaints about the change from random battles to having enemies visible. However, since I cannot seem to find the article (its possibly deleted now), I’ll drop that point.
Well most of those claims about the older Chinese inventions are questionable and even if it was, it doesn’t mean anything; they also invented the combustible engine, but did nothing with it. And extrapolating that some people wanted cold pudding means they wanted a refrigerator is about the biggest leap so far.
Partly true. Their primary market currently is Japan and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. However they want Dragon Quest to become a worrldwide best-selling title like Final Fantasy, but don’t want it to be a clone of that title.
While I don’t want to dispute any of those points. My point wasn’t about the experts from company’s themselves, but those who study the field.
http://marinkacopier.nl/ijrp/wp-content … llment.pdf
I will admit that part of it seems to be based on location, but that’s not the only factor.
The ones I can find that have decent numbers are imo too outdated to cite as they were pre-global recession. I’m talking here about overall eroge sales, not specific items.
I’m going to have to disagree with your having to disagree. There are several differences between mobs-on-the-map and random battles that makes mobs-on-the-map a significant improvement over pure random battles.
1) Ever played an RPG with a puzzle room that had random battles? I’ve played several that did this, and it majorly sucks if you’re having trouble figuring out the puzzle. In the time you’re spending moving around the room checking various aspects of the puzzle, every couple steps, you get into another random battle. This can turn a room you’re having difficulty with into an hour and a half (depending on how much loading occurs between each fight). Especially annoying because the random battles are great for breaking your concentration.
Whereas with the mobs-on-the-map style, you clear the room, then solve the puzzle. If you spend half an hour jiggering with the puzzle, retracing your steps all over the place … it doesn’t matter, since either the enemies don’t respawn (since you don’t go over a respawning boundary) or you can start avoiding them after the first couple of tries.
2) You can avoid enemy types that you don’t particularly want to fight. This only pertains to games where the mobs are differentiated on the map in a meaningful way. If you want to fight all the enemies EXCEPT the brute type that has huge HP and high defense, because it’s late and you don’t want to spend 5 minutes in one random battle, you can. If you don’t like the dudes with the annoying petrify attack, you can avoid them. If you’re trying to fight a particular type of enemy (less frequent, but still happens occasionally) then you can do that as well.
3) It’s actually not 100% true that you end up having to fight all the battles anyway. In FFXIII, for example, for the last few chapters, I said “You know what, these enemies are a pain in the ass” so I skipped every random battle I could get away with. Beat the game with no issues. (In that game, towards the end, all the enemies have huge numbers of HP, so all battles take lots of time. It sucked the enjoyment out of the fights for me.)
4) Related to 3) a bit is 100% dungeon completion. All RPGs have spots in the dungeon that contain items, which are out of the way of the route from one end to the other. Essentially, anytime you come to a fork in the path, you have to make a decision. Fully exploring the whole dungeon adds a considerable amount of backtracking, since standard design means that most items - especially the good items - are found forked from the main path in a dead end, forcing backtracking to the rest of the dungeon. Backtracking is especially heavy if you take a fork, follow it for a long ways, then realize you need to turn around. (Maybe you get to the exit, and want the other items; maybe you get to a barrier you need to go to another part of the map to remove.) Then exploring all the other forks you passed will require significant backtracking.
You can claim that even in those backtracking sections, all those fights are necessary or you’ll be underlevelled, but in all but the most old-school games (MegaTen comes to mind), that’s just untrue. The dungeons are usually balanced so that people who are NOT completionists will be more-or-less appropriately-levelled to proceed further without having to do much grinding. So if you are a map completionist, then you’ll actually be significantly overlevelled via random battles, because you’ll outpace the game’s experience economy.
But mobs-on-maps either doesn’t respawn the mobs in the parts of the map where you’ve been (directly avoiding this) or you can avoid them on your way back to the point where you haven’t explored past yet.
5) Many games with random battles provide a “run from battle” mechanic that lets you run away guaranteed. (Usually not right away, you often need an accessory or a particular skill that makes run automatically succeed.) This could be considered a less-user-friendly version of mobs-on-maps, insofar as you can decide “I’m not fighting anymore” and run every time. However, when you do this, the game still has to load for each and every fight. This is very irritating, and mobs-on-maps simply gives the player a more user-friendly way to effect the same result by eliminating all the loading.
EDIT Fixed my comments up. I was being too snarky. Sorry… tend to do that, when I get worked up. :oops:
That there was a coordinated hate effort, is no question, as 2chan admits it. The star rating is ignorable. However the text complaints are completely valid, even if it’s only the same 10,000 people doing it, because those are the major points of contention that caused the dissatisfaction.
They do violate anti-trust laws. Repeatedly. Here’s just three of them:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
http://www.ecis.eu/issues/CFI_Microsoft.htm
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ … _Word_case
They’ve been found guilty several times too. It’s Microsoft. Anti-trust is their middle name.
Rather than just list 100 links, because they’ll all be the same +/- 5%, I’ll pick one at random. [url=http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php]Here we go[/url]:
Operating Systems
Windows XP 48.17%
Windows 7 17.02%
Windows Vista 16.60%
81%. [url=http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share.php]I’ll randomly pick another.[/url]
88.2%
Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac
20.6% 10.9% 1.3% 54.6% 0.4% 4.8% 6.5%
87.8%
Now unless every data collection site and poll published is wrong: Microsoft commands +80% of the operating system market, like I said earlier. I’m not wrong.
The refrigerator: before the Son of God was supposedly born. It just took a few thousand years more to miniturize it under 6 feet. Had to put that cold pudding somewhere.
Just because the two biggest name JRPG’s used it, you think the Japanese didn’t do it a lot? 7th Saga, Valkyrie Profile, Mana Khemia, Saga Frontier, Grandia, Super Mario RPG, EarthBound (aka Mother), Lufia 2, Robotrek, Parasite Eve 2… I could go on and on. That’s just what’s on console, better known in the West, and off the top of my head. Japanese have a non-eroge PC gaming market too. Maybe the JRPG’s that you’ve played are nothing but random battles, but being to see the enemies is a common feature in [u]MULTIPLE[/u] JRPG. It is not unusual. I’m guessing offhand that like one out of four have done it… and for Japan that’s gonna be a whole lotta titles.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Full stop. This kind of feature is known as Newgame+… the trope name comes from a JAPANESE game! Chrono Trigger. Now let’s see… Japanese games I’ve played with this sort of stuff. Armored Core? Yup. Japanese. Ah! but that’s not an RPG. Chrono Cross? Too easy. Parasite Eve and Vagrant Story! Still Square-Enix. Sigma Star Saga! Tales of series! White Knight Chronicles! Star Ocean series! This is not a Western influence like you seem to think it is: the Japanese have been doing it for quite awhile now.
Not inside enough it seems. Maybe I should write a book: he overlooked a lot. :roll:
I am against this statement with every fiber of video game industry knowledge I have. It is not true whatsoever. The Castlevania series has flourished with 2D far better than 3D (well see about Lords of Shadow soon enough). 2D fighting games do just as well as their 3D counterparts (Guilty Gear and BlazBlue). 2D SHUMPS have always beaten 3D SHUMPS. That’s just three examples of where 2D has held it’s ground.
No. No. No. I do not agree. I’d bet against you on a comment like that. I am certain I’d win. Iga could make the most badass 2D Castlevania on PS3 or XBOX360, like the world has never seen and beyond the Wii’s hardware to port over, if they gave Iga the millions spent to make that Lords of Shadow and a development window of three years (instead of 8 months like he always gets). No one doubts that he could. It’s just that no one will let him do it (and he’s said that many times). And it’s not just Castlevania that could be done that way. No. No. No. I do not agree.
Don’t see it happening that way. I cannot. And the best part is, time is on my side. If this site is still around 20 years from now, let’s pick up this topic again. Then we’ll see who’s right about the future of eroge. Even if this site goes away, my email address will always be the same. 
A bunch of eggheads with too much time on their hands, doesn’t make them experts on a topic. But putting that aside, according to that “research” (and I use the word lightly because…):
Although the sample of the study was small and targeted only toward WoW players with previous table-top experience…
As someone who loves the Scientific Method, I already can point out how they violated the holy crap out of it.
[color=red]NO VARIABLES!!![/color]
All they used to make their conclusion, is a single Control - that’s biased beyond belief: WoW gamers. That’s it. That is so unscientific, it’s disgusting. That thing reads like Blizzard paid them to do it, or they’re major WoW freaks. I believe it as much as I believe EXXON’s “research” that there’s no global climate change. How can they come to that conclusion, without polling OUTSIDE of the WoW community? Is WoW representative of every tabletop gamer in the world, and only those in the location they polled? I guess so. Let’s make a poll about how Americans feel about freeing the slaves, at a KKK rally. That’s exactly the same. :roll:
I can do better: go on a major tabletop gaming forum - any of them (AEG, Catalyst Game Labs, WotC, Warseer, Privateer Press, wherever those Palladium Books people hangout, etc) - and make a age poll. Use units of 5 in the aging (15-20; 20-25; 25-30; etc). Do it on several gaming sites (need multiple variables - not one control). More the better: since not all age groups play the same games systems or are loyal to the same companies. Say it’s for a school experiment or something. Sure, not everyone will be honest, but no random poll is. After 30 days, add up the results. Voila! The power of the Internet and message boards! I’m sure if you searched the gaming forums, their might already be a topic like that.
Hello, Mr. Nit. [Picks nit]
One of these things is not like the others Sigma Star Saga, in fact, was developed by WayForward - a US game development outfit. It was published by Namco, sure, but it was made in America.
lol… alright… you got me on that one. I remembered it as a Namco game. :oops: I’ll name some more then, that I KNOW are Japanese. :o
Silent Hill, Super Robot Wars, Havest Moon, Rune Factory, and last but certainly not least… that 800 pound record breaking monster:
[size=200]PokÈmon[/size]
Plus hundreds of galge and eroge: the whole "have to beat the game first with x number of girls/endings before seeing the real ending" is pretty old. I’ve got some PC98 titles doing it.
Backpedaling just a bit…
After some retrospect: I will concede that the in-depth avatar customization for DQ9 was predominantly influenced by a decision for more Western gamer attraction. I cannot conceive of a reason why DQ would implement something like that, without prior precedence in a spin off in the series… it’s not their normal operating procedure. However I do not agree that it was seen as a negative on DQ9 by the average or hardcore Japanese gamer. Some whined about it, but they honestly whined just to whine.
That being said: the comment that “Asian gamers” dislike avatar customizing because of an inferiority complex (as the writer in that link claims), or that it’s unusual is not true. There’s a lot of mecha games such as Armored Core and Front Mission, that use “custom avatar” out the ying-yang (as mecha parts). Off the top of my head there’s the CAS in Soulcalibur. iDOLM@STER makes extensive use as well. That writer simply has not seen enough “Asian games” that use it, and comes to the wrong conclusion. MapleStory is a Korean MMO, whose profit margin is based around custom avatars.
It’s a case of Western MMO’s failing to make an impact in Asian markets for the gameplay disconnect: not avatar customization. Good example would be NCSoft’s in ability to get City of Heroes to launch in Korea, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G-zH4XrpBg]despite the massive try[/url]. It just wasn’t going to work. They even tried marketing it to Taiwan - ??? - and that failed before it got off the ground. After those two failures, they didn’t even bother with Japan. Many other western MMO’s suffered the same fate, for the same reasons.
Having read it presented this way, then I retract what I said about not seeing enemy encounters, that it was an illusion of choice, and not having a game play impact.
It does indeed, have a game play impact.
While we’re on the topic of MMOs. What was the reason Blizzard never bothered localizing WoW in Japan? I believe that the game was relatively successful in Korea, Taiwan and so on and it always blew my mind that an MMO with a gamer population so large would not be sold in Japan. I remember watching some nico dougas about people playing WoW after importing a copy complete with UI mods that translate quest text into Japanese and a lot of the commentators seemed excited about the game but unfortunately disappointed that they cannot speak English to play it. Is there some kind of trade protectionism scheme going on to keep WoW out of Japan?
High risk market. Japan has [u]never[/u] been considered a “safe” population for MMO’s. Final Fantasy, Mabinogi, Phantasy Star, and Ragnarok Online. Those are the only real successes I can think of at the moment. Everyone knows that Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star are only due to their gaming legacy in Japan. Consider that the Dragonball MMO - a major IP brand name - is being developed by a Korean company, instead of a local Japanese firm. That’s how little experience and business confidence Japanese investors have about a domestic company doing it.
Blizzard is worried that if they spend the $$$ to setup WoW in Japan, it will miserably fail. Wasted money and a stock drop. Plus it would make a black spot on WoW’s otherwise, perfect MMO market image. They’re not going to risk that. Japanese gaming mentality, has never been as lucrative for MMO’s as Koreans and Americans.
If I recall correctly, another reason they may not have gone for it is because use of PCs in Japan (or at least, PCs for personal use), is relatively low on a per capita basis. As I understand it, many just use a cell phone for things like email, and have a console to play games.
I never said they weren’t dominate. I said they weren’t as dominate.
Sorry, again it doesn’t prove that people wanted a refrigerator. That’s just speculation, sound speculator, but not proof, which is what you demanded of me. Therefore my point stands.
Listing a bunch of titles, most of which are more modern versions, does not change the fact that it is the dominate form that is considered a what makes up a JRPG. Anyone can spout out exceptions to the rule, but that doesn’t prove anything. Better examples are to look at what the Japanese culture at large references for terms of RPGs and it is generally a DQ-type spoof which is still present today. This includes the random battle aspect.
Okay…
Going back i misread your statement:
as
That is where probably that confusing passage came from. I agree that the newgame+ is a Japanese creation.
If you could do it and at the same time have a comparable project with full 3D launched at the same then I’d take you up on that. However, the Castlevania example is a poor one. A lot of what is proping that up is its history. If a new side-scroller without any history like Castlevania or Rockman or the creative team working on it comes out and has that kind of sales, I’ll admit you’re right for that.
There are a few places where 2D still works and yes, 2D fighters are one of them. Visual novels and adventure games are another. However, overall I would dispute that 2D is as popular a graphical medium as 3D.
I want to clarrify I do not mean “go away”. I do not expect it to ever do that. I am saying shrinkage or adaptation of newer gameplay techniques/technolgies and probably more hybridization of game genres, which is not the same.
Actually, for all the problems the article i posted has, that’s worse. Without any way to verify the person, the same person can be on 10 different sites and vote on each one. So a teenager with tons of times on his hand who happens to frequent forums could vote on every one while someone who has more of a life votes just on one and you are none-the-wiser.
That doesn’t make sense to me. As dominate as what?
[code]transitive verb
1 : rule, control
2 : to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on
3 : to overlook from a superior elevation or command because of superior height or position
4 : to be predominant in b : to have a commanding or preeminent place or position in
intransitive verb
1 : to have or exert mastery, control, or preeminence
2 : to occupy a more elevated or superior position[/code]
+80% of the market? Yea. That’s as dominate. It’s been as dominate as Microsoft has ever been. Sure, they’re not +90% anymore, but that’s because they’ve been smacked around by the government for anti-trust. That they still hold +80% is hella impressive, and the +80% they have today, is millions greater than the +90% they had in the past. Their +80% of 2010 is more powerful than the +90% of 1998, as it draws less government attention (what they fail to catch in time, is the most dangerous market moments for rivals). The Dotcom bubble was a grossly artificial inflation, so of course their stock won’t be +$100 anymore: not to mention direct government regulation preventing it from doing so again as well - see the antitrust again).
A personal attack directly against me, in an attempt to undermine everything that I’ve posted as false bravado and arrogance? Seriously Jinnai… I thought you better than that. 
Do you wanna compare resumes, credentials, and professional contacts? I’ll do it one for one: I bet you run out before I turn the page. See how that feels? It’s not nice. No personal attacks.
That being said, at the price of sounding arrogant: when it comes to “inside knowledge” - I’d wage I know a lot more than Matt Barton. He analyses games as a player, exclusively from a Western point of view. I analyze games as an investor, developer (though those days are long past), and a player from the Western and Asian point of view (Korean is also my third language). Huge difference. I’m seriously not interested in making this a contest to compare penis size, nor do I claim I am the greatest source of video game knowledge on Earth, however I can point out several [u]HUGE[/u] glaring oversights in his book about the Japanese, Korean, and Middle Eastern markets. Funny how so many of these published Western game annalists seem to forget that Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have made major contributions to PC and console gaming. The Middle Eastern is a wonderfully interesting beast, that the vast majority of Westerner gamers completely ignore out of utter ignorance (though I do not speak Arabic, nor do I ever see myself learning it).
The man is intellectual by far, and for that he has my respect - he knows more about system hardware than I could ever claim - but he is overlooking too much. I will happily admit that his conclusions are solid for a WESTERN market or about the [u]WESTERN[/u] market. That is all. His proposals would be flushing money down the toilet in the Asian market. I’ve been following his blog, Gamasutra articles, forum, youtube, and books for a long time: he only demonstrates primary interest in Western made games and/or games that came to the West. As an example, I don’t see much on his stuff about galge or eroge. Just a fraction of the stuff the regulars on this forum post about, greatly exceeds what’s he contributed on that front. Ask him about Hangame or Netmarble, and I’m sure he only knows what Wikipedia can tell him (in fact I just might, out of simple curiosity, not snide arrogance).
Listing a bunch of titles ¬ñ and there are dozens upon dozens more ¬ñ proves that Japan has been doing it for years. Mother is one of the most influential JRPG’s of all time. DQ9 suddenly implementing it, does not directly come from recent Western RPG’s. Yes, ultimately the originating source for “seeing enemies on an overworld map” comes from Ultima (pun!), but that’s as far as it goes - like how the T-Model Ford is the predecessor of the Toyota Yaris. Obviously the majority of JRPG’s are inspired by DQ’s system, because it has such a massive cultural impact on the country. It makes no sense that it wouldn’t be prevailing. Just because seeing enemies is not as popular as not see enemies, does not mean there this huge lack of them in Japan. There is no such thing. Furthermore it’s quite obvious which of the two methods is easier and cheaper to implement: that has a massive influence (especially for indie and doujin). Japan has been doing the see enemies on an overworld map for over twenty five years. DQ9 suddenly using it is not new or innovative for the Japanese gamer. This is not a revelation of change from the West. It was inspired by Ultima, and has been around since then, with several Japanese derivative titles being bestsellers of their time. Given several of these titles being as popular in the West, there’s no way you couldn’t claim that a few of these Japanese titles did not influence Western games. I’m sure it’s safe to assume that Japan has paid back their “Ultima debt” in full - as they have their Wizardry debt (which started JRPG).
Hell, Pokemon does both of them (and certainly not the first JRPG to do even that).
On the fridge? Sure. On the original topic? No.
So long as you’re saying that’s your opinion, I am fine with that. But if you’re trying to say that as an industry, 2D is not as strong, you are dead wrong. Wallets do not lie.
Clarify away. Time will tell.
First off no: it’s not worst than what you posted. What you posted was a single control study, devoid of variables. It comes to a conclusion based on a single source. That is NOT an accepted scientific method. Ask any college professor. As I said before: it is like only polling American white supremacists, and using that as your conclusion about how all Americans feel about minorities. It is terrible to use that as a primary source. If that offends you, I’m sorry, but no unbiased researcher would do such a thing.
Your objection about the polling method: if it is intentional, it is known as poisoning. If it is not, it is called duplication. To accommodate you utilize statistical mean, median, mode, and range. Statistics is a science (and obviously math), that is well aware of those problems you cited. Hence measures to still gain reliable data. It is not fool proof without a controlled environment, however a strict controlled environment can be worst if a conclusion is based solely off the control. You need variables. There are no ifs, ands, or buts: that is what the scientific method demands. Though I strongly do not recommend it (as it was done improperly), use that document you posted as the control if you like. Collect variables. As you follow the method, you’ll see why that document makes me cry (in that it’s so unscientifically done without external variables).
A decade ago, ie before the internet became what it is today.
Well, when you’re calling out sources I list as basically ignorant of the facts somehow and in a tone that somehow their opinions cannot possibly be backed up with facts like your are, well, your saying I basically read crap. I do realize that no one person can know everything, not you, not Mr. Barton and not myself. The way it sounded was however you were completely dismissing it as just a bunch of rubbish.
I’m quite aware of the history that came to create Dragon Quest and later JRPGs and do realize that it, like anime and other forms of art, has roots in the US. However, that does not change what a cultural representation of defines JRPG as opposed to a western one. I am quite sure you can list hundreds, if not thousands of titles that do not use random battles; however for everyone one you list, I bet you I could find at least 2 more and they will almost exclusively be JRPGs or very early western ones (before or around the publication of Dragon Quest). I realize there are more modern ones (even excluding the RPGMaker ones) that still use this gameplay element, but it has become synonymous with JRPGs as it looked at as an inferior gameplay modus operandi because of reasons I and Nand mentioned among others.
It’s the same basic argument just replacing fridge with eroge.
Wallets don’t, but aside from 2D fighters all you’ve proven is branding sells, something that should be quite obvious.
As I’ve said, the VN format as it has been for the past 20 years won’t survive another 20 years. It may be able to adapt it something like School Days. Possibly more hybridization and probably they will use some sort of technology that haven’t come out yet.
It isn’t that eroge with interactive fiction is doomed, but the VN format as it currently is, ie reading massive amounts of text and with the only basic interaction being the occasional choice, is. Nor am I saying such will not exist - there are a few non-eroge visual novels in west currently produced too, but they’ll become more niche.
No, I agree with that. Just asking WoW and former WoW players was not proper; asking them in conjunction with another group, like D&D players. As for just using WoW as the online online game, well, at the time of the study that was the likely the only MMORPG most people would have played. However, since statistics isn’t foolproof I don’t see your method as being any better since its prone to its own sort of errors as mentioned as well as similar systemic bias issues that plagued the first one, ie only going to sites you frequent or feel others will frequent.
As corporate capacity goes, Microsoft is more powerful than it was before the Internet became commonplace. It did not dominate the Internet, but that’s largely because the Internet is already owned by an entity Microsoft could not overcome - the US government ¬ñ and MS being hit heavily with antitrust over Internet Explorer (even until this day). That aside, Microsoft is more powerful than ever because they’ve done what many of their rivals could not: diversify. The only realm in which Microsoft has not branched into, is computer hardware: though with few exceptions like the XBOX. This is because MS would be ruled as a monopoly if it ever tried (see IBM for that): and why Apple can blast away at their hated enemy without fear of serious reprisals ¬ñ though ironically Apple is becoming a target of antitrust as it grows larger and larger. The point is: Microsoft is the dominant operating system and business application corporation in the world. No one comes close. You could take all of MS rivals, combine them together, and MS is four times larger than them all. With the economic downturn, with nearly all corporations seeking to cut costs, that gap has gotten bigger: Microsoft offered price deals for staying with them. Naturally that’s going up for antitrust review. 4 out of 5 personal computers and commercial network servers on the planet run at least one Microsoft product (this includes things like ATM’s and Air Traffic Control terminals).
My sincerest apology for being too blunt without explanation: I admit that was rude. However the only one of your three sources that I refuse to accept in any capacity is the pro-WoW document, for the reasons I’ve already cited.
On Matt Barton, I only object because his findings are based exclusively on the Western audience. You having read his book, and being a Japanese game importer, must have noticed that it’s woefully devoid of Asian-exclusive data. How many pages does he devote to Sakura Taisen, and how many does he devote to Metal Gear? He focuses on the market that the readers know about: the Western one.
The linked article about Asians hating custom avatars, outright ignores the wealth of Asian games that possess custom avatars, and are massively popular in Japan and Korea. You don’t have to be a game analyst to see that: just someone who has seen the dozens of Japanese and Korean games that are filled with custom avatar engines. His conclusion that, “full-fledged character creation systems frustrate Asian gamers because they do not like the fact that more skilled users can create avatars that are more attractive and appealing than theirs,” is what bothers me. Case in point: there are fanbooks in Japan, dedicated to custom designs from Armored Core and Soulcalibur. Japan has a widespread disconnect with MMO’s ¬ñ that would be the reason why MMO’s with custom avatars fail there: not because they have custom avatars. Koreans are one of the leaders in custom avatars for MMO’s, and the West has copied a LOT of their ideas (especially in the F2P arena). I don’t think he did it intentionally: it’s just that he, is only aware of the Asian games that make it to America and Europe.
I’m not trying to say you read crap: I’m just trying to point out that they’re masters of the Western market, but not forthcoming on the Asian. Unfortunately the experts of the Asian gaming market don’t compile their thoughts in chaptered books, but instead frequently spill their guts in Japanese gaming magazines and their personal blogs.
Then this is the core disconnect we are having. In Japan, the invisible random encounter battle engine of Dragon Quest is JRPG. In Japan, the seeable enemy encounter battle engine of Mother is also JRPG. Westerners may associate the invisible random encounter as what defines JRPG, but that is not what JRPG is to the Japanese gamer. Yes, you are unquestionably correct that DQ’s method is more popular, but it is not how they define their style of console RPG’ing. DQ is more popular, simply because DQ is so unbelievably popular. However that’s honestly it. Moreover, the Western interpretation of JRPG is vastly limited. Only 1 out of 20 ever make outside of Japan (if even that many) - and they’re always the ones that are easiest to port or will appeal to Westerners. In that sense, what Westerns based their opinions of what makes JRPG, is only a fraction of what really makes JRPG.
Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy may be the ones that get the biggest budgets and most globally known, but they are by far not what defines JRPG, anymore than movies like Avatar and Pirates of the Caribbean (two of the biggest budget and globally known), define what American movies are all about. They are simply the most seen face that tend to get more attention than anything else.
Then we’ll just have to agree, to disagree.
And branding sells 3D.
You forgot SHUMPS: 2D outsells 3D. Also in turn-based tactics games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Luminous Arc, the 2D has outsold 3D. 2D does just as well as 3D in platform gaming: as the aforementioned Castlevania, Contra, and Megaman prove. You prefer 3D ¬ñ that much you’ve made known ¬ñ but you greatly underestimate the demand and profitability for 2D: from both old and young gamers.
The 3D flood is because the hardware manufacturers have rules against 2D. We all know this: companies like Konami and Capcom complain about it all the time. There is no such restriction on 3D. That is why Konami and Capcom whine: they want to exploit the 2D market that’s untapped and being suffocated. Sony and Microsoft don’t make money off games: they make money off hardware and licensing. So they set ridiculous anti-2D rules to support their agenda. Only Nintendo is more lax about it, and that obviously shows in their third-party lineup.
How many times have Western gamers lamented that _________ 2D game won’t be out on PS3 or PSP because the SCEA veto’ed it? Too many times to count. :roll:
I do not agree, as the Japanese gaming mindset is nothing like the American gaming mindset: and especially those who play galge and eroge. It will remain, just as how DQ9 without custom avatars and seen enemy encounters would have still sold millions in Japan. I will reiterate that DQ9 sold well in Japan, primarily because it was on the DS and the multiplayer feature (which is a primary criteria Nintendo sets for the DS): not because it has Western elements in it. It would have sold millions without Western elements, and the proof is in that 2.5 million were sold before anyone knew what was really in the game to begin with (i.e. preorders; I remember DQ8 being under 2 million preorders). There were thousands of gamers who bought a DS, just to play Dragon Quest 9 the day it was released. That is the power of Dragon Quest branding, and the sheer domination of handheld gaming in Japan: it greatly exceeds console gaming by an order of several magnitudes; hence Nintendo being God at the moment (and reason why the 3DS is believed to be the death knell of PS3 and XBOX360 in Japan). The remaining 1.5 million is pretty much par the course for something like that in Japan. It is selling in the West, because of the multimillion dollar advertising campaign that no previous DQ title has ever had the luxury of enjoying: we are still waiting to see if it will sell enough to be considered an actual success. The engine has to still burn hot for six months: if it cools down and stalls, then initial sales were only for the hype, not the actual game itself.
Then we are just going round robin. The only way you can get an accurate assessment of the tabletop RPG industry’s health, is by measuring the successes of those companies that are still in business and actually seeing those who participate in the gaming sessions. We know that the major companies are in stable business: AEG, WotC, GamesWorkshop, Privateer Press, White Wolf, etc. They frequently praise themselves about it on their homepages, and if we’re to throw out that as biased (and rightfully so), the fact that they continue to pumpout out new products or expansion accessories on a monthly basis (sometimes at luxury prices: like that new Ravenloft garbage, or the beautiful L5R core book that also comes in a more expensive $100 dollar limited edition version) proves they have the capital to do that. On the actual gaming: you just have to visit as many local RPG stores in your area as possible, and jot down how many kids you see as regulars on the weekend events. I always see a lot. Also I never fail to see a bunch of “I’m new at RPG’ing and like some help” on tabletop RPG forums. There’s at least two or three a day, and a huge number when a new edition is released (as that’s when they do the most aggressive advertising).
EDIT
Also to add to that last part: I do know that “kids” are more into the card games like YuGiOh and MtG. That’s what draws them like flies. However the “rpg shop market ploy” is that they become exposed to traditional tabletop gaming, when waiting between card matches. Especially the miniature kind like BattleTech (“I can make my own mecha? Cool!”) and Warhammer ("Did you really paint that?"). Vampire and Werewolf from White Wolf, has been attracting teenage girls, for obvious reasons. Hardcore traditional tabletop rpg’s like Shadowrun and L5R, don’t attract as much attention as the miniature, with the lower age bracket (8 to 12), but picks up considerably with the upper end teen (+16). So a kid starts with the card games, matures into miniatures, and then graduates to the pen-and-paper. Console and computer gaming sustain throughout. However miniatures tend to be a “upper income family” thing, since they cost so damn much, and you need so damn many (I’m looking right at you Warhammer). This is why you don’t see an 8 year old playing Exalted, but eventually a kid seriously interested in his card games (i.e. it’s not a fad phase), will one day be playing it or whatever it’s equivalent is when he’s 16. Indeed some companies - like AEG and WotC - capitalize that a kid will grow into the rpg version eventually.