Rob Browning wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:37:56 -0500, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
> wrote:
>
>> RelMark wrote:
>>> "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The only difference between having it on the DS and on the PS3 is
>>>> it won't be as pretty.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it's just a coincidence that after eight single-player,
>>> turn-based Dragon Quests, they're switching to "an action-oriented
>>> battle system playable cooperatively by up to four players" at the
>>> same time as the series moves to a handheld system.
>>
>> Could they not do that on the PS3?  Is there something about the DS
>> that forces that?  Is there ANYTHING to actually tie your conspiracy
>> theory to
>
> So you're saying that it is a coincidence?  That's a rather unlikely
> coincidence.

Is there something about the DS that forces action-oriented, as opposed to 
traditional RPG-style (so long as Y's isn't your traditional RPG of choice)? 
Is there something about the PS3 that prohibits it?  Unless you can answer 
yes to either of these questions, I'm going to call your theory "kookery." 
As far as the co-op portion, I'll just say "if you can do it, why not give 
it a go?"  Having decided to go with the DS, they figured it would be 
interesting to take advantage of the wifi.  I highly doubt that the mere 
existance of the wifi option prompted them to change the fundamental nature 
of DQ9's gameplay.  That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Unless Nintendo decreed that any game for the DS MUST take advantage of the 
wifi capabilities.

> Anyway, to answer your questions, yes.  The disadvantages that I've
> already described for the DS would indeed force some changes for the

Which disadvantages?

> game to cover them up, and these are the changes that Squenix chose.
> Co-op play because it takes advantage of the system's portability, and
> action-based play because it reduces the amount of time that it takes
> to accomplish something in the game.  They wouldn't have bothered

And yet, the fact that plenty of us enjoy RPGs on portables still hasn't 
suggested to you yet that the "time to accomplish" really doesn't matter as 
much as you think it does?  I don't exactly sit down and say "this is a 
portable, so I want to get more done faster," or "this is a console game, so 
I don't care if it's slow going."

> making these changes if the game was going to be on the PS3,
> especially since co-op play would not work nearly as well on it.

So, changes in gameplay are ONLY sparked by changes in systems?