Support NeoGAF

[Eteric Rice]

Haha well Squall was a total emo douche but I didnt think Cloud was that bad. But im not really talking about the main characters with this. I'm more talking about battle system and setting....and you gotta have an overly dramatic and somewhat stupid storyline. Its not a real JRPG without those things

If were talking archaic.....I'd also like to see a HD re-emergence of pre-rendered backgrounds. I really liked the painted style of the Baten Kaitos games.

I don't think Cloud had that bad of an emo rep until the movie came out. : /

 

[RevenantKioku]

I agree. FF does a lot of experimenting with their titles. Sometimes they're successful, and sometimes they're complete and utter piles of feces. I applaud them for trying new things, and I hope they continue to.

In that way, FF and DQ compliment each other quite well.

Of course FF has nothing on the king daddy of RPG experimentation.
...
C'mon Kawazu, give me another SaGa.

 

[Peronthious]

I'd say they are archaic, but that does not at all make them poor games, in the same sense that you could call Planescape: Torment, the Fallout games, or the Baldur's Gate games archaic. Newer gamers may have trouble playing the early NES ones due mainly to the graphical barrier, but the gameplay itselt hasn't aged at all; if you enjoy Pokemon, you'll enjoy Dragon Quest/Warrior.

 

[duckroll]

If were talking archaic.....I'd also like to see a HD re-emergence of pre-rendered backgrounds. I really liked the painted style of the Baten Kaitos games.

I think the problem here is that people don't understand the words they're using. Pre-rendered backgrounds are not archaic. Archaic does not just mean OLD. It implies that it is outdated. Pre-rendered backgrounds can be a stylistic choice, and as long as it is an artistic choice and not a technical limitation it can never be factually outdated. It would just be an opinion.

That's the same issue I'm bringing up in the thread in general. Something being traditional does not make it outdated.

 

[Teasel]

well i think there are a few reason why dragon quest is perceived as archaic
1) dragon quest never looked pretty (with the exception of dragon quest viii)
2) first person view in battle with battle log (dragon quest is the only rpg that still do that)
3) random encounter and turns battle... of course mileage may vary,certain people say that every rpg which isn't FFXII is archaic
4) dragon quest if the oldest rpg series ever made that it's still around today
5) no crazy skill system,there is no spheregrid,no guardianforce,no "learn skill from equipment" you just learn stuff by level up which is how it was always done... dragon quest vi and vii have a job system,but only two titles have them not to mention job system were born with FF3 which i guess could also be perceived as archaic (ok i'm reaching out for this one)
6) dragon quest character are pretty much vanilla (except dragon quest viii cast... COR BLIMEY! i guess someone is going to bite my ass and name dragon quest iv and/or v) starting from the "silent hero" archtype character
that's all i can think for now

 

[batbeg]

In that way, FF and DQ compliment each other quite well.

Then why do the fanbases have to bicker so damn much? Le sigh. It seems fanbases always have to bitch about others in what should really be their own circle.

I don't think Cloud had that bad of an emo rep until the movie came out. : /

What movie?

Spoiler

And this time I mean it

 

[Gig]

Uh, no. It wouldn't.
Unless you're using some sort of superscience where a GAME is not qualified primarily by its GAMEPLAY.

So when Shadowrun turned into a first person shooter that wasn't a Shadowrun game?

 

[RevenantKioku]

I think the problem here is that people don't understand the words they're using.

Well yeah, that's most of the reason behind any argument.

So when Shadowrun turned into a first person shooter that wasn't a Shadowrun game?

SINO

 

[Zalasta]

To me it has always been the look and feel of DQ that made it seem old school. You're right that the series has had a wide variety of characters and storylines, but those aspects are only morsels we are treated with every once in a while as we play through the games, and together they connect the dots to deliver the whole package. However, it is the menu, the way we interact with the world, the battles, etc, that we have to deal with every minute and every second while we hold that controller. Regardless, all of these things are what make a DQ game DQ and I don't see it changing, not with the kind of following it has, so a discussion like this is sort of moot wouldn't you say?

 

[Durante]

I'll stay well clear of this thread.

 

[Gig]

SINO

I haven't heard that before, what does that mean?

 

[PolyGone]

one thing that really jumps out as being archaic is how they're still using the same sound effects from the original 8-bit game. Personally, I think it adds to the charm of the game, but it is kind of weird.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I haven't heard that before, what does that mean?

I'm playing off the name GINO for the American Godzilla movie (Godzilla In Name Only)
I've never played a Shadowrun game, only mucked with the tabletop rulebook, but isn't it generally thought that while even if Shadowrun the FPS can be an enjoyable game, it's not really what fans of the franchise want out of a Shadowrun game?

Would I play a Dragon Quest FPS? You bet your sweet ass. (Actually, I did. Swords was great fun!) But would I want the main series to go that way? No.
There are plenty of DQ spinoffs if you like the world but not the mainline RPG. Torneko/Yangus Fushigno Dungeon games, Slime MoriMori Action RPGs, DQMonster pokéclones, Swords for some FPSwording and so on.

 

[duckroll]

one thing that really jumps out as being archaic is how they're still using the same sound effects from the original 8-bit game. Personally, I think it adds to the charm of the game, but it is kind of weird.

There's no question that there are -elements- in DQ which are archaic deliberately, but does it make the game itself and the entire series archaic? FFX's Blitzball used commands and menus, and was a slow boring exercise. Does that mean the entire game is a slow boring exercise?

 

[Prime crotch]

I don't think Cloud had that bad of an emo rep until the movie came out. : /

Yeah, he wasn't very emo-like on VII. I still don't get how he became so diferent in the movie.

Oh, sorry then. Well, DQ5 onwards had a shortcut button for actions, so you didn't have to use the menu at all. DQ1-3 on the GBC don't even have a talk menu. Maybe you forgot.

Maybe, doesn't matter anyway I've always been more put off by the setting though. Sometimes Toryama's art works other times it feels like like a shadow of his former self. Although I've only got myself to blame for that, me and my VHS collection of every damn DB OVA.

 

[RurouniZel]

Is Dragon Quest archaic? Yes

Is Chess archaic? Yes

Are both still fucking awesome? Yes!

 

[RevenantKioku]

Is Dragon Quest archaic? Yes

Is Chess archaic? Yes

Are both still fucking awesome? Yes!

Doesn't archaic carry a negative connotation though? I wouldn't throw that word at Dragon Quest and I sure as hell wouldn't at chess.

 

[PolyGone]

There's no question that there are -elements- in DQ which are archaic deliberately, but does it make the game itself and the entire series archaic? FFX's Blitzball used commands and menus, and was a slow boring exercise. Does that mean the entire game is a slow boring exercise?

I know people who loved blitzball, and I'm sure Inazuma 11 will be quite popular, and I also know people who thought the main game was too boring to keep playing. But to answer your question, almost all JRPGs are fundamentally archaic and make no sense. DQ stands out because it doesn't try to hide that by implementing gimmicky new "systems" into the battles or whatever.

 

[Error]

Dragon Quest isn't archaic at all, like the OP mentioned each games have their differences that make them unique in the series. the OP mentioned scenario but I'm going a step further and mention gameplay changes that people somehow ignore, when they shouldn't.

DQ1: This one is obvious, It was revolutionary back then. The game started the whole rpgs on console thing.

DQ2: Introduced battles with more characters to control, a bigger world to explore, more spells. You could say, DQ2 builds upon DQ1 and made the whole thing bigger and better.

DQ3: the changes are more noticeable here. you create your own party, DQ3 also introduced the job system to the series and to me the best class system in the series yet. Thanks to the class system in the game DQ3 was a very customizable game, you could have a Priest with spells only a Mage could get for instance. battles changed from 3 characters to 4.

DQ4: Introduced the Caravan to the series. You could switch party members whenever the Caravan was around. it also introduced an AI system for battles, in DQ4 it was forced, sadly as the AI wasn't the smartest. the doesn't take away the fact that they were already experimenting with AI.

DQ5: Introduced the ability to recruit monsters and have them help you in fights. it was fun recruiting monsters. Pierre and Golemuth were awesome.

DQ6: Totally revamped the Job system from DQ3, making it completely different in the process. no longer would you get sent to Level 1 whenever you switch jobs, instead the game encourage the player to switch jobs and experiment with unique set ups.

DQ7: builds upon DQ6 Job system, making it a lot more complex. it also introduced the ability to change into a monster to learn its abilities. DQ7 also introduced the Hybrid Skills to the series.

DQ8: Introduced the Skill System, after you gained levels you would get skill points which you could use to distribute to different categories each character had. also introduced the Tension mechanic in battles.

my point is, that DQ not only presents different scenarios it also sports big gameplay changes with each entry in the series, while retaining the basic gameplay mechanics that make the series so good. that's what a series should be, imo. When I play a DQ game I know exactly what I'm getting into, and that's a feeling most series do not have. that allowed me to fully enjoy every entry in the series.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I know people who loved blitzball, and I'm sure Inazuma 11 will be quite popular, and I also know people who thought the main game was too boring to keep playing. But to answer your question, almost all JRPGs are fundamentally archaic and make no sense. DQ stands out because it doesn't try to hide that by implementing gimmicky new "systems" into the battles or whatever.

I call you out on this shit.
What the fuck are you even saying here?

 

[PolyGone]

Dragon Quest isn't archaic at all, like the OP mentioned each games have their differences that make them unique in the series. the OP mentioned scenario but I'm going a step further and mention gameplay changes that people somehow ignore, when they shouldn't.

DQ1: This one is obvious, It was revolutionary back then. The game started the whole rpgs on console thing.

DQ2: Introduced battles with more characters to control, a bigger world to explore, more spells. You could say, DQ2 builds upon DQ1 and made the whole thing bigger and better.

DQ3: the changes are more noticeable here. you create your own party, DQ3 also introduced the job system to the series and to me the best class system in the series yet. Thanks to the class system in the game DQ3 was a very customizable game, you could have a Priest with spells only a Mage could get for instance. battles changed from 3 characters to 4.

DQ4: Introduced the Caravan to the series. You could switch party members whenever the Caravan was around. it also introduced an AI system for battles, in DQ4 it was forced, sadly as the AI wasn't the smartest. the doesn't take away the fact that they were already experimenting with AI.

DQ5: Introduced the ability to recruit monsters and have them help you in fights. it was fun recruiting monsters. Pierre and Golemuth were awesome.

DQ6: Totally revamped the Job system from DQ3, making it completely different in the process. no longer would you get sent to Level 1 whenever you switch jobs, instead the game encourage the player to switch jobs and experiment with unique set ups.

DQ7: builds upon DQ6 Job system, making it a lot more complex. it also introduced the ability to change into a monster to learn its abilities. DQ7 also introduced the Hybrid Skills to the series.

DQ8: Introduced the Skill System, after you gained levels you would get skill points which you could use to distribute to different categories each character had.

my point is, that DQ not only presents different scenarios it also sports big gameplay changes with each entry in the series, while retaining the basic gameplay mechanics that make the series so good. that's what a series should be, imo. When I play a DQ game I know exactly what I'm getting into, and that's a feeling most series do not have. and that allowed me to fully enjoy every entry in the series.

these are but small wrinkles added over a very long stretch of time, while other RPGs were introducing active time battles, eliminating random encounters, building up totally strange battle systems (ie Chrono Chross), and long time series like FF were completely changing look/aesthetic from one game to the next. Meanwhile, you have every game up until DQ8 that could be done easily in 8-bit without sacrificing much gameplay-wise.

I call you out on this shit.
What the fuck are you even saying here?

Many RPGs are archaic and make no sense. As gamers we're used to their conventions by now, but to the average person stuff like random encounters must not make any sense at all. Also, you can point to almost any JRPG and see elements that have trickled down from the original DQ, such as staying at inns to restore your health. Which also doesn't make any sense.

 

[near]

I agree with Error, personally from my experience with the series i really don't see what's archaic about Dragon Quest at all. To say FF is more progressive in my opinion is a clouded statement.

 

[Error]

these are but small wrinkles added over a very long stretch of time, while other RPGs were introducing active time battles, eliminating random encounters, building up totally strange battle systems (ie Chrono Chross), and long time series like FF were completely changing look/aesthetic from one game to the next. Meanwhile, you have every game up until DQ8 that could be done easily in 8-bit without sacrificing much gameplay-wise.

no, the problem is that you want every game in the series to re-invent itself and be completely different.

that's not how you evolve a series, sorry.

that's why FF is so divisive (I like some games in the series while I don't like others), whereas in DQ is one of the most consistent series around, and that's because it doesn't forget what makes the series good while still introducing changes around.

are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that DQ3 and DQ6 plays exactly the same? come on.

 

[RevenantKioku]

these are but small wrinkles added over a very long stretch of time, while other RPGs were introducing active time battles, eliminating random encounters, building up totally strange battle systems (ie Chrono Chross), and long time series like FF were completely changing look/aesthetic from one game to the next. Meanwhile, you have every game up until DQ8 that could be done easily in 8-bit without sacrificing much gameplay-wise.

Yes. Yes we do. And we have 8 great games. I'm not seeing why you attach a negative tone to your saying of this.

 

[manueldelalas]

Dragon Quest isn't archaic at all, like the OP mentioned each games have their differences that make them unique in the series. the OP mentioned scenario but I'm going a step further and mention gameplay changes that people somehow ignore, when they shouldn't.

DQ1: This one is obvious, It was revolutionary back then. The game started the whole rpgs on console thing.

DQ2: Introduced battles with more characters to control, a bigger world to explore, more spells. You could say, DQ2 builds upon DQ1 and made the whole thing bigger and better.

DQ3: the changes are more noticeable here. you create your own party, DQ3 also introduced the job system to the series and to me the best class system in the series yet. Thanks to the class system in the game DQ3 was a very customizable game, you could have a Priest with spells only a Mage could get for instance. battles changed from 3 characters to 4.

DQ4: Introduced the Caravan to the series. You could switch party members whenever the Caravan was around. it also introduced an AI system for battles, in DQ4 it was forced, sadly as the AI wasn't the smartest. the doesn't take away the fact that they were already experimenting with AI.

DQ5: Introduced the ability to recruit monsters and have them help you in fights. it was fun recruiting monsters. Pierre and Golemuth were awesome.

DQ6: Totally revamped the Job system from DQ3, making it completely different in the process. no longer would you get sent to Level 1 whenever you switch jobs, instead the game encourage the player to switch jobs and experiment with unique set ups.

DQ7: builds upon DQ6 Job system, making it a lot more complex. it also introduced the ability to change into a monster to learn its abilities. DQ7 also introduced the Hybrid Skills to the series.

DQ8: Introduced the Skill System, after you gained levels you would get skill points which you could use to distribute to different categories each character had. also introduced the Tension mechanic in battles.

my point is, that DQ not only presents different scenarios it also sports big gameplay changes with each entry in the series, while retaining the basic gameplay mechanics that make the series so good. that's what a series should be, imo. When I play a DQ game I know exactly what I'm getting into, and that's a feeling most series do not have. that allowed me to fully enjoy every entry in the series.

QFT, honestly you should play DQ games before calling them something.

All of them are awesome games, they are by far the best RPG franchise in history, with consistently great story and varying enough through each installment.

There isn't a bad DQ game (except Torneko mystery dungeon... that sucked); DQ games are measured by awesomeness, and can only be compared to other DQ games and Chrono Trigger.

 

[speedpop]

I never once played a Dragon Quest title thinking "damn this system is so god damn old and archaic"

 

[RevenantKioku]

no, the problem is that you want every game in the series to re-invent itself and be completely different.

that's not how you evolve a series, sorry.

that's why FF is so divisive (I like some games in the series whereas I don't like others), whereas in DQ is one of the consistent series around, and that's because it doesn't forget what makes the series good while still introducing changes around.

are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that DQ3 and DQ6 plays exactly the same? come on.

It's just the same as saying DMC3 is the same as DMC1. Only difference is if you know the difference between the two DMC games, you've got "taste" and if you know the difference about the DQ games you're a "nostalgia whore."

I never once played a Dragon Quest title thinking "damn this system is so god damn old and archaic"

Well that right there is your problem.

 

[PolyGone]

no, the problem is that you want every game in the series to re-invent itself and be completely different.

that's not how you evolve a series, sorry.

I never stated that I wanted the games to reinvent themselves, did I? I like DQ. I'm just saying that when you build on top of core mechanics that slowly, you are going to look archaic compared to the other RPGs, which try to hide their own archaicness by touting their new gimmicks.

Yes. Yes we do. And we have 8 great games. I'm not seeing why you attach a negative tone to your saying of this.

I love 8-bit games.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I love 8-bit games.

So what are you trying to say other than you don't know what you're talking about?

 

[Durante]

I never once played a Dragon Quest title thinking "damn this system is so god damn old and archaic"

That's almost exactly what I thought when I played my first (and last) Dragon Quest game. (After enjoying it for the first 10 hours or so)

I really think the word "archaic" describes a lot of what I saw in that game quite accurately.

(Yeah, I didn't stay well clear of the thread. Sue me)

 

[Error]

I'm pretty sure I forgot tons of changes and different stuff within each game in the series. I think Aeana in this thread does a fantastic job at pointing out those changes (certainly better than me).

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164238

 

[RevenantKioku]

That's almost exactly what I thought when I played my first (and last) Dragon Quest game. (After enjoying it for the first 10 hours or so)

I really think the word "archaic" describes a lot of what I saw in that game quite accurately.

(Yeah, I didn't stay well clear of the thread. Sue me)

You didn't play DQ and you didn't read his post.
Christ, what do you do?

 

[Kipe]

So what are you trying to say other than you don't know what you're talking about?

Don't you think you're getting a little too defensive? :lol

Polygone's points were honest. I'm looking forward to DQ4 and DQ5, but I'm not sure if they'll appeal to today's gamer/rpg gamer without the nostalgia appeal that I and many on this thread have.

 

[Durante]

You didn't play DQ and you didn't read his post.
Christ, what do you do?

What the fuck are you trying to say here? Do I have to send you my DQ8 save or something? This is pathetic.

when over-protectiveness of a series turns any dissenting opinion into a life-threatening ordeal, you've lost the argument?

.

 

[PolyGone]

So what are you trying to say other than you don't know what you're talking about?

I guess I'm saying, when over-protectiveness of a series turns any dissenting opinion into a life-threatening ordeal, you've lost the argument?

 

[RevenantKioku]

Don't you think you're getting a little too defensive? :lol

This isn't even me on defense. I'm just asking questions.

Polygone's points were honest. I'm looking forward to DQ4 and DQ5, but I'm not sure if they'll appeal to today's gamer/rpg gamer without the nostalgia appeal that I and many on this thread have.

Well since a lot of the people defending DQ games in this thread didn't play the games until a few years back that's hardly a lot of nostalgia appeal going on.

I guess I'm saying, when over-protectiveness of a series turns any dissenting opinion into a life-threatening ordeal, you've lost the argument?

I'm sorry, this is me acting in a life-or-death matter? I'm just asking questions here and I'm getting a bunch of "blah blah blah" in return.

 

[PolyGone]

I want to know why the term archaic has such negative connotations for you? I know plenty of people who couldn't get into FF12 and would have been happier with a more traditional approach to its gameplay. Its not like saying DQ is archaic is saying its shitty or anything.

 

[zoukka]

Well since a lot of the people defending DQ games in this thread didn't play the games until a few years back that's hardly a lot of nostalgia appeal going on.

Well since a lot of people who defend DQ-series play nothing but JRPG:s, the credibility of the statements can be questioned.

And yes the freaking series is OLD-SCHOOL. I mean in VIII you run around, fight millions of fights and collect loot. The story was non-existent and there was close to none customization of the characters. If people by archaic mean old solutions, then yes it's archaic too.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I want to know why the term archaic has such negative connotations for you? I know plenty of people who couldn't get into FF12 and would have been happier with a more traditional approach to its gameplay. Its not like saying DQ is archaic is saying its shitty or anything.

Archaic the word as far as I've ever seen it used in the English language has a negative connotation. This isn't just a video game thing.

Well since a lot of people who defend DQ-series play nothing but JRPG:s, the credibility of the statements can be questioned.

So you wouldn't trust a professional tennis player on racquet recommendations but rather someone who dabbles in all sports?

 

[Error]

I never stated that I wanted the games to reinvent themselves, did I? I like DQ. I'm just saying that when you build on top of core mechanics that slowly, you are going to look archaic compared to the other RPGs, which try to hide their own archaicness by touting their new gimmicks.

You never stated sure, but you mentioned games that play completely different from the rest in the series.

CC re-inveted the series, of course it did. The game also effectively killed the Chrono franchise. I don't want DQ to follow the same path, that's for sure!

 

[batbeg]

I always thought Final Fantasy threads were the ugliest of ugly but it turns out Dragon Quest is just as bad, just with less use of the words metrosexual and androgynous. Yikes.

Well, I think I will check out the DQIV remake when it comes out in English and give the series one more chance. Some things I don't generally enjoy seem to exist (first person battles, silent protagonists) but oh well, it gets people fighting tooth and nail so I should find something to enjoy there :lol

 

[Gig]

I'm playing off the name GINO for the American Godzilla movie (Godzilla In Name Only)
I've never played a Shadowrun game, only mucked with the tabletop rulebook, but isn't it generally thought that while even if Shadowrun the FPS can be an enjoyable game, it's not really what fans of the franchise want out of a Shadowrun game?

Would I play a Dragon Quest FPS? You bet your sweet ass. (Actually, I did. Swords was great fun!) But would I want the main series to go that way? No.
There are plenty of DQ spinoffs if you like the world but not the mainline RPG. Torneko/Yangus Fushigno Dungeon games, Slime MoriMori Action RPGs, DQMonster pokéclones, Swords for some FPSwording and so on.

I didn't say they should go that far, but I don't see why should drastic changes in gameplay be frowned upon, while other series have done it and have come out fine?

 

[Pureauthor]

Well since a lot of people who defend DQ-series play nothing but JRPG:s, the credibility of the statements can be questioned.

And a lot of people who defend the Halo series predominantly play FPSes. What's your point here? That they play and understand the series' nuances is enough for them to comment on (and defend) it.

I always thought Final Fantasy threads were the ugliest of ugly but it turns out Dragon Quest is just as bad, just with less use of the words metrosexual and androgynous. Yikes.

Considering that the essence of these threads always boil down to 'No, YOUR opinion sucks', why wouldn't they turn out ugly?

 

[Urban Scholar]

Ok my response to the OP is DQ archaic, yes it based upon the definition. Now the real question is why the negative connotation to this word? As I read through its clear that people feel while other games "change"(for better or worse?) and one doesn't "seem to" (I'll leave that up for your interpretation) its a bad sign. Some could argue change is a sign that we have something trying to broaden what it does and to be more appealing as time goes on. This of course doesn't mean all change is good, positive, and or really needed. Some say change is good, others say change is bad. It comes down to what you prefer.

Now myself I played 1 & 2 and I thought they were "ok". I didn't play another until DQVIII last year and I thought it was mostly enjoyable. Now would play the past games? Probably not based on what I gathered on their gameplay because of what VIII brought to the table.

 

[RevenantKioku]

I didn't say they should go that far, but I don't see why should drastic changes in gameplay be frowned upon, while other series have done it and have come out fine?

It's a fine line. Persona 3 for example is a huge transition from what was only a slight transition from the main MegaTen series. But that was a spinoff that grew into it's own right.

The main thing is, if DQ as it is traditionally disappears then that type of game is practically gone for good. When you look at the other options that are available in the RPG genre, and it is a huuuuuuuge field, why would you even want that?
If you want an RPG there is practically anything out there to suit your tastes. Series that stay relatively close to their roots are a good thing as long as we keep having this variety. It hasn't really changed that much in the past years. Perhaps Square themselves aren't putting out such a variety but other companies are sure as hell filling in the gaps.

 

[Durante]

I'd just like to clarify that I don't think Dragon Quest being archaic is a predominantly bad thing: its large number of fervent followers shows that many enjoy it. It's just not for me (at all) and I take issue with being denied the right to designate games that clearly are archaic as such.

(and being screamed at incoherently by its followers and accused of not playing a game I spent quite some hours (and money) on doesn't help)

 

[speedpop]

Well since a lot of the people defending DQ games in this thread didn't play the games until a few years back that's hardly a lot of nostalgia appeal going on.

Bingo.

I played through DQ4r for the first time on DS a few months back, and it was the best RPG I've played in 4-5 years.

 

[RevenantKioku]

(and being screamed at incoherently by its followers and accused of not playing a game I spent quite some hours (and money) on doesn't help)

And on the flipside of the coin, imagine how it would feel as someone who has put enough hours into the series to complete most of the games several times over to read things that are blatantly untrue.

 

[Durante]

And on the flipside of the coin, imagine how it would feel as someone who has put enough hours into the series to complete most of the games several times over to read things that are blatantly untrue.

What part of my post is "blatantly untrue"?

 

[Error]

Well since a lot of people who defend DQ-series play nothing but JRPG:s, the credibility of the statements can be questioned.

And yes the freaking series is OLD-SCHOOL. I mean in VIII you run around, fight millions of fights and collect loot. The story was non-existent and there was close to none customization of the characters. If people by archaic mean old solutions, then yes it's archaic too.

either you don't know what customization is or you didn't play DQ8.

Hint: skill system.