The game is absolutely worth its price

[Skl3ros]

I am only 9 hours in on my first playthrough but I can already say that this game is 100% worth the price. I expected it to be like DQ11 where most of the praise comes from the visuals and having a decent story but oh boy this game is way better than that.

The combat system is just amazing.
It goes a lot deeper than you would initially think with each character being able to hold 3 familiars and being able to control 3 character total later in the game (so you can control 9 familiars in a fight). Each familiar is unique and has different stats and abilities (so they are not just reskins of the same thing). You can also transform them into stronger versions with more ability slots (which resets their level).
The combat system is by far not just turn based as I thought it would be. Your movement very much matters to bait out attacks, dodge attacks, gaining time, picking up orbs (small amount of HP & MP which drops randomly in the fight) etc. Then there is also a mechanic where enemies will charge up attacks and you have to quickly defend or evade them to avoid most of the damage. You only have 2-3 seconds for this so you have to pay attention and react quickly.

Overall the combat system is (much to my surprise) very engaging and extremely fun. It might just be the most fun combat system I have seen yet in a JRPG and I have played a lot of them.

Combine that with the incredibly beautiful graphics, the exceptionally unique charm and character that this game spreads everywhere and a emotionally packed well paced story and you got yourself a masterpiece. And yes I can say that after only 9 hours. I have not been so eager to play a game (especially a RPG) in years.

So for all those who are on the edge because of the price: just get it now. You will not regret it. After playing the game you would probably regret getting this on a sale anyways so just buy it now. It is worth the price.

[Solidus's Revenge]

Originally posted by Scyris:

I never bothered with this or its sequel for the same reason I never touched kingdom hearts, it looks like a game for little kids, and I also dislike Ghibi's art style as well so that put another nail in the coffin for this. I also do not care for the dragon quest char designs as its by the idiot who does dragonball and I cannot stand his art style. I also heard this game doesn't even have proper controller support, which is damn pathethic for a pc game in this day and age, even more so if its a port of a console jrpg thats meant to be played with a controller.

Sounds like you are at least a little misinformed. Controllers work great. I've been using my PS4 controller without issue, natively. Also, the game is not *for* kids, even if it is pretty safe for them to play. Big difference.

As far as the rest is concerned, you are clearly not in the target audience for this game. Which is totally fine. I just don't understand what you are trying to add to this discussion.

[Vyrtualis]

Originally posted by Solidus' Revenge:

Sounds like you are at least a little misinformed. Controllers work great. I've been using my PS4 controller without issue, natively. Also, the game is not *for* kids, even if it is pretty safe for them to play. Big difference.

As far as the rest is concerned, you are clearly not in the target audience for this game. Which is totally fine. I just don't understand what you are trying to add to this discussion.

Yup, and I've been using a wireless XB1 and it works perfectly.

That dudes just talking trash about things he clearly doesn't understand. Only a person desperate for attention would come into a forum for a game they clearly will never play, just to talk trash about it and several other unrelated things. It's sad.

[D's Journal]

DQ11 story is good?
Lol ok.

[Blake]

I already have it on PS3 from the day it was originally released. No benefit in buying it again especially if there is no ultrawide support. I may as well stick with what I have. Certainly not paying £40 for it again.

[Dregora]

Originally posted by ﾚﾌﾄ:

Originally posted by Solidus' Revenge:

Like any game, whether or not it's worth it is going to be subjective. I am a fan of the game, but am still disappointed to see the price point. I was expecting it to be in the $20-30 range, as it is just a remaster. I suspect that the inflated pricing is due to it also coming out on the Switch. Nintendo fans will buy anything, it seems, and many things over and over at inflated prices. So they are keeping the other versions on par with Switch pricing, instead of in line with other remasters on PC/PS4.

That being said, I agree with the OP in that, especially if you've never played the game before, you will still get your money's worth out of it. It's a fantastic game, and quite long, if I remember correctly. So for many people it is certainly worth the full price.

I'm not really interested in the subjective value, you can literally apply that reasoning to anything. I'm more interested in comparing it to other remasters in the market.

If you've never played the game before, you can still buy it without an inflated price. The only caveat being if you are someone who doesn't own a PS3. But even still, I'm not sure anyone could be reasonably happy about the asking price.

After all, a game that was made in 2011 is still a game made in 2011, even if it's your first time playing. The circumstances, like Nintendo's profit motive, aren't really super important to the consumer. If that's how it is, maybe we should have dropped the Nintendo release. But they didn't, so here we are.

But it is subjective. There is no template out there that tells you it ''should'' cost this or that. All we have is subjective argumentation.

Even what you're saying is subjective according to your own belief on what is and isn't worth it. My subjective belief is that it is worth it on the simple premise that it's a great game.

For me that makes it worth it.

[Mike Pence But Even Gayer]

Hard for me to justify $50 for a barebones port. Happy to spend half of that or so. My opinion, $50 is a remake price tag; not a fair price for bringing an almost decade old game up to snuff to PC players.

That's not to take away any enjoyment from those playing. Just my take on pricing.

[Dregora]

Originally posted by Ted Cruz's Taint:

Hard for me to justify $50 for a barebones port. Happy to spend half of that or so. My opinion, $50 is a remake price tag; not a fair price for bringing an almost decade old game up to snuff to PC players.

That's not to take away any enjoyment from those playing. Just my take on pricing.

What do you mean when you say barebones port? As far as i'm aware, all a port is, is making it available on a console/machine that it wasn't made for at first. How can such a thing be ''barebones'' ?

I mean it's fine if you don't think the price is worth it, that's something we all gotta decide for ourselves, but imagine we would get a bunch more content. Would that be fair towards any ps3 player that already had it? Should they then make the DLC available for ps3 too? If so how much would the price be? Free? Would that warrant a higher price tag? Etc.

Long story short; it's always gonna be unfair one way or another.

[Solidus's Revenge]

Originally posted by The Wasp:

I already have it on PS3 from the day it was originally released. No benefit in buying it again especially if there is no ultrawide support. I may as well stick with what I have. Certainly not paying £40 for it again.

Depends on what you're looking for. I already have it and have played it through on PS3, and I was stoked to play it on PC. I have it running at twice the original framerate, 8x the original resolution, 16x AF, with almost non-existent load times. The game is transformed. It's like playing it again for the first time. And I actually had booted it up not long before they announced the remaster, because I was in the mood to play it again. Sadly, the PS3 version does not fare well on a modern 4K screen. But if you're still rocking 1080p it's probably not so bad.

Anyway, I can understand not wanting to pay the full retail price to play it again. But it is an amazing upgrade on PC.

[SoggieWafflz]

I'm just going to go ahead and not read anything here and say I'm glad I payed $40 for this on the PS3 a long time ago, and am now able to buy it for $50 to play it with an uncapped framerate, 1080p, on a 144hz display.

[ﾚﾌﾄ]

Originally posted by Skl3ros:

Originally posted by ﾚﾌﾄ:

The game is good but I don't agree the framing if your going to highlight the price.

This is just a critique of the game that fails to account for the fact that the game was made in 2011. Why would you write a critique of the game and highlight the price without taking this into account?

It's absurd and you should rethink your analysis.

Because as a consumer who is intrested in getting the game you only have a choice of either accepting the price and buying it or not doing so.

I dont disagree that the game should be cheaper considering that it is an 8 year old game (aside from it being remastered). I am simply ignoring the argument altogether because it is not relevant as a consumer. The price has been set and all the arguing in the world will not change it.

However what you can do as a consumer is simply look at what you are getting for the pricetag. And this is the point I wanted to get across. Is the game cheap? No of course not. But it is worth it's asking price for what you get? Absolutely.

You underestimate the options of a consumer in a digital market, you can do all sorts of things to protest the price of a game. You should rethink your argument.

Originally posted by Solidus' Revenge:

Originally posted by ﾚﾌﾄ:

I'm not really interested in the subjective value, you can literally apply that reasoning to anything. I'm more interested in comparing it to other remasters in the market.

If you've never played the game before, you can still buy it without an inflated price. The only caveat being if you are someone who doesn't own a PS3. But even still, I'm not sure anyone could be reasonably happy about the asking price.

After all, a game that was made in 2011 is still a game made in 2011, even if it's your first time playing. The circumstances, like Nintendo's profit motive, aren't really super important to the consumer. If that's how it is, maybe we should have dropped the Nintendo release. But they didn't, so here we are.

I don't understand how you could even begin to talk about the value of the game, and how much it is "worth" its price, without being subjective. Publishers always price their games at a level that they think will sell. It is up to the consumer to decide if that price is acceptable to them. The OP was just expressing that the price was more than acceptable to them, as they are really enjoying the game. The age of the original release is irrelevant. This is a new version of the game, released in 2019. Everyone has to decide for themselves what this version is worth to them. And that is always going to be subjective.

Now, if you wanted to get into some kind of comparison discussion about the actual costs of remastering games, that is not what the OP was doing here. And to have a proper discussion about remasters in a way that could make it less subjective, we'd have to know more details about how various games were remastered, such as how easy or difficult to port the code was, or to get it working on new hardware, or what licenses had to be renewed or renegotiated, or how big the team was, or how many assets were upgraded, etc. It's all apples to oranges unless you've got insider info.

Things that are not subjective when it comes to value of a remaster of game are the actual differences and content with the original.. You can compare that with other remasters as well as other games on the market and come to conclusions that aren't purely subjective but based on precedent.

If you're out there buying games on raw emotion without any introspection, good for you but at least be honest about it. No need to get lost in the weeds about the subjective.

If you're not, you're probably looking for indicators to suss out whether or not your being taken advantage of like a healthy consumer. The OP recommendation is probably his honest opinion but it's presented in bad faith. I can literally superimpose that review for the PS3 version and it would make no difference, so maybe you should buy the PS3 version because cheaper is usually positive indicator for a consumer.

[[NGNS-SWE] ⚡ Quezkatolen ⚡]

Originally posted by SoggieWafflz 「ナオミ」:

I'm just going to go ahead and not read anything here and say I'm glad I payed $40 for this on the PS3 a long time ago, and am now able to buy it for $50 to play it with an uncapped framerate, 1080p, on a 144hz display.

I can understand that.
But for me, who also own the ps3 copy, I just find it hard to justified to pay 50 euro for it again. I will buy it on sale and play it somewhere before ff7 remake, cyberpunk 2077 or persona 5 royal is out. I will pay 25-30 for it at most. WITH THAT SAID, this game is worth 50 euro, remember this was made by level5 the dragon quest 8, professor layton, rogue galaxy developers and it shows- this is an amazing JRPG and a fantastic adventure!

[Solidus's Revenge]

Originally posted by ﾚﾌﾄ:

Originally posted by Skl3ros:

Because as a consumer who is intrested in getting the game you only have a choice of either accepting the price and buying it or not doing so.

I dont disagree that the game should be cheaper considering that it is an 8 year old game (aside from it being remastered). I am simply ignoring the argument altogether because it is not relevant as a consumer. The price has been set and all the arguing in the world will not change it.

However what you can do as a consumer is simply look at what you are getting for the pricetag. And this is the point I wanted to get across. Is the game cheap? No of course not. But it is worth it's asking price for what you get? Absolutely.

You underestimate the options of a consumer in a digital market, you can do all sorts of things to protest the price of a game. You should rethink your argument.

Originally posted by Solidus' Revenge:

I don't understand how you could even begin to talk about the value of the game, and how much it is "worth" its price, without being subjective. Publishers always price their games at a level that they think will sell. It is up to the consumer to decide if that price is acceptable to them. The OP was just expressing that the price was more than acceptable to them, as they are really enjoying the game. The age of the original release is irrelevant. This is a new version of the game, released in 2019. Everyone has to decide for themselves what this version is worth to them. And that is always going to be subjective.

Now, if you wanted to get into some kind of comparison discussion about the actual costs of remastering games, that is not what the OP was doing here. And to have a proper discussion about remasters in a way that could make it less subjective, we'd have to know more details about how various games were remastered, such as how easy or difficult to port the code was, or to get it working on new hardware, or what licenses had to be renewed or renegotiated, or how big the team was, or how many assets were upgraded, etc. It's all apples to oranges unless you've got insider info.

Things that are not subjective when it comes to value of a remaster of game are the actual differences and content with the original.. You can compare that with other remasters as well as other games on the market and come to conclusions that aren't purely subjective but based on precedent.

If you're out there buying games on raw emotion without any introspection, good for you but at least be honest about it. No need to get lost in the weeds about the subjective.

If you're not, you're probably looking for indicators to suss out whether or not your being taken advantage of like a healthy consumer. The OP recommendation is probably his honest opinion but it's presented in bad faith. I can literally superimpose that review for the PS3 version and it would make no difference, so maybe you should buy the PS3 version because cheaper is usually positive indicator for a consumer.

I completely disagree. Things are very much subjective when comparing the value of anything to anything else. You can try to compare what you believe are two similarly remastered games, and if you ask pretty much anybody in the world, they will not come up with the same number as to how much they would pay for each one. People can argue till they're blue in the face that Valkyria Chronicles' remaster was better and came out at $20, so Ni No Kuni should too. But the reality is, I wouldn't even pay $20 for VC. Sure it's a good game, but not one I may ever get around to playing. Meanwhile, I gladly paid $40 for NNK because I was going to play it right away, knew I'd enjoy it, and would get dozens of hours out of it. So there you go. Completely subjective to my tastes. That's how everyone operates, so let's not pretend otherwise. Nobody buys games they don't like or won't play because they're cheaper or provide "better value" or are more "appropriately priced." People just buy what they like, and internally assign their own value to those things.

And just quit with the whole "I'm a better consumer" attitude. It's ridiculous. If you don't value a NNK re-release at $50, that's fine. I don't either. But don't condescend on others for disagreeing with you. And finally, cheaper is not usually a positive indicator for better value. It's just lower cost. In my life I have found over and over that things that are higher quality, last longer, and provide a better experience are almost never the cheapest thing out there.

[BhaalSakh]

This game is indeed amazing. Much better than it's sequel.

[SoggieWafflz]

wait did the title post change

[ﾚﾌﾄ]

Originally posted by Solidus' Revenge:

Originally posted by ﾚﾌﾄ:

You underestimate the options of a consumer in a digital market, you can do all sorts of things to protest the price of a game. You should rethink your argument.

Things that are not subjective when it comes to value of a remaster of game are the actual differences and content with the original.. You can compare that with other remasters as well as other games on the market and come to conclusions that aren't purely subjective but based on precedent.

If you're out there buying games on raw emotion without any introspection, good for you but at least be honest about it. No need to get lost in the weeds about the subjective.

If you're not, you're probably looking for indicators to suss out whether or not your being taken advantage of like a healthy consumer. The OP recommendation is probably his honest opinion but it's presented in bad faith. I can literally superimpose that review for the PS3 version and it would make no difference, so maybe you should buy the PS3 version because cheaper is usually positive indicator for a consumer.

I completely disagree. Things are very much subjective when comparing the value of anything to anything else. You can try to compare what you believe are two similarly remastered games, and if you ask pretty much anybody in the world, they will not come up with the same number as to how much they would pay for each one. People can argue till they're blue in the face that Valkyria Chronicles' remaster was better and came out at $20, so Ni No Kuni should too. But the reality is, I wouldn't even pay $20 for VC. Sure it's a good game, but not one I may ever get around to playing. Meanwhile, I gladly paid $40 for NNK because I was going to play it right away, knew I'd enjoy it, and would get dozens of hours out of it. So there you go. Completely subjective to my tastes. That's how everyone operates, so let's not pretend otherwise. Nobody buys games they don't like or won't play because they're cheaper or provide "better value" or are more "appropriately priced." People just buy what they like, and internally assign their own value to those things.

And just quit with the whole "I'm a better consumer" attitude. It's ridiculous. If you don't value a NNK re-release at $50, that's fine. I don't either. But don't condescend on others for disagreeing with you. And finally, cheaper is not usually a positive indicator for better value. It's just lower cost. In my life I have found over and over that things that are higher quality, last longer, and provide a better experience are almost never the cheapest thing out there.

The problem with your analogy is that your still critiquing the game based on emotion. I'm interested in what the game has to offer over other games and vice versa.
Does it have HD textures? Does it add extra content? Ultra-wider support? Uncapped FPS? Upgraded UI? Is it a lazy port full of bugs?
Value it like an appraiser would. People do this all the time before making a purchase. If you're not looking at that, it's an emotional purchase and those are usually bad because you're extremely vulnerable to getting ripped off.


My bad. Perhaps I should have been more specific.. in the gaming industry, cheaper is usually a positive indicator. In this very thread, someone was linking to site where you could get the game on sale.
In my experience, higher prices in this industry usually mean less value for your money. This, together with fast depreciation means you're typically left with companies taking advantage of wide-eyed people and charging exuberant prices.
Ubisoft does it best with several different versions of the same game designed to take advantage of FOMO. You can observe the worse kind with Bethesda and Fallout76 with the alcohol and 'canvas' bags. Figurines made out of cheap material but charged top dollar is also par for the course.