Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. Sorry old man, but that's just the way that it is, don't bother none... Don't say we didn't warn you.

I meant to touch on something that Nich said in Saturday's closing remarks, but it slipped my mind yesterday: namely, that I'm somewhat separate from the rest of the staff when it comes to writing the column. It's a true thing, for the most part, and I know it definitely wasn't an accusation or criticism on Nich's part, but I still thought it might deserve some further explanation as far as you readers are concerned.

Basically, it stems from a few key points - I work on a laptop which doesn't always have a net connection, it takes me about 3 hours write the column every day, and nearly any distraction at all (TV, music, IRC) can cause that to balloon up to 4 or 5 hours, which is usually all the time I have on a given evening - all of which make it kind of hard to stay on the staff channel during or after the time I write the col.

Of course, there are more than a few other staffers for whom much that holds true, but everybody has their limit on how much time they can donate, and this is mine. On the other hand, as Nich pointed out, there are some advantages as to the way it works out. Nich called me an ombudsman, but I think that's actually backwards to a degree: DA often tends to be more fanatical about certain issues than the rest of the staff, and this gives the staff as a whole a certain degree of plausible deniablity when I go off on an anti-old school rant or something. Still, I'm extremely proud to be associated with the site, regardless of how closely DA's tied in to the rest of the staff, and I hope to continue to be so for some time to come.

Onward.

It's probably a measure of how strongly involved I was in games (and how uninvolved I am now) that I've done the same thing in other games as what Nameless Guy describes above in DQIII. People talk about wanting more freedom in games, but it always seemed wrong to me that you could just walk away from things that any reasonable person would say or do, so almost compulsively I made sure Erdrick talked to his mom, Yang talked to his wife, etc.

And that's actually a big part of what makes the early DQ games so playable (or not playable), as the next letter touches on...

For me, this letter pretty much hits on the main reason why early RPGs are playable or not playable: a willingness to become involved in the game. From the right angle, I actually really enjoyed the first DQ, because it was so bright and colorful and at the time it seemed pretty damn important that you get such and such piece of equipment, or raise your levels enough to get a new spell - even if the actual levelling-up wasn't fun, the feeling of accomplishment was. I remember a mini DQ strategy guide Nintendo Power once had (well before the DQ giveaway) which had detailed drawings of the various weapons and armor, which made acquiring said junk that much more interesting, because it all looked so damn cool to a junior high kid.

The problem is, there are limits as to how long you can take such things so seriously. As I got older it took more and more to keep me interested, partly because I'd done it all before and partly because other games were offering more, plot wise. And once the actual act of getting a new weapon or a new level lost interest, so did the process of levelling up. I dunno, maybe I'm just jaded, but at this point I feel pretty well past the point where I can really enjoy an old-style DQ game the way I used to, which is why I've kept clear of the GBC remixes.

Obviously others feel differently than I do about what still makes DQ playable though - the above letter says that so well that there's not really much more to say. Other than that, I actually would very much like to see what Enix's English translation of DQ 5 and 6 would look like, although it's disappointing that I can't go back in time and play them back to back with contemporary RPGs like FF5 and 6 in order to judge how they really stacked up against each other.

Me, trying to sound smart? Perish the thought.

Look, I use Japanese and US names pretty much interchangeably, and don't particularly care if this offends anyone's sense of accuracy. I'll say Threads of Fate one sentence and Dewprism the next, big freakin' deal. As for Dragon Warrior / Quest, yes, they have different translations, especially with the NES "Middle Ages" speak. The infamous Puff-puff sequences were removed, and there were some graphic alterations, although the US NES games look considerably better than the original Japanese MSX versions, if I remember right. Beyond that, though, they are the same games, and as everybody pretty much knows, the series would have been called Dragon Quest over here too if it weren't for some preexisting D&D copyright issues, which makes the debate fairly meaningless.

Besides, you yourself refer to the series as "Dragon Warrior/Quest" in your own FAQ, so get off your goddamned high horse already.

There's more than a few similarities between DQ and Wizardy as well, although fans might use the term "homage" or "streamlining" rather than "rip-off". There's also the argument that while Ultima is the very definition of computer RPGs (or was, at one point), it's not the definition of console RPGs, and hasn't been for a while, in part because of the touches and characterizations that DQ and its descendants brought to the genre - common ancestor, divergent evolution. Still, good point.

Well, because of the same things I talked about in intro, you can't really treat "the GIA staff" as a single entity, as the next letter shows pretty well. Still, I think it can be pretty well summed up this way: in the current console RPG world, you've got your early DQs on one side of the spectrum, and stuff like FF8 and Vagrant Story on the other. While it's not impossible to enjoy both equally, it does tend to be the case that most gamers will prefer one or the other, and a good chunk of GIA staffers tend to drift one way - take a wild guess as to which way that is.

I was putting this up mostly to dispel the notion that all GIA staff hated DQ (again, not true: this was a completely unsolicited letter on Nich's part) but this and another letter reminded me of the entire Taloon sequence, which is still one of the most innovative things the series (and most RPGs) have ever done, as far as breaking out of the "swords and sorcery" groove. Still, it's somewhat disappointing that the way to maintain an items shop has less to do with careful inventory and supplier relations, and more to do with hands-on treasure hunting.

No, really, I'm serious.

I've been hearing about this game for years, I played it at E3, but for the life of me I just can't get that excited about it. Still, I intend to pick it up when it's released in the US, just to see if the great white hope of old school RPGs can unseat the FF memetic virus from my mind.

I admire your friend's determination and creativity, although I'm also reminded of Thoreau's line about quiet desperation - that pretty much always summed up my high school experience, in retrospect, especially when it came to playing games in class.

Two ways: really cool people don't have to obey the laws of physics, and whenever that line of solipsism fails, we break out the agrav fabric from A Fire Upon the Deep.

And I'm ending this line of inquiry now, before anyone asks how we get the fabric working this deep in the Slow Zone.

Closing Comments:

I think it's about time for some Zelda: Oracles discussion, don't you? See you then.

-Chris Jones, out of words to say for now