Topic: Apparently DQ7 Remake Cuts a Load of Content

Was wondering people's thoughts on this, as again, Squeenix seems to be creating a Remake entirely inferior to previous versions. Just read an article on CBR which says that a large amount of areas and storylines are being entirely cut from DQ7 Reimagined. I have previously been a little annoyed that the company cut extra content in the FF Pixel Remasters and FF Tactics, which was available in both the GBA and PSP versions of the former, and the PSP version of the latter. They said in those cases it was because they were, 'basing them on the original versions'. It felt lazy then; why not base it on the most definitive versions?
This time they have even less of an excuse, as the content being cut was available in both the PS1 and 3DS versions.

I was already going to pass on this game because of being busy with others, but dang... I looked into this a bit more... cutting content that was in the original release just makes no sense whatsoever for a remake. Also, cutting out the casino just to not get a 18+ rating in Europe just screams an attempt at trying to be politically correct, which is affecting every other territory the game is releasing in as well as Europe, which sucks like *ss.

Did they add new content to DQ 1-3 remake? Maybe they will add new contents to replace the cut contents in DQ7 Reimagined.

@Don, 3 added some quality of life features like an easier difficulty and a bit of voice acting, 1 + 2 is doing all that and also including a new undersea area in the 2 part of the game.

To be fair, they're pitching it as a 'reimagining' rather than a remake. With that in mind I'd expect it to be a different take on the game rather than a version that definitively replaces the original, similar to Final Fantasy VII Remake (even though that is called a remake, confusingly). And while I've yet to play DQ7, one of the criticisms I've heard of it is that there's a lot of padding, so trimming it down a bit (a la Wind Waker HD's Triforce quest) might be a good thing. I can understand being disappointed in missing out on some content if you've got no other way to play the game though.

That's not what 'politically correct' means.

@Dogorilla, I know that's not the exact same definition of "politically correct" that's on Google, but with the way that Europe / UK has been going recently in regards to censoring / upping the age rating of media, it might as well be a new form of politically correctness. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just concerned about the direction that some of my favorite companies are going in terms of going along with Europe's frankly ridiculous demands.

@ShieldHero I agree it's crazy that any allusion to gambling gets a game an 18 rating, especially when loot boxes are still allowed at any age rating. If that's why Square Enix has removed the casino, though, it's not in an attempt to avoid causing offence (which is what political correctness means, and avoiding offence doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me, but I digress), it's so that they can still sell the game to kids and teens. It sucks but it's not SE's fault.

The PlayStation version was 110 hours just for the main story, well over twice the length of pretty much every other Dragon Quest game.

The 3DS version cut down to 75 hours, still far longer than any other dragon quest games.

If they are reimagining the game from the ground up? I suspect they will both add some things and remove a lot to make it a more polished experience. For a true reimagining rather than a simple remake, all you really need is for the basic plot and main characters to remain mostly the same; everything else is up for grabs.

As for removing mini games? We have enough annoying mini games in final fantasy; if Square Enix decides to give us a break in Dragon Quest, the better for it in my opinion. I would hope that is the reason rather than silly rating issues.

It's a similar thing that happened to Balatro with the gambling. In that case, the publishers took it to appeal with PEGI and eventually got the rating reduced after the better part of a year, but Square appear to have just caved here.

I'd be a bit happier if both PEGI and ESRB took actual gambling (i.e. gacha and loot boxes) more seriously and handed out higher ratings for that than they do for mere simulations of it, but that's what you get when the industry runs its own watchdogs.

CBR is actually an awful website that has become utter garbage in the last 10 years. They've gone from being the biggest site for comic book news to become a rage and click bait factory. Be careful with any expectations from them, ESPECIALLY since that's what the article in question is.

However, the actual information is valid, and it does make me wonder why this is happening. Maybe it'll be DLC/future content? I don't know anything about DQ7, but that wouldn't surprise me with any game release at this point.

Are they cutting out content or "content"? Like is anything of actual value that people actually like being cut out or do they like the game DESPITE what is being cut.

I can name some modern games that would unironically be better with cut content. Arkham Knight immediately comes to mind, a much better game if every sidequest took half as long.

@ShieldHero that is not what politically correct means.

@kkslider5552000 it cuts the casino, another large side area and three areas/storylines of the main story is what we know so far, but it could be more.
I wouldn't mind if we had the original and or 3DS versions available on Switch as well, so this content doesn't become lost.

I do strongly agree they should have the original available.

But aside from that (and the weird issue of PEGI being completely stupid), that seems dramatic enough that its not trying to be a 1 to 1 version of the original game. Which makes sense to me, that 3DS remake is only like a decade old. Seems fine to me depending on what this new version is going for, if its trying to be a new version of DQ7 and not literally the same game with better graphics.

Yeah, I can't blame them for cutting gambling sections out. Not just European classification boards but also in Australia any gambling or simulated gambling content in a game is an automatic R18+ rating. Although they have made exceptions for games that previously got a lower rating

I get it, and frankly I don't mind such a hard line being drawn for gambling. But it's also a little bit absurd that something like Pokemon Red would now sit alongside GTA. In any case, I certainly can't fault publishers for choosing not to die on this. Really, the decision here isn't whether to stand on principle or not. The reality is more either censor the game or don't bother developing it at all

Apparently you don't know that they don't do the same for lootboxes.

I don't blame you for not knowing, in that any normal human being with a basic understanding of both lootboxes and fake gambling with zero real life monetization would understand the deeply pathetic hypocrisy of it and just assume they would be treated the same.

@kkslider5552000 Australia recently changed the law to mandate an M (15+) rating for games that contain loot boxes.

That's less than the R18+ for simulated gambling, but they're at least somewhat less hypocritical about it than the ESRB and PEGI.

@kkslider5552000
Two things. Firstly government legislation is full of odd technical classifications that create these kinds of inconsistencies. It's one of the reasons why, generally, less and simpler regulation is often better

Secondly, legislation has to be negotiated or altered to keep as many people on board as possible. Crazy concept in the current world politic I know but some democracies are still functional. Often the choice is have the change that's not perfect or have no change at all. Doing something that improves things is generally better than digging in and doing nothing. Because what matters in the end is that there's good progress

I would say that, generally, gambling and gambling adjacent material should be age restricted. Which should extend to stuff like loot boxes and also advertising. Does the age restriction of gambling elements in games achieve this? No. Certainly not. And I think it generally impacts the one bit of gambling that kinda doesn't even matter. But still, I can appreciate the intent.... even if the end result in this case is..... kinda meaningless

Well I can not. It is inexcusable for any organization to have made their choice for both in this exact way. It is genuinely impossible me to give them any benefit of the doubt on this one.

And if you ever wanted there to be a justification for M rated gen 1 Pokemon casino or the like, this is the worst possible thing that could happen to make that seem remotely justifiable.

Click
Bait
Resources

You are correct, that their "opinion" articles are crap. They will post gushing about the new "unmissable" movie X, and then, sometimes the same day, post another article on why movie X is the worst thing humans have ever created.

But it's still a decent place to see reposts of all the big geeky news of the day.

And Brian Cronin's articles are awesome, especially his annual comic book polls! They're doing a new Top 100 "Best Comic Book Storylines of All Time" poll right now. They get over 1,000 responses every year. I use them as shopping lists.