I've been a big supporter of 3D Dot Game Heroes ever since I saw the first beautiful screenshot. In fact I've been ravenous for any and all information, usually jumping at the chance to post about the game on Destructoid. Yet another chance has come today, with developer From Software answering fan questions about the game and revealing some cool details.
Here's the latest Intel on 3D Dot Game Heroes:
- The game is being designed to be beatable by all skill levels, although an Extremely Hard mode is in the works.
- Enemies break apart into blocks whenever defeated. The blocks adhere to physics, meaning they randomly disassemble upon death. The player character can also roll the blocks around on the floor.
- There is a character edit mode, where players can alter the look of the various character classes in any way they see fit.
- You can change characters during the loading screen.
- There is no co-op or online play. Dot Game is a purely single-player affair.
- It's a retail game, not a download. Also, there's no chance of an Xbox 360 version. It's a PS3 exclusive.
- The main game should take up to thirty hours to beat, with the sidequests and extras bumping the hour quota up to fifty.
- As with Zelda, you can save anytime, but restarting from a save will see you begin at a pre-set checkpoint (ie, the beginning of dungeons or the nearest inn).
- Extras include weapon customization and minigames that "will consume you."
- There is no voice acting. Voices are represented with sounds.
- Spelunker can be unlocked as a main character.
I want this game so much it's unbelievable. If it doesn't come to the West I will kill myself, but not before killing everybody else in the whole world. This is not an idle threat.
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
50 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
12:00 PM on 10.04.2009
| 
Its good to see Zelda clones evolve in an innovative way.
With Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2, 3D Dot Heroes, and the slim, things are taking a good turn for the PS3.
damn this game better release in the US.
i cant seem to find it anywhere.
--
This game looks so insanely awesome! They better bring it to US/EU.
--
When will this game be released in Japan?
I do not, however, love games that look blocky and use quirky asthetics as a selling point. It didn't work for Okami or Mad World, and I doubt it will work here.
What I worry most about is that the quirky asthetic looks like it gets in the way of the gameplay. Legend of Zelda requires you to move with agility. In zelda, your character could dodge roll into a counter attack, hook-shot from wall to wall, and ride Epona/boat quickly over the otherwise torturously large overworld. I cannot picture the Dot character doing anything with speed, agility, or grace, merely because nothing with that type of frame can act with speed, agility, and grace. That makes me worry about the quality of this Zelda clone.
(No, having a different asthetic does not automatically shield it from accusations of being a Zelda clone.)
have you even played the NES/Game boy versions of zelda? there was no dodging and couldnt even move in 8 directions. only up ,down ,left ,right.
i think you could move in 8-way in the snes version but you still couldnt dodge.
Trolling? Because you know there are other Zelda games besides OoT and Twilight Princess right?
The details Jim listed make this game sound pretty damn awesome. I wasn't really interested before, but reading about some of the features is changing my mind. I want to see some gameplay though.
@ TripleZer0
You forgot Wind Waker. Although Epona isn't in that one, just a slow moving boat.
Thankfully, that game had a teleport feature.
You know, it is wise to have no interest in games that have yet to have their gameplay revealed. I tend to assume that the lack of gameplay footage is due to the lack of gameplay personally, but to each his own.
Lol, what? Surely, you know this is based on the first Zelda game. Right?
Check the gameplay, foo'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVm5K2wX7i4
The point of the game is too be a parody... every step you take away from the feel of the old games the less of a parody it becomes; and this would include adding controls that did not exist... This game is meant to play like the ORIGINAL zelda, like a game that was designed and built for the NES, like of the the great grand-daddies of gaming that inspired countless other games... Not to mention that the zelda games on the GBA played in a similar manner and were still hailed as great games in an era that had already gone 3D.... seriously, when a 2D game can use that kinda of gameplay and be great, why does it HAVE to change when you add an extra dimension; if the gameplay was good in 2D, should it not be just as good in 3D?
I really don't like the idea of a parody, because that severely limits the mainstream appeal to the group that "gets" it. None-the-less, I have nothing against Dot Hero's gameplay per-se.
I am highly skeptical of it's art direction though. A quick scan of successful games shows that a quirky asthetic guarentees low sales. If this was simply a 2-D sprite game, I would have no complaint. I might even think it would be awesome as a DS game. But the current art style simply dooms it to minimal retail success and a cult following, while a more standard design could have given it much more success. This game simply does not have the potential to sell a million copies.
Well that's part of the reason they chose Zelda... cause when it comes down to it, who hasn't heard of Zelda; even those who are criticize of the game were able to recognize it. You want to see what a 2D version of this game is like, play the old zelda games
You are correct that a quirky aesthetic might harm the success of the game and lead to low sales, but "low sales" =/= "bad game"... there is no reason to bring up sales because sales tell us NOTHING about the quality of game... Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Okami and more were all great games that did not sell well... do you know why these games develop a cult following? its because they WERE GREAT despite not being very popular... hell one of the main reasons they were not popular is because of gamers like yourself who refused to give the game a chance because it's different; a complete lack of taste
Obviously they don't care about sales as much as you do. If they wanted maximum sales, they'd make an FPS or something. They are making the game they it is because they want to, they think it is cool. They probably know that it won't sell 1 million copies on the launch week.
Just because a game has 3D graphics doesn't mean it has to have 3D gameplay either.
Sales are what usually determine whether a game is made or not. The primary reason this game was made in this format was probably to distinguish itself in what is a doomed attempt to garner more sales through art style. But even ignoring sales completely, the much bigger issue is that low sales means few satisfied customers.
The key to success in the entertainment industry is to give people entertainment that they want. A lack of mainstream appeal means the product fails at it's function. Okami, Psychonauts, and Beyond Good and Evil, despite their many admirable qualities, failed to sufficiently do that which they were created to do. They failed to widen the audience of gaming, failed to appeal to millions, and pretty much failed to make back the money that was spent on them. Because I hate to see polished games go to the slaughter, I hate watching Dot Hero die. But I also hate watching a developer make decisions that guarentee failure before the product even goes on sale. I hate to see a developer place years of work into a product only to see it become rejected by the masses when the developer's own pig-headdedness is at fault.
Mind you, an old-school Zelda game which eliminates the original's flaws and makes the game more accessible to the gaming masses sounds nice. But a game that deliberately makes itself more niche than the title it was inspired by for the sake of art style SHOULD CHANGE THE ART STYLE.
I think I kind of agree with you. Sort of.
The artstyle for Dot Heroes feels like a straight up gimmick. Like, Hot Topic retro shirt gimmick. It may not be, but dang if it doesn't smack of it. Still interested, but I feel pretty marketed to...
However, instead of thinking its the deathknell, I think the unqiue look is going to be their trump card. Retrophiles are fawning all over this title, in part at least, from its witty artstyle.
I think artstylish games naturally find their niche audience, but by no means are they meant to set the world on fire like a Halo or MW2. Look at the advertising efforts for any of them.
From what I've heard, Madworld was a reasonable enough success. And Psychonauts has lead to at least enough sustenance for Tim Schaffer to go on to make Brutal Legend. And despite some misstarts, a sequel for BG&E has a sequel somewhere in production.
It was said by some developer this year that sales don't mean quite as much as gamers think they do. Considering the sequels we've actually seen this generation, I'm kind of willing to believe that.
Well, I have to agree with you partially.
If sales meant everything, than the Wii would have all the best third party games, Wii Fit would be cloned as many times as the original Super Mario Bros. was, New Super Mario Bros. would have single handedly ushered in a new age of 2-D Mario clones, and the pet simulators not named Nintendogs would be much, much better.
Truth is, I actually want sales to mean everything a little bit. The best selling games seem to be the most universal and lighthearted games, games that often usher in new genres of gameplay, and I think that's a good thing. However, there seems to be a bit of a dichotemy between hardcore games meant to sell and artsy games developers seem to enjoy making, with very few games in the middle. 3D Dot Hero is an artsy game. Personally, I would prefer it if it were more than that. Suppose instead of art style, 3D dot hero took the legendary arcade difficulty/speed and complete openness I hear the first Zelda had, and added the ability to travel diagnally, smoothed out the controls, updated the graphics, and just let you wander the world like so few games let you do anymore? My generation missed out on the first Zelda. What we want isn't a Zelda game for people who played the first Zelda game and to whom the graphical style of Dot Heros will remind them of the NES, people like me want the open world adventure the first Zelda provided that due to graphical and gameplay enhancements time has ruined for us.
I can't go back and play the first Zelda without immediately noticing how archaeic the graphics and controls are. The game is simply before my time. The Zelda adventure I would need would be either a 3D or 2D game with a similar feel and difficulty, smooth graphics, and maybe brighter colors. I really wish 3D dot hero was that game. But right now, it isn't.
First off, NEW artistic style is NEVER done to try and gain sales; it is done for its OWN sake
Fact is, if a game developer wanted to make sure their game would make decent sales they would play it safe and AVOID all forms of artistic expression and innovation.... they would do what they KNOW will sell instead of EXPERIMENTING with something new as you can never tell how well something NEW is gonna do in the market place... Kinda like how some companies focus all their energy on making sequels and spinoffs to incredibly popular games when they COULD be making a new IP; they KNOW the franchise game will sell well, while the new IP is an unknown... 3D Game Dot Heroe's chose it's art style for the sake of using the art style not because they thought it would garner more sales; if they wanted sales they would have made something completely different, something that matches the usual mainstream
Second of all, Sales do NOT determine if a game is good or not; successful yes, but it doesn't necessarily say anything about the actual quality of the game (which is what REALLY tells us whether the game was good or not)... Again i say, the #1 reason some of these games do poorly is because people don't even bother to try them in the first place... when we see low sales it doesn't mean unsatisfied customers, just disinterested ones... for them to be "unsatisfied" it would mean they would have to actually TRY the game first; and the lack of sales and rentals means there's a lack of people actually TRYING the games in the first place... And just because the mainstream audience is not interested does NOT mean the game was bad.. how can a person say that Psychonauts or Okami were bad games when they don't even try them..
These games did not do too well when they first came out, but look out how some of these games turned out later... When Okami was ported to the wii, it managed to double it's sales... Psychonauts did poor at first, but later on it grew in popularity and gained decent sales and distribution over the years... in addition to lower prices, one very possible reason for this that it took awhile to get it through people's thick skulls that they should actually TRY these games... Stuff like the games getting as high ratings as mainstream games, winning numerous awards and honors, and just plain word of mouth (like how most everyone who does actually play them comes to like them)... it's funny, you knock these games for their low sales and yet it doesn't stop them from being highly praised by reviewers and judges around the world
You have it backwards. Those games are highly praised around the world by reviewers and judges, and yet they don't sell well. They don't appeal to people like me. And they should, because every person that the game doesn't appeal to is a person that the game didn't have the potential to satisfy.
Think of me as the ideal customer for 3-D Dot Heroes. I have never played the original Zelda, have never seen that style of open world combined with arcade difficulty. I want to enjoy this game; I want it to be a game that I can play. But the fact that they travel down the road of lunacy, to do things for the sake of art which is the same as doing things for no one's sake, means that I cannot enjoy Dot Heroes, a game that promised an experience I never had, solely because they cannot see for themselves that their graphical experiment will fail. Perhaps they do this style for the sake of reviews, but what do I care for highly reviewed games? If I can get more enjoyment out of Shadow the Hedgehog than Okami, because the former is better at being something I want, than Shadow the Hedgehog is the better game in my eyes, and Okami is the artsy inferior game that could have been so much more.
Why can't creativity be about expirementing with gameplay and content for the sake of generating more mainstream appeal? Why must creativity and experimenting be for the sake of art, and not the customer?
Appeal =/= potential to satisfy
Just because a game does not appeal to you does NOT mean that it can not satisfy you; after playing the game you can find that it was surprisingly fun considering that those kinds of games normally do not appeal to you. You may find the game does something new or different, or hell the game may actually make you develop an appeal for that kind of game... for example, generally fighting games may not appeal to someone, but that did not mean they would never find a fighting game that they WOULD actually enjoy and thus satisfy their desires... And this works the other way around, there are plenty of games that DO appeal to the mainstream, but after playing them, these same people found the game to be utter shit (example: nearly every sonic game in the 21st century... tons of appeal but little satisfaction)
Fact is, until you actually try the game you have no idea if it could satisfy what you like in a game... and this goes back to the point that the main reason many of those games did not sell well is because many people that they could have satisfied did not even bother to try it in the first place... these games may not have appealed to them, but it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have found those games enjoyable had they tried it
And it's funny, you say have an interest in the games gameplay, and yet DENY yourself the gameplay experience just because of it's choice of style. Hell you even said that you would be interested in this game if it were 2D... why the hell does making the game 3D change what you find interesting? the gameplay is the same, if you can enjoy the gameplay in 2D, then you can damn well enjoy it in 3D... in your case, they did not sacrifice the gameplay for the sake of art; the gameplay that sparks interest in you is still right there... you are denying yourself the chance of experiencing a gameplay style you find interesting because they made the game in 3D
And the funny thing about those reviews... for cult favorites, the reviewers do not just praise the art style, but also praise the gameplay, writing and just about everything you look for in a great game. A game will never earn high reviews with art alone, the gameplay and writing has to live up to the visuals. Okami is not praised for just it's art, but also it's writing, direction and it's innovative (and still fun) gameplay
And also, "experimenting for the sake of the mainstream audience" is a contradiction... The only way to appeal to the mainstream audience is to do what has been done before and tweak it; like adding a new mechanic... when you experiment you have no clue how the mainstream audience will feel about it... that's why it's called "experimenting" because you don't know if the mainstream will like it or not; you make something new, and hope to high heaven that the mainstream enjoys it... Hell, Okami was not just done in a new visual style, but it also offered a new and fun form of gameplay; essentially, Okami WAS experimenting to find a new ways to entertain the gaming audience, Okami WAS doing exactly what you want developers to do when they are being creative
Then why were Wii Fit, the Sims, Pokemon, WoW, Super Mario Bros., Tetris, Legend of Zelda, Doom, Nintendogs, and Brain Age all highly successful?
Changing the art style is an incredibly stupid way to be successful because it has historically failed miserably. Not only that, but the particluar manner in which this game was made is less attractive than typical alternatives (I am NOT going to argue the semantics of opinion because I assume you can see the problem with this art style ever gaining mainstream approval). And the most successful games never merely tweak the formula; they throw it out the window and start from scratch. Nintendo has practically made a science out of how to make new IP successful, and the company would never use this style; the closest it came to fundamental changes in graphics involved Donkey Kong Country, the switch to 3D, and Zelda Wind Waker. Wind Waker did not have a style this dramatically different though, and it was very harshly criticized for a long time, garnering the nickname "Celda".
Please stop defending the mistakes of developers. How are they going to learn how to make new IP successful if all us gamers and all the game reviewers insist on defending their mistakes no matter how much it will cause the game to bomb? And believe me, this art style is a mistake that will kill this game at retail.
All those games, NONE of them were made to appeal to the mainstream, they just BECAME mainstream... that's what experimentation is, you create something that IS NOT mainstream and HOPE that it will become excepted by the mainstream audience and thus BECOME mainstream... The developers had no clue that consumers would fall head over heels for their game; they tried something knew, and hoped atleast a decent number of people would like it... All those are examples of experimentation, some experiments are more successful than others; if its successful you inspire many more games for years to come, if it's not you go back to the drawing board...
except WoW, there wasn't any experimentation there, it just did what other MMORPG's had already done, but tweaked it and made it work better..
And again art style is NOT about trying to make a successful game... it's about trying something new, and trying to create a new visual experience... just because a game was not successful does NOT mean the game was not good... stop confusing "success" and "quality"... Low sales can be due to any number of reason including poor advertisement, poor release timing (like being released a the same time as a popular franchise), and just plan idiot consumers who are alergic to anything that isn't mainstream and won't even give the game a chance... this where the cult favorite games fall in, there was very little actually wrong with the games, it's just that no one wanted to even give these games a chance... they had low sales, but they were great games... once again i say that until people actually TRY the game they can't say "they did not like it" or "they thought it was a bad game"; these people don't know jack shit because they avoided the experience completely.
And nintendo did plenty of experimenting with art... the original Star fox, Super Mario RPG; super paper Mario; taking their great 2D franchises and making them 3D (some like Mario and Zelda did great, but others like kirby did not)
"success" should not be the deciding factor in a game... that's the kind of thinking that leads to franchises that never die, and prevent the company from using time and energy to create new IP's... "success" and "Business" is the enemy of innovation; because business demands that you remain profitable, and the best way to do that is to avoid innovation and creative thinking and just repeat the same crap that was successful in the past; create games that are similar to devil may cry, halo, final fantasy and what not and don't start thinking outside the box... cause when ever you think outside the box you put sales at risk as you don't know how the mainstream will receive your game.
Again, i can't repeat it enough, Unsuccessful =/= bad game... Just because the game is a bombs in the game market does not necessarily mean that it was a bad game... the cult favorites shows us that their are great games that the average consumer just plain refused to try; these games were not very successful and it became a roadblock for the creation of a sequel, but when it comes down to it, these games did not deserve the crummy treatment... they WERE GREAT games, the mainstream was just to close minded to even bother giving it a chance (again, until they try it, they can't say they didn't like it)