Drakengard 3 Battle Screenshots And Zero’s Idealistic Dragon Companion

By Spencer . April 3, 2013 . 11:33pm


Like the previous two Drakengard games, Drakengard 3 has land and air combat. Zero, the protagonist who powers up when she’s covered in blood, has a dragon partner called Mikhail. While Zero has an aggressive and sometimes violent personality, Mikhail is an idealist and a pacifist. Their clashing values ticks off Zero.


draken3-09 draken3-03


I suppose Mikhail isn’t that much of a pacifist since we have screenshots of him breathing fire on an army. One other mysterious tidbit about Mikhail is the dragon was reincarnated and had another name in another life.


Drakengard 3 is slated to come out in 2013 for PlayStation 3.


draken3-06 draken3-05 draken3-12 draken3-01 draken3-02 draken3-04 draken3-10 draken3-11 draken3-13 draken3-14

Read more stories about & & on Siliconera.

  • Vash bane

    “Mikhail is the dragon was reincarnated and had another name in another life.”

    here we go again lol

    • NTaiyokun

      Angelus. Totally Angelus. Calling it now.

      • prometheus126

        It’s more likely that it’s Legna, the color and appearance look quite a bit to Legna’s Holy Dragon form.

        • Soroth23

          I read somewhere that this game is a prequal, so both answers are probably wrong.

  • I see that Fire Emblem Awakening soldiers are in the Dragon Levels

  • Paradox me

    It really doesn’t look that bad. Dated, but not bad. Might even look ‘nice’ on the TV and in motion, just like Nier.

    All depends on how well they execute the art direction, which looks great from what we’ve seen.

  • Sakurazaki

    Certainly looks better than I thought it would.

    Still interested, regardless.

  • Solomon_Kano

    Well, it’s certainly not going to be a pretty game, but visuals were never what I played Drakengard for anyway. So long as the ground combat works and the aerial battles are as fun as they always were, I’ll be cool — they’re already halfway there with Mikhail looking and sounding interesting. I’m definitely looking forward to this.

    I just wish Square Enix would put up the original on PSN. It’d be nice if Ubisoft did as much for the sequel, too.

    • Curan_Altea

      Drakengard has never had very good graphics. And I would hope the lesser graphics means a good draw distance, large number of enemies on screen and or a good stable framerate.

      • Solomon_Kano

        Enemies and frame rate remain to be seen, but the draw distance looks pretty poor from these screens. We can hope for improvement, but Access isn’t known for their technical prowess.

        • Curan_Altea

          (Super late response) I use the term hope in the “would be nice, but don’t expect it” way. It’s certainly better looking then a psp game, but I’m really curios to see how it looks in motion.

    • Peeka Chu

      Nier looked awful, but it was one of the stand-out games from this gen. This looks slightly better, so that’s good enough for me.

      • Solomon_Kano

        I actually feel Nier looked better than this. Nier wasn’t anything amazing graphically, but it also didn’t look like a PSP game. This is looking PSP-level.

        • Tien Ron

          i felt nier had so much potential it was a really amazing game

  • AoNoise

    I don’t care. This game’s artwork has style for days.

    I have my expectations set really high for the music, too. Dat Keiichi Okabe.

  • Jordan Coleman

    Yeah it looks pretty bad. I can’t believe how bad it looks. Was there nothing they could have done? Stylish graphics? Make it cel shaded? Anything to hide how poor it looks. I’m happy it’s getting made and all, but eh… I never thought Nier looked unappealing, the use of bloom an desolate(best way I could describe them) looking graphics went with the game.

  • Peeka Chu

    This better see a release overseas. This will be my PS3 swansong along with all the other JRPGs rolling out in its last horrah. But mostly this.

  • Calamity

    I’m excited to hear the soundtrack. More so than the actual game if it is anywhere close to the quality of Nier.

  • JustThisOne

    Am I crazy, or do the screenshots look better since I’ve last seen them? It looks like they’ve gotten some better textures.. but.. this might just be because these screenies have better close ups of the dragon.

    Either way, it’s not like I have high standards for graphics anyway.

    Anyway, pacifist dragons! Paarthurnax (Skyrim) was such a gentleman of a dragon that I can’t help but hope that Mikhail will be the same.

  • Masa

    the first two games were kinda dark and had a great main character.

    Why did they change this game into some ecchi anime crap, look whats she’s wearing.

    • Solomon_Kano

      What made Drakengard dark was its story, not Caim’s look. Doubt her outfit is gonna have any effect on that.

    • z_merquise

      I don’t see anything wrong with this.


      Also, the director and story writer of Drakengard and Nier also made the story in this game too so don’t expect some typical story-telling and characterization in it.

    • Göran Isacson

      See, so far Zero is the only one dressed in this skimpy outfit, and if Kaine is anything to go by (character from another game), she is not going to have that many fanservice shots AND be dressed like that for a reason- namely that she’s a flirting hedonist, to be contrasted with the other characters around her. I know that it’s probably much to ask, but I think we can have SOME faith in the writer of this game to not turn out a work comparable to ecchi anime crap.

    • puchinri

      Even as someone who has yet to play any Drakengard game or Nier (much as I want to), I doubt the game is going to go an ecchi route. The gal has a stylish outfit too that isn’t as bad as other characters.

    • Alberto Maytorena

      You can’t be serious… the second game had a generic bishonen as a main character, and wasn’t even a deconstruction like Caim.

  • Doesn’t look -that- good graphics wise, but I’m not of of those persons judging a game only by its graphics, so I don’t really care. I’ve to say though that the game has such lovely artworks~ <3 I loved the first and second ones, so naturally, I can't wait for the third game! :D

  • Nitraion

    Hmm the dragon looks good…
    i dunno is it just bad angle on screen shot maybe…

  • badmoogle

    Why IPs that interest me almost always happen to have shitty graphics yet IPs i’ve no interest at all have great graphics?
    I’m really tired of this situation.

    • Mrgrgr and Unacceptable World

      Well……………..does that mean you have unique taste bud?^_^

    • Göran Isacson

      Budgets, dude. The interesting stuff that takes risks are deliberately given small budgets by a risk-averse gaming industry, so that if it fails it won’t be a hard blow. Safe projects get big budgets and pretty graphics. Unsafe projects get, well, what you see here.

  • Ceci “Ruzuzu” Kiyomizu

    I can’t wait for this game.
    I just want to rub up against the case and smell it.

  • Randy Marsh

    Well the graphics match the style of the original two games. If the gameplay has been improved, I’ll give it a shot.

    • badmoogle

      Yeah PS3 graphics match PS2 graphics.We should all rejoice!

      • solbalmung

        Better have an engaging fun game with PS2 graphics on the PS3 then an amazing looking one with a tedious boring gameply system and no fun whatsoever.
        As for me I buy PS3 games for the fun and enjoyement and not to sit there watching beautifull graphics covering hollow gameplay mechanics…

  • Looking carefully at the screenshots, it looks like the game looks better than before. As far as gameplay goes for some reason I’m sure it will be fine, especially if it’s like the other 2 Drakengards. Also both Mikhail and Zero look bad ass in my opinion.

    • Soroth23

      will be fascinating to see Zero and Mikhail in completely opposite roles as Nowe and Legna. Never seen a Pacifist dragon. haha

  • Mazdian

    Below average quality graphics?

    I could hardly care less what this looks like. I know we’ve all come to expect a certain level of graphical quality in this day and age, but is it really that big of a stumbling block? The aesthetics looks fine, the music promises to be amazing, and the story… well, we all know what to expect there.

    I’ve been to several forums, and it always seems to surface, the question of graphics. It makes me a bit confused, to be honest. Isn’t this really targeted towards previous fans, else why revive such an old series and one that never did garner a lot of mainstream support? I understand that a new audience is also expected to partake, but honestly, isn’t it safe to say that the old guard will be the main consumers? And of us, did anyone really play the previous games for their graphics? Did we really expect amazing or even an average level of graphical quality? Has it ever appeared to have been of any concern or focus to the developmental teams?

    No, If this is really Yoko Taro’s work, then the graphics, the music, and even the gameplay are here but for only one reason: as vehicles for the story and experience. I don’t expect to be wowed by the view, but by the sum of the parts.

    And on a less serious note, it’s Drakengard, guys… DRAKENGARD 3! The completely unexpected and unsuspected miracle! Whatever will be, will be, so just relax~

    … and let Yoko Taro do his mind-twisting depressing magic. (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧

    • badmoogle

      Does the “old guard” expect future games to have the same old PS2 graphics (only in HD) just because they were acceptable 8 years ago?I’m a fan of the first game but that doesn’t mean i don’t care at all for graphics.If they want to make another PS2 game then they should just release it on PS2 and not ask for the price of a PS3 game.

      I’m not saying this will be a bad game just because it has bad graphics,far from that.But i don’t like it when the fans try to hide lazy efforts under their carpets just because they are fans of a series.These publishers are not offering you a free service,you are paying them with real,hard earned money and therefore you have every right to complain if something is below certain standards.

      • Paradox me

        There’s laziness and then there’s coping with the harsh realities of burgeoning development costs.

        When you’re working on a sequel to a series that has neither garnered critical acclaim nor sold particularly well, impressive visuals are not factored into the budget.

        It’s a wonder that this game even exists, let alone on a home console.

        • badmoogle

          Well “the harsh realities of burgeoning development costs” are not the fans problems just like managing to find the money to buy a game (in times of economic crisis) shouldn’t be the publisher’s concern.
          If for whatever reason their budget is low and can’t offer high quality on all aspects of a game then (IMO) they should be honest to their fans and price their game accordingly with the quality they offer.

          The hard truth is that graphics sell games.You can’t release a game with PS2 graphics (for the same price as a PS3 game) and then blame the IP or the lack of “faithfullness” from your fans if the game bombs.This ultimatelly becomes a vicious circle that is never going to break.Sometimes a publisher needs to take risks in order to properly test the waters of a certain market before making a fair judgement of the strength of an IP.

          If the publishers continue to play it safe then this industry is mathematically going to crash since more and more people are getting tired playing the same kind of big budget games yet the games who have the most interesting concepts all look like shit.

          • Höhlenmensch

            Pricing the game lower doesn’t make any sense when your audience is so limited due to graphics.

            You have to pay your employees somehow.

          • Tien Ron

            i agree. their hard earned work needs to be paid somehow you cant just call them lazy because graphics aren’t up to standards. a game is a game graphics is only part of it.

          • badmoogle

            If less people work on a game,the budget will get smaller too.And a smaller budget means lower quality on certain aspects and lower quality means lower price.IMO.

            No one said that their few people working on the game should be working for free.

          • Höhlenmensch

            And if less people buy your game due to whatever reason you have to raise the price or stop developing games in the future.

            There are games that will always sell about the same amount regardless of price.

          • badmoogle

            “And if less people buy your game due to whatever reason you have to raise the price”

            Why?You should expect the lower sales due to your low budget.You can still be profitable with a low price point if the game didn’t cost much to develop.

            Of course you can also bet on the fans willingness to buy an ugly game for full price just for the sake of the IP’s appeal to them but this will increase the expectations (and therefore disappointment) of your fans,resulting in bad word of mouth after they have bought and played it,which will ultimately result in the IP dying once and for all.

          • Höhlenmensch

            Why? Because most businesses don’t exist to break even.

            If you as a company have the choice to sell 100.000 copies at full price or 100.000 at half price you will obviously choose the former.

          • badmoogle

            “If you as a company have the choice to sell 100.000 copies at full price or 100.000 at half price you will obviously choose the former.”

            This doesn’t make sense though.If you sell it at half the price then the sales would definitely go higher.They can even make it a PSN/XBLA game with half the price of a retail game in order to keep the costs even lower and turn more profit for them.

            But trying to selling me a Fiat for the price of a Mercedes just because i happen to like Fiats is a pure steal (regardless of how much i happen to enjoy my Fiat afterwards).

          • Höhlenmensch

            What? It makes perfect sense. As I said there are games that always sell the same amount regardless of price.

            Going download only is not an option if your audience consists of enthusiasts and you would have to cut the price a lot more than just in half.

            Your car comparision doesn’t make any sense, cars are tools and not entertainment.

            A better example: If I have the choice between a 20$ dvd of a hollywood movie that had a budget of 100 million $ and features mind boggling special effects and a 20$ dvd of some b-movie with a budget of 20 thousand $ and appropriate special effects I may still choose the b-movie over the hollywood one regardless of price.

          • badmoogle

            “What? It makes perfect sense. As I said there are games that always sell the same amount regardless of price.”

            Ok give me examples of games that have sold exactly the same amount of copies while having a full price and then also having a half price.

            I also don’t see how my comparison doesn’t make sense just because a car is a tool.For some people a car can also provide entertainment or some would want a second car just for prestige but that’s beside the point.The point was that the provider offers something for the same price as something that is better (quality wise).Whether you’re going to use it as a tool or for the decoration of your garage is insignificant.

          • Höhlenmensch

            Why do I have to give examples? Logic dictates that for example something like Senran Kagura would not suddenly start selling millions just because the price was halfed simply because the game is targeted at an exclusive audience.

            When it comes to entertainment products there’s just one quality metric and that’s entertainment value which is totally subjective and is something that cannot be deduced from budget.

            Why didn’t you adress my DVD example? According to your logic the hollywood movie is better (quality wise, whatever that means), why would someone pay the same money for a b-movie?

          • “You can’t release a game with PS2 graphics (for the same price as a PS3 game)”

            You just went full retard. Last time I checked PS2 games were $60. *scratches head*

          • badmoogle

            You are just being an idiot.
            Try selling a new PS2 game today for 60$.I dare you.

        • KnifeAndFork

          Valkyria Profile still looks nice to this day.

          Also I looked at some Drakengard 1 & 2 screenshots and this is only slightly better. Worse in some other areas.

      • Mazdian

        Well, first, I’d like to explain that I didn’t mean “old guard” as being exclusive or elitist, but rather as a figure of speech. Apologies if that was taken offensively.

        Now then, on the the meat and potatoes. I’d like to preface that I know I don’t speak for an entire group, and that this is merely my own point of view.

        No, I don’t expect future games to have the same low level of quality as during the PS2 era, nor do I expect others to blindly accept that. I’m saying that from their history, it has been shown that the graphical prowess of their games has always been lacking, as it isn’t a main focus. I understand the desire for better graphics as the PS3 is a substantially more powerful machine than the PS2, but as I asked in my original post, is it really that bad if they have lackluster graphics?

        The old games never really cared, as far as I could tell. Drakengard looked horrible, like a PS1 game, and NIER was heavily criticized for looking like a PS2 game. And the tradition continues. I’d love to have amazing, awe-inspiring graphics or even an average level of quality, but as a fan of the older games, I understand that perhaps it doesn’t fall under the core pillars of their game design or budget. I expect it of them.

        As a fan, I encourage being critical and skeptical toward the things you love. Blindly supporting something can cause major problems in the future. I understand where you’re coming from. As a consumer, you should demand the most from your supplier. However, if they choose to ignore your complaints regarding graphics, as Drakengard and NIER have shown, then you need to vote with your wallet. Don’t purchase from them, even if you’re a fan. They’re targeting an audience, and mayhap you’re not part of that group.

        I understand vocalizing your displeasure and so I won’t tell you to stop, but I just found it rather confusing that so many would be so critical about the graphics despite being aware that it has always been low quality. The blame falls on me for faulty assumptions and a wrong frame of mind. Not everyone is acquainted with the team’s works and even if they are, perhaps they finally wanted some good graphics.

        Also, has the price been stated yet?

        To summarize my original post:

        – The revival of Drakengard is probably targetting old fans
        – The team responible doesn’t focus on graphics
        – Old fans know this and expect this
        – Why complain?

        To summarize this post:

        – They don’t care about graphics and never have
        – However, you shouldn’t have to expect bad graphics
        – Voice your complaint, but consider the game’s design, target, and limitations
        – I’m wrong for bad assumptions ;_;

        • badmoogle

          I disagree that Drakengard looked like a PS1 game.Sure it may have not been FFXII but its graphics didn’t lacked the quality of other PS2 RPGs very much.

          Same goes for Nier,it wasn’t the best looking JRPG on PS3 but it was definitely an improvement from the PS2 days.For example i remember marvelling at all the work and detail they did for Seafront town.

          But this…i can’t accept even though i know i will eventually buy the game because i loved the first Drakengard and Nier.However as you say i would completely understand if someone said that they will not buy this game because of its horrible graphics even if he was previously a fan of the series.And i will get angry if the game bombs and SE says that its the IP’s fault.

      • It’s as simple as this: there are trade-offs. You may call it lazy, but to put it simply, this game would not get made if it required the graphical fidelity of FFXIII. It’s not laziness, it’s necessity. And it’s okay that it doesn’t have that level of graphics- fans apparently aren’t prioritizing that. If you start saying it should cost less, you’re opening a frankly idiotic can of worms. You said it should cost $30 because its graphics are worse, but $30 is what a Nintendo DS game costs at launch, and this is far above DS graphics. And let’s not even get started on the implication that graphics should determine a price point. What about content? Story? Sound? Gameplay? Originality? Those may be less easily quantifiable, but they’re essential qualities of a game just the way graphics are. And in some categories this game will do better than many of its graphically superior peers. Reducing gaming to a graphics race is sort of the reason why gaming is reduced to the short single player length, multiplayer & DLC-driven mess that we’re all complaining about. We want diversity, even if it’s at the expense of polish. Better to have an average-looking game in which we can ride a talking dragon and fight as a crazy chick who grows more powerful when she’s bled on than to have another pretty, generic first person shooter.

        In short, we’re happy to have this game, and we believe it’s worth the industry-standard price point, so would you kindly STFU?

        • badmoogle

          You have totally misunderstood my point,you ‘re pointlessly bringing another hardware into the discussion to prove your distorted logic,and lastly you insult me.

          No i will not STFU so “kindly” go troll somewhere else,while you drink your favorite fanboy coolade.

          • Oh, so me bringing another hardware into the discussion is distortion, but you comparing games to FIATs and Mercedes is somehow pertinent?

            If I understand correctly (and feel free to correct me if I dont), your argument is that a game that costs less to develop (and you’re measuring this in terms of graphics, which certainly contributes but is hardly the only variable cost associated with development), then it should be sold for less. Or at the very least the game might generate more sales by adopting an unconventional pricing and/or distribution model. I brought in other hardware to illustrate (illustrate, not prove) that graphics don’t determine price point, so it is relevant to discussion in that regard. And it’s true – graphics don’t determine pricing. Nor should they. Platform does, for the most part.

            As for the bit about pricing/distribution – PSN distribution isn’t magically way more profitable. If it were, you’d see a much more dramatic shift to digital. Sony eats a large chunk of the price, and you cut your potential sales by a lot (sure, PSN is popular, but the vast majority of people still are more inclined to buy in-store). As for pricing lower, that may work for games with mass appeal like Sly Cooper for instance, since it’s likely to be an impulse buy for many people, and that impulse is stronger for a cheaper game, but it doesn’t work for niche games that rely on a small but dedicated fanbase that will buy the game immediately at full-price.

            I don’t think any of the points I’m making are distorted or illogical, but feel free to dispute that.

            Lastly, STFU is not an insult. If anything it’s a command. I suppose it’s actually a request in this context, since I prefaced it with “would you kindly”. Unless you meant that “idiotic” was the insult. In which case I’m still not insulting you, I’m insulting an area of debate (the idiotic can of worms that results from using graphics as a determinant of price point).

          • badmoogle

            “your argument is that a game that costs less to develop should be sold for less”

            Yes that is exactly my point.

            “you’re measuring this in terms of graphics, which certainly contributes but is hardly the only variable cost associated with development”

            Did i ever said that graphics is the ONLY source of development costs?No.And i don’t think anyone here needs a lesson about development costs from neither you or me.

            ” I brought in other hardware to illustrate (illustrate, not prove) that graphics don’t determine price point”

            Well i thought you brought it up in order to justify the situation rather than illustrate it.If you only brought this up just to illustrate the situation then i’m afraid it was kinda pointless since everyone knows how the situation currently is.However this doesn’t mean we have to accept this phenomenon or even worse not dare to voice our complaints.

            What i mean by that is that portable games definitely need to be priced much lower than they currently are from big budget console games and ONE of the main reasons for that is that the costs for graphics are much higher on the later.Everyone knows that art and programming are the most costly aspects of game development.

            Of course the situation isn’t ideal or fair for the consumer in terms of pricing but just because it currently is the way it is doesn’t mean we have no right to complain.

            “As for the bit about pricing/distribution – PSN distribution isn’t magically way more profitable. If it were, you’d see a much more dramatic shift to digital.Sony eats a large chunk of the price, and you cut your potential sales by a lot (sure, PSN is popular, but the vast majority of people still are more inclined to buy in-store).”

            Of course digital distribution is much more profitable for the publisher because even though Sony and MS both “rent” their virtual spaces to developers, in comparison with the actual distributional costs of retail copies it’s almost nothing.Not to mention the costs of cases and manuals.It’s really not surprising that more and more publishers are trying or want DD to be the only way they sell their games in the future while also avoiding loosing profits from used game sales.

            The only reason they are apprehensive it’s because of some certain retailers like Gamestop still have a big market share in the industry and the publishers still need them.

            “As for pricing lower, that may work for games with mass appeal like Sly Cooper for instance, since it’s likely to be an impulse buy for many people, and that impulse is stronger for a cheaper game, but it doesn’t work for niche games that rely on a small but dedicated fanbase that will buy the game immediately at full-price.”

            I disagree.I think a low price can bring new buyers to try the product and if they think that the balance of content/price is fair (and the game is obviously enjoyable) this can ignite positive word of mouth something that in the online communities and social media age could raise significantly the potential sales of the game.

            “Lastly, STFU is not an insult. If anything it’s a command. I suppose it’s actually a request in this context, since I prefaced it with “would you kindly”. Unless you meant that “idiotic” was the insult. In which case I’m still not insulting you, I’m insulting an area of debate (the idiotic can of worms that results from using graphics as a determinant of price point).”

            I don’t know in what kind of environment you live in but where i live telling someone to shut the fuck up is not going to make you look very polite.
            And i don’t take commands from anyone either much less from total strangers on the internet.

          • 1. Your first couple points boil down to “i have the right to complain”. Of course you do, but I’m saying this feedback shouldn’t be used constructively (assuming it were to even be noted by anyone at SE). If you have a problem with a perfectly good game costing $60 because of its graphics, either wait for an inevitable price drop or don’t buy it. Why on earth would any drastic change be made off of one trivial complaint? If, on the other hand, you’re complaining without any desire for something to change as a result of it (complaining for complaining’s sake), then I support that, and I raise you a counter-complaint!

            2. You’re thinking only of very straightforward costs. Sure, graphics are expensive, though even on that point it’s expensive to develop a game with this level of graphics (even if it’s slightly less impressive than say CoD). But what about costs like content? An average RPG may not have the graphics of an FPS, but it has 40+ hours of gameplay, and a towns and dungeons to explore, and sidequests, and complex leveling/skill systems. A shooter may look more impressive, but often at the expense of <10 hours of campaign, and with the whole campaign basically being a linear path. There's a reason that fans clamor for extra content in those types of games, and the end result is that a full game can cost over $100 once you factor in all the DLC content. RPG fans enjoy more content built right into a game than the average gamer gets. You could argue we're spoiled, actually. In that regard, it seems that your $60 is already a discount, considering you're getting much more content than an average game.

            Also consider the cost of developing a game for a small audience. Drakengard won't sell the millions of copies that a big-budget game requires, and it'd be a huge risk to spend a lot of extra time and money to make it look a bit prettier. Specific appeal is something that you pay a premium for, much in the way graphics are.

            3. Yes, DD is certainly more profitable (though as I said Sony/MS take a big chunk), but again, you lose a large percentage of sales from people who choose to buy physical games, people without reliable internet connections (there's a lot of those), and of course you lose the interest/awareness generated by being able to see the box on a store shelf. The PSN stores generally isn't casually browsed through the way a Gamestop in a mall is, yknow? Certainly the popularity of DD will grow within the next few years, but at this point in time DD isn't a viable alternative.

            4. You're missing my point. I agree that lower price points can bring a someone to buy something they otherwise wouldn't. But what I'm saying (harkening back to Sly Cooper) is that that works better for games that aren't niche – games that are either immediately appealing to people already sorta recognize the game from ads/the internet/whatever. Sly is recognizable, people will be curious when they see the box. It's accessible to the mainstream. But a niche game like Drakengard, for all its uniqueness, doesn't have that going for it (by the very definition of "niche", even). Pretty much no one knows what it is, and even if they do pick up the box the game will look crazy to most of them. It'll be passed up in favor of more accessible games (and there are plenty of accessible games for $30 or less). Niche games survive on those few dedicated fans who already scour the internet, know about the game, and aren't put off by eccentricity. But those fans largely don't need the price to be slashed in half for visibility's sake – they'll buy it full price, and they'll be glad that a game that they're passionate about has been released despite its low-profile.

            5. Have you been on the internet? If we're not shouting STFU at each other, that's because we're busy watching pr0nz. SO STFU!!!!11

          • NTaiyokun

            DogDammit I just wanted to read comments. Not a pointless debate.

            I honestly don’t see what wrong with the graphics. It could be much worse.

          • Soroth23

            I find it annoying that soo many people say that this game is gonna be crap, or just plain wont play it due to its graphics. Some of the best games ever made in my opinion had reletively subpar graphics, perfect example would be the Shadow Hearts Trilogy and the .Hack// games.. And again, if u watch the cutscenes of Drakengard one and two, they are completely up to normal PS2 standards. Im sure the same is true for this game as well. If u want to a game simply for its graphics, then maybe u should be watching a movie instead.

      • Cloud_ST

        Just wanted to say that I agree with you 100%, if It’s not up for today standards then it should be sold for less than 60$ or at least they should try and make the game with cel-shading or something like that.

    • Soroth23

      Drakengard has always been known for good graphics on the CG cutscenes, but as not wasting the effort for combat missions or for the average talking scene. I think that, by the looks of it, it is sticking to that concept. Besides, it may not have the highest budget out there, considering im sure a lot of Square’s time and effort is still going into FF.

  • XypherCode

    Graphics are very good in a way. But they really don’t do the Artwork justice.

  • http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicalPacifist

    I think this describe Mikhail pacifism quite well.

  • Göran Isacson

    I wonder if it’s an intentional effect that the skin between Mikhails wings looks kind of like marble, or just an unfortunate effect of the editor. Welp, at least it looks prettier than the original Drakengard- heck, it already looks like it has the most varied environments in the whole series, that alone elevates it’s graphics above previous titles.

    AT ANY RATE- story discussion! A pacifist dragon sounds interesting, but that he is also a reincarnation AND an interesting contrast to Zero? I am intrigued… though man, what if he’s not a reincarnation of a dragon? What if he’s a HUMAN character who was turned into a dragon-soul through strange and magical trickery? Perhaps a certain psychotically violent someone who was very, VERY close with his dragon-mount and then dissolved into pretty sparkles alongside with her~?

    Of course this is just baseless speculation right now, but it could be interesting. Unsure how his pacifism will play in accordance with the brutal gameplay though, hopefully we won’t be more annoyed than we are intrigued. Also? I do wonder if One will be playable, because so far all we’ve seen is Zero….

  • Aoshi00

    Hm.. the graphics look fine to me.. not mind blowing like Tomb Raider or Bioshock Infinite, but we know the chars, setting, story, music, gameplay are going to be good because of the main Nier staff.. I can’t wait to hear the soundtrack.

    I’m not sure why everyone’s being so hard on the graphics.. like some said Nier looked awful before, I truly did not feel that way at all playing the game. People weren’t even bothered or notice the Fire Emblem chars had not feet, so why so critical of Drakengard 3 as long as it plays smoothly if it’s anything like Nier.

    The giant mech things on the first artwork look like Songbirds :) Bioshock fans need to get the hardcover Infinite artbook, it’s amazing!

    ps. They probably have a limited budget and worked w/ what they have, balancing all aspects of the game. I would take style and contents over graphics any day.. the fact that we’re getting Drakengard 3 is a miracle alrdy and I’m grateful for it. and thank god it’s directed by Yoko Taro instead of Toriyama lol..

    • solbalmung

      Many people don’t see it your way, they don’t care if the team working on the game had low/limited budget, they want photo realistic graphics or Final Fantasy ones. They don’t care if a franchise have low chances to zero to get a a new entry, if it does then extraordinary graphics state of art have to be included.
      God I still don’t get these players that complain about graphics, go watch a blue ray movie and you’ll have all the Hi Res stuff you want. Why did the video games community get so twisted as they only factor in graphics to like/dislike a game. Why don’t we take into account the fun factor, the originality, gameplay etc. We rush toward the graphic first and if it doesn’t looks good (meaning AWESOME photorealistic graphics) then we “meeh bad graphics, game doesn’t look good….”

      • Aoshi00

        I know.. it’s a bit sad unfortunately.. games like Drakengard and Nier offered so much, such a dark adventure that resonates w/ one’s heart.. Like I said, it’s no Tomb Raider, but does it need to be? I thought Nier looked absolutely beautiful, design and gameplay-wise, not AAA graphics, but presentation counts too, and so smooth in motion, I was awestruck by it. I’ve been humming the Nier soundtrack in my own mind ever since I heard the announcement of Drakengard 3 :) What puzzles me is in the other Fire Emblem article, you have tons of people defend and dismiss the “missing feet” yet nitpick on this.. I’m no graphics whore at all, but those missing knee, feet, or whatever really stood out and made me wonder, how could one not notice? It’s different than a overall SD chibi style..

        As for cost, if something that doesn’t look AAA but is very memorable, then I don’t have any problem w/ it costing the same as something that looks AAA but is forgettable. People decide to pay what they think something is worth. If one thinks this is only worth $20, then wait for the eventual price drop. I paid Nier at full price and didn’t regret one bit and would certainly day 1 this. Both an indie movie and blockbuster movie cost the same in the theater, you can’t expect them to sell an indie movie for $2 a ticket..

        It’s funny you just remind me of Atlas w/ your “Would you kindly”. I just started playing Infinite and then went back to the original Bioshock :)

  • Go2hell66

    As long as it runs at a steady 60 FPS

  • Mikhail is Caim.

  • Kuro Kairi

    I don’t get the whole graphic issue much, I play older games as much as ps3 games so that might be a factor.
    But the same discussion happened over Nier and i wouldn’t have noticed if people didn’t point it out, in fact, Nier was a pretty game in my opinion, the character models were top design and the enemy and other aesthetics brought an even more unique feel to the game imo.
    As long as my TV doesn’t have a problem with the game (like the game not being hd) the graphic are acceptable to me.

    And besides, graphic are really expensive were talking massive budgets that make AAA games AAA.
    If a studio decides to make great designs but saves some money on the overall graphic complexity thats fine with me.

  • Ferrick

    “One other mysterious tidbit about Mikhail is the dragon was reincarnated and had another name in another life. ”

    *crosses fingers* please not seere, please not seere, please let it either be caim or angelus

  • Almost forgot that I have to reseve this as soon as I can

  • Crimson_Cloud

    It pleases me that I’m gonna control a female protagonist. She looks badass.

  • Ni

    JRPG fan: I don’t need graphics! The story and gameplay is far more important!

    *looks at Dakengard 3*

    JRPG Fan: What kind of shitty graphics are these? They look like a old PS2 game!!!1

    Now seriously. We are speaking of Drakengard here. A franchise that never had good graphics and was all about the story, a franchise that never had a high budget to be able to have awesome graphics. This is what? A niche RPG game that a lot of people never heard about. This situation sums up pretty much the state of JRPGs on consoles in this generation, You’ll need to sacrifice the graphics because of the low budget that this type of game get If not a well known franchise to be able to put them on the typical HD console. I think that is why the companies are moving the JRPGs to handhelds.

    After how NIer was received I pretty much give up that they were going to make another Drankengard or NIer sequel…This really got me off guard and I’m just glad that they were making a new game at all

  • soulz

    I hope they do an HD remake of the first two, I loved those.

    Doubt it though.

  • DesmaX

    I don’t really have any problems with the graphics, to be honest. Loved Nier and I hope I’ll enjoy this one too.

    But… That Blood Effect… It looks like Red Paint, it kinda annoys me

  • LynxAmali

    -One other mysterious tidbit about Mikhail is the dragon was reincarnated and had another name in another life.

    Does this mean what I think it does?
    I really hope it does.

    They wouldn’t blow the chance to do THAT, would they?

  • BloodTorrent

    There’s going to be a Drakengard 3??? This is good news for me.

  • hmmm.. i wonder if there are totally no enemy or it is just a bad draw distance, or they only want to show us the dragon and environment…


  • Zero Shift

    Loved the first Drakengard, never got a chance to play the 2nd one though. Looking forward to this game though!

  • ShadowDivz

    While Zero has an aggressive and sometimes violent personality, Mikhail is an idealist and a pacifist.
    ….a dragon?

    • raymk

      There are 2 characters in the game. Check one of the old articles on this site.

      • ShadowDivz

        Im just surprised a dragon in a game is a pacisfist.
        They are usually…. *ahem* anti-social.

  • Soroth23

    A pacifistic with a bloodthirsty human companion. Well, thats a different road for Drakengard. Ya, Caim was a blood crazed revenge bent maniac, but both Angelus and Legna were exceptionaly fearsome and aggressive dragons.

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos