I've never played a Dragon Quest. Am I missing out or just

>>3814758
It's a pretty unremarkable series. The games are never outright terrible or broken, but none of them really excel at anything either. It's as though the developers are devoted to creating the most generic and mediocre JRPG experience possible with each entry.

The few mechanics pioneered by Dragon Quest have also since been used in countless other superior games, so you aren't really missing anything by avoiding the series. If you've ever played a traditional JRPG, you've probably already experienced everything Dragon Quest has to offer.

Dragon quest is widely regarded for pioneering many common JRPG mechanics
But if you ask me the old games haven't aged well and the new games latch on to too many "traditions" that other old JRPG series have let go of

>>3814758
There's a thread already btw >>3780614

Answering your question: DQ created JRPG, to put it simply. Every new game made waves in video game world. Every JRPG owes to it or plain pulls stuff from it. So you have "played" DQ even not knowing so.

>I've never see them included in discussions about best RPGs
DQ is THE most notorious case of a game that had been mostly only known in Japan. There, it's probably in top-10 best-selling franchises.

It came out in the wrong time on NES. The first DQ came out there AFTER Final Fantasy; needless to say, it looked outdated. DQII–IV were missed by most people, and DQV and VI weren't even published in US. Then after a long while, DQVII was brought there, but frankly it was very hard to appreciate if you haven't played DQ before; the graphics weren't even 3D for the most part.

It was only DQVIII that caught people's attention on PS2, becoming a surprise hit in the West. Thanks to it, we're now getting more games from the series localized.

DQIV, V and VIII are all considered good starting points to get into the series. I liked III most of all, personally.

>>3814796
dragon quest invented that stuff, kid.

Just try one. They are solid, but if you are use to playing various other JRPG's then chances are you will find them very mechanically dull.

>>3814803
just because DQI invented JRPGs doesn't salvage the entire series

>>3814758
Phantasy Star > Dragon Quest

File: oops.jpg (29KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x360px

>>3814816
OOPS!

>>3814758
Unlike most JRPGs, DQ focuses more on exploration and adventuring rather than just being a shallow combination of flashy battle systems and anime plots.
While each game of the series either retains the core gameplay or improves on it, each entry in the main series has their own features and some may have different mechanics from the last. For example, DQ7 has a class-focused battle system, while DQ8 allows you to level up certain stats on characters and lets you bring teams of monsters to fight for you. The games never try to reinvent try to reinvent the wheel which helps it stay consistent, which is pretty good for a series that only has 10 (or 9 if you don't count the MMO) released in 30 years.

DQ for the most part is less in-your-face about story, so the games usually force to player to explore if they want to find out more about the story and world. Likewise, good hints about various things in the games are found by exploration.

All in all it's a pretty solid series. A lot of them are pretty well designed than what most people in the west give credit for. I find DQ to be one of the few JRPGs series I can tolerate.

Dragon Quest is a Japan-ified Ultima III, but it's done pretty well. Play the first 3 games if you like that kind of gameplay.

>>3814998
It's closer to Ultima 1, Ultima 3 had party vs party combat with movement on a battlefield.

I loved DQ when it came out. All the grinding and sloooooow combat didn't bother me at the time. These days I can barely stand the tedium anymore.

>>3814802
>The first DQ came out there AFTER Final Fantasy;
Where do you get your shit non-facts? DQ2 (TWO) pre-dates Final Fantasy.

>>3815042
In the west.

>>3815042
Final Fantasy released two months prior to Dragon Warrior II

>>3815048
He's not entirely wrong. Dragon Warrior still released a full year before Final Fantasy.

>>3815042
>>3815053
Hm, you're right. I apologize
> DW: August 1989
> FF: July 12, 1990

I guess I misinterpreted the article I was reading. It said that DQ's graphics looked aged by 1989, which isn't wrong really. I think it also compared it to FF, so I wrongly assumed FF was released before it.

>>3814758
>I've never played a Dragon Quest
But thou must!

Overall I think it's a great series that owes its success to its "simplicity" and familiar mechanics, which some people see as setbacks. The consistency sets a good foundation, and basically every game has built on that in ways that make them each stand out (party-building, class systems, monster recruiting). And the games that are more story-driven do a great job of that as well -- DQV probably has my favorite story of any JRPG. While there's something to admire about other series that reinvent themselves, I can't think of a single one that has consistently kept its fanbase as content as DQ.

I would definitely recommend the series. There are lots of opinions on where to start (and what versions to play), but I would suggest at least trying the original DQ1 for starters. You don't have to stick to it if it feels too clunky, but I personally think it is still a fun, playable game with a good challenge, and worth experiencing in its original form.

>>3815161
>but I would suggest at least trying the original DQ1 for starters. You don't have to stick to it if it feels too clunky, but I personally think it is still a fun, playable game with a good challenge, and worth experiencing in its original form.
I played the Famicom version and its pure grind. I only made it through because I tripled the speed.
Play the SFC remake and consider going back to check out the original to see how bad it was.

>>3815226
All good points, that's why I was sure to mention there's nothing wrong with dropping it if it simply isn't fun for someone. The remakes completely polished the original, but there are still many things I prefer about the FC/NES version, particularly the art style and music, which is "simpler" but more endearing to me. Plus the original gives you a sense of the evolution of the series and JRPGs as a genre. I think that at least makes the FC/NES version worth checking out, instead of straight up discouraging people away from it.

Every post 1990 version of DQ1 is a masterpiece of game design.

The original release had grinding, but since the SNES 1 flows beautifully and is the perfect short-form JRPG.

>>3815845
The GBC version has essentially the same aesthetics with corrected BGM tempo. The only thing you miss out on when playing that version is a bit of screen real estate and the battle box. Even for purists I'd recommend that version.

>>3815865
GBC version was the first one I ever played, and I think it's great for what it is, but I was surprised by how much I liked the NES version when I played it. Speeding it up is probably worth it if you're emulating, but even the original speed didn't bother me. Again, just my preference, not trying to say anything "definitive."

>>3815861
I can agree with the grinding issues in the original. But I think its combat was overall more challenging and engaging. Almost every battle I felt closer to the brink of death in the original than the remakes.

>>3815845
There notable differences between the original Famicom game and the American Dragon Warrior 1 release.
If you want the original experience you've got to play the Famicom one, resurrection spell, facing and all that stuff.

>>3815901
Totally. I've played the FC DQ1 and noticed the superficial differences, but not really spent as much time with it as I have with NES DW1. I should go back to it.

Dragon Quest games always bored me to death and this comes from someone who endured SaGa 2 till the end

>>3814803
if by 'invented' you mean 'borrowed from western RPGs', sure.

>>3815865
GBC's probably the best balance of Famicom "feel" and playability. SNES and mobile's arrangements of the songs don't sound as good as they should.

>>3814758
dq3 and dq5 are really good.
dq3 if you like exploration and custom characters with a class system.
dq5 for story and monster/familty party members.

>>3815048
And the east. And everywhere, m8.
Dragon Quest 2:
>January 26, 1987
Final Fantasy
>December 18, 1987

>>3814758
I've been playing the GBC remake of 1 on my phone for quite some hours now, and while it's nothing special by todays standards, nor a cinematic epic like so many modern RPGs, it's refreshingly straight to the point and punishing if you goof around.

I've shortly tested 2 and 3's GBC versions too, and they did seem quite nice as well. I've heard #3 especially is loved by many fans.

>>3816563
Good job repeating information already posted.

>>3814796
DQ is comfort food vidya - you always know what you're in for, so just sit back and enjoy.

>>3816702
You may as well play the NES or SNES version of 3, the screen crunch on GBC is much more of a hindrance than on 1.

If you think 1 is "nothing special," you're almost certainly not going to like 2. It's infamously poorly balanced and paced.