I would recommend 1 to start off with to get an idea of what you are getting into and then 3, 8, 9 or 11 from there.
The original versions have several problems with them. On top of worse graphics and music and lower QoL, the first official English translations were mediocre-to-bad up until DQVIII. All of the humor was removed from them, notably including the Puff-Puff but also all the little bits of whimsy. And everything was rewritten in a fake version of þe-olde Ænglisc which makes it harder to read both due to unnecessary archaicisms and the utter dryness of it all. That and the pseudo-Western wannabe D&D feel drained them of the more playful style of Akira Toriyama's works. They simply don't have the fun factor of the original scripts, unlike the later retranslations.Play the original versions and avoid all remakes.
Release order is always the correct answer when asking where to start a series (anime, game and such)
All of these games are really basic for their times, they were meant to be beginner's rpgs, made to to introduce the genre to console gamers who were unfamiliar with it.
The american nes versions of I, II, III and IV have a very different (I would say better) script than their modern remakes, the same goes for the fan translated sfc versions of V and VI.
Unlike in the modern official translations these do not have the bizarre accents and lack the "party chat" feature introduced with IV's remake
Also II really gets too much hatred, It's good and way better than I.
They're actually all pretty much the same gameplay-wise.I've never played the Dragon Quest games except the Dragon Quest Monsters series. What's a good game to start with? The first one or is there a different one that's better? I've played a lot of JRPGs new and old so I'm not new to the genre.
This is false, and the common refrain argued by people who hate on DQ. Every DQ game adds new features that were not in previous installments, and has core gameplay features that make the particular installment play differently from both past and later games. And the remakes build on that, with QoL and story expansions.They're actually all pretty much the same gameplay-wise.
I meant gameplay-wise, not the extras. It's not like with Final Fantasy where the games can be completely different from one game to the next.This is false, and the common refrain argued by people who hate on DQ. Every DQ game adds new features that were not in previous installments, and has core gameplay features that make the particular installment play differently from both past and later games.
Some examples:
If you started and stopped the games early, then they look pretty similar, as not all features are available from the start. But if you just give it a little time, you notice the gameplay differences.
- DQ3 lets you recruit team members from a guild instead of getting them through the story.
- DQ4 has you play mini-RPG prequels for all of the supporting characters before you start the main story.
- DQ7 has a job system similar to Final Fantasy V.
- DQ8 has skill trees and an alchemy pot to create items.
- DQ9 has multiplayer.
Your italics clarify nothing. Final Fantasy games all play the same if you ignore the changes made. Same can be said for any game series.I meant gameplay-wise, not the extras. It's not like with Final Fantasy where the games can be completely different from one game to the next.
Your italics clarify nothing. Final Fantasy games all play the same if you ignore the changes made. Same can be said for any game series.
I’ll be honest: I’m not sure what this image is supposed to prove.
Final Fantasy peaked on the SNES, did okay on the PS1, went downhill on the PS2, and has been undead ever since. It's a series that tries way too hard to reinvent itself while forgetting what made it great to begin with.I think that while the basics can be the same, I do think each game adds enough to have their own distinct identity gameplay wise. The fact the general gameplay base is the same is, to me, a boon. It adds to the series and knowing what you’re getting into. DQ doesn’t revolutionize each game and to me that’s a good thing. I can say I’m a fan of DQ the franchise, while only being a fan of specific FF games at this point, if that makes any sense.
Stimpy here thinks I'm slagging on the series.I’ll be honest: I’m not sure what this image is supposed to prove.
I have no clue what words you think I put in your mouth. You literally used nothing but italics for your one-sentence "clarification." I just described your sentence and that's it.
Final Fantasy peaked on the SNES, did okay on the PS1, went downhill on the PS2, and has been undead ever since. It's a series that tries way too hard to reinvent itself while forgetting what made it great to begin with.
DQ, on the other hand, never forgets what makes it special. It always builds on what it did right before and makes improvements by adapting the parts people liked most to the new entries. Some things do get lost along the way, but never enough that the series ever went completely downhill. (Yes, DQ7 is slow and DQ10 shouldn't have been a main series entry, but otherwise they continue to do well.)
This makes no sense either, but sounds like you're trying to be insulting. Remember, we have a rule here against uncivil behavior.Stimpy here thinks I'm slagging on the series.
Holy kekThe original versions have several problems with them. On top of worse graphics and music and lower QoL, the first official English translations were mediocre-to-bad up until DQVIII. All of the humor was removed from them, notably including the Puff-Puff but also all the little bits of whimsy. And everything was rewritten in a fake version of þe-olde Ænglisc which makes it harder to read both due to unnecessary archaicisms and the utter dryness of it all.
Go tell that to Yuji HoriiDQ was not built to be beginner RPGs;
Yeah obviously, I'm saying that the first games were really basic considering the time when they came out.The original DQ was supposed to be an RPG that fit the limitations of the console and what programmers knew they could do with it at the time.
Indeed it died a slow and painful death after Sakaguchi left, and now lives a sad reanimated corpseFinal Fantasy peaked on the SNES, did okay on the PS1, went downhill on the PS2, and has been undead ever since. It's a series that tries way too hard to reinvent itself while forgetting what made it great to begin with.
Ugh, please refrain from using terminology from the moronic cesspool that is the number-honorific image boards. You just make yourself sound suspicious and untrustworthy by using that.Holy kek
![]()
Go tell that to Yuji Horii
Yeah obviously, I'm saying that the first games were really basic considering the time when they came out.
The combat system in DQ1,2,3 and 4 is a simplified version of the combat from Wizardry, a game from 1981, while the overworld is based on Ultima, which released in 1980.
Yes, I'm very suspicious and untrustworthy, nothing less from the renowned scary hacker known as "4 chan"Ugh, please refrain from using terminology from the moronic cesspool that is the number-honorific image boards. You just make yourself sound suspicious and untrustworthy by using that.
It's really hard to understand for a non native english speaker, It's mainly the ds games that suffer from this, especially IV. There is a translation In my native tongue but not for the party chat feature, and that's the main appeal of the remakes for meYes, they used accents. So what?