/vr/ - Retro Games

>>10833750
Wrong.

>>10043089
These two aren't mine btw

DQ3 (SNES) came out in December 96, so it's not really contemporary to the other games you mentionned. It only came out a month before FF7.

It's great though but personally I feel like the balance changes compared to the NES bring it down, but on a first playthrough it might be fine as long as you're not one of those fags who look up optimal strategies and all the secrets before playing, which are also all about to be soiled to you.

DQ3, CT and GS. Yes, boring answers, but it is what it is. I favor exploration and gameplay over story.

>Bloated graphics, plots, character-driven games killed this

>>7425168
245

The Legend Of Zelda.

3-6 if you like the gameplay aspect. 4-(specially)5 If you like the story aspect of jrpgs.

>>5987680
>There's something particularly insidious about open world games where

Unlike open worlds, DQ III has some structure that rewards exploration. It is not a game about walking everywhere and solving the local quests, you have to find the orbs and you are given hints.

>You are not given directions as to where to go next
Once you receive the ship, there is a towe south of your position. It is the first place you see once you start navigating. The guy in that tower tells you how to get started exploring.

>leaving you to find out where to go on your own, by pure dumb luck.
Exploring the world to figuring out where the orbs are hidden is part of the fun, and they only way to find out their positions is by asking npcs. You are even given a spell to memorize conversations. So instead of simply following a line, you explore the vast lands figuring out how to find the treasure. I thought this was really different to both open world and more linear games.
But you don't relly on luck, simply you are never given a quest marker. Little by little the hints will guide you. You need to change the mentallity from "go to town, solve quest" to "gather hints, receive big reward".

>There are random encounters up the ass and these aren't particularly fun or engaging.
The random encounters are not that different from DQV. If you enjoyed that, you shouldn't have any issues with III.

>wander into the inadequate area and watch how your party is decimated.
So use the run action. This is a no problem, do you really want to casualize the only challenging aspect of the game, the exploration?

>should I even bother with Final Fantasy III
FF3 is very different from DQ3. If what you are looking for is more plot, skip to IV. DQ IV plays a bit closer to V in that there are characters with personality.
People who enjoy V but not III are usually looking for more story-oriented games. Try Chrono Triggers and FFVI too.

>>5602620
>and not enough plot substance to hold it all together.
>Playing for the plot
Maybe you want a book?

>>5486131
What is the guy on the bottom right doing?

This is the best one.

>>5458723
>they weren't that good anyway
There were some QoL changes, I appreciate the dedicated interact button instead of menu/talk, menu/open, etc ..

>just NES games with more color
Not a bad thing.

>>5375245
>the game actually opens up when you get the boat vs. FF1's boat just being a means to travel from point A to point B
That's an unfair comparison. Why not compare it to FF6 for example?

>how every dungeon is memorable because of ingenious layout tricks and not because they rely on facile gimmicks
I don't think they are that memorable. They are simply corridors filled of random encounters with occasional treasures.

>how the way you're sent back to church when you die pushes you to go the extra mile in hostile territory whereas every other game that makes you start over from your last save file will just make you go "i'll make sure to stock up on 99 potions so I don't lose any progress"
On the other hand you retain your levels. If you lose in FF, you don't retain your experience. But it is not something I'll point out as an example of good design, having to play again a large chunk of unenjoyable section of a game that you are already familiarized with.

>how you never hit a wall with character progression because it's always viable to change classes and try out something new,
Jobs in 3 are not that especial. The best job system is found in 6-7.

>you're still going to tell me the game is bullshit because of some surface level judgement like "none of the characters in your party have a personality"
Surprising how the most remembered games are not those with good mechanics, but good characters. What does it say about videogames?

I played DQ1-2 on the GB remake, 3 on the snes/gb and 4 on the nes

>DQ1
I didn't have much expectations. Maybe the increased experience gain of the remake helped in hooking me up. It introduced me to the DQ way of making a world (emphasis into giving each npc a charming dialogue), the open-ended structure of the world was worth exploring. I think the world is so small it is worth giving it a look, at least the GBC remake.

>DQ2
I liked how it introduced new concepts (party, tier keys, a lineal progression until the midpoint on the game, where you have much more options).

>DQ3
It is truly the best DQ. Put more emphasis in the npc characterizations, the dungeons, the towns (let alone party customization). Sadly DQ combat (and jrpg by extension) will always be shit, but everything else is perfect. What I really really liked was the part in which you must find the orbs, each one has some sort of requirement.

In my opinion this is what Open Worlds nowdays miss, they give you a big map without a big quest. DQ 3 gives you an epic quest, a journey that requires the player to memorize hints and organize your travels rather than taking random paths.

>DQ4
I had the impression this was closer to 2 than 3, but it had a good idea with the chapters structure. After 7 I haven't played more DQs, so I wonder if they have innovated in one way or another the way 4 did.

You would never read a story with illustrations in 3D, right?

>>5263359
Imagine being able to play in your computer or phone.

Let's have a thread to discuss DQ3. Not DQ5. Not DQ 7. Just Dragon Quest III.

It seems to be one of the most famous, if not the best considered DQ. Yet it is one that doesn't rely too much into storytelling/characters. Just a big world, linear in principle until halfway through the game when you can freely sail.

Is it still a good game, or only important for its time as a really ambitious (for a jrpg that is)?.

You can also discuss about your favourite quest/character/job/place.

>>5196978
>They're both "nothing happens: the game".
They follow the early nes games principle of great adventure quest where you solve issues on the road. You are not expected to be interested in a long and overexposed chain of related events that threads the main hero, but rather a collection of quests that impedes your progression while slowing discovering the big picture.
You have to enjoy the ride itseld and put the focus more in the towns and dungeons, and less into the party itself.