[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   

File: 1 KB, 256x224, ffscreenie3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3707998 No.3707998 [Reply] [Original]

Out of the NES/FDS Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy games, which are better overall?

I say that DQ has better exploration while FF has better combat.

>> No.3708028

I feel where you're coming from. FF has better mechanics and the story is grander but DQ is more "comfy" which is hugely important apparently.

>> No.3708057

Even though the combat was better in FF, its complexity led to many battles lasting much longer which resulted int them feeling sluggish and tedious at times. DQ was much simpler but the combat began and ended much faster which made the combat seem more seamless and did not interrupt the exploration as much. imo.

>> No.3708334
File: 42 KB, 512x512, youtubers_life.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Spells in FF are worthless compared to just attacking
>better combat

>> No.3708364


FF 1 > DQ 3 > FF3 >>>>>rest

>> No.3708376

DQ but only because of the last two games. DQIII is better than FFI by a significant margin - they're actually very similar to each other, but DQIII just had much better execution in nearly every way - and DQIV doesn't suffer from the same flaws that drag FFIII down.

>> No.3708513
File: 84 KB, 700x500, 1366003927896.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I enjoy both series, but I find myself playing FF games more often.

My opinion:
DQ3 > FF2 > DQ2 > FF1 > FF3 > DQ1

FF2 is better than DQ3 if you hate grinding and don't want as much exploration or the plethora of sidequests. Both have excellent customization, you just have to work a little harder in DQ3. FF2 has more depth to the characters and a better story.

I don't really get what people are saying about FF combat being more complex. If you understand how the spells work and you know the monsters, the need to grind in DQ is rather minimal. In either series (FF2 excepted), grinding is a way to turn on easy mode.

>> No.3709001
File: 8 KB, 256x224, dq4_gum_pod[1].gif_w=300&h=263.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Overall they are quite different, so it is hard to choose one. FF gives you:
- More focus in combat, the white/black wizards are a classic by now.
- Great story and characters, a more mature tone than DQ.
- It has the anime aesthetics par excellence.

And DQ:
- Interesting npcs to talk to.
- A world that at a times feels more open.
- Comfy quests
- Consistent aesthetics
- Little details like medal collections, slime battles.
- More risk between installments.

>> No.3709350

FF3 is the only good game of the entire lot

>> No.3709358

Classic FF beats DQ by a long shot, until you get to the modern games. DQIX is better than any main FF game after FFX, desu.

I just don't like the anime movies FF became. All the dope shit from older games like character customization and tactical thinking appears in other Square games now like Bravely Default.

DQ shit is brilliant these days. Very self-aware, charming. Always reminds me of the way Nintendo first party titles feel.

>> No.3709360

FF3 > FF2/DQ games > FF1

Keep in mind though I like FF2

>> No.3709363

I never could get into the Dragon Warrior / Quest games. The only one I've beaten is the first one on the NES, and that was a really long time ago. I tried the other NES titles, and it was just taking way too long to get anything done, and I remember certain parts being ridiculously frustrating.

What I played of DQ7 wasn't bad, but the game is extremely slow.

I actually enjoyed what I played of DQ8, but I got kinda lost, and ended up putting it in my backlog.

>> No.3709371

I liked III (played the SNES version), V and VIII

>> No.3709376

Are we talking just NES? Because it gets different on the SNES.

For NES releases, FF spent all three games trying to figure out what it was doing with the series, trying something new at each installment. DQ sort of refined what it did in the first game over three more games.

FFI is all about a D&D style epic quest with your own custom party, FFII tries it's hand at deeper storytelling, and FFIII is less about plot and more about party building.

DQI is a fun solo adventure with an emphasis on exploring. DQII is bigger, with a party. DQIII is even bigger, and now with party building mechanics. DQIV ditches the party building for better storytelling.

If you enjoy plot, FFII and DQIV are pretty on par. If you enjoy party building FFIII and DQIII are both good. Combat is similar in all the games, but DQ has shorter battles. And a lot more of them. DQ has a more sandbox feel to it, but the FF series has more a polished feel to it.

DQIII probably has the best replay value, but FFIII might have the most fun first playthrough of the bunch. Also, DQ games feel clunky in comparison because of the extra menu work for almost every action, so there's that to take in to consideration.

>> No.3709381

FF3 > DQ4 > DQ3 > FF2 > FF1 > DQ2 > DQ1
I like them all.

>> No.3709414
File: 6 KB, 256x240, 475000-final-fantasy-iii-nes-screenshot-nice-detail-the-boy-near[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What makes you choose 3? Must be the most obscure ff title out there

>> No.3709737

DQ1 is utter shit in a ton of ways. The grinding aspect probably being the worst. Not saying it was a bad game for its time, but it doesn't seem to have aged well at all. Not sure how much I would enjoy it even if with remade graphics, sound, and improved controls.

I'm playing the FF1 remake for the PS1 right now and having huge fun. I'm not sure if I would enjoy it as much if with the NES graphics/sound, probably not, but still, the amount of different characters, monsters, items, spells, grinding being less of an issue, etc. make it an overall much better game IMO. They didn't add any new content in the remakes, did they? (But still, the improved audio and video quality is quite a huge thing, especially with that amazing music in the game, so maybe I'm being unfair to DQ1 because I only played the NES version.)

>> No.3709751

>I have never played the superior Super Nintendo version

>> No.3709757

No I haven't. I guess I'll try it out. It isn't much better from what I've read though.

>> No.3709762

You gain XP and gold a lot faster than in the Famicom version which makes a big difference.

>> No.3709775

OK. I also see the graphics have improved a *ton*. Gameplay still feels very clunky, but if there were an even newer remake I guess the game could be brought to a level comparable to FF Origins.

>> No.3709787

It's not even that fair to compare them when you consider ff1 was released only a couple of months before dq3.

>> No.3709789

Oooh, I can also hit X and it does the most likely action automatically. Neat. Now if only they fixed this walking speed...

>> No.3709793

FF Origins are more or less Wonderswan Color games. That's overall not too different from a SFC.

>> No.3709795

Huh, I didn't know this. OK, I have to take back what I said. I was obviously being unfair to DQ1.

>> No.3709805

Yeah I generally compare FF1 and Phantasy Star 1 with DQ2, while DQ1 sits off alone in its own earlier spot.

>> No.3709815

You could compare it to Ultima 1-4, Wizardry 1-3, Dragon Slayer 1-3, Hydlide 1-2, Bard's Tale 1-2 and so on.

>> No.3712061

I agree with those saying the NPC's in dragon quest are great, at least usually, but I recently played DQ9 for the first time, and... wow, was it just the unbearable translation, or were the characters not nearly as good?

Because seriously, the fucking puns. Jack, in charge of Alltrades Abbey? Fuck oooooooff.

>> No.3712101

Extremely shit translation. That's about all Square Enix does nowadays.

>> No.3712431

Generally, I think the SNES FF's are superior to the SNES DQ's, but the NES DQ's beat out NES FF easy.

FFI has an absolutely unacceptable amount of glitches; as in, you shouldn't need to know anything more about this game because that's how broken it is. It's a matter of principle.
FFII's magic system is absolutely stupid when it comes to obscure but necessary spells like esuna.
FFIII is the only one of the bunch that isn't retarded and yet it still manages to offend by being boring and gimmicky.

The DQ games are straight forward but III and IV easily outshine FFI-III

>> No.3712451
File: 147 KB, 260x211, 260px-DQVI_Inn[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

DQ V-VI are amazing. Some people like to shit on VI because of the 'filling', which is actually made of the same material every DQ is made: lots of quests, cities to explore, and little bits of plot progression. As i see it, DQ VI is the spiritual successor of DQ III. Everything that DQ III did, VI did it better (that is, unless you don't like the longevity).

V is very unique. Unless you specially prefer FF to DQ, i think you can't say FF or DQ on the snes are better than the other.

>> No.3714258

>FFII's magic system is absolutely stupid when it comes to obscure but necessary spells like esuna.
They could at least have had the decency to explain in the manual how it even works.
For a long time I thought esuna simply didn't work on certain ailments and you had to use items.

>> No.3714878
File: 453 KB, 768x672, FF2_Emperor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I never played FF

>> No.3716624

VI had some problems that III didn't. It's a lot easier to bust wide open with borked skills, for one, and VI's core mechanic comes in several hours into the game as opposed to III's party building being there right from the start. Resource management post-Dharma might as well not exist because of how easy it is to ignore the war of attrition that was obviously supposed to be there by stuffing anything with a heal in the wagon and spamming heals on the party inbetween fights. Mid tier and later monsters are actually significantly better than humans are with the exception of MC due to early access to the Hero class, and even then that's not a given because it takes so fucking long to master classes and to do so as quickly as possible you have to stick him in a gimp class. The bag made inventory management a complete clusterfuck because the game now had carte blanche to drown you in items, oh, and the AI can't use item powers despite explicitly being able to do that in the last fucking game.

That's not to say that I think DQVI is a bad game, or that I didn't enjoy the fuck out of it, but it was definitely the death knell for a lot of the stuff I liked about the series.

>> No.3716778

It's Squeeinx trying to imbue the western release with the same level of "charm" the Japanese version has. I know, I think it's unbearable too.

>> No.3716862

>They could at least have had the decency to explain in the manual how it even works.
>Akitoshi "mad god" Kawazu
>explaining how his games work

>> No.3717346
File: 449 KB, 768x672, emperorfrog.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

don't know original speed but this gif needed a little juice i feel

>> No.3717349

Aren't the only useful spells only useable once until you rest at an INN or some shit?

>> No.3717359


>> No.3717365
File: 8 KB, 256x224, snap002.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well, fine, they give you a bunch of shots before doubling back to the INN to restore.

>> No.3717381

FF2 used MP, not spell charges, and MP costs in 2 were according to the spell level. It was really easy to fuck the game up with spells if you knew which ones were worthwhile and which ones weren't.

>> No.3717383

I didn't know we were talking about FF2.

>> No.3717421
File: 1.06 MB, 1988x2556, The_Cloudsea_Djinn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

FF was just a better presented package than DQ.

Concept and monster designs by Amano

Music by Nobuo

FF was a ripoff of DQ just like everything that was coming out of Square at the time but it just looked and sounded way better

>> No.3718831

And DQ is just a ripoff of Wizardry and Ultima, but drawn by Toriyama. That's how things go.