How do the SNES dragon quest remakes compare to their NES counterparts? Any reason to play the NES versions over the remakes first time around?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
How do the SNES dragon quest remakes compare to their NES counterparts?
There's never a reason to play the NES version of anything that got released on SNES. Anyone saying otherwise is just being a contrarian hipster.
I would assume they're easier. Either through combat being reworked, things like the end of DQ2 come to mind, or maybe things are labeled/you have a map. A big sticking point for me in DQ2 was getting clues and then having to figure out what place the clue is even talking about.
I usually agree with this but I feel Dragon Quest 2/3 have a very pleasant art style while the later entries nauseate me.
That and the GB version is also better in terms of retrospective look and content to the NES versions.
Better in every single imagineable way. There is zero reason to play them on NES.
Horse shit. Mario games are better on NES as is the Ninja Gaiden trilogy.
>Better in every single imagineable way. There is zero reason to play them on NES.
What about if you want sovl?
>Any reason to play the NES versions over the remakes first time around?
Actual challenge. The SNES versions nerf the difficulty.
In DQ1&2 case there's less grinding as monsters give more money and exp, gameplay wise I believe Moonbrook and Cannock have slightly different spells like the princess learning revive and other stuff.
As for DQ3 the game has crap ton of new shit like new weapons, new classes, less grinding, extra dungeons, etc.
DQ1&2 are pretty much the same with less grinding but DQ3 changes quite a lot, the best weapons and equipment in the original where behind monsters drops and considering that there was not a Thief class shit was hard to get, also this.
GBC version has more content than the SNES. NES version is still better than either. SOUL POWER
DQ2 is not the same. There's a part in DQ that you can't revive your party in the Famicom version, but is able to do in the NES, SFC and SNES versions.
difficulty changes. that said the sfc remakes are top notch and highly recommended. dragon Quest 3 was horii's farewell the sfc.
I've played DQ1 on both NES and SNES, and I have to be honest, I did not notice any differences, besides the graphics. Maybe they toned down some of the grinding(?), but I can't really tell.
Not OP but I have a related question, which english translation patch is the best one for DQ 1 & 2 for snes?
The last one fixed quite a lot but still has some minor shit here and there.
Oddly enough the Spanish one is the one with the least amount of shit on it.
After checking the spells the revive spell is learned by the princess in the GBC version not the SNES, spells are the same only change is the amount of exp and money given by monsters.
One problem with DQ I&II is once you get to level 30 you can't save the game anymore.
what? really? why?
This is an old gif (2016) from when I beat the game 3x in one day (NES, SNES, GB).
Compare with:
And
Soul
Soulless
Must be an oversight. What about the GB version?
->
The one difference I notice here is the different amount of HP and MP. Were you fully healed in all 3 cases?
yes
OP, look at the stats in the SNES version vs NES and then GB. SNES is a joke difficulty-wise.
have you tried using the item that princess gave you?
Is there a patch for Dragon Warrior III (NES) that removes the censorship?
What is censored besides the swastika in India?
i think stuff like "house of healing" and coffins when your chars die
Yes.
https://www.romhacking.net/hacks/5466/
The SNES DQ3 still has plenty of grinding, especially by the endgame. So don't worry, you aren't missing out. Whips are fun.
As already stated the NES versions have more challenge and more grinding. The SNES versions are the easiest and the GBC versions backtracked a little bit on the difficulty overall, but I wouldn't play those versions first they're lower quality overall.
The SNES DQ3 is probably the easiest of the bunch, for instance it adds a backpack for items which lets you carry as much items as you like; vs the original limited per character inventory; thus rendering such things as having a healer until lvl20 meaningless; or making the pyramid dungeon (in which spells are forbidden) a joke.
Also there are two things not documented anywhere but from my personal experience, I swear to god that in DQ2 SNES enemies are more likely to drop item than in the original, and in the DQ3 SNES the encounter rate is much lower than in the original in some places.
Note that if these are your first playthroughs and all you know about JRPGs are the likes of Final Fantasy VI, then the SNES versions of 2 and 3 will still be more challenging and with more interesting combat and inventory management than what you know.
I'd advocate playing the NES versions myself though, the US NES versions of 2 and 3 already made things slightly easier compared to the Japanese versions (but nothing quite like the SNES versions).
Note also that I stumbled on a game breaking glitch when playing the translated versions of 2 SNES and other people online have mentionned other glitches than the one I stumbled onto
I love DQIII but if you think the combat in that game is more interesting than in FF6 you're on drugs.
It’s definitely more challenging, even the SNES version.
The AOE weapons are very weak compared to the spells though.
Good info, thanks guys
>I want to be a young girl
I love how whenever the games have a job system there's always this old man with the wildest career dreams.
You're better off playing the RPG Maker remake of 1 if you're gonna play it. It's the definitive edition that took 11 years to perfect.
>fan game
>definitive version
lol... this can't be as bad as the unity ff1 but no way is it definitive, Rogue Knight enemy doesn't even appear in DQ1
>this can't be as bad as the unity ff1
You'd be surprised. This is RPG Maker 2003, and the scripting is atrocious. Like the other Anon said it's still fun, but in no way definitive. Good for a replay if you want something different from the official releases, but that's it.
Also from what I can tell, the Rogue Knight is used as a substitution Knight Errant for graphical parity: all the enemy graphics are sourced from Dragon Quest 7 and the remakes of 4, 5, and 6. The Werewolf line of enemies are replaced with the Orc line, for another example. It basically depends on whether or not he was able to animate a monster well enough to fit, because Scorpions weren't sutbstituted, but they were never done in 7's battle style. Dragon Lord is there, but his dragon form is a recolored Great Dragon.
>definitive edition
>no name dev self inserts
no. end this shitty meme.
It's fun, but it's not even close to being a definitive edition. Not even the guy who made it tries to sell it as that, nor does he say it's perfect.
One cool tip on the SNES and GBC versions of DQ2 is the fact that the last standing monster may drop a item even if it runs but you have to at least kill one monster in that battle meaning that you can easily get Magic Hats from Metal Babbles as soon as the dam town tower dungeon.
Also all game breaking glitches where fixed on the latest versions but still there are some minor stuff that don't affect gameplay in any way.
>Also all game breaking glitches where fixed on the latest versions but still there are some minor stuff that don't affect gameplay in any way.
I got pic related in the volcano dungeon using the latest version. Stepping on some random titles would teleport me out of the dungeon also. Had to savestate my way through and thankfully it wasn't my first time playing so I knew where to go
SNES version of III added AoE weapons like whips, somewhat devaluing attack magic, which was the only source of AoE attacks in the Famicom version
theyre less grindy
better visuals
Just play final fantasy 1 - 3 instead
Final Fantasy didn’t come into its own until 4. DQ 1-3 is far better than FF 1-3, as anyone who’s play both trilogies can attest.
FF4 is much worse than the preceding games which is made even more evident when you compare the remakes.
>FF4 is much worse than the preceding games
LOL your brain is poisoned by contrarianism.
FF4 removes all player agency and replaces it with jack shit. Presumably in the name of making a streamlined storytelling experience but the story is completely dull and unremarkable.
The other SNES entries are fine.
Let me guess, you're just some Gankertard seething at the scenario writer for all SNES FFs and the like.
ff1 is much better than dq1. dq2 and 3 are better than ff tho
>ff1 is much better than dq1
This is a weird comparison. FF1 doesn't exist because of DQ1, it exists because of DQ2, and follows the style and tropes installed by DQ2.
It really is DQ2 that kickstarted the JRPG genre, after DQ1 you had games like Indora no Hikari or the first Heracles no Eikou, or in Square's case, Cleopatra no Mahou; none of which were particularly good or interesting past the fact that the genre was searching for its identity. After DQ2's success and influence, this is when JRPGs started to look like what everyone considers them to be; and FF1 is part of that.
That's not to say FF1 doesn't bring things of its own, because it does plenty; but the real comparison point with FF1 is DQ3, as they came out 1 month apart and both introduce a class system.
Both DQ 2 and FF 1 were released in the best year of Famicom(87), one at the beginning and the other at the end. Given that, while I'm not saying you are wrong, why are you sure FF was influenced by DQ2? Couldn't FF started before DQ 2 was released?
>why are you sure FF was influenced by DQ2?
In the west people always claim the "first JRPG" was DQ1, but it's really DQ2 that started the DQ and JRPG mania. DQ clones only started being a thing after 2 as everyone wanted a slice of the pie, as I said all you have to do is look at Japan's RPG output before and after DQ2.
It came up with many of the tropes of the genre like the goal of the game being to find a certain number of key items scattered around the world; or for instance the way progression is streamlined at first, but the player acquires freedom of movement and possible unlinear progression once he acquires a boat. FF1 plays around those ideas and expectations, it's inspired by it, but takes a new spin on them and goes further with them in order to recreate the same feeling and surprising the player.
For instance instead of only acquiring a boat mid way through the game, they give one early on, in a restrictive way, only to be replaced mid way through the game by the airship. That for me is a direct reaction to DQ2's progression, they wanted to recreate that feeling of openness and freedom once the boat is acquired, so they went beyond by making the boat fly.
2 is awful
It was the best of the pixel remasters they did a few yr ago.
NES versions are better. SNES remakes are shit that are devoid of soul. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They have a vested interest in seeing the used market prices skyrocket for the SNES versions and cannot be trusted.
>soul
Opinion discarded.
Why no international release?
The only reason why we even got the NES games was because they made too many copies of the first game and fobbed off the unsold supply to Nintendo Power subscribers, so there was a small demand for the sequels. By SNES, it wasn't deemed to be worth it since Final Fantasy was the dominant RPG in the West, and it's amazing that they even bothered localizing DQ7.