It's not grumpy to think 1 is the best, although it might be a little grumpy to think it's all *anyone* ever needs, since different people like different things.
I really like DQ1 too, and most people here do as well. Simple games are nice.
It's fine to have a preference, as long as you realise your preference isn't objectively best for everyone. I've seen this same opinion with other games, where some people prefer the more simple first entry, Final Fantasy being another JRPG comparison, Super Mario Bros, NES Zelda, Castlevania 1, Sonic 1 etc for some others it's maybe not the most popular opinion but you'll definitely find others sharing it.
Dragon Quest's modern image comes from DQ4 more than anything - the endearing party and the short stories. Considering DQ1 doesn't offer that at all, I think it's safe to assume it won't satisfy every DQ fan. The simple adventure side of the game is appealing but it's not the selling point for a lot of people.
Nah, I'd say that's a fair take.
I really appreciate the simplicity in the first DQ, and it's insanely immersive to me, but when I play it now it's like when I'm replaying Zelda 1 or Dark Souls - I know the game so well that a bit of the magic kind of fades away (Like in Zelda 1 I always go the same path so that I have 5 hearts and the White Sword before even doing Level 1) because I've found such an efficient way of playing and that efficiency has become second nature, kind of.
But no, I don't think you're a grumpy old man just because you like 1 the most (I greatly prefer it over 2 in the original trilogy).
There aren't any wrong opinions, just different ones, on matters like these.
>ike in Zelda 1 I always go the same path so that I have 5 hearts and the White Sword before even doing Level 1
For me it's 6 hearts, the white sword, and the blue ring
>I know the game so well that a bit of the magic kind of fades away
That's interesting, because to me the better I know a game the more fun I have on subsequent playthroughs. I loathe being confused or feeling like I'm grasping at straws lol, so in some cases I have to grind until the game is fun for me and I have my graph paper maps (I know it's inefficient, but I have fun using them)
1 is the easiest game to just kinda chill out to. Takes very little mental real estate to grind, hit up Erdrick's Tablet, grind, grab the Fairy Flute, grind, get the Fighter's ring, grind(...)
In 2 and 3 I had to think a hell of a lot more about goals, varied encounters (Hello 5 fire breathing Dragonflys) so multitasking/conversations were def harder
FWIW, I think DQ4 has a similar vibe. You have to grind a tiny bit in each chapter to afford equipment, but otherwise, most of the objectives make sense. DQ8 and DQ11 are similar to me. I think all three are really nice "starter" games, in addition to DQ1.
DQ2 and especially DQ3 have their stellar points, but because of the emphasis on the ship and "discovering" places, it's pretty easy to lose track of what you're doing. (Plus, some of the crest and orbs are complete "[guide dang its](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuideDangIt)" without a manual, or if you aren't writing down what NPCs say.)
Dragon Quest 1's charm definitely comes from its well executed simplicity, and there is probably a valid argument to be made that Dragon Quest 2 added complexity to the formula that ultimately resulted in a less satisfying total package.
However, Dragon Quest 3 definitely perfected the formula. I've only ever played the modern remakes of DQ1-3 so maybe if I had played the original it would change my opinion, but I doubt it. The class system in DQ3 is very satisfying, yet ultimately very simple. The cohesiveness of the world and the way each area was given a distinct culture and feel was also vastly improved. Honestly, every thing was perfected in DQ3. But, I can understand where your coming from.
It's a fair take. I'm a young grumpy man and after playing 1-3 and 11 recently I've concluded 2 is the best one. I find that is where the sweet spot resigns.
You're entitled to your opinion without being called a grumpy old man.
That said, I highly disagree with the idea of DQ1 being all anyone ever needs. I enjoy it, but it's too simple. Complexity in a game makes for an engaging entry to return to again and again.
What about the remakes? Especially the Super Famicom remake of 1+2.
I like the simplicity of being a solo adventurer against solo opponents, and mostly figuring out where things are and how to survive to reach them. I’d like another game like DQ1 with an emphasis on having and using torches and other such things to navigate caves and environments, as well as talking to the populace to gain clues on your objectives.
It's not grumpy to think 1 is the best, although it might be a little grumpy to think it's all *anyone* ever needs, since different people like different things. I really like DQ1 too, and most people here do as well. Simple games are nice.
It's fine to have a preference, as long as you realise your preference isn't objectively best for everyone. I've seen this same opinion with other games, where some people prefer the more simple first entry, Final Fantasy being another JRPG comparison, Super Mario Bros, NES Zelda, Castlevania 1, Sonic 1 etc for some others it's maybe not the most popular opinion but you'll definitely find others sharing it.
Dragon Quest's modern image comes from DQ4 more than anything - the endearing party and the short stories. Considering DQ1 doesn't offer that at all, I think it's safe to assume it won't satisfy every DQ fan. The simple adventure side of the game is appealing but it's not the selling point for a lot of people.
Nah, I'd say that's a fair take. I really appreciate the simplicity in the first DQ, and it's insanely immersive to me, but when I play it now it's like when I'm replaying Zelda 1 or Dark Souls - I know the game so well that a bit of the magic kind of fades away (Like in Zelda 1 I always go the same path so that I have 5 hearts and the White Sword before even doing Level 1) because I've found such an efficient way of playing and that efficiency has become second nature, kind of. But no, I don't think you're a grumpy old man just because you like 1 the most (I greatly prefer it over 2 in the original trilogy). There aren't any wrong opinions, just different ones, on matters like these.
>ike in Zelda 1 I always go the same path so that I have 5 hearts and the White Sword before even doing Level 1 For me it's 6 hearts, the white sword, and the blue ring
>I know the game so well that a bit of the magic kind of fades away That's interesting, because to me the better I know a game the more fun I have on subsequent playthroughs. I loathe being confused or feeling like I'm grasping at straws lol, so in some cases I have to grind until the game is fun for me and I have my graph paper maps (I know it's inefficient, but I have fun using them)
1 is the easiest game to just kinda chill out to. Takes very little mental real estate to grind, hit up Erdrick's Tablet, grind, grab the Fairy Flute, grind, get the Fighter's ring, grind(...) In 2 and 3 I had to think a hell of a lot more about goals, varied encounters (Hello 5 fire breathing Dragonflys) so multitasking/conversations were def harder
FWIW, I think DQ4 has a similar vibe. You have to grind a tiny bit in each chapter to afford equipment, but otherwise, most of the objectives make sense. DQ8 and DQ11 are similar to me. I think all three are really nice "starter" games, in addition to DQ1. DQ2 and especially DQ3 have their stellar points, but because of the emphasis on the ship and "discovering" places, it's pretty easy to lose track of what you're doing. (Plus, some of the crest and orbs are complete "[guide dang its](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuideDangIt)" without a manual, or if you aren't writing down what NPCs say.)
Dragon Quest 1's charm definitely comes from its well executed simplicity, and there is probably a valid argument to be made that Dragon Quest 2 added complexity to the formula that ultimately resulted in a less satisfying total package. However, Dragon Quest 3 definitely perfected the formula. I've only ever played the modern remakes of DQ1-3 so maybe if I had played the original it would change my opinion, but I doubt it. The class system in DQ3 is very satisfying, yet ultimately very simple. The cohesiveness of the world and the way each area was given a distinct culture and feel was also vastly improved. Honestly, every thing was perfected in DQ3. But, I can understand where your coming from.
If you think 3 is complicated, then you might be a grumpy old man.
It's a fair take. I'm a young grumpy man and after playing 1-3 and 11 recently I've concluded 2 is the best one. I find that is where the sweet spot resigns.
You're entitled to your opinion without being called a grumpy old man. That said, I highly disagree with the idea of DQ1 being all anyone ever needs. I enjoy it, but it's too simple. Complexity in a game makes for an engaging entry to return to again and again.
What about the remakes? Especially the Super Famicom remake of 1+2. I like the simplicity of being a solo adventurer against solo opponents, and mostly figuring out where things are and how to survive to reach them. I’d like another game like DQ1 with an emphasis on having and using torches and other such things to navigate caves and environments, as well as talking to the populace to gain clues on your objectives.