How Dragonwarrior rivals Final Fantasy

by Tim Turner 

I didn't want to title this "Why DW is better than FF" because in many ways, it isn't. But there are many points which I'd like to bring up, in order to explain how in many ways it is. If you look at a magazine describing a list of influential video games, you'll generally see Dragonwarrior and Final Fantasy somewhere in the RPG section, describing how influential they were to future console RPGs. This leads to the aruguement of which was more influential, or original.

I use the title "Dragonwarrior" because I've only played the english versions in depth, although I've tried DQ 1-2 and DQ 5 for a few minutes. (Off the subject, I'd like to rant about the anime series right now. IT ROCKS! Somebody start a damn homepage about it already! Thank you.)

The first game in the series features no party. You start off as the typical beggining hero, with only a tiny pile of gold in your pocket. As with any RPG, you gather clues about what to do, and discover a town lies a short ways to the east where you can buy a weak weapon with which you can fend yourself against the enemies of the world.

If you'll notice for most of the DW series the characters never actually talk. Some may argue this is bad characterization/roleplaying. On the contrary, it gives a sense of roleplaying seldom felt by dialogue. I remember listening to the king's orders intently, then walking past the gaurds, wondering what they would do to me if I failed my quest. With no equipment, simply walking towards the next town gave me a sense of foreboding that I could encounter something along those first short steps, completely unprepared.

The world is surprisingly small, with no real subplots. In fact, more than half of the game is spent building experience. Back in the days when [we only had 1 bit games, and one button on our controllers, and I had to walk to the store naked through forty miles of snow, and we didn't have any 3D polygons either!] RPGs focused on building experience, this was nothing new. But simply walking back and forth in order to meet enemies so you could eventually move on to the "harsher" areas was extremely tedious.

And yet again this brought the main element of the game: you're on your own. It's not about subplots or subcharacters, it's about you: one on one against anything you meet, training yourself in the ways of combat with no one to talk to but your own blood soaked sword. This isn't about the world, it's about your own personal goal to forge youself from the once amatuer hero wannabe to the hardened warrior who would slay the foulest best in the land: The Dragonlord.

The next games in the series added a significant number of features to the original engine. You now travelled with companions, facing multiple groups of enemies. Far more lands awaited you, and many more evils awaited your coming. Yet it still retained the original feel of silence, where your characters speak only at the most important parts and nowhere else in the game. I believe this is done to keep the original feel of the game intact. You make the conversations yourself, in a way. Walking through a town, bloody and beat up, you straggle to the inn and rest. You can almost hear your companions sighing in relief as they slump on the mattress and the darkness follows. The game focuses on the characters being seen through your eyes, as if you were actually there, not just watching someone else's story from a distance.

In my opinion the battle system is brought up better than FF's. You look straight at your opponent, and hear your armor bend as a beast strikes at you. It has no real-time, which allows you the time to make decisions like a game of chess. (Should I heal myelf, or will my companion take the next hit and die? Should I attack, and what if I miss?) FF does offer strategy in its battles, yes, but DW has a more in-your-face apporach, rather than the simple "whack whack, next!" feel that FF may sometimes have.

Graphics. Final Fantasy certainly offers better graphics. In FFIV you can see the lightning explode on the enemy as he gets hit, whereas DW simply has a flash of color, leaving the actual image of the spell up to your imagination, the same imagination that creates the dialogue which you can't see either. FF may have better graphics, but like its plot, leaves the details set in stone.

Balance is also another issue, at least when compared to FF1. In FF1 there were many times when only the fighter knew how to do anything useful in the beginning. The white mage would attack with his hammer and miss most of the time, and a successful hit offered little damage. DW generally had a set region where monsters were tough, but through gaining experience it was nearly certain that you would be able to do at least fairly well until you died. I don't mean to say any game is easier than another, but when and how the difficulty becomes a factor is an important aspect of RPGs.

Originality is a hard arguement to justify. They were both released around the same era, yet I've seen many Japanese RPGs mimic the style of DW. Ultima (NES) and Destiny of an Emperor have the same overworld perspective as DW, to name a few. The bright colors and similair battle styles are prominent throughout many famicom RPGs, such as Gundam. I don't know that much about which was more original, and if one RPG was the "seed" amongst all others, but both FF and DW seem to have their own unique flares. The battle system, magic system, artwork, towns, quests and plot all seem to be of the original creator's make, with the exception of even earlier non-console RPGs such as AD&D. FF1 was the beginning of its series, just as DW1 was, so it's safe to say they each tried to create their own initial landmark with which to base the future on.

I admit that I've unfairly compared DW to certain aspects of FF not found in other games, such as FF1 instead of FF6. To fairly compare them would create a web of arguements that would make this editorial several pages long. And as each game gathers a new sequel, new elements come into place, contradicting everything I've said so far. The earliest games in both series are easiest to compare, because they predate all others, and set standards which often carry over into sequels. More powerful graphics, changing of difficulty, and complication of plot soon come into play over time. But that's someone else's editorial.