Things I Wish They Had Included In This Remake

[Ralcrow]

I wish they had made the story matter for your entire chosen party. Give a more protagonist role to all your created characters, maybe to justify them even having voices to begin with.

More done with the 'hidden locations'. Extra items, extra story options. The chance to actually make the story your characters own.

More jobs. Even DQ7 had Pirate, Shepherd, Superstar, etc etc. Mixable and matchable hairstyles, clothes and faces with more than just four options for each.

Have Monster Wrangler be an actual monster capturer/trainer, capture any monster you want, including boss monsters...train them however you wish and actually control them in the colosseum. Name your monsters and equip them however you wish.

More dungeons. Reintroduction of old monsters from previous and future DQ games, like the Notsomacho, or the Lipsies. Just MORE.

Crazy that you have games from 2015 like Stardew Valley, made by ONE GUY... that give me infinitely more customization options than a game made by a multimillion dollar company in 2024 trying to cash in on an old favorite. It's the difference between caring about your players experience and NOT.

Anything to justify the 60 dollar asking price, because just slapping a coat of paint on an old game and changing the translation for the umpteenth time does not make a good remake.

[Martoq]

I wish they would have had the combat camera pulled back, move the battle UI to bottom left corner and allowed me to actually see my hero and company in battle. Sucks having the cool pixel art and cannot see it except when in the over world.

[Ralcrow]

Seriously, the ability to see certain corners of the town from a different angle would have helped immensely. I agree!

[Lucas the Thief]

I wish that we had a Beastiary. Also I'm sorry but Stardew is a very different animal then this one.

[Ralcrow]

Originally posted by Lucas the Thief:

I wish that we had a Beastiary. Also I'm sorry but Stardew is a very different animal then this one.

Considering so many past DQ's had one, it is indeed terrible they didn't bother with one in this version.

Also, Stardew Valley gives you a plethora of options for one character. Why do you believe that DQ3 could not add that many options for customization? It's just a matter of caring about your players experience enough to include more options for their enjoyment.

[Melodia]

Originally posted by Lucas the Thief:

I wish that we had a Beastiary.

There is one though? It's in the 'info' menu.

[Lucas the Thief]

Originally posted by Melodia:

Originally posted by Lucas the Thief:

I wish that we had a Beastiary.

There is one though? It's in the 'info' menu.

You are right! I didn't notice it!

[bad at cs.]

Originally posted by Ralcrow:

Originally posted by Lucas the Thief:

I wish that we had a Beastiary. Also I'm sorry but Stardew is a very different animal then this one.

Considering so many past DQ's had one, it is indeed terrible they didn't bother with one in this version.

Also, Stardew Valley gives you a plethora of options for one character. Why do you believe that DQ3 could not add that many options for customization? It's just a matter of caring about your players experience enough to include more options for their enjoyment.

Because they're two totally different games centered around different things.

[Ralcrow]

Originally posted by night mistress.:

Originally posted by Ralcrow:

Considering so many past DQ's had one, it is indeed terrible they didn't bother with one in this version.

Also, Stardew Valley gives you a plethora of options for one character. Why do you believe that DQ3 could not add that many options for customization? It's just a matter of caring about your players experience enough to include more options for their enjoyment.

Because they're two totally different games centered around different things.

That makes no difference. They are both RPGs and both pixel graphics intensive. Tell me how the technology available makes it impossible to make more pixelart available? You make zero sense.

[Lucas the Thief]

Originally posted by Ralcrow:

Originally posted by night mistress.:

Because they're two totally different games centered around different things.

That makes no difference. They are both RPGs and both pixel graphics intensive. Tell me how the technology available makes it impossible to make more pixelart available? You make zero sense.

This is such bad faith that honestly it is pointless to talk to you if you think that Stardew Valley and DQ3 is on the same graphical level.

[Ralcrow]

Originally posted by Lucas the Thief:

Originally posted by Ralcrow:

That makes no difference. They are both RPGs and both pixel graphics intensive. Tell me how the technology available makes it impossible to make more pixelart available? You make zero sense.

This is such bad faith that honestly it is pointless to talk to you if you think that Stardew Valley and DQ3 is on the same graphical level.

Why do you believe it is bad faith to compare pixel art made by ONE guy vs pixel art that literally has a massive team led by a multimillion dollar company? Why is it ONE GUY can give me more options than literally the people who have the resources and manpower to draw us all the pixelart variations we can possibly DREAM of?

[Ralcrow]

Is pixelart expensive? YES. But consider that I am getting more options from a guy charging me 19.99 for his game vs a company that wants to give me FEWER options for a 59.99 pricetag!

[Melodia]

Originally posted by Ralcrow:

Is pixelart expensive? YES. But consider that I am getting more options from a guy charging me 19.99 for his game vs a company that wants to give me FEWER options for a 59.99 pricetag!

And you can play 100s of other games for free that have just as many "options" so really not sure what you're getting at.

[Ralcrow]

Originally posted by Melodia:

Originally posted by Ralcrow:

Is pixelart expensive? YES. But consider that I am getting more options from a guy charging me 19.99 for his game vs a company that wants to give me FEWER options for a 59.99 pricetag!

And you can play 100s of other games for free that have just as many "options" so really not sure what you're getting at.

That 60 bucks is a ripoff for what pathetically little content we got. How is this continually going over your heads? SE gave a no-effort, lazy remake and expected people to pay premium game prices for it. Not rocket science.

With the team they had, they should have included EVERYTHING I laid out in the opening post. Instead we got little variety, no ability to mix and match body/head/clothes types and they even deleted features like Pachisi and the Colisseum.

For a long time DQ fan it's a slap in the face.

[Penguin Lord]

I think it’s too much of classic for them to remake it in such way, I feel.
The game has a decent length already. I’m happy to experience it again with a new coat of paint with only tiny adjustments as it is.
It’s a bit like the Demon’s Souls Remake.
I’ve played about 10h so far and I’m really enjoying it.

[Ralcrow]

Originally posted by Penguin Lord:

I think it’s too much of classic for them to remake it in such way, I feel.
The game has a decent length already. I’m happy to experience it again with a new coat of paint with only tiny adjustments as it is.
It’s a bit like the Demon’s Souls Remake.
I’ve played about 10h so far and I’m really enjoying it.

At the very least they should have given us a lot more in the pixelart for your characters department. And not deleted Pachisi and the Monster Colisseum. Casinos in DQ should be sacred, gambling has been featured in EVERY DQ, why do we need to remove it?