Summary
Dull and mediocre for its time as well as for ours
The Good
Quite frankly, there isn't much to say here. The only truly positive thing about "Dragon Warrior" was the fact it served as a template for a wonderful genre of video games. It was the first Japanese RPG, so in a certain sense it is comparable to
King's Quest or
Wolfenstein 3D or other legendary genre-defining games. I say "in a certain sense" because, unlike the two aforementioned examples, "Dragon Warrior" wasn't a true pioneer (more on that in "The Bad" section). Nevertheless, "Dragon Warrior" came out at the right time and for the right system, so it's pretty safe to say that if it hadn't been released, game development would maybe have gone in a different direction, we would never have been able to enjoy Japanese RPGs, etc. Maybe. And maybe not. Anyway, it did inspire many other games, and spawned a long series that included some very good examples of the genre.
As for the game itself... It was technically well done, with good graphics and sound (nothing out of ordinary, but pretty solid). First-person battles featured very nice backgrounds. Battle controls were smooth and easy to learn. Another good thing about "Dragon Warrior" was the ability to explore the game world at your leisure. Theoretically, you could go anywhere directly from the first town in the game. This kind of free-roaming exploration is something modern RPGs lack. However, I must emphasize that it was strictly a theoretical possibility; areas you weren't "supposed" to visit, were populated by strong monsters, impossible to kill. You could satisfy your curiosity in "sticking your nose" somewhere you didn't belong, but there was no way for you to actually venture there.
The Bad
No matter from what angle you look upon "Dragon Warrior", you have to admit that compared to almost any other RPG, of its time or not, it was a very simplistic and poor game.
So yes, many people played it as their first RPG, and when it appeared on the NES, it was something new for this particular video game system. Less than a year later
Final Fantasy, a much better game, came out for the same console, and
Phantasy Star appeared on its equivalent Sega Master System. But since few gamers owned both consoles, and since Final Fantasy wasn't "the first" any more, people now have fond memories of their first RPG experience and therefore cannot really judge the game subjectively; pretty much the same way a woman always remembers the first man in her life with tenderness, even if he was a total jerk. And this is a pity, because often "back then, it was a great game" means only "back then, it was the only game of that kind I knew". "Dragon Warrior" is one of the classic examples for that.
In reality, "Dragon Warrior" is a primitive version of a standard RPG model: kill monsters for money and experience, kill the bad guy at the end. Computer systems boasted much more complex and involving RPGs before "Dragon Warrior" came out for the NES console. It was an unsatisfying game in pretty much every aspect: story, characterization, atmosphere, gameplay.
Now you'll probably say the stories and characterization of such old games (and RPGs in particular) were anyway bad. Sure, storytelling is one aspect of gaming that has developed greatly over the years, but even if we check the RPG contemporaries of "Dragon Warrior", the results won't be in its favor. Try playing
Phantasy Star. Although it is less than one year younger than "Dragon Warrior", the two games feel as if they were separated by a decade. "Phantasy Star" had an involving tale that included world domination, a ruler who was consumed by dark power, and a quest for revenge. What did "Dragon Warrior" offer? A generic story about a knight who had to save the princess, find a sword and kill the big bad guy. "Phantasy Star" was set in an interesting sci-fi fantasy world, while all "Dragon Warrior" could settle for was a standard, uninspired medieval setting. In "Phantasy Star" you controlled a likable young girl, met other characters who joined your party and helped you. In "Dragon Warrior", you had to fight solo till you met your bitter end or leveled up enough in order to proceed to the next area.
I don't even want to hear about the "challenge" of this game. In my book, challenge means something
you, the player, have to face; a difficult battle or situation
you have to find a solution for. Like fighting a boss and thinking which spell to use, which character to assign for healing, etc. Does "Dragon Warrior" offer that kind of challenge? No. You either kill your enemies without much trouble, or you are too weak and therefore
cannot win a battle. And by "cannot" I mean just that - can not. Experimenting with spells? Different attack tactics? Cleverly exploited weaknesses? Low-level challenge? Forget about that. Either you were at the appropriate level, or you weren't. Period. This is not a challenge; this is part of the game's programming, it has nothing to do with
skill. You shouldn't be good at RPGs to succeed in "Dragon Warrior"; all you need is a high tolerance for boredom, and even if you have never played a RPG before, you'll display the same results and attain the goal as quickly as the most skilled RPG veteran.
"Dragon Warrior" doesn't have any "classic gameplay". Its gameplay is a simplistic variant of early computer RPGs. It had no character classes, no alternate strategies; even no spells except "Hurt" and its variants, which were simply attacks with magic. Just think that the first Final Fantasy appeared less than a year later and offered you a free party customization! Four warriors shaped the way you liked it - do you want a balanced group, or an insane white-mage-only combination? This was all up to you. Battles were more varied because you had many more choices.
"Dragon Warrior" forced you to wander around and to kill easy monsters for money and experience. Almost the entire game was spent doing that. The monsters brought a ridiculously low amount of gold and experience points, and that was the only reason for the game's length. "Dragon Warrior" was artificially made long; if you stripped it of all the tedious leveling-up, you'd be left with a game that can be finished in an hour! Try to play it with a cheat code or whatever if you don't believe me. This is not real length; not something I would call an "epic journey". Just try playing
Tengai Mankyou II: Manjimaru to understand what real length and epic-ness is all about.
And bear in mind those were only comparisons to other early Japanese RPGs. A glance at the general RPG scene of the time will make my reasoning even more obvious.
Ultima series had just reached the Hall of Fame with the absolutely amazing
Ultima IV. It came out before "Dragon Warrior". Now just
try comparing those two games. Wouldn't you feel like you are committing a blasphemous act? "Ultima IV" had incredibly deep gameplay, a huge world, a unique system of ethics, and a quest to become a better person. What did "Dragon Warrior" offer? One-on-one fights against slimes, and a couple of missions for the king.
"But Ultima is a Western RPG, while Dragon Warrior was a Japanese one; besides, it was
the first one!" - you would say. Okay, it was the first Japanese RPG. But what exactly is a "Japanese RPG"? Today, the genre is easily defined and no one would ever confuse it with its Western counterpart. But back when "Dragon Warrior" was released, there was only one kind of RPG, the Western one. It had existed for a considerably long time (six years, if I'm not mistaken), and its greatest representative, the Ultima series, already included four games. By taking elements from Ultima and greatly simplifying them, "Dragon Warrior" became what we know as "the first Japanese RPG". But what exactly is specifically Japanese in this game? It is set in a standard European medieval world and features bland European medieval "characters". In no way does it emphasize the storyline (which later became the very essence of Japanese RPGs); there are no colorful parties, no emotions, no conflicts. There are no typically Japanese gameplay gimmicks. It wasn't a true pioneer; it was more of a sub-par copyist. If it had been released for a computer system, it would have hardly gained the same influence. Only because it was the first RPG to appear on a
Japanese console, it became widely considered the first Japanese RPG; but in reality, the real job of creating and developing this particular genre was done by
Square Soft,
Sega,
Atlus,
RED Company, and other companies who built upon the template of simplified Western RPG mechanics and managed to create a different genre with a different personality.
The Bottom Line
I really don't understand this "respect for the old age" kind of thing when talking about games. It's plain annoying to hear some "ye olde times" guys praising this totally mediocre game only because it was a memorable Christmas gift or their first RPG or whatever. It's enough to take a look at the two first
Final Fantasy games or
Phantasy Star to understand what great classic Japanese RPGs were
really like. "Dragon Warrior" wasn't "great for its time", or revolutionary, or genre-defining; it was just a poor man's console adaptation of simplified
Ultima gameplay mechanics. Sure, it has spawned a nice long series and inspired many better games, but this still doesn't change the fact it was (and remains) a very boring and simplistic RPG. Don't fall for the "games were much deeper when I was still peeing in my pants" kind of talk, because it's not true. And if you want to experience an early Japanese RPG classic, grab "Phantasy Star", or
Tengai Makyou: Ziria, or an early Final Fantasy game (especially the
second one), and I guarantee you won't care any more for Eldrick's descendant and his legendary sword.
