RPG imagination

Dragon Quest provided a means of imagining intense RPG battles in first person, allowing the sound and screen shaking to convey a hit, perhaps with the hero bleeding, barely able to stand up with a few HP left, ready to give the all or nothing strike to kill the enemy with a glorious killing blow.  Now that RPGs have detailed graphics, the "stand and attack" gameplay looks stupid, because it maintains the abstraction of RPG combat.  Only now do the graphics attempt to catch up to imagination.  What are some things that modern graphics miss in their attempt to capture the cinematic quality of battles that once took place only in the imagination?

What they can do is make it more immersive for the player by having the right sound, sights, a feal (via force feedback).  Alot of games seem to touch on two of these and almost feel immersive, without the need for first person viewpoints.

in b4 fags faging up the topic

I agree, old skool Dragon Quests were probably the most immersive RPGs I've played.

I think they should make modern day RPGs battle in 1st person, completely 3D and to see you're allies springing into battle from the side of your view.

Maybe you could see your weapon as well.

>>4

Making the RPG 1st person doesn't make it more immersive or better.  If that was the case, then I would feel completely immerged when going through dungeons in Phantasy Star.

I go with what I said before.  Effect the visual, audio, and touch sensations.  That is why some PC flight emulators will provide an immersive experience.

For an awesome RPG, I would have a graphical tone that matches the situation.

As for sound, the sound FX would be few, only applied as needed, while an awesome soundtrack follows.  I don't mean awesome, as in arranged orchestras and epic SW/LOTR music.  I mean simple drums and such for caves and forests, organs for old mansions, I could go on with what would make the best soundtrack.

Finally, touch.  This can only be done with force feedback.  A minor jolt for sword clashes.  A major and sudden jolt for a heavy hit.  At the same time, it should only be done when needed.  An example of improper use of force feedback is Final Fantasy 8's final boss fight.  When the final boss is beaten, the controler vibrates like crazy.  Wrong way of doing it.

A game can't be more immersive just by having better graphics.  If that was the case, then Halo 2 would be alot more appealing for me than Turok 2.

You guys basically just described ES IV: Oblivion.

>>4
You mean like Etrian Oddysey?

It's not the first person per se, but the use of text instead of graphics, just as pen and paper D&D relies on descriptive details while a PC game can only show you details as they are without use of your imagination.  Also the difference between a MUD that describes the area and a MMORPG where you have everything spelled out graphically.

RPGs these days are too much like interactive movies. :(

My personal problem the most with Console RPGs these days isn't really graphics or cliche's in story, but just that there isn't enough character interaction.  Current systems are supposed to be alot more powerful than before, so why aren't intricate stories being setup where players can actually effect the events, rather than go from point a to point b with event a or event b occuring in the same old sequince.  If the hardware is there, and it has been since the 16-bit era, then why don't any of the companies use it.

>>8
Oh, I see.  Kind of like those adventure games where you are told your surroundings, your situation, and what actions seem to be available.  Those are actually alot of fun and alot less arduious then most games.  Sometimes, you just want type "go through door" rather than hold a directional key until you get to the same door.

I also like how some of those games can be quite graphic in it's description.  For example, Steven King's the Mist, your in a town that is swallowed up by mist.  There is this dragonfly that actually decapitates you and drinks your blood.  Good times was that game.  More fun than most horror games, sorry to say.

I like the idea of a game being like that, but I actually would prefer some level of graphics so it would take some skill on the players part to figure something out.  For example, a description that goes "There is a cracked wall with a hole to the north, there is a red door on the east and a blue door to the west, what is your next action." is fine, but can give alot away.  Where as if your going from room to room, even though the cracked wall maybe obvious, with a hole large enough to hide an important tool in, it can be overlooked if the player isn't carefully examining it.  I would say it is best to balance out the two, much like with point and click adventures.  A dialogue box to help better explain what is going on and a section that shows an image of how your general area is.

>>9
Yeah, I know what you mean.  In a way, it doesn't bother me too much if it does have some movie scenes, but when it is over done, it just sucks.  Same with battling most of the time.  You choose an attack and a scinematic follows of what happens as a result of your attack.  Then again, even those with more intuitive combat, like any of the Mario RPGs, it still feels dead to me.

CHECK EM

>>11
outta control, brah