Discuss some of your favorite gameplay and the perspective used in the game. Did the perspective add to the narrative, immersion, ect.
Generally do you think it truly effects a game if it's in 1st, over the shoulder, or 3rd (farther behind).
Thought it'd be a good topic to spark some discussion.
Gameplay Perspectives- does it really matter?
-
wideeyedsmiles
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:13 pm
-
Ozymandias
- Posts: 1239
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
- Location: In your attic. Skitter skitter.
Re: Gameplay Perspectives- does it really matter?
Yes, these things generally affect the game and are best suited for different games.
For example, games where you shoot people a lot, especially at longer ranges (pixel people), I prefer first person.
Games where you need to know where you are in relation to your surroundings, such as platformers, are best as third person games, preferably with an adjustable camera. (Or, with fixed perspectives such as LittleBIGPlanet or Super Mario Brothers)
Then there's games like Mount and Blade where it could be good either way and depends on personal preference, and they give the option to change your camera view to suit the way you play. Personally I like to have a third person view zoomed out as far as the camera allows, so that I can have a good idea of my surroundings and be able to see exactly what my character is doing (swinging or blocking in certain directions).
The key is that the character shouldn't be blocking too much of the screen, like many of the "Over the Shoulder" shooters I have seen. It is extremely annoying to have the camera get stuck on things in the environment, or back up against a wall only to have your character's fat head block the entire screen.
As for narrative and such, well, it seems first person would make sense to make it feel like things are actually affecting the player's character. Third person might seem a bit more strange, as things are happening to your character while you watch from somewhere else, leaving the impression that you don't actually control that character. Yet, with a third person view you can see how your character reacts to things better, facial expressions, that sort of thing.
So... yes, I think the camera perspective is a vital design choice in a game.
(In the case of Lugaru and Overgrowth, Wolfire has to strike the right balance between seeing where your character is and what he's doing with being able to see very close by enemies through your fat ass. If you and the enemy are facing each other, your character will probably be blocking your view of the opponent's lower body, so you'd need to angle the camera off to the side or down just to get a full view of who you're fighting. But if you have the camera sort of over the head like in Mount and Blade you will not be able to see where your legs are...)
For example, games where you shoot people a lot, especially at longer ranges (pixel people), I prefer first person.
Games where you need to know where you are in relation to your surroundings, such as platformers, are best as third person games, preferably with an adjustable camera. (Or, with fixed perspectives such as LittleBIGPlanet or Super Mario Brothers)
Then there's games like Mount and Blade where it could be good either way and depends on personal preference, and they give the option to change your camera view to suit the way you play. Personally I like to have a third person view zoomed out as far as the camera allows, so that I can have a good idea of my surroundings and be able to see exactly what my character is doing (swinging or blocking in certain directions).
The key is that the character shouldn't be blocking too much of the screen, like many of the "Over the Shoulder" shooters I have seen. It is extremely annoying to have the camera get stuck on things in the environment, or back up against a wall only to have your character's fat head block the entire screen.
As for narrative and such, well, it seems first person would make sense to make it feel like things are actually affecting the player's character. Third person might seem a bit more strange, as things are happening to your character while you watch from somewhere else, leaving the impression that you don't actually control that character. Yet, with a third person view you can see how your character reacts to things better, facial expressions, that sort of thing.
So... yes, I think the camera perspective is a vital design choice in a game.
(In the case of Lugaru and Overgrowth, Wolfire has to strike the right balance between seeing where your character is and what he's doing with being able to see very close by enemies through your fat ass. If you and the enemy are facing each other, your character will probably be blocking your view of the opponent's lower body, so you'd need to angle the camera off to the side or down just to get a full view of who you're fighting. But if you have the camera sort of over the head like in Mount and Blade you will not be able to see where your legs are...)
-
Ragdollmaster
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:49 am
- Location: Island of Lugaru
Re: Gameplay Perspectives- does it really matter?
I agree about first person view being important for deeper immersion. Two of the most immersive series I can think of, Half-Life and BioShock, are both set in the first person, and they both have limited cutscenes and instead focus on scripted events that happen in realtime while you're in control of your character. Sure, in BioShock, sometimes you lose control and can't move, but usually not for long. In Half-Life I can think of maybe only 1 or 2 'scenes' where you don't have any control, its really good about giving you fluid, nonstop progression.
Re: Gameplay Perspectives- does it really matter?
Ragdollmaster wrote:I agree about first person view being important for deeper immersion. Two of the most immersive series I can think of, Half-Life and BioShock, are both set in the first person, and they both have limited cutscenes and instead focus on scripted events that happen in realtime while you're in control of your character. Sure, in BioShock, sometimes you lose control and can't move, but usually not for long. In Half-Life I can think of maybe only 1 or 2 'scenes' where you don't have any control, its really good about giving you fluid, nonstop progression.
STALKER, 'nuff said.
Ok, not really.
The STALKER series can be thought of as a survival horror FPS set in a partial sandobx world with limited RPG elements.
While the original Shadow of Chernobyil was definitely an unfinished product, it did get something right: atmosphere (or, atmosfear as some say
). The Zone is an unsettling place, and the lethality of the weapons and the presence of mutants doesn't make things better. The FOV is also slightly limited compared to other games, to increase the claustrophobic effect the game has.Call of Pripyiat is probably the most immersive game I have ever played lately, and it's nice to see that the people at GSC learned how to code properly.
-
zoidberg rules
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:44 pm
Re: Gameplay Perspectives- does it really matter?
First person is brilliant to help immerse the plyer in the story, however, some third person games also manage to hit the nail square on the head (a la Mass Effect). In that you can not only see how your character is evolving and reacting to things, but you can also control how they react to a certain extent, so, in a way, you get the best of both worlds. Also, Assassin's Creed.