review of starcraft 2 that compares first and third person perspectives

[super...]

http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=680

I'm not going to quote the relevant part of the review, because your homework is to read the whole thing. and then click that little button on the right with manifesto on it and read all of those "reviews".

so my question is what do you think after reading that review?

[Fox89]

so my question is what do you think after reading that review?

My answer after NOT reading that review is that you are neither my mummy or my teacher, so if you have something relevant to pick out of that very loooong article put it in some damn quotes, as I wont be doing any 'homework'.

PS: This is a DX:HR forum. Showing us how the hell this is relevant may be handy.

[Kodaemon]

Oh wow, what a massive load of wank.

[Thasc]

Agreed with Fox89. You're talking to people on the Internet. Did you know people on the Internet tend to leave a website within ten seconds if they don't get what they want in that time?

[Fluffis]

Your sentence structure, cold blooded overuse of commas and the "Wall of Text crits you for 9000" paragraphs prevents me from reading the whole thing.

Plus, I don't really want to.

[AlexOfSpades]

You know...

We (forum users)... we enter the forum to learn, teach and overall, just relax. Usually, we're tired, arriving from the work, or we are busy (still in the work, playing a game, reading an article. Multitasking).

This is not a classroom where everyone is waiting for an event ; This is a place to question, and answer.

And posting an over-nine-thousand-lines text isnt quite what you can expect someone will read ; Specially about Starcraft (This is Eidos forums, not Blizzard forums). We just dont have the time, or the patience, or the interest, to read all that.

So, please, if you want us to discuss about something, please try to reduce the text in your own words, so we can debate about it. Oh, and make sure its not something already being debated on another thread (If its about FPS/TPS, we're really full of it).

Okay?

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by AlexOfSpades

(If its about FPS/TPS, we're really full of it).

You can say that again...

[Irate Iguana]

We could turn this thread into a poll.

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by Irate Iguana

We could turn this thread into a poll.

I'm not sure people would want that. If only there were some way we could gauge majority interest in numerical form on the internet.....

[IOOI]

I read it all, but I only chose the points that were convenient to me.

Horror is typically and obviously about constrained perspective (Bioshock).

What is the perspective that can give you a better feel of paranoia, like in, like in.. DX?

The outcomes where everything worth doing is done and everything interesting has been seen shouldn’t be waiting like a pot of gold at the end of an FMV rainbow.

I so agree with this.

[BigBoss]

Originally Posted by Irate Iguana

We could turn this thread into a poll.

I'd vote

[ChrisVCB]

Surely we first need a poll to decide whether this thread needs a poll?

[K^2]

You know, when you are starting to read a long text, it's nice to have some sort of an idea where it's going. Isn't that the first thing they teach you in argumentative writing 101? I read about a page of text on the 1080-line screen, and I have no idea what the author intends to tell me. One of the very few times when I feel comfortable saying this.

tl;dr.

[super...]

Originally Posted by K^2

You know, when you are starting to read a long text, it's nice to have some sort of an idea where it's going. Isn't that the first thing they teach you in argumentative writing 101? I read about a page of text on the 1080-line screen, and I have no idea what the author intends to tell me. One of the very few times when I feel comfortable saying this.

tl;dr.

thanks for trying, it's an odd style of writing but you can learn a whole lot from the stuff on action button.

[IOOI]

Originally Posted by super...

thanks for trying, it's an odd style of writing but you can learn a whole lot from the stuff on action button.

Yeah, I liked Half-Life's 2 review. It is considered the third best game of all-time... to them (or him)!

[MechBFP]

Poll: Did you read the article?

Answer 1: No
Answer 2: Lol no
Answer 3: Wut wut in the butt.

[St. Mellow]

Originally Posted by MechBFP

Poll: Did you read the article?

Answer 1: No
Answer 2: Lol no
Answer 3: Wut wut in the butt.

Number 3 here.

[super...]

Sorry, your complaints have been registered. I momentarily forgot that proverb about horses and water.

here is the relevant portion

"This is where Id and the Texan First person shooter production facilities seem to be in opposition to what Blizzard and Nintendo espouse. If you could nail down a single emerging feature of the first person shooter genre, as it grows into more popular forms, it is to be in 3rd person as often as possible. Whenever you can possibly get in a vehicle, for instance, or see yourself via a remote camera or the view of your opponent, it seems to take that opportunity. We have graduated from Halo, where, at every possible opportunity you attempted to see yourself fly or drive, to gears of war, where you drive your body, and only bother with first person for that visceral, and possibly disturbing experience of ‘Boom (comma) headshot’.

Which is Pokemon Snap with bullets.

The argument put forward by Idians in the past (and any offshoot of their mystique) is that nothing can be as immersive as the first person shooter. Arguably this is not the case. For one thing, you have no idea of a sense of self. When removing context (and no, a pair of wrists and hands holding the rear end of a shotgun that bobs and weaves like a combination between a river snake and a floppy dick does not offer much context), what you are left with is a living room filled with yourself, tv, and controller (or desk with monitor, mouse, and keyboard). The FPS perspective is alienating, not personable. For someone who approaches a work of art with the intention to be subjected to an experience, this perspective is effective. The fact that it is most often used to dump a Heavy Metal album cover into your face isn’t a limitation of the basic premise. Horror is typically and obviously about constrained perspective (Bioshock). But if your objective is to permit someone to play, in precisely the ways that playing and gaming differ from real life, then the focus has to be on permitting all those unreal things which life does not allow, to occur.

We had a longer version of this thought, but decided it was boring. Basically, 3rd person lets you see a thing which is not you–it’s a suitable superego chassis which is also an utter blank slate. It lets you experience enough of the environment that you can understand it and, more importantly, your place in it (with clarity that it suitably superhuman). Finally, these interactions try to culminate in a very special quality–the notion of added value."

thoughts?

[IOOI]

Originally Posted by super...

Sorry, your complaints have been registered. I momentarily forgot that proverb about horses and water.

here is the relevant portion

"This is where Id and the Texan First person shooter production facilities seem to be in opposition to what Blizzard and Nintendo espouse. If you could nail down a single emerging feature of the first person shooter genre, as it grows into more popular forms, it is to be in 3rd person as often as possible. Whenever you can possibly get in a vehicle, for instance, or see yourself via a remote camera or the view of your opponent, it seems to take that opportunity. We have graduated from Halo, where, at every possible opportunity you attempted to see yourself fly or drive, to gears of war, where you drive your body, and only bother with first person for that visceral, and possibly disturbing experience of ‘Boom (comma) headshot’.

Which is Pokemon Snap with bullets.

The argument put forward by Idians in the past (and any offshoot of their mystique) is that nothing can be as immersive as the first person shooter. Arguably this is not the case. For one thing, you have no idea of a sense of self. When removing context (and no, a pair of wrists and hands holding the rear end of a shotgun that bobs and weaves like a combination between a river snake and a floppy dick does not offer much context), what you are left with is a living room filled with yourself, tv, and controller (or desk with monitor, mouse, and keyboard). The FPS perspective is alienating, not personable. For someone who approaches a work of art with the intention to be subjected to an experience, this perspective is effective. The fact that it is most often used to dump a Heavy Metal album cover into your face isn’t a limitation of the basic premise. Horror is typically and obviously about constrained perspective (Bioshock). But if your objective is to permit someone to play, in precisely the ways that playing and gaming differ from real life, then the focus has to be on permitting all those unreal things which life does not allow, to occur.

We had a longer version of this thought, but decided it was boring. Basically, 3rd person lets you see a thing which is not you–it’s a suitable superego chassis which is also an utter blank slate. It lets you experience enough of the environment that you can understand it and, more importantly, your place in it (with clarity that it suitably superhuman). Finally, these interactions try to culminate in a very special quality–the notion of added value."

thoughts?

I already took out what was relevant to me. I couldn't understand very clearly, what the author was trying to state on the rest of the quote and on the original article.

[Rindill the Red]

Originally Posted by super...

Sorry, your complaints have been registered. I momentarily forgot that proverb about horses and water.

here is the relevant portion

"This is where Id and the Texan First person shooter production facilities seem to be in opposition to what Blizzard and Nintendo espouse. If you could nail down a single emerging feature of the first person shooter genre, as it grows into more popular forms, it is to be in 3rd person as often as possible. Whenever you can possibly get in a vehicle, for instance, or see yourself via a remote camera or the view of your opponent, it seems to take that opportunity. We have graduated from Halo, where, at every possible opportunity you attempted to see yourself fly or drive, to gears of war, where you drive your body, and only bother with first person for that visceral, and possibly disturbing experience of ‘Boom (comma) headshot’.

"it is to be in 3rd person as often as possible" = not true, if it were true, then there would be no first person games, only third person games.

The use of third person in first person games is not for the sake of showing third person, but for gameplay reasons.

Driving vehicles in first person in FPS is often not done very well, and is difficult because of the constrained view.

Kill cams are for cinematic effect.

Originally Posted by super...

Which is Pokemon Snap with bullets.

The argument put forward by Idians in the past (and any offshoot of their mystique) is that nothing can be as immersive as the first person shooter. Arguably this is not the case. For one thing, you have no idea of a sense of self. When removing context (and no, a pair of wrists and hands holding the rear end of a shotgun that bobs and weaves like a combination between a river snake and a floppy dick does not offer much context), what you are left with is a living room filled with yourself, tv, and controller (or desk with monitor, mouse, and keyboard). The FPS perspective is alienating, not personable. For someone who approaches a work of art with the intention to be subjected to an experience, this perspective is effective. The fact that it is most often used to dump a Heavy Metal album cover into your face isn’t a limitation of the basic premise. Horror is typically and obviously about constrained perspective (Bioshock). But if your objective is to permit someone to play, in precisely the ways that playing and gaming differ from real life, then the focus has to be on permitting all those unreal things which life does not allow, to occur.

We had a longer version of this thought, but decided it was boring. Basically, 3rd person lets you see a thing which is not you–it’s a suitable superego chassis which is also an utter blank slate. It lets you experience enough of the environment that you can understand it and, more importantly, your place in it (with clarity that it suitably superhuman). Finally, these interactions try to culminate in a very special quality–the notion of added value."

thoughts?

This is assbackwards psychobabble.

I'm sorry, but Freud's theories are pretty much universally recognized as false today.

"For one thing, you have no idea of a sense of self." : I'm pretty sure everyone who is conscious has a sense of self.

"When removing context (and no, a pair of wrists and hands holding the rear end of a shotgun that bobs and weaves like a combination between a river snake and a floppy dick does not offer much context), what you are left with is a living room filled with yourself, tv, and controller (or desk with monitor, mouse, and keyboard)." : The context is the imaginative body awareness and your interaction with the consistent game-world (incorporates input and output).

"The FPS perspective is alienating, not personable." : How can a first person game alienate you from yourself and your own imaginative interaction with the game-world?

"But if your objective is to permit someone to play in precisely the ways that gaming differ from real life, then the focus has to be on permitting all those unreal things which life does not allow to occur." (PS: learn to use *** commas correctly) : Most games' objectives are not to permit someone to play in precisely the ways that gaming differs from real life... but are, in fact, to mimic reality and provide a fiction and game mechanics for interaction. This entire sentence is irrelevant.

[mad_red]

First of all, this is why he argues FPS is not immersive:

When removing context (and no, a pair of wrists and hands holding the rear end of a shotgun that bobs and weaves like a combination between a river snake and a floppy dick does not offer much context), what you are left with is a living room filled with yourself, tv, and controller (or desk with monitor, mouse, and keyboard).

Since when is staring at an empty room and a bobbing gun less immersive than staring at Jensen's butt?

How is seeing Jensen and the enemy around the corner and everybody on the radar in third person any more or less immersive than listening to footsteps and wondering where the enemy is?

Just because I can't see around the corner I'm going to start looking around my room and under the bed for the enemy? I just can't follow his reasoning or logic, so help me out here.



This:

Originally Posted by super...

if your objective is to permit someone to play, in precisely the ways that playing and gaming differ from real life, then the focus has to be on permitting all those unreal things which life does not allow, to occur.

And this:

Blizzard believes that to have a good time, whether you are working together, or against someone else (together), it is most important that you be able to fail.

Equal this:

In this scheme, it becomes, then a very difficult proposition for Blizzard to design a system where you can fail, should fail, and are constantly challenged to avoid failure (by lifting a leg, rotating a hip, or nibbling on an earlobe at the right moment), yet provides all the tools necessary to make sure that when you fail, it is because of the people who are playing, and not the game itself.

Unfortunately that doesn't tell us much about whether we should have supervision in third person. Only that the more tools and superhuman power you're adding, the more difficult it becomes to balance the gameplay.

I suppose if you had the time and willingness, you could keep adding progressively incredible powers to surmount increasingly impossible challenges as the game goes on. But that depends on the dedication, the time, the risk, and the money Eidos is willing to take towards making DX:HR a great game. And we all know their hands are tied on all of those except dedication.

[Fox89]

Thanks for putting the relevant stuff in it. It's an interesting point, and one I agree with to an extent. Take MGS4 for example, that was a game that decidedly benefited from the use of 3rd person. Rainbow 6: Vegas was improved with occasional 3rd person in the cover system, but that wasn't really an immersive game to begin with so I wouldn't say that is a cogent analogy on my part.

I think the problems with this particular game lie twofold.

1) The original Deux Ex, and it's sequel, were entirely 1st person. At least, all the relevant gameplay was. So DX has established itself as a 1st person franchise. Imagine the uproar if suddenly Gears of War was from a first-person perspective. It's just not what people expect.

2) The biggest issue isn't the perspective per se, but rather the transition between the two. The argument above seems to be that 3rd person is or at least can be a better tool for immersion, but at the end of the day the most important thing is consistency. The most immersive game I have ever played is Final Fantasy IX. That's entirely 3rd person, it's fixed camera, there is very limited interaction. But because it is consistent you can focus entirely on the game and the story, without having jarring perspective changes.

For the record: my own view is that 3rd person is fine for everything EM are doing with it bar the ladder climbing.

But even using that as an example: it is an unnecessary transition. Imagine a racing game that takes you out of the cockpit view into a chase camera every time you overtake. Sticking with one view or the other would be fine, but the constant moving between the two where it adds no discernible gameplay benefit serves to destroy the illusion and disorientate the player. I'm of the opinion that the cover system adds enough to the gameplay to negate the problems of the perspective shift. The takedowns... again I personally feel that's OK as some of the more elaborate and acrobatic stuff could be a disorientating in 1st person. Ladders =

[IOOI]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Take MGS4 for example, that was a game that decidedly benefited from the use of 3rd person.

As much I've joked about HR being up against MGS, I hope we don't loose DX to MGS style. I like stealth and action in FP - that's what should be improved.

Originally Posted by Fox89

The takedowns... again I personally feel that's OK as some of the more elaborate and acrobatic stuff could be a disorientating in 1st person. Ladders =

I was expecting flourished acrobatic moves (cartwheels, backflips,...) in DX as much as I was expecting vehicle sections * - that means none.


* - I forgot that there's the VTOL and the transcontinental aircraft. So there's still the chance of piloting a vehicle... in Third-Person. Oh crap!

[thedosbox]

FFS, do we really need yet another thread on third person perspective? I'd be reading Umberto Eco if I really wanted long screeds of text that take too long to get to the point.

[super...]

i agree, the 3rd person topic around here is often is over done. but i felt this was an interesting view that may bring a new angle to the discussion.

the whole article has some very interesting things to say about the 1st person, 3rd person schools of game design (thats why i did not want clip parts from the article)

so maybe instead of a political for or against discussion we can just talk about how perspectives effect our game play.