Just Adventure: The Hot Spot - ;D1st or 2nd point perspective

Just Adventure News :

Press Release: Deus Ex Machina is born again with Christopher Lee News: H.P. Lovecraft's Dagon Press Release: Divines of the East Class Spotlight: Sword Saint Press Release: Green Man Gaming Signs Up Award-Winning Telltale Games Gold: 'Reus' released Press Release: The Swapper Steam Release Date and New Trailer Press Release: Lost Spirits of Kael Game: Magicka - Wizard Wars First-Ever Screenshots Revealed Game: Dutch designers break new ground with audio game Remembering Press Release: Gamebook Fans Unite!

Search Active Topics

Home - Forum Home

Welcome Guest, please Login or Register!

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Topic: ;D1st or 2nd point perspective

Page 2 of 2 : « ‹

All Forums : [Adventure Games Forum] : The Hot Spot > ;D1st or 2nd point perspective

#26 12 MAY 2003 at 8:49pm
Rismi Intergalactic Janitor Posts : 43 Joined: 11 MAY 2003 Status : Online	I have to admit that this whole discussion didn't make me much wiser. Don't know if that's my 'fault' or yours (1st person or second ) I just wanted to get back to Myst. To me it seems that the creators have made in a very subtile way a game that can not be pinned. Even the literal(?) defenition of 1st and 3th person doesn't really work with Myst. Atrus books are written in 1st person, but is he the protagonist... or are you...or is the world, the game ? ??? Ri&Smi
Profile Search

#27 13 MAY 2003 at 3:50am
mszv Private Detective Posts : 751 Joined: 12 OCT 2002 Status : Online	I'm not disagreeing with the points of view expressed, but, for a graphically oriented game (not text), the industry standards seem to be: 1st person. You play as yourself. You don't see yourself on screen - you see the world through "your eyes". Sometimes the "you" is defined as a character in the game (Cameron files,as was mentioned before), and sometimes it's left undefined (Myst). Either way, when you play, you don't see yourself on the screen, and the view is essentially the view you would have if you were plopped into the game and were looking around. 3rd person. You move a character (or two) around on the screen. You see the character on the screen. It's as if you are watching the character you are moving around in a play or a movie. Those are the only industry standard terms I've ever seen used. I've never seen the term "2nd person" used on the back of game boxes, in game reviews, and on game sites. Perhaps it is used somewhere, and I just have not seen it. Regards, mszv
Profile Search
#28 20 MAY 2003 at 6:31pm
jamarchand Schattenjger Posts : 1665 Joined: 10 OCT 2002 Status : Offline	I think clearly, that 3rd person perspective is an absolutelly silly and unnecessary conception. The reason is easy to explain - If I'm a player, if I'm really part of a game, of the envoirement, of story, why do I need manipulate myself??? Why??? Any adventure, is based in a relacion between GAMER x GAME....and not GAMER x CHARACTER OF GAMER x GAME. So, why manipulate or visualize yourself?? The gamer only need to intereact with OTHER characters and the plot. There's no reason in manipulate my character, and this character manipulate the game. This intermediation is absolutelly unnecessary....and more! Turn a game development, more difficult....more space full of silly "my-self character".......more megabytes of no important animations. More space in Cd full with absolutely nothing. So, the 3rd person perspective would be avoid. The gamer don't need intermediaries. The game only need DIRECT manipulation and interaction with the GAME. &&&&[move]Actually playing SHIVERS and Rhem 2[/move]&&
Profile Search
#29 21 MAY 2003 at 9:47pm
Deleted User	Why don't they make movies in first person perspective? For one thing, you're stuck with one camera angle. Even Lars von Trier would run screaming from that challenge. Secondly, it's much harder to show the actions of the character whose eyes we see through, unless the guy just stands there. To return to games, what happens if you want to show the protagonist grapplig with a bad guy, for instance? Having a grimacing face covering most of the monitor and the scenery spinning around in the background seems like a poor, disorienting and stressful way of letting you, the player, know what's going on. More importantly, in many adventure games the protagonist is a well-defined character with a personality, background and appearance. He/she is not you, the player. You're just guiding the character through the story. Playing a game like Gabriel Knight with a first person viewpoint would be weird. You're not GK.

#30 22 MAY 2003 at 12:12am
jamarchand Schattenjger Posts : 1665 Joined: 10 OCT 2002 Status : Offline	A film has absolutelly nothing to see with a game. In a film, you only "assist" the script/plot. In a game, otherwise, you "interact" to plot. A film is previously made by screenwriter, director and actors....and the assistence's interactivity is only CONTEMPLATIVE. In a game, that is made to interactivity, the gamer interaction is OBJECTIVE. You have to CONDUCT the game....despite, great part of it was preveiwously builted....but this preveiws construction was only made thinking in the gamer "intervention/interaction". A film is not passive of conduction. - Only assistence and interpretation. Concluding - In a film, you are not 1st nor 3rd person, you are only a "strange element" to the work. In a game, you are necessarially a 1st person, because you interact , and conduct directly with it. So despite an eventual game being constructed in a 3rd mode, any way, the relation between gamer and game will be 1st person perspective. Remember, you need to conduct your character.....so you are into a real 1st person perspective....and this aspect is absolutelly equal in films - When you assist a movie, your interpretation is exclusivelly in 1st person, because, no one will feel it it for you. &&&&[move]Actually playing SHIVERS and Rhem 2[/move]&&
Profile Search
#31 23 MAY 2003 at 10:02am
Deleted User	If I understand you correctly, you're pointing out the difference between a movie and a game. You're saying that in a game, you control the main character of the story, and guide him/her through it, affecting the order and possibly the outcome of events. In a movie, you're just an observer. Thus, since you control the protagonist in a game, you should look out through his eyes, but in a movie, you don't, so you shouldn't. I see your point, but it is purely academic, and does not adress my points about visualisation problems at all. And since a lot of times, the protagonists has personalities of their own, different from yours, and doesn't always do as they're told, it's not always correct to view things that way. In 3rd person games (and some 1st person, like Under A Killing Moon), it makes more sense to see yourself as an advisor to the protagonist, a voice in his head, or something like that. You do not have 100% control, and the responses you get from the game directly conflicts with that view. To qoute Hoagie in Day Of The Tentacle: "I don't wanna." To your claim that movies and games have no similarities, I wholeheartedly disagree. An important point of both a game and a movie is to tell a story. In practice, first person perspective results in reduced possibilites for visual storytelling. Sometimes, this is not a problem. To use a well-known example, in Myst, the mood, the feeling of loneliness and emptyness that you get from looking at a place devoid of life, is enforced by not viewing the protagonist's figure on screen. It's helping telling the story the way the developers wanted. Also, there's not much direct action happening to the protagonist, so we don't need to see him/her. This does not hold true for all games. There's a different feel to 1st person, and many limitations on the visualisation of a scene, and it's not always desirable.

#32 23 MAY 2003 at 3:44pm
jamarchand Schattenjger Posts : 1665 Joined: 10 OCT 2002 Status : Offline	In all 3rd games I played even today, the 3rd person perspective made NO difference......NO extra-importance to the game. And more, a 3rd perspective, give us LESS interactivity and freedom to the gamer.....obvious, I find me stuck into "myself character".....so I have to wait all that animations, instead of interact to envoirement. All that waiste of time, watching "myself " character animations, could be used "playing" the game. The amount of animations is inversally proportional to real interaction between gamer x game. This topic, is the nagative point in some Sierra's classic Adventures like Phantasmagoria 1 and GK2.....watching those loooooooongest FMV of myself character......while, effectivelly interact, would be much better. Concluding - If you play in a first perspective, you are deeply integrated into the plot, into the game, and don't spend yor time "simply watching the game"...like a movie conception. &&&&[move]Actually playing SHIVERS and Rhem 2[/move]&&
Profile Search

All Forums : [Adventure Games Forum] : The Hot Spot > ;D1st or 2nd point perspective

Page 2 of 2 : « ‹

Jump to:

0 Members Subscribed To This Topic

Topic: ;D1st or 2nd point perspective

Rismi

mszv

jamarchand

jamarchand

jamarchand