• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

First person vs. Third person

I was going to say this in reference to the OP's mention of Tomb Raider. Platforming tends to be incredibly difficult and cumbersome from the FP point of view because of the limited viewpoint.

Well, Mirror's Edge managed a FP view well enough.
 
I was going to say this in reference to the OP's mention of Tomb Raider. Platforming tends to be incredibly difficult and cumbersome from the FP point of view because of the limited viewpoint.

Well, Mirror's Edge managed a FP view well enough.

A gimmicky game that was completely focused on one specific type of linear platforming. A fun diversion, but no where near as complex as some of the stuff in a modern 3D platformer.

Imagine trying to do a triple wall jump and then hitting a specific block in third person. Pretty much impossible unless they scripted the action, which kind of defeats the point.

The problem with the first person perspective is that it's lacking the peripheral view and an awareness of the space our bodies take up that we have in real life. There is a disconnect between eyes and feet and body placement in a video game that we don't have in real life and that a 3rd person perspective can compensate for.

Take the Metroid 3D games, for example. Is there a bit of platforming? Sure. There is in Halo too. But compared to the 2D versions of Metroid the platforming is simplistic. You can do first person platforming, but by necessity it has to be slower paced and less complicated.
 
I think there were a few bits in Mirror's Edge that qualify as complicated. I was stuck in one area for half an hour before I figured out the sequence of moves that would allow me to move on.

Then again, it also supported some moves which I'm fairly sure are physically impossible. Like hanging from a ledge, than then "jumping" to instead hang from a ledge behind you that's five feet higher.
 
A video game filled only with things that are physically possible would be pretty lame. Especially platformers.

That being said, I prefer first-person games to third person ones. But a well-made game is a well-made game, regardless of the perspective.
 
It depends on the game. I think a fast-action shooter loses something in third person. Lacking a full view of your periphery adds a challenging element.

Platformers, though, really need to be third person. There's a reason jumping puzzles are hated in first-person games.

Strategy games have to be third person, for the most part. It's rather difficult to play otherwise. One game that took a different approach for real-time strategy was Sacrifice. Your alter-ego was an actual character on the battlefield, so you were just as much at risk as your armies. And you couldn't separate your view from your character. It was third person, but you were bound to a view centered around your character. No omniscient perspective on the battlefield!

Role-playing games where you have an actual party tend to benefit from a third person view, though slower-paced games like Eye of the Beholder and Xeen do okay in first. And I always played Morrowind in first person.

So, in the end, I guess it all depends on how well the chosen perspective serves the gameplay.
 
Heh, I was just reminded of the Jurassic Park game that was 1st person but allowed you to see your feet and chest. Interesting experiment, but if I remember correctly, the controls were a bit odd.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top