The first person perspective in video games

Rather than simply talking about first person shooters, I thought I'd expand the discussion to first person perspective in general. I know that part of the appeal of the genre is the degree of immersiveness; you want to feel like you're in the game, which is understandable.

But what tweaks should should the fpp have?

Makes hub screens choosable. As in, you can have them active or not.

I always disliked not being able to see the scenery perfectly.

It could also only show up when you stop.

Also, you shouldn't automatically be able to see your weapon.(like your sword) It makes sense with firearms/projectile weapons with a barrel, but otherwise...

People say it's immersive, but I found it to be overly restrictive. If you expect me to fight off a horde of zombies/nazis/whatever, then I expect to have at the very least peripheral vision. I much prefer third-person perspective.

Increase Fo V to allow for proper vision rather than the overly restricted field First Person games tend to have.

Let me see my darn feet and possibly other first person movements as well. It just helps in stuff like platforming.

The first person perspective is actually different to our actual vision, as we have 180 degree vision, while the first person perspective only has 90 degrees. Third person, although giving you a better sense of your peripherals, can be abused. However, an FOV of 180 degrees, with graying at the sides, would be realistic but very obnoxious.

One feature I really like in first person games is mantling, as seen in Battlefield 3. I honestly really like seeing my legs.

If you're going to have first person cutscenes, please do not shove things in my face. I was recently playing Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, and it's cutscenes shoved things in my face so close that I could smell them.

I got to thinking about this and wondered if point-and-click first person adventure puzzle games like Myst would be more or less immersive if they allowed free WASD-style movement instead of "screen-based" point-and-click movement.

The closest thing I can think of to that sort of thing is the non-combat-related bits of the Metroid Prime games, which to me felt very Myst-like. However, the immersion would be lost when the loading of new areas isn't seamless or you encounter invisible walls, so I guess free-range movement would have to be handled carefully in a point-and-click first person adventure.

I've never liked FPP, for two main reasons:

• As mentioned above, narrower field of vision. But additionally, you can't turn your camera both as precisely and as fast as you can glance to the side or turn your head.
• In real life, you have other senses to feed you information about your surroundings. In particular are Edge Physics - your can sense when you're close to an edge without having to turn your whole head to look down at your feet. You don't have those information feeds in an FPP game. As awesome as Portal was, some of the jumps made me really appreciate the quicksave/quickload feature.

As far as I can think of, the best way to fix these problems is immersive virtual reality. And until we invent such a system that doesn't cost thousands of dollars, I think we should stick to third-person perspective.

edited 22nd Aug '12 1:38:35 PM by PoochyEXE

It has its faults, but I enjoy FPP.

I prefer the third-person perspective. Aside from greater awareness of your surroundings, you can simply do more with it. Melee combat is definitely something that can be done in third-person (The combo-heavy lightning fast melee combat anyway, so not chivalry) as well as showing off your character.

I think speed is the number one advantage the third person gives. There are fast FP games, like Unreal Tournament, but TP games give you the perspective to act quicker and greater freedom of movement. Compare the last FP game you played to Vanquish or even Super Mario. Your characters are always more agile in TP games, and I just think that's more fun.

FP does give more attention to detail though. I don't think scavving through the capital wasteland in Fallout3 could've really been done the same if it was primarily third person.

True facts. Some games are better-suited to FP, others to TP.

Then there are the goofy games that have fixed cameras and crap.

In my opinion, the #1 thing that FPS games need to have is the ability to see your feet when you look down.

Are you guys talkin about FPS on P Cs or consoles? PC's tend to have higher Fo Vs, like 140, rather than consoles, which are usually closer to 90.

I personally like FPP better that TPP. It just feels better, if you ask me. Feels more precise and natural than in TPP.

edited 22nd Aug '12 2:30:17 PM by MetaSkipper

x6 Myst V actually does have direct mouse control. I find it a bit less clunky.

I feel like horror games are better suited for the first person perspective than third person because all the scary, disgusting monsters can get right up in your face and you can see all the gross details. Dead Space isn't really scary for me, but it would be horrifying in first-person. The monster designs are absulutely fantastic, but they're so far away from the camera that it really doesn't freak me out. You can also see them coming up behind you, so you become aware of them sooner, which eliminates some of the surprise.

Also, anyone looking for a great first-person point-n'-click adventure needs to try the Tex Murphy series (starting with Under A Killing Moon, as that's the first game in the first person perspective). They let you roam around the environment freely, as was mentioned earlier, then when you want to look for clues, you go into a screen-based mode, like Myst, but the screen is from the perspective you were last in when you were roaming, giving you the best of both worlds. The series also has a fantastic sense of humor, which is a huge plus.

I've never liked first-person for driving games though, as the field of vision is much more limited, not only in comparison to a third camera, but to real life driving as well.

edited 22nd Aug '12 2:49:01 PM by cfive

See, I'd just like to point out right now that I really don't think that is how you do a horror game.

this exactly. I was just going to make that comment.

I think horror games work better with a first-person perspective, but for very different reasons.

Third-person horror games often break immersion hard. In old fixed camera perspectives, you are looking from some rather ridiculous camera angles; your character can run past a corner and suddenly be off-camera, or you might be looking at the top of everybody's heads like they're Starcraft units. None of this feels natural; if you go to hide in a closet, you should be in the dark, scared and unable to tell if the monster can see you, not mildly indifferent because you can see from a bright and unhindered perspective the terrible ai of the monster as it just gives up and walks away. It's also stupid how you can see enemies coming up behind you in third-person. In a real-life horror situation, would you be able to see a guy behind you? No, it would be a surprise, and it is a surprise in first-person. But in third-person, "Oh no, there's the zombie a few meters behind me, I guess I'll slowly walk away now that it has lost any element of surprise."

There are some benefits to third-person; you get to see your own gruesome death, for those who like that. However, I still think that games like System Shock and Amnesia: The Dark Descent prove that horror really could work a lot better in first-person.

EDITED because I flew into angry mode

edited 22nd Aug '12 3:12:18 PM by Scardoll

... Nah.

I was honestly scared while playing Dead Space, which was third person. It wasn't as scary as it could have been given the emphasis on combat, but it was scary. The perspective still lets enemies sneak up on you, and honestly a zombie appearing a meter behind you is still really freakin' scary. The controls being bad has nothing to do with the perspective itself seeing as there are tons of TP games with good controls. Same with fixed camera angles.

Fixed camera angles are often demanded by fans of old-style horror games, for the belief that they somehow make things scarier; I always found them very artificial.

As for a game like Dead Space, think about it: Isaac Clarke is already pretty much a blank slate who barely speaks. There is no reason to connect to the character, so why do you want a third-person view of him? Granted, the way the HUD is build into his suit is awesome, but I also would have probably been more scared without his hilariously awkward stomping animation that I got to see every time in third-person.

edited 22nd Aug '12 3:17:12 PM by Scardoll

Because the third-person perspective makes it a better game. A lot of the stuff you are asked to do in Dead Space would have been annoying or awkward to do in first person, including the stomping. Third Person made the game flow better, so they made it third-person. Thus the game was better. Fighting with a game's controls leads to frustration, which takes you out of the immersion, which stops it from becoming scary.

I don't see why anyone would ask for fixed camera angles at all, aside from maybe a Nostalgia Filter.

edited 22nd Aug '12 3:27:50 PM by ShirowShirow

I believe Pvtnum said it best, some games are more suited for first person, some to third person.

And then there are games that give you an option. Those tend to be better in first person.

They're only better in first person if they simply pulled the camera out of the character's head for the other views, i.e. no optimization.

Good example of this is Mechwarrior. 2 and its spinoffs had utterly unplayable 3rd person cameras whose main function was to let you see stuff outside your cockpit view FOV. 3 and 4 on the other hand had properly optimized 3rd person viewpoints and I found them to be eminently more playable with an Over the Shoulder camera than with cockpit view.