First vs. Third Perspective

[Wolf Kanno]

Do you have a preference when games go first-person perspective or third-person? I can honestly say that I prefer third-person, something about first-person pulls me out of the experience.

[NeoCracker]

I get the sneaking feeling that it takes you out of the experience due to the fact that, in order to look left, you need to turn the entirety of your body.

Or the complete lack of peripheral vision.

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

I think we can all guess my preference here. :p

[Ayen]

I prefer third-person if I have to choose. I don't have much problem playing first-person games anymore. Just not my first choice.

[Slothy]

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

Only when you're playing a game where your field of view is shit and you can't change it.

Am I the only person so far that's going to say it depends on the game? Because it really, really does.

[Depression Moon]

It really does depend on the game for me, but how prevalent is first person in genres outside of Shooters and RPGs? I can think of 1 puzzle and 1 platformer that's first person.

[Slothy]

It really does depend on the game for me, but how prevalent is first person in genres outside of Shooters and RPGs?

It's become reasonably common in horror games now, and a surprising number of indie titles go first person for things other than shooters and RPGs. I think it's partly because then you don't have a main character to animate.

[metagloria]

I can stand first person occasionally, but by and large I want third. For example, in Skyrim I can do either pretty well, but if you could pull back the camera a bit in third, I'd totally do that.

[NeoCracker]

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

Only when you're playing a game where your field of view is shit and you can't change it.

Am I the only person so far that's going to say it depends on the game? Because it really, really does.

For some reason I was thinking this was a thread in RPG, not in general. :p

Regardless, the other points stand. Non-RPG's I can sometimes be okay with first person, but Third person always looks better. Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 and NV being the only exception, where something looks severely off in third person.

[Uchu]

Another vote for 'it depends on the game'. If i have a choice in a game I will go for the one that looks less crap, which is usually first-person in that case. But i wouldn't not buy a game just because of the perspective.

[Slothy]

Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 and NV being the only exception, where something looks severely off in third person.

its proly cauz thay pt as mucch effert in turd persan as i do dis pasta

[Ayen]

Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 and NV being the only exception, where something looks severely off in third person.

its proly cauz thay pt as mucch effert in turd persan as i do dis pasta

Which is a shame because I actually would like a game that has a quality third and first-person view that you can choose between depending on preference. I'm not sure how much of a market presence a game like that would have, but it'd be nice.

[Skyblade]

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

Only when you're playing a game where your field of view is trout and you can't change it.

Am I the only person so far that's going to say it depends on the game? Because it really, really does.

This is quite correct.

I can count three whole series (6 whole games) I have enjoyed that use a First-Person perspective.

So clearly, not all First-Person games are bad.

Just 99.999999% of them.

[chionos]

It depends on the game entirely, as has been clearly articulated already.

I do like, and prefer, in games that ARE first person, the ability to zoom out if I want, to be able to see my character. I would like better camera options with Skyrim, for example, because I want to see every angle of the armor sometimes.

I will note, too, that first person games do have perspective issues sometimes. But third person has its own issues. So in the end I don't have a strict preference. Whatever works for the game, works for me.

[Pumpkin]

Always third

[Slothy]

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

Only when you're playing a game where your field of view is trout and you can't change it.

Am I the only person so far that's going to say it depends on the game? Because it really, really does.

This is quite correct.

I can count three whole series (6 whole games) I have enjoyed that use a First-Person perspective.

So clearly, not all First-Person games are bad.

Just 99.999999% of them.

To be fair, the percentage of third person games that suck is probably similar.

[escobert]

DayZ allows you to use first or third person and it's a big debate within the community. The hardcore players are all about first person. Also third allows you to see over walls and stuffs so that can be seen as cheating since the game is so based on realism and survival. But, I believe you only get a 70-90 degree view in first person and a 180 degree in third.

If I'm traveling I'm almost always in third. If I'm scoping something out I'll go to first. Looting depends on the location and if it's dark out or not.

[Ayen]

I can see how it could be abused on online play. I was mainly thinking of an offline mode in this case.

[Vyk]

Sad part is I usually play even the bad third person games, Bethesda specifically. Which is better on PC where you can mod animations and camera angles and whatnot. The fans fix everything Bethesda neglected about third person. And in most cases even perfected first person. I only use first person for shopping so I don't accidentally steal something while trying to talk to someone. Every once in a while I'll go first person on a whim. But otherwise, no. And I really have nothing against first person, per se. But I generally don't enjoy the games that utilize it. CoD and its clones suck. Halo sucks. Mirror's Edge was gimmicky and annoying. Half Life wasn't quite the godsend everyone made it out to be. I think if a game was really well made I'd like it more. It does feel a bit immersive when I go first person in Bethesda games, but hardly a big enough impact to warrant committing to it completely. But I get the impression it can be done. It just rarely is. At least for my experience

[Skyblade]

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

Only when you're playing a game where your field of view is trout and you can't change it.

Am I the only person so far that's going to say it depends on the game? Because it really, really does.

This is quite correct.

I can count three whole series (6 whole games) I have enjoyed that use a First-Person perspective.

So clearly, not all First-Person games are bad.

Just 99.999999% of them.

To be fair, the percentage of third person games that suck is probably similar.

Depends on the genre, really.

I have not found a first person RPG I've been able to stick with enough to get to the first boss on (Earthbound, Shin Megami Tensei, Shining In the Darkness, or any other).

Yet I've played tons and tons and tons of third person RPGs, and I've loved about 90% of them.


For other genres, you tend to be correct.

Puzzle games (Portal, Myst, a couple others) can do it quite well. The Professor Layton series could be argued to be first person for the exploration town/wandering places. If so, it's definitely another top contender. So perspective doesn't matter as much for it.

Shooters I tend to hate the majority of regardless of perspective, and perspective usually seems less important to my enjoyment of them than other things like RPG elements or overall design. The single best raw shooter I've played IS first person (Metroid Prime), and I haven't actually found a third-person raw shooter game I've enjoyed (just hybrids like Mass Effect and Firefall), so I guess first-person does edge out to be the best perspective in the raw shooter genre. It's just a sucky genre.

[Vyk]

Ah, Shining in the Darkness. I put up with that back in the day, adored that game, but I don't think I could handle it anymore. I've tried the original Phantasy Star quite a few times and never really got into it due to this. Though it does look nice, and is impressive a game did it that well back then. It's just a tad too primitive for me anymore..

On that note, there's games like Etrian Odyssey that still do this, so I guess people appreciate this stuff somewhere

[Spuuky]

I have not found a first person RPG I've been able to stick with enough to get to the first boss on (Earthbound, Shin Megami Tensei, Shining In the Darkness, or any other).Wait, we're counting things like Earthbound as "first person" even though the majority of the game is played from a third person perspective? In that case, almost all my very favorite games ever are "first person," like all the early Dragon Quests.

Also, Etrian Odyssey games are first person and great. I love first person games, now that I think about it. Third person is also woefully, stupidly awful for shooters.

But of course, I do love many third-person games, too, so obviously it depends?

[Bolivar]

Idk, it's just a design choice. I suppose first person is riskier and harder to pull off but I've enjoyed a ton of games that use it for immersion's sake. I always play Elder Scrolls first person, that's how it was designed and intended to be enjoyed. I appreciate Sword of Vermillion's bizarre amalgamation of multiple perspectives. I admit it was a barrier to entry for Dragon Quest games, given how flashy other RPGs are but I suppose that's why VIII's mix of combat perspectives got me into the series.

I also play so many different kinds of FPS that this just isn't something I think about as a distinguishing factor.

[Skyblade]

I have not found a first person RPG I've been able to stick with enough to get to the first boss on (Earthbound, Shin Megami Tensei, Shining In the Darkness, or any other).Wait, we're counting things like Earthbound as "first person" even though the majority of the game is played from a third person perspective? In that case, almost all my very favorite games ever are "first person," like all the early Dragon Quests.

Also, Etrian Odyssey games are first person and great. I love first person games, now that I think about it. Third person is also woefully, stupidly awful for shooters.

But of course, I do love many third-person games, too, so obviously it depends?

The third-person parts of the game are fine, but when it switches to first-person it shatters my immersion and enjoyment so much that I cannot force myself to keep going. So, the game itself may not be first-person (although those that are, like Shining in the Darkness, don't fare much better), but the first-person elements are what kill the game for me.

[Bubba]

the complete lack of peripheral vision.

This is my biggest annoyance with First Person. Don't you just love staring into space then suddenly realising you're losing health and you have no idea why?

I'm gonna relax my attitude for the release of Destiny though as it just looks ridiculously awesome.

[NeoCracker]

Yeah, I'm getting destiny as well, and I should note that I also love Borderlands. :p

[Bolivar]

Oh man, Destiny... ^_^

[Del Murder]

I generally hate first person mode. I can't play it on an RPG, it just throws me off. I need to see everything surrounding my character so I can make tactical decisions. I don't count turn based RPGs where the battles are in first person, such as Dragon Quest, as a 'first person game', though I infinitely prefer RPGs where you see the characters during battles.

The only thing first person is good for are shooters, and I don't play those often at all. Borderlands and Portal are the only fps I played this past generation. Before that, Metriod Prime. Before that, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. That's all the first person games I've ever enjoyed.

[Shorty]

First person is my preference. It helps my immersion into the game.

[Slothy]

The only thing first person is good for are shooters, and I don't play those often at all. Borderlands and Portal are the only fps I played this past generation. Before that, Metriod Prime. Before that, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. That's all the first person games I've ever enjoyed.

Claims first person is only good for shooters. Likes Portal.

You crack me up Del. :exdee:

And I find it hilarious that Shorty's preference is for the view that makes her sick. Then again, I like Super hexagon and it's the only game that makes me want to puke.

[Mirage]

I get the sneaking feeling that it takes you out of the experience due to the fact that, in order to look left, you need to turn the entirety of your body.

Or the complete lack of peripheral vision.

Or that even your forward view is pretty heavily limited.

I think we can all guess my preference here. :p

That all depends on the field of view setting. It is easy for a game dev to change it so that you get the same FOV as if your camera was further back, it doesn't really have anything to do with seeing out of your character's eyes or not. Also, having the player character on screen also robs you of some visual data. The problem is that many games are by default set to display the same field of view as you'd get if your monitor was a window that you were looking at the world through. A wider FOV would let you get all the peripheral vision you want, but of course that also means shrinking the world you see, so aiming will become harder, just like in a TPS!

The only correct poll option here is "depends on the game". I'd never even think of playing unreal tournament or BF in third person, but in Mass Effect it's no problem.



Shooters I tend to hate the majority of regardless of perspective, and perspective usually seems less important to my enjoyment of them than other things like RPG elements or overall design. The single best raw shooter I've played IS first person (Metroid Prime), and I haven't actually found a third-person raw shooter game I've enjoyed (just hybrids like Mass Effect and Firefall), so I guess first-person does edge out to be the best perspective in the raw shooter genre. It's just a sucky genre.

I think chances are that many first person non-shooters are made by developers that doesn't do 1st person very often and don't design a game with that as much in mind as they should have.

[Freya]

Personally I'm partial to third person. I don't tend to like first person too much. Although I like it when they give me a happy mix, like mass effect.

[escobert]

The only thing first person is good for are shooters, and I don't play those often at all. Borderlands and Portal are the only fps I played this past generation. Before that, Metriod Prime. Before that, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. That's all the first person games I've ever enjoyed.



First person is great for looting in Elder Scrolls and Fallout.


I've been switching back and forth between 1st person and 3rd person servers in DayZ. I like the immersion of 1st person but, the field of view is so much better in 3rd and I like to look at my guy running around on long treks. I open my inventory far too much in 1st person. Also in 3rd person your perspective is slightly to the left so you can't get a straight on look unless you're in 1st person.

[edczxcvbnm]

It depends on the design choices that the developers are making. There is a reason that the camera switches from first person to third person in most FPS games when you take control of a vehicle. You need to be able to see more of the world around you when driving and not have half the vision be obscured by the dash board or whatever.

First person perspective can do some creative things. Sanctum 2 is an FPS/Tower Defense game that is fun as hell 3rd person wouldn't really work here as they are trying to directly inject you into the action.

There are also some narrative things going on. Take Mass Effect where you are playing a hero called Shepard. This is different than say Half-Life where you are the hero who happens to have the name Gordon Freeman. That sort of perspective and control over the world can influence how the player injects themselves in the game or the role they are suppose to play.

All of this said, I don't really care. If there is an option it depends on how I think the game was designed/intended to be played. If they don't take the correct design choice in the game can sometimes turn out to be disastrous. I heard terrible things about KillZone 3 because it is First Person the whole time but trying to be like Gears of War. I guess cover based combat doesn't work to well when in First Person the whole time. Not knowing where to shoot and all of that other stuff can be hindering.

[Markus. D]

would have been amazing to go through BL2 with properly implemented 3rd person view (the aim glitches if you try to edit it in).

[escobert]

I guess cover based combat doesn't work to well when in First Person the whole time. Not knowing where to shoot and all of that other stuff can be hindering.
there's a good little group of people who say the exact opposite
http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/212347-1st-person-dying-breed/


A couple posts from the topic:

I only ever play on first person servers (unless testing). I had no problems finding one but I noticed they either had few players on them or are close to being full.



I think if there were no first person servers to join I would rather not play - because PvP is a big part of DayZ and PvP with third person enabled is just terribad. I believe in most games designed for first person and/or immersion/authenticity providing a third person option is a mistake. Same for games that actually aim for tactical & exciting combat. Peeking destroys all this.



You think I'm not aware that COD is in first person? I'm saying that COD kids like 3rd person in this game particularly because its EASIER. Easier to kill, easier to find loot, easier to spot people, more entertaining to see your character. Little kids need quick and fast entertainment, they search for the easiest route. I'm going to assume you guys are all about that 3rd person stuff, right?



3pp had a place in arma , it was for the easiest difficulty levels to give new players a chance to learn the game. It allowed much easier control of units beneath your command. This was ok for single player or groups playing AI missions. It made sense as OFP /arma had quite a learning curve for those who had just played standard shooters.



The game was never really intended for mass online PvP just look how terrible the netcode is/was ,more for missions to simulate fireteam operations.



But now we have moved on and it has become a serious PvP game(both arma and dayz) and thats where the legacy of 3pp falls down as it removes many of the realistic tactics of a fire fight and replaces it with well more gamey techniques to gain victory. Some like it that way i dont but each to there own i guess.



I just keeping playing first person and hope many others will to , it only dies if we let it die.