first person verses third person? whats your views?

OK, so i changed my game from first person to third person and it looks cool, it handles great however its as if it lost some of the feeling, i think the reason why first person shooters are so common is for the fact that everything is closer to the player... everything has a more intimate feel, a bad guy runs at you and you kill him close range gives a different feeling on a fps compared to a 3ps...


of course this isn't about a matter of preference of whichever genre, am just looking at it from a psychological point of view and wanted to here what you guys have to say on it...


another point is pacing, in a fps, your not really limited by say, character blocking the screen and such as in 3ps's this is a huge issue especially in 'over the shoulder' views.. the player can see perfectly over the characters right shoulder but when it comes to looking left, the character becomes an obstacle...



player as full visibility, can aim and shoot freely...


player as limited visibility which results in


this is why so many shooters employ the cover system... what other methods, other than a cover system could be used to address this problem in as fast as possible without giving the game extra button and limiting player movement... please take time to address and answer especially this one, if you've had an idea regarding this, now is the time

please give a logical explanation to the choices you post other than "it looks cooler"... i just want to see who the winner is and how deep into it we can go....

in addition, if it does turn out that the majority thinks that fps's give more intimate and memorable feel because the player is as close to the battlefield as they can get, what can be done to make a third person shooter feel similar...

thank you for reading, now try and reply in a more logical rather than personal way....

dark out...

A method I have often thought over is to engage 1st person view when peeking around obstacles, select weapons like sniper and by player choice, f1 or similar.
This would be further supported by cutscenes and be an integral mechanism for playing the game.
Too much and you will end up with a curiosisty maybe, neither one or the other.

I think Camz over shoulders should sway over to the side chosen for 'look' so if your on left of screen and you want to look left, swing around and let the camera shift over to the right too but maintain over the head and back for most of the time, a 3 stage camera orientation mechanism for what you have discribed.

this is an interesting idea but cycling between first and third person can break the game in most scenarios.. especially if switching to first person in a third person game, don't know if this is what you meant.... what does anyone else think of this?



this is an interesting idea and obviously, maybe the simplest... another method i saw that was pretty unique was in 'army of two' where they had a realtime cover system, you didn't have to press a button to go into cover, you could just crouch and you would automatically shoot over the cover or around a wall, this is pretty interesting as it doesn't break the flow of gameplay... but does anyone else have nay interesting and maybe un-explored idea

engage the camera more, have it shake from chain guns, rumble near vehicles and decrease the field of view while running. the loss you get is in the amount of discernable movement and if you add that back it should help a lot.

i agree with this alot... wouldn't decreasing the field of view while running come along with other side-effects? though i tried it out and it creates an interesting effect but am just wondering whats the downfall, if any... and also, another point that removes the feel of an fps is just the simple fact that the camera has more distance from the action thats going on, so some of that upclose and personal feel is reduced... people tend to go for fps's over 3ps's...

Personally, I like the classic 3rd Person camera that is used in various 3D Mario Games.

If you've played Mario 64, that's what I'm talking about - the camera is 'static' when the player moves, but when the player is idle, it rotates around to give a view of what's around you. Mario Galaxy was good when it did that, as it allowed you to see what dangers are ahead (black hole, etc).

If you're making a Halo-shooter, try a GameCube Metroid 1st-Person view. Make it like the player is actually "inside" the suit/character and the HUD is on the screen, etc.

keep 3rd person and simply, if player clicks mid mouse button move camera to otherside?

i understand this camera setup, but trying to use it in a shooter and the player wont feel as close to the combat as they should.. the farther the cam is from the action, the less exciting it all is.. not saying its not plausible, am just saying that the game loses some feel by pulling the cam back unless its an rpg or adventure game where its understandable... what do you guys think of this?


using this cam is the most common and accepted thing by most developers and players, all games try to accomplish this now, its easier and it has that upclose feel, the point of the thread however is, how to get back that feel that games lose by switching to third person? why do they lose that feel? what are the other advantages? what are some alternative methods for a cover system other than gluing yourself to a wall via a button?

thanks

this idea is simple and effective, i've even tested it, it works wonders and alot of games do it.. but is there a way to do it without the button press? or is there an alternative method that could replace this? how plausible is a realtime cover system, could it work? how?

i'm just throwing questions in the wind so when anyone reads they can see how in depth solving this can be and this is what i think game design should be about.. instead of jumping on the train and follow ideas that exist... brainstorm, get opinions and build something new, i personally think that alot of AAA titles fail because the developers weren't thinking of the customers when designing but maybe of how cool and unique their idea is... feel free to disagree

Well some games like shooter will be fun if it's 1st person.
And some games like adventues/platform will be fun if it's 3rd person.

the downfall is also a feature, it creates tunnel vision so you cant see as many enemies to your left and right, which is why walking sometimes is more advantageous.

i think for a superb horror shooter.. the ego view is better. less visible area. More "self-" Feeling

But for a Shooter like any other ( see postal 3 ), the 3rd Person view is good ( always make an option for changing to Ego-mode )..

But there are also Games like "Dead Space"... After a while, i never thought that it´s 3rd person.. but the feeling was the same as Ego.. horror pure..

I thinks it´s related to the game.. and your personal feeling about that.

You could implement an intiutive cover system. Check whether a wall is in front of the player. If there is a wall and he's moving towards it, switch to cover mode. Pressing the backwards key will let him move out of cover. It is the same like with other cover systems, just changes the triggering event from key-press to just moving against a wall.

EDIT: just checked the net for intense third person shooters...
Look at this, Crysis in third person view, doesn't look
less intense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSu7GqL5ovo

that's not the point here, as stated in the first post, this isn't about what looks great, or looks intense, we all know third person shooters look more action packed than fps's(feel free to question that) HOWEVER, i'm talking about the feel that's lost when pulling the cam back, the player is less a part of the game and its now more like he's on the outside looking in, also the cam in a third person shooter alone helps the player because he can see more objects around in unlike in an fps where the player spins the cam 180 degrees searching for a bad guy that's just to his left, we're talking about getting the immersion back and am sure that immersion is lost even from the video seen, it looks fun and intense but the "immersion" isn't the same... once again, anyone should feel free to question this ...

the cover system seems interesting and I'll be testing to see how it works and what are the other downfalls other than the ones that i know directly, including the fact that the gameplay would have to be slowed down but its something i'm willing to do, feel free to make more points on this...

@esper: exactly, dead space kept the immersion high because they lowered the pace of the game, that in itself changes the game from run and gun to where the player has to play more careful then they mix it up with quality sound effects and eerie music and they have their immersion back...

once again, feel free to question any of these points as this is the point of the thread also, other ideas for intuitive cover systems that dont break the flow of the game could be helpful...

I know, and I didn't mean "intense" like "oh, it LOOKS intense". I meant it also FEELS intense.

i tend to always switch my fps games to third person if i can because it has has more action, so i agree.. what i meant though, think of it from a horror point of view... would the player feel as much fear in third person as if they were in first... if not, what are the changes that could be made to not lose that immersion

In a horror game, you should EVER keep the distance between camera and player as short as possible. I can't really imagine how to keep the maximum that the first person view has, but keeping the distance very short is surely the first step.

FPS games require more detail and more gfx quality.
3RD person makes sense if its vital for you to see what arround you...fighting games, melee fight in general or any swordfight. also group interaction is easier like in WOW.

3rd person can blend in the environment a lot better to the player character then first person. you interact with models and have a bigger impact on them (climbing, pushing,...)

i am not a big fan of switching views. keep one view works better for the atmosphere i think.


cheers

i'm not planning on switching views, in my opinion it breaks the game somewhat and i agree with what you said, am just looking at ways to complete the transit from first to third without losing too much

Right, switching views does only rip the player out of the game.

@the clown: aren't you making a 3ps too? is it an over the shoulder view? if so, you using a cover system? or you have some other method of optimizing player visibility?

I'm still twisting it between over the shoulder and behind the back, but I prefer over the shoulder.
Cover system planned, but not implemented yet. I will do it as I described, as soon as the player steps near to a wall, he'll switch to cover, as soon as the player steps back, he'll turn out.
I also will switch the position of the crosshair from player's right to his left if a key is pressed; I can't imagine a way to do this without keypressing.

tracing ahead i guess but it would cause side effects...u would have to have a slower paced game too

-

I cant remember what RPG game it was, but I found it worked/felt really good,
was a third-person camera that hovered behind you, and its distance from you
was adjustable by mouse-wheel. No clicking, kind of.
But the important thing is that if you zoomed in close enough, it would switch
to first-person view. Zoom out and it would switch back to third-person view.
It felt smooth and easy. And no "reaching for the keyboard" clicks either.

Mind you, the game DIDNT have crosshairs, and projectile weapons forced
fisrt-person view whilst "aiming", so I dont know how the "feel" would carry
to a First-Person-SHOOTER. The game was some First-Person-Hack&Slash game.

Hope this helps.

oh, well i took some ideas listed here and implemented them, i also decided that i would use bigger guns, MUCH bigger guns... i was researching fps's and realized that i paid alot of attention to how the weapons animations looked and how it felt while aiming and reloading, a GUN game is about the GUNS.. and i will try to keep that focus, most third person shooters, the guns are actual scale so there it means nothing to the player.. if you look in my vid, i try to exaggerate this.. i hope i get the formula right but the game is already addicting, if it weren't then I'd stop working at it, i just need help with AI... in my opinion, if you develop a game, you should play it for atleast 2 hours non-stop, why? you get to see whats annoying and if you're having fun, my next project will be more simple though but i'm not aiming for casual games

Don't forget to give the player some kind of sackcart to carry all these BIG weapons...

Maybe a motorbike trailer attached to his behind....

anyone else has opinions on this thread?

When it comes to realism, 1st ps is more 'real' than 3rd ps. It gives me feel that I'm the character I'm playing, wether its a shooter or RPG or even survival game(the one I'm working now, more like Penumbra I guess). I like the feel that I see trough the character's eye, more if I can see his/her body part like hands and feet(like FEAR series or Operation Flashpoint series)

But when we talk about fun, I'll choose 3rd person of course. Especially when the character we play is a female :p. And he/she has a whole load of move, good one I guess...

And I dont like games that give us option to switch between 1st person and 3rd person view.

i agree with that, but thats why i'm trying to keep the scale of my weapons large so as to exaggerate them, after all, its still a gun game, notic the sizle of the weapons on the characters back... its pretty big in size, anyone else, feel free to share your views on this thread, 3ps vs fps

I like the idea of a smooth moving 3ps camera, the idea of it using a trace to switch between left shoulder, right shoulder and any other opportunities sounds good, and I don't know how it would work, but if it could pan to where the action happens if the player isn't doing anything, that would just make my day... :P

Don
have a great day

All 3rd person "shooting" games I know (wich work and are actually fun) have an automatic AIM.
So that the gun is locked within a certain angle to the target.
The player just needs to point close enough to the enemy.

If you want a totally free shooting-behavior (the player
shoots exacly where the crosshair is pointing to)
then rather use a first person view.

Using a precise AIM in 3rd person is no fun.
Its the problem of the geometric offset between
the vector of the gun and the camera position. Its simly much less
natural than first person shooting.
Thats why the gun should lock to the target, if its
pointing to it within a certain angle.


In third person you also need to have decent animations
for the player to look good, as the player character is seen
all the time.

Apart from that, its very important to make a camera that
works smooth, especially in indoor areas.

---

On the other Hand, 3rd person has advanges, as you can work with lower resolution textures and lower detail objects,
when you keep the camera at a certain Hight.
In first person, the player can much easier loose the
illusion of a well crafted gameworld, as everything
is seen much closer.

--

But: making a first person view is much easier to do than correctly implementing
a 3rd person view.
In first person you basically just need to move the
camera, and shoot to the "middle".

In 3rd person you need a rather complex follow camera, better animations
and a good aiming precedure.

yes, its more difficult but if done correctly, i dont see why it should fail, thats y i made this thread, so i could explore reasons for doing it correctly... am not a fan of games "locking on" or games with in depth cover systems, it feels as if i'm playing the game how they want me to play it not how i want to...

Yeah, lock on system makes it to easy, cause actually, a third erson shooter should play the same way as an FPS, only that the cam is further away.

it doesnt play the same way exactly, there are minor differences but these differences can also make the game crappy... that difference is aiming and movement... aiming and movement in a 3ps can be quite a chore, you just wont have that solid fast pace feel if you dont explore options of getting the camera perfect... and aiming goes down the drain if youre making an overtheshoulder view and you want youre player to look at an enemy around a left corner...so to correct that, a cover system or camera switching mechanism is needed, both in which have their flaws...

cover system flaws:
-player as less control and the overall experience(to me) is reduced
-i always feel as if i'm doing what the designers WANT me to, ever realize how that piece of cover is just strategically placed infront of the door the enemies will be running from so you can cover an pop em one by one

camera swtiching flaws:
-EXTRA button config needed, sure you can meke it automatic, but your levels would then have to be designed for that so it doesnt DESTROY the players experience, imagine strafing left an right in a corridor and the game automatically switch the cam from your left shoulder to your right because it detects a wall... that could potentially break the game....
-animations have to be design to look good from viewing the character from both left and right shoulder views..

once again, feel free to argue these points ad that is the point of the thread and also feel free to ideas you would like to see in an 3ps...

Yeah, just make sure that whatever you decide to go for ultimately 'feels right' when playing. In some games a cover system in 3rd person worked horrible, felt completely influent, just totally not smooth enough to feel good when playing. In other games it worked relatively flawless, but felt a bit like cheating. Meaning, there's a bunch of things that need to be made according to what main perspective you decide to go for.

In fps games you usually don't really need a cover system so much, but leaning left and right might be a good idea to implement.

All in all if you spend lots of time to make beautiful main characters, you might as well make it a 3rd person game. In RPGs it works great too as you can see what items or weapons you carry around or what cloths you've bought/found. It has an added value to see things in 3rd person.

So I would first brain storm on what kind of game you're making, then go for what fits best. I'm sorry I haven't read the whole thread, no time,
Cheers

So true, I forget thats the underlying principle behind 3rd person shooters

Even though I design models for 1st person I inevitably begin with 3rd person!

Oh well, got all these neat characters for emenies now

I agree inferno. Lock-ons and auto-cover makes the game far too easy, and done poorly, can almost make you feel like you're just watching a pre-rendered movie that changes a little when you push buttons. It can really make a player feel removed and distant from the action. I've seen a lot of games lately where you come up to certain points, for example, you must jump from one roof top to another. Instead of you actually running and jumping on your own, you walk to a spot and push a button. Another example would be there's a pre-determined fight sequence, and to win, you have to watch the screen, and push a button when it tells you to. That's really no fun to me. It's not very challenging, and never turns out differently. You either push the button, or you don't. There's no other options or possible outcomes.

It's not a shooter, but one of my favorite 3rd person games ever is Zelda, which is saying a lot for a person who really doesn't like fantasy or 3rd person games. I've been playing it since the original one came out when I was a kid! <3 But I think the style of it is relevant to the topic. It's one of those games that has intuitive controls, but is challenging, and makes the player think to overcome obstacles and challenges. It also turns out differently when you perform differently, and has a very dynamic system of event branching. There's always more that one way to solve a puzzle or problem, and the method you use can create an alternative outcome. I think emulating such a system of progression through your game could make it a real hit!

agreeing with most of jaegers points, isnt the reason why we play games so we can have control over the action rather than watching a movie? i'd like to think so... i DESPISE, HATE and am DISGUSTED by prescripted games... i'll call them out, flame me if you want just make sure you have solid facts to back it with...

call of duty: this game prescripts almost everything, from vehicles to enemy behaviors.. this as the advantage of giving a GREAT first time experience but gets repetitive real fast.. the thread isnt about that however...

what i'm saying is, i want to create a unique experience for the player, sure all game companies say that but just because their AAA doesnt mean they live up to it... it takes alot more than pretty visuals to capture a player...

in my opinion, people come for the graphics and stay for the gameplay, not the otherway around, i've been researching and am still researching and i constantly add and test new features... the only reason i changed from first person to third is because 1st is getting rather common and i want to try and get 3ps working at the feel of an fps... the major problem with that is AIMING, nothing else... plus the farther the cam is from the action. the less immersion there is...

agreeing with another one of jaegers points, interactive cutscenes??? mercenaries comes to mind, so you jack a tank... press a key to jump on, another key to open, blahblah blah until scene is complete... ofcourse, this is just how i look at gamedesign but i think the player would have a greater feel if: they jumped on the tank using the simple jump scripted to the player, they melee the door open then they do WHATEVER they choose to do to accomplish the task... please give opinions on this as am sure every person has different views and might think am talkin bull ... all i'm saying is, let the player feel like he's affecting the game, not watching it...

I agree whole-heartedly, in my opinion. But others may disagree that I actually agree.

I differ very slightly here. But some may say a-lot.
I say to "interpret" the user controls differently in different situations.
EG The Jump key.
When standing still, just jump on the spot.
When walking/running, jump a short to long distance.
When standing in front of a low wall, "vault" over the wall.
When standing in front of a ladder, grab the ladder and start climbing.
When standing in close below a climbable structure/rope, jump up and grab the object and hang.

To me, this adds more flexability by making some of the players behaviour a bit intuitive, and reduces the
number of control keys required, and minimises the players need to think, "which key does "this" again?"
But other people Ive spoken to, gamers not programmers, feel this is starting to feel a bit scripted.

the only aspect that would make the player feel scripted there is the vaulting over the wall... climbing the ladder/rope would work perfectly with that though... say i jump at the ladder... i automatically grab hold, this is the way to do it and ALOT of games do this, is it even done any other way? a button press isnt very smart in a shooter... though it is done, i saw it in killzone 2 but i also noticed you only saw ladders where there was no combat...



i love this thinking, i'd like to think i'm relatively good at shooters and one of the MAJOR reason i die is because i KNOW what weapon i want to select, yet, i cant get it, simply because i have too many and i switch to the wrong one first which results in death, this might seem rather simple but happens ALOT.. sure you might say, press the weapons number but when in combat and you have some 13 year old noob rushing you with a shotgun and youre carrying 6 weapons and KNOW you want the assaultrifle, you think about finding the key assigned to it!! chances are you'll press the wrong one alot of times, this is the reason i limited the max weapons in my game to two, so you know what you want and pickup what you need, so when in combat, one press gives you your next weapon...

again, the point of this thread is, HOW to KEEP the feel of an FPS in the view setup of a 3ps....

IMHO: There is no way. Thats why there are FPS with all their pros and cons and there are Third-Person-Shooters with there own pros and cons.
But trying to create a 3PS that feels like a FPS ruins the 3PS in the first place, doesn't it?

Just my humble opinion.

it doesnt actually, what i'm aiming at, which might sound rather strange is having the look of a 3ps whith the feel of a fps....

let me explain,
what makes a 3ps:
-ability to see player avatar and movements
-better world awareness
-interactions seem to affect the avatar rather than the player
JUST TO NAME A FEW

what makes an fps:
-intimate connection between player and world because he's close
-interactions affect the player
-much greater immersion

now what i'm going for is:
-having the avatar onscreen so the game is more fun to 'watch'
-give great immersion by use of innovative camera movement

its all rather tricky but every 3ps shooter out there TRIES to make their game feel like an fps...

Very nice so far. Kind of funny watching untextured models. Good job with the firing system. I must also add "I hate 3PS games", usually. The main reason is in most cases the player is able to see too much of an area behind them, not realistic. Prevents sneek attacks. You, however, have managed to keep this area to a minimum while preserving the 3PS feel. Even the aiming of weapons is better than in most 3PS games I've played. So, I think you're going in the right direction and may actually change how I feel about 3PS gaming.

To throw in a new point, the immersion of an FPS can also be reached by using PP effects; For example, Dead Space got that gory little effects on the cam (I think these are PP effects) when the player got hit; Gears of War does have that, too, when you use that sinister little saw.
What I'm trying to say is, when you loose immersion due to the natural differences between FPS and 3PS, you have to find different ways to create new!
If a door is locked, you have to open a window.

thats exactly what i'm getting at, i think that its very possible to do this transition and am still looking forward to more ideas...

i do have some things planned and the effects on screen will be added as soon as i start working on graphics

This whole discussion is quite pointless to discuss abstractly.
You should rather make a 3rd person prototype
and try out the different modes of aiming, shooting and moving.
and try to balance them until they are fun.

This is a typical test + tuning issue.

actually, i am doing this.. but some users tend to have ideas in mind already that i wouldnt just think of by tweaking a 3ps... but as said, i'm already working on a 3ps

yep - i for one, really enjoy this sort of discussion. I've come up with a few ideas to prototype just reading through. Hopefully at some point I can post videos that don't look like crayon drawings from my son :P

Don
have a great day

Another way to create an intense gameplay is surely using sounds, but unfortunaly we're quite limited with the A7 engine when it comes to sound.+

But nevertheless, that would be a possibility; creating immersion by using sounds right, overdriving explosion and muzzle sounds...

And also, having as few panels as possible. Dead Space made a excellent job of that; For example, showing the player's health with some realtime panels on his armor.
The only bad thing is, for the guns. You have to have REALLY big guns to make sure the player can read the panels on them.