StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just rented Silent Hill 4. These are usually pretty fun games, but this one is set in a first person mode. Imagine Resident Evil in first person. WTF? I can't get passed the first couple of minutes without getting bored out of my skull.

I don't know what it is, but it unless it's a multiplayer shooter, I can't stomach first person games.

Anyone else agree?

I just read online that this game changes to third person once you leave the apartment. I guess this game is sort of a hybrid...

Eh, still... I hate first person games.

Superman wrote:Anyone else agree?

Yeah, but I don't even like shooters.

I guess that the reason First Person view might not be very well suited in horror games is that it can pretty much ruin the suspense. The scary stuff will be limited to mostly "scare by surprise" things, whereas with a third person view you can more easily build up a very scary atmosphere in which you know something is going to happen, but you don't know when or what it's exactly going to be like. That has more effect than just throwing a monster in your face when you least expect it.

Till they create a proper second person viewpoint, I'll not be truly happy.

First person just works best control wise. Third person works best as an option.

Personaly I always like choice, if you can code First person then you can spend half an hour coding in third person.
However it should be noted it does take much more effort to code a good third person camera.

Its one of those things that can kill a game with fixed camera angles.

Remember the Jedi Outcast/Jedi Academy series? That's one that worked *really* well with third person... for lightsabre combat. You could use the guns in that perspective, with the crosshair option engaged, but it just wasn't as useful. So, yeah, unless they can make a good third-person view, I pretty much prefer FPS for most games with that option.

Ford-- how do you mean, 'second person viewpoint'?

The Elder Scrolls games are made first-and-foremost to be played in first-person, and they aren't shooters. It works fine. The only reason I like to switch to the 3rd-person (in any game) is to see myself looking cool.

The scary stuff will be limited to mostly "scare by surprise" things, whereas with a third person view you can more easily build up a very scary atmosphere in which you know something is going to happen, but you don't know when or what it's exactly going to be like.

You just described Doom 3, which was first-person.

Methinks the OP simply didn't like the first-person implementation in this one example. Silent Hill 4's FP perspective was designed to be disjointed and unsettling as a contrast to the bulk of the game, and frankly, it works REALLY fucking well. Why don't you try actually PLAYING this game instead of immediately running off to trash it as soon as you can?

SPOOFE wrote: You just described Doom 3, which was first-person.

Methinks the OP simply didn't like the first-person implementation in this one example. Silent Hill 4's FP perspective was designed to be disjointed and unsettling as a contrast to the bulk of the game, and frankly, it works REALLY fucking well. Why don't you try actually PLAYING this game instead of immediately running off to trash it as soon as you can?

Cause such rational behaviour would require an actual brain, one with the ability to spell "Thief: the Dark Project" and "System Shock 2"...

Eleas wrote:
Cause such rational behaviour would require an actual brain, one with the ability to spell "Thief: the Dark Project" and "System Shock 2"...

Ooooh, BURNED!

Take that, Supes.

Arx Fatalis was also pretty good...

Don't forget the classic, They Hunger Mod for Half-Life. VERY scary at points.. the rest mindless zombie shooting, but it did have a good scare or two.

Elheru Aran wrote: Ford-- how do you mean, 'second person viewpoint'?

It's just me being stupid, which I find very easy. Second person is, as you may well know, when everything is described as 'you do this' or 'you slay the demonic beast with your almighty DOOM shotgun'. Though you can have a second person perspective, story-telling wise; Marathon, for example, has its revolve around you, the player, rather than a character. I'm pretty sure it's impossible game-play wise.

Ford Prefect wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote: Ford-- how do you mean, 'second person viewpoint'?

It's just me being stupid, which I find very easy. Second person is, as you may well know, when everything is described as 'you do this' or 'you slay the demonic beast with your almighty DOOM shotgun'. Though you can have a second person perspective, story-telling wise; Marathon, for example, has its revolve around you, the player, rather than a character. I'm pretty sure it's impossible game-play wise.

Yup. It's someone telling a story about what you did, to you. Impossible for a game.

Yeah I have agree that 2nd person view is impossible to execute so that game would playable, since the views are pretty much like this

1st: I aka thru the eyes of the player character
2nd: you aka thru the eyes another (uncontrollable) character
3rd: he/she: aka outside view of the character(s).

Hate to say it, but SS2 *IS* a shooter. I'd call Thief a shooter too, since it uses all the FPS conventions, but I'm not sure what Supes is complaining about since I've not played SH4.

Why don't more games use Hitman 3rd person? Morrowind et al has the whole character visible(making archery impossible), but Hitman had the camera locked higher than the characters head, so you don't get typical 3rd person 'aim by putting your head on the target' problems. And you can't see his pants.

Yup. It's someone telling a story about what you did, to you. Impossible for a game.

... Until Sony puts out their mind-reading PS9.

Hate to say it, but SS2 *IS* a shooter. I'd call Thief a shooter too, since it uses all the FPS conventions, but I'm not sure what Supes is complaining about since I've not played SH4.

He feels that the first-person view isn't very scary. SS2 and Thief are first-person.... and pretty scary, at least to many others.

Maybe some people don't scare easily, but then, it's weird to complain about non-scary FP and then espouse TP.

Alein vs Predator 2 had some good scary moments. Its still one of my favorite FPS, maybe because its so much like half life...

Lord Revan wrote:Yeah I have agree that 2nd person view is impossible to execute so that game would playable, since the views are pretty much like this

1st: I aka thru the eyes of the player character
2nd: you aka thru the eyes another (uncontrollable) character
3rd: he/she: aka outside view of the character(s).

There was a PC survival horror type game that had the player character viewed through the eyes of a cameraman who followed him everywhere.. It may only have been in some scenes though.

The plot was basically Survival Horror as reality TV.

Can't remember the name of it, and it wasn't spectacularly good, but I remember playing a demo.

SPOOFE wrote:

The scary stuff will be limited to mostly "scare by surprise" things, whereas with a third person view you can more easily build up a very scary atmosphere in which you know something is going to happen, but you don't know when or what it's exactly going to be like.

You just described Doom 3, which was first-person.

Well, it's certainly not impossible to make a scary FP game, I didn't mean that (though I didn't find Doom 3 all that scary). But I think it's much easier to do a scary TP game. In the FP game, you're limited to only showing the world through the player character's eyes, and limitations are well... limitations. There are limitations to a TPV, too, of course, but they are fewer, and usually easier to work out intuitive solutions for.

Admiral Drason wrote:Alein vs Predator 2 had some good scary moments.

Heh, a friend and myself played that once. He was scared shitless when a marine set him on fire. Screamed, and everything. I laughed my ass off!

But I think it's much easier to do a scary TP game. In the FP game, you're limited to only showing the world through the player character's eyes, and limitations are well... limitations. There are limitations to a TPV, too, of course, but they are fewer

At best, you get a few more degrees of view around your character. I'm not seeing how this magically makes it "easier to be scared". Frankly, one would think that being MORE limited would be a major contributor towards a freakout factor. Your words are counter-intuitive.

It's all right if you just plain don't dig first-person. I knew a guy that would get motion sickness when playing FPS's, to the point of having to take dramamine. I'm just not seeing how you can arrive at the conclusions you did.

Superman wrote:I just read online that this game changes to third person once you leave the apartment. I guess this game is sort of a hybrid...

Eh, still... I hate first person games.

Youre in first person just inbetween "chapters" (and in a more prolonged set if instances towards the end). Hah you didnt even make it that far into it? Patience Supes, patience!

Non-FPS 1st person games?

The Myst series. Duh.

SPOOFE wrote:At best, you get a few more degrees of view around your character. I'm not seeing how this magically makes it "easier to be scared". Frankly, one would think that being MORE limited would be a major contributor towards a freakout factor. Your words are counter-intuitive.

No, I meant that designer of the game will be limited by the view he chooses. The player himself shouldn't feel that he is limited (that often leads to the "stupid game I'll throw you out the window" syndrome ).

Essentially, in a TPV game, you have a camera, and you (the designer, that is) can play around with it and get pretty much any image you may want (within limits though, you wouldn't want it to ruin the gameplay), much like you would when you're shooting for a movie. To do the same thing with an FPV, you would have to have a very different approach. Instead of, for instance, moving the camera to get a view telling the player that something is not right, you must find some other way of getting that information to the player. More often that not, that seems to be done by simply turning the lights out (which may or may not be true for many TP horror games too, I haven't actually played that many)...

I remember one game that was genuinely scary, and that was Alone in the Dark (the first one, not the new one). It is the only game I was actually too scared to actually finish. Granted, I was just eight or something at the time, but I had no problem playing DOOM, or other games that had more of the "surprised!" type of scaryness (plus I was scared like shit of Dracula, but still managed to play through all of the Castlevanias)...

It's all right if you just plain don't dig first-person. I knew a guy that would get motion sickness when playing FPS's, to the point of having to take dramamine. I'm just not seeing how you can arrive at the conclusions you did.

Well, it was more like ideas of why a certain style might be better suited for horror games; it's very possible I'm wrong. I just haven't found any really scary FP games. If you think that FP works better, why do you think that is? The biggest advantage that I can see, right now, is that it could give more the player a more immersive experience, so that the element of shock could actually have more effect.

Vendetta wrote: There was a PC survival horror type game that had the player character viewed through the eyes of a cameraman who followed him everywhere.. It may only have been in some scenes though.

The plot was basically Survival Horror as reality TV.

Can't remember the name of it, and it wasn't spectacularly good, but I remember playing a demo.

Devil Inside, I think. I have the magazine review around here somewhere.

Mario 64 has the same thing, technically.

Essentially, in a TPV game, you have a camera, and you (the designer, that is) can play around with it and get pretty much any image you may want (within limits though, you wouldn't want it to ruin the gameplay), much like you would when you're shooting for a movie.

Ah, you're more affected by the cinematic aspect of a game rather than its "immersivity", or something?

To do the same thing with an FPV, you would have to have a very different approach. Instead of, for instance, moving the camera to get a view telling the player that something is not right, you must find some other way of getting that information to the player.

I understand. I just feel that, since a FPS does limit the player only to what the character would see and hear, that limitation would give one a lesser sense of awareness, which would add to any tension. It also puts the tension more "in your face", whereas a TPV would allow the player to stay separate from the tension.

On the other hand, scary FP games tend to rely heavily on "surprise factor", which can be a turnoff.

Ah well. To each his own.