3D vs. First Person

[ZylonBane]

2600 Battlezone is third person. You see your damn tank.

Ok, so the fact that I can look down and see my own body magicly makes me a 3rd person then?

Are you a tank?

[A.J. Franzman]

Ok, so the fact that I can look down and see my own body magicly makes me a 3rd person then?

Only if you can see the back of your own head without using a mirror!

 

The point of view in 2600 Battlezone is not one that any person riding a modern tank in battle would ever have. It seems to be from a camera either hovering along, or else mounted on a pole, behind and above the tank. Also, though the moving tread effect is a nice piece of eye-candy, even in WWII tanks had fenders above the treads to reduce flying debris, and dust giving away the tank's position. Treads should not be visible at all from the point of view that is used.

[Artlover]

Well, it wouldn't have looked as good to just have two static fenders on the screen, would it?

 

Anywho, In the end, I'll have to aggree that 2600 battlezone is 3rd person. I didn't remember seeing the actual tank body and turret, I only seem to remember tank tracks. But after finally getting around to checking it again, yes, obviously, it's a behind and above view of the tank, not a centerpoint view from where your character position would be.

[kisrael]

Also, though the moving tread effect is a nice piece of eye-candy, even in WWII tanks had fenders above the treads to reduce flying debris, and dust giving away the tank's position. Treads should not be visible at all from the point of view that is used

 

But of course, enemies warping in and enemy motherships soaring right at you is completely the norm for the WW2 era.

Edited April 3, 2006 by kisrael

[NovaXpress]

The year is 1999, and the nations of the earth have declared a world-wide peace plan. But there is a problem with the proposed truce. A council of military commanders has unleashed battalions of automated weapons into the countryside. These aerial fighters, flying saucers, tanks, and supertanks will turn the world into a lifeless landscape unless you can stop them.

 

Luckily, you've discovered an old military tank hidden inside the museum. Use your Joystick to steer the tank as you search for enemy automatons. Since your electronic periscope only gives you a front view from the tank, you'll have to rely heavily on your radar screen to detect the enemy. If you see a blip on the radar, you need to move fast! Use your Joystick to turn your tank until the enemy appears on the screen; press the red controller button to fire your turret gun.

Peace on earth by 1999? I guess we're pretty close, huh? So according to the manual, the screen view is through your electronic periscope? That's stupid and i don't accept it, especially a persicope that can't swivel.

 

It's funny how in games like this and Missile Command, Atari refused to acknowledge any interpretation that suggests an actual human-vs-human war.

[bowser724]

One of the first real 3D first person games was Descent.

[kisrael]

One of the first real 3D first person games was Descent.

Well, Descent is fairly unusual in REALLY emphasizing the 3D, with no gravity/ sense of "down".

 

I'm not too great at mapping out FPS levels in my head, and Descent was just crazy hard for me...Forsaken was in a similar mold.

[dark-aleph]

Are you a tank?

 

Yes, I am a tank. See my treads and tremble... Brrrm brrrrrrm.

 

I'm not just being facetious - I think the whole first vs. third person debate is relative. It depends on the player and not the program. Take Battlezone 2600: when I play this, I don't imagine myself to be a tank commander that can see part of my tank through my periscope. I imagine that I am a tank. An actual physical tank with gears and stuff. Regardless of program intent, this makes it first person - or perhaps 'first machine' - at least while I'm playing.

 

Analogously, any game (3D or not) can be first person if the player prefers. Even if I can see Pitfall Harry leaping from crocodile to shore, I might not imagine that I am Pitfall Harry (3rd person) but that I'm Emperor Queequeg using my telepathic ability to control Harry to pad out my treasure room by proxy (1st person). The difference from Battlezone is that my point of view (POV) is no longer congruent with that of the controlled character.

 

Ok, so the fact that I can look down and see my own body magicly makes me a 3rd person then?

Only if you can see the back of your own head without using a mirror!

 

Of course, if you were on (or sufficiently near) the boundary between 'normal' space and the 'warped' space inside a black hole, you could look parallel to the boundary and see the back of your own head. Similarly, you could look up and see the bottom of your feet. Furthermore, some singularities are massive enough that you could actually approach this close without being spaghettified by gravity. Imagine how awesome a game this could make! "@#$*! I keep shooting myself in the foot!" and "Before I shoot you, I'd best check whether that's the back of your head - or mine..."

 

Can someone please write this game? We'll call it Space-Time Invaders. And consign the 1st vs. 3rd person debate to metaphysics, where it belongs.

[+Random Terrain]

. . . but that I'm Emperor Queequeg using my telepathic ability to control Harry to pad out my treasure room by proxy (1st person).

If you did that and could see through his eyes, the game would change to a 3D view. If you are controlling from a distance and not seeing though his eyes, that would still be 3rd person.

[dark-aleph]

I agree with you RT. In terms of your games classification project, you should disregard my post as I think your distinctions are sound. My intention was mainly to point out that I can choose to imagine that the Pitfall! screen is what Emperor Queequeg sees. No game is really first person, but every game can be seen that way. Some are just a little harder than others.

 

Your reply made me think what a 2D first person game would be like. Instead of being separate from the plane in which the action occurs, you would actually be in it. In Pitfall! for instance, the graphics would consist entirely of a vertical straight line. Somewhere near the centre might be a blue strip (a lake) with three smaller black strips (crocs). When you jump, everything on the strip would move down (further down the closer they are to you, allowing you to judge distance) and then back up. Turning around would completely replace the view. It'd be confusing at first, but you'd get used to it.

 

Modern 3D games are of course only pseudo-3D as they are projected onto a 2D surface (the screen). In our 2D 1st person Pitfall! the graphics are only one dimensional (a line). But you could still play a pseudo-3D game in this format. Pushing left or right on the joystick would shift the plane of view, so you could get a series of cross sections of a 3D object to determine what it is. I'm all for games becoming simpler rather than more complex, so bring on 1D Oblivion!

 

On a separate point, RT, I want to ask about your signature. The first three are obviously criteria for a good game: replayability, open-endedness, randomness. Agreed, which is why I like E.T. also. But sandbox?

[+remowilliams]

On a separate point, RT, I want to ask about your signature. The first three are obviously criteria for a good game: replayability, open-endedness, randomness. Agreed, which is why I like E.T. also. But sandbox?

He likes to play video games while sitting in a sandbox. In 3rd person no less.

[NovaXpress]

I'm not just being facetious - I think the whole first vs. third person debate is relative. It depends on the player and not the program. Take Battlezone 2600: when I play this, I don't imagine myself to be a tank commander that can see part of my tank through my periscope. I imagine that I am a tank. An actual physical tank with gears and stuff. Regardless of program intent, this makes it first person - or perhaps 'first machine' - at least while I'm playing.

 

Analogously, any game (3D or not) can be first person if the player prefers. Even if I can see Pitfall Harry leaping from crocodile to shore, I might not imagine that I am Pitfall Harry (3rd person) but that I'm Emperor Queequeg using my telepathic ability to control Harry to pad out my treasure room by proxy (1st person).

I can imagine that I'm the King of Siam but that don't make it so. Let's not go down this insane track.

[+Random Terrain]

On a separate point, RT, I want to ask about your signature. The first three are obviously criteria for a good game: replayability, open-endedness, randomness. Agreed, which is why I like E.T. also. But sandbox?

Yeah, sandbox games like Morrowind, Oblivion, and GTA: SA that let you roam around freely. It's hard to find a good game that contains enough randomness, but you can often find sandbox games that at least give you some freedom. The GTA games still try to force you to do things in a certain order, but they do give you enough freedom so you can make your own fun without following a lame plot. Do mini-missions, walk, drive, fly, or swim anywhere you want, have a shootout with the cops or the army, go gambling in a casino, and the list goes on. I hope that future sandbox games will contain more controlled randomness, more freedom, a game world that seems more alive, and so on.

[supercat]

I'm not just being facetious - I think the whole first vs. third person debate is relative. It depends on the player and not the program. Take Battlezone 2600: when I play this, I don't imagine myself to be a tank commander that can see part of my tank through my periscope. I imagine that I am a tank. An actual physical tank with gears and stuff. Regardless of program intent, this makes it first person - or perhaps 'first machine' - at least while I'm playing.

 

There is a convention that controlling a vehicle is analagous to controlling the operator. This convention extends to real life too--one doesn't say "My car drove Fred to the mall", one says "I drove Fred to the mall" even though the car itself was the actual instrumentality of Fred's motion; I merely directed it. There are a few video games in which the player manipulates a character to in turn operate a vehicle; such games are generally very annoying to play.

 

Analogously, any game (3D or not) can be first person if the player prefers. Even if I can see Pitfall Harry leaping from crocodile to shore, I might not imagine that I am Pitfall Harry (3rd person) but that I'm Emperor Queequeg using my telepathic ability to control Harry to pad out my treasure room by proxy (1st person). The difference from Battlezone is that my point of view (POV) is no longer congruent with that of the controlled character.

 

That is a key material difference. In something like Battlezone, the viewpoint is somewhat behind where one would expect it to be, but it is absolutely and rigidly tied to the player-controlled entity. By contrast, in something like Solaris, the POV moves through space along with the player but is not rigidly tied to it.

 

Incidentally, it would be possible to construct a tank with a fixed forward-facing periscope in the back that would overlook the turret. Someone in such a tank would have a POV similar to that appearing in Battlezone. True, it would be silly to construct a tank in that fashion, but perhaps for whatever reason the guys who built the Battlezone tank decided to do things that way.

[dark-aleph]

I can imagine that I'm the King of Siam but that don't make it so. Let's not go down this insane track.

 

No? But insanity is my forte...

You are right. You are not the king of Siam. You are the king of Thailand! (renamed 1949). *places hands in praying position and bows deferentially*

 

I hope that future sandbox games will contain more controlled randomness, more freedom, a game world that seems more alive, and so on.

 

Thanks for the clear explanation. My hope is that future sandbox games become less realistic - the trend is towards Earthlike physics, generic (or recognisable) real-world or fantasy environments, actors doing voice-overs and soforth. I love the extra freedom and the more convincing worlds, but I hate the severe restrictions on the player's imagination. I don't want an interactive movie, even a non-linear one.

 

There is a convention that controlling a vehicle is analagous to controlling the operator. This convention extends to real life too--one doesn't say "My car drove Fred to the mall", one says "I drove Fred to the mall" even though the car itself was the actual instrumentality of Fred's motion; I merely directed it.

 

Good point, supercat. Actually when I play Battlezone, I conceive of a Fredless world. The tank has no operator in the game - I am the tank. In the real world "I am driving the tank" (3rd person); in the game world "I drive myself" (1st person - no matter where the periscope is). It does presuppose a somewhat pagan universe in which all objects can potentially posess consciousness! But your points are well taken.

 

Thank you all for the responses! The answer to the 1st/3rd person debate seems to be a position of faith rather than reason, as both sides have reasonable arguments.

[NovaXpress]

The answer to the 1st/3rd person debate seems to be a position of faith rather than reason, as both sides have reasonable arguments.

Bullshit. 2600 Battlezone is a third person game, no matter what fantasies you dream up. There is no debate.

[A.J. Franzman]

according to the manual, the screen view is through your electronic periscope? That's stupid and i don't accept it, especially a persicope that can't swivel.

Hey, if the turret can't swivel, I guess we're lucky the tank is even driveable!

[+remowilliams]

The answer to the 1st/3rd person debate seems to be a position of faith rather than reason, as both sides have reasonable arguments.

Bullshit. 2600 Battlezone is a third person game, no matter what fantasies you dream up. There is no debate.

But he played the faith card and therefore discredited all rational thought!

[A.J. Franzman]

Incidentally, it would be possible to construct a tank with a fixed forward-facing periscope in the back that would overlook the turret. Someone in such a tank would have a POV similar to that appearing in Battlezone. True, it would be silly to construct a tank in that fashion, but perhaps for whatever reason the guys who built the Battlezone tank decided to do things that way.

But they claim it's a tank found in a museum in 1999. I'm not aware of any museums which feature current state-of-the-art military hardware (military forces tend not to divest themselves of useable weaponry of types that they're still using, except in certain unusual circumstances such as sudden ending of large-scale conflicts). So the most logical conclusion is that this is a tank that was obsolete in 1999. I'm not aware of any tanks fitting this description, whether obsolete or in current service. Which leads us back to it being just plain silly. Doesn't make it any less fun, just intrudes a bit upon suspension of disbelief, making it hard to forget it's just a video game.

[kisrael]

The more this argument goes on the more I like making another category for this kind of game, 1st person is through some characters eyes, 3rd person is outside the controlled character with fixed camera view points, 2nd person can be technically outside the character, but with the camera fixed so it moves more or less with what the character is looking at.

[ZylonBane]

3rd person is outside the controlled character with fixed camera view points

No it isn't. 3rd-person games generally use a chase camera, not a fixed camera (Tomb Raider, Mario 64, et al).

 

2600 BattleZone is 3rd-person.

[+Nathan Strum]

Just to chip in my 25 cents:

 

Robot Tank is first-person.

 

2600 Battlezone is third-person, and it's about as much like the arcade version of Battlezone, as the 2600 version of Pac-Man is like the arcade version of Pac-Man.

[kisrael]

3rd person is outside the controlled character with fixed camera view points

No it isn't. 3rd-person games generally use a chase camera, not a fixed camera (Tomb Raider, Mario 64, et al).

 

2600 BattleZone is 3rd-person.

What you (and most people) call 3rd person games...don't "generally" use a chase camera...SOME do, especially lately, but it's not a "general" rule over the history of gaming (Zaxxon, Congo Bongo, Marble Madness, Crystal Castles,et al.... not to mention pretty much every 2D game)

 

Or is your point 2D games shouldn't be considered 3rd Person, that 3rd person only applies to games with a 3D element? Then where do games like Marble Madness go?

 

MY point is that it might make sense to divide 3rd person games into ones where the camera is relatively fixed and ones where the camera is a chase camera (since games with a chase camera DO play MORE like a 1st Person game...which is why Battlezone 2600 has MUCH more in common with RobotTank than it does with Combat, even though BZ2600 and Combat are both "3rd person" in the way you put things, and RobotTank is "1st person".)

 

I guess in general I think the difference between a "proper" 1st person 3D-ish game and a 3rd person 3D-ish game are pretty minor, "is the camera in the character's head, or behind it" is less important than "is the camera mostly moving to see what the character is looking at, or is it more fixed than that"

Edited April 4, 2006 by kisrael

[kisrael]

Just to chip in my 25 cents:

 

Robot Tank is first-person.

 

2600 Battlezone is third-person, and it's about as much like the arcade version of Battlezone, as the 2600 version of Pac-Man is like the arcade version of Pac-Man.

I think the 2600 is better than the Arcade...fighting 2 enemies at once more than makes up for the lack of random geometrical crap on the battlefield. Plus, I think the treads look great, the colors are decent, and the 2600 "electronic signal breaking up" effect is more plausible and cooler looking than the windshield cracks of the arcade.

 

On the other hand, the 2600 suffers a bit in the control compartment (though that has been dealt with in the homebrew market)

Edited April 4, 2006 by kisrael

[+Nathan Strum]

I think the 2600 is better than the Arcade...

Wow... I couldn't disagree with you more. I was extremely disappointed by the 2600 version. But that's probably because arcade Battlezone is my all-time favorite video game. So I might be a little biased.