3D vs. First Person

[kisrael]

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. icon_wink.gif

Well, that's fair enough, but if you're going to say 2600 Battlezone is to the Arcade what 2600 Pac-Man is to its arcade counterpoint, you should be specific I think... I was pretty forward with both the pluses and the minuses of the 2600 game, what's so much better about the arcade? Infatuated with wireframes? Dig the volcano? Love peering through the little viewport? Think two tanks at once is just too much? It's gotta be two seperate control sticks or nuthin'? (That last one was one of the bigger points I think, though I think it's more the wireframe issue for some folk)

 

I felt as strongly about BZ2600 as you did in the arcade...a great act of kindness by an older cousin who was much more involved in a local trading commuity was securing me a copy when I was maybe 10...but everything about that game, from the tread animation, exploding monitor, seeing a bullet fly harmlessly in front after slamming into reverse, to the cool poster-style instructions with great art, screamed GOTTA HAVE IT to me. (And don't get me started on people who think RobotTank is the better of the two 2600 games...)

 

So in the end, the ability to bump into see-through cubes while backing up just doesn't make up for the rest of what the 2600 port does for me... I don't know why you found it so disappointing, unless you were really hoping to see the 2600 pull off better wirefreames.

 

I betcha someone might be able to pull of a "Battlezone Arcade" for the 2600 w/ some crude pre-calculated vector graphics

Edited April 4, 2006 by kisrael

[NovaXpress]

This dead horse has been thoroughly beaten.

 

There are two possible ways to present video game graphics: either looking through the eyes of your character or looking at your character from the outside. That's it. 1st person or 3rd person and it's really easy to tell them apart. 3D has nothing to do with it.

 

The only second person games that are even conceivable were the text adventures which referred to the player as "You."

[vdub_bobby]

This dead horse has been thoroughly beaten.

 

There are two possible ways to present video game graphics: either looking through the eyes of your character or looking at your character from the outside. That's it. 1st person or 3rd person and it's really easy to tell them apart. 3D has nothing to do with it.

 

The only second person games that are even conceivable were the text adventures which referred to the player as "You."

Wikipedia disagrees, for what that's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_person

One of the few examples of a second-person perspective in a modern videogame is in Metal Gear Solid. During one set-piece battle, attempting to enter the first-person view instead shows the antagonist's view of the player's avatar.

[NovaXpress]

Whoever wrote that wiki is full of it. That segment of MGS is third-person. Clear and simple. You're either looking through your own eyes/viewscreen or you're not.

[ZylonBane]

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)

You're mixing terminology from different eras of gaming. Back then games like that were just called "top-view" or "overhead" or "side-scroller" or "isometric". It didn't occur to most people to call games 3rd-person because 3rd-person was the rule (and 1st-person was the exception).

[Artlover]

Once again proving my point about Wiki.

 

In videogames, a first-person perspective is used most often in the first-person shooter genre, such as in Doom. Third-person perspectives on characters are normally used in the adventure genre, for example Resident Evil.

What the hell does genre have to do with camera views.

[NovaXpress]

a first-person perspective is used most often in the first-person shooter genre

What a revelation! I also hear that race cars are used most often in the race car genre.

 

Wikipedia really sucks, I'm never linking to it for anything ever again.

[ZylonBane]

The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can fix it yourself.

[kisrael]

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)

You're mixing terminology from different eras of gaming. Back then games like that were just called "top-view" or "overhead" or "side-scroller" or "isometric". It didn't occur to most people to call games 3rd-person because 3rd-person was the rule (and 1st-person was the exception).

Ok, so you're saying "the terms 1st person and 3rd person can only apply to modernish, 3d-style games" In fact, maybe you're saying it only applies to games that has either a FPS or a chase camera.

 

Which is an ok point, but you need to state it more clearly if someone's doing a formal categorization throughout the years. Just saying "back then..." isn't clear enough.

[kisrael]

a first-person perspective is used most often in the first-person shooter genre

What a revelation! I also hear that race cars are used most often in the race car genre.

But they're actually a good point! The problem is the terminology...the word "shooter" can mean different things, and if you say "First Person Shooter" you're saying it's not an overhead 2D shooter.

 

They could have said

"first-person perspective is used most often in the shooter genre"

but that would be more confusing.

 

They probably should say

"first-person perspective is used most often in the FPS (first-person shooter) genre"

 

But it's still a reasonable observation, usually you see 1st person in shooters (where aiming is the most important thing) and a chase camera for adventure games (often to have a better view of your feet for making jumps) "Metroid Prime" is one exception, a platform-adventure game with a strict 1st person view. I think "Conker" has some modes that are an exception the other way.

Wikipedia really sucks, I'm never linking to it for anything ever again.

In general wikipedia is quite good, and I often prefix my Google searches with "wikipedia" to get a decent, in-depth view. It's not perfect, but no information source is.

[+Nathan Strum]

Well, that's fair enough, but if you're going to say 2600 Battlezone is to the Arcade what 2600 Pac-Man is to its arcade counterpoint, you should be specific I think... I was pretty forward with both the pluses and the minuses of the 2600 game, what's so much better about the arcade? Infatuated with wireframes? Dig the volcano? Love peering through the little viewport? Think two tanks at once is just too much? It's gotta be two seperate control sticks or nuthin'?

For me, the 2600 completely missed the feel of the arcade game. How the enemies moved and the strategies employed to defeat them didn't translate at all. There's no sense of these being real, three-dimensional objects. There's no subtlety to their movements. No visual clues as to where they're going or aiming. The barriers in the arcade game are an integral part of the game, not just obstacles to back into. You can use them to manipulate how the enemy moves, and use them to your advantage. The arcade version seemed to have an immersive, almost physical 3D space to it. In the 2600 version I get no sense of that. There are no points of reference, other than these blocky, jerky enemy sprites. It looks like you're turning around in place and looking at flat, cardboard tanks. The smooth, 3D-ness of the original is completely lacking.

 

Having said that, 2600 Battlezone isn't a bad game. It's probably about as well done as it could be. But to me it's only a superficial imitation of the original, much as 2600 Pac-Man was. The basic elements are there, and on the surface it's a similar game, but as a fan of the original version, it just doesn't measure up. At best, it was an adequate substitute when I couldn't find the real thing.

[ZylonBane]

Ok, so you're saying "the terms 1st person and 3rd person can only apply to modernish, 3d-style games"

No.

 

What I am saying is that trying to describe any game as "second-person" will just confuse and annoy people. First-person is through your character's eyes, and third-person is observing your character from any other point of view.

[kisrael]

It looks like you're turning around in place and looking at flat, cardboard tanks. The smooth, 3D-ness of the original is completely lacking.

 

Having said that, 2600 Battlezone isn't a bad game. It's probably about as well done as it could be. But to me it's only a superficial imitation of the original, much as 2600 Pac-Man was. The basic elements are there, and on the surface it's a similar game, but as a fan of the original version, it just doesn't measure up. At best, it was an adequate substitute when I couldn't find the real thing.

Fair enough. Re: that 3D feel...after programming an Atari game, I'm still blown away how I reverse after hearing a shot off screen and seeing the shot whiz harmlessly by, or have a mothership crash into an enemy tank...to me, that's some serious 3D modelling going on, even if it's limited by the graphics engine available

 

Your analogy about 2600 Pac Man might not be as mean spirited as I first thought...after all, I've had a bunch of fun with it, but it by no mean lives up to the manual's boast of "This is especially advantageous if you still plan to make an occasional appearance at the arcade to show off your great playing skills. (Little do they know that you've been practicing at home all along.)" ...2600 Battlezone wouldn't really help you in the arcade either.

 

I think the crucial difference is, it seems obvious that Pac-Man was terribly rushed (and there have even been hacks on the same hardware) and Battlezone is about as good as the system is capable of in terms of a real 3D environment.

[Godzilla]

The definitive answer is right in the game manual.

 

look towards the very beginning.

 

http://www.atariage.com/manual_html_page.h...twareLabelID=22

 

'your electronic periscope only gives you a front view from the tank'

 

so the game is played in first person, as you are looking into the electronic periscope.

 

 

 

as far as the esoteric 'second person' couldn't that be said to be something like 'little computer people' since the protagonist of the game is NOT the character you control? something like a god game, where it is ONLY seen from the perspective of a non-player controlled character could also be seen as second person perspective (are there any of these?) the sims?

[kisrael]

Ok, so you're saying "the terms 1st person and 3rd person can only apply to modernish, 3d-style games"

No.

 

What I am saying is that trying to describe any game as "second-person" will just confuse and annoy people. First-person is through your character's eyes, and third-person is observing your character from any other point of view.

Ok, I always said "2nd person" probably wasn't a good idea because new terminology doesn't work.

 

But I think then we should drop "1st person" vs "3rd person", and maybe call "3rd person" something more specific:

"Chase Camera", "isometric", "2D overhead", "2D sidescroller", that kind of thing, because almost every game that's not a

 

Because saying there's a single line, and "2600 Battlezone", "Combat", "Frogger", and "BattleTanx" are on one side, and "Arcade Battlezone", "RobotTank" and "DOOM" are on the other side isn't a good way of thinking about the world.

[kisrael]

as far as the esoteric 'second person' couldn't that be said to be something like 'little computer people' since the protagonist of the game is NOT the character you control? something like a god game, where it is ONLY seen from the perspective of a non-player controlled character could also be seen as second person perspective (are there any of these?) the sims?

Well, at least when the LCP is playing a game in his little house :-)

 

Or if that game turns out to be the player....

[NovaXpress]

Because saying there's a single line, and "2600 Battlezone", "Combat", "Frogger", and "BattleTanx" are on one side, and "Arcade Battlezone", "RobotTank" and "DOOM" are on the other side isn't a good way of thinking about the world.

Makes perfect sense to me and everybody else.

 

I don't buy the elctronic periscope excuse for a minute. We're supposed to believe the tank has a webcam mounted on its rear antenna?

[ZylonBane]

Because saying there's a single line

Nobody is saying that.

[NovaXpress]

There are many ways to represent either 1st person or 3rd person, but the basic definitions are very clear. Frogger and Enduro are both 3rd person but go in some very different play mechanic directions from that point on.

[+Nathan Strum]

Your analogy about 2600 Pac Man might not be as mean spirited as I first thought...after all, I've had a bunch of fun with it, but it by no mean lives up to the manual's boast of "This is especially advantageous if you still plan to make an occasional appearance at the arcade to show off your great playing skills. (Little do they know that you've been practicing at home all along.)"

The analogy wasn't intended as mean-spirited. Perhaps I could have picked a better example, but Pac-Man was the obvious one, since it vaguely resembles the original, but beyond that it plays very differently.

 

I think the crucial difference is, it seems obvious that Pac-Man was terribly rushed (and there have even been hacks on the same hardware) and Battlezone is about as good as the system is capable of in terms of a real 3D environment.

I agree. Pac-Man was about as bad as it could have been, and Battlezone was about the best it could have been.

 

Anyway... back to the topic at hand. Does Warlords count as a fourth-person game?

[Godzilla]

Because saying there's a single line, and "2600 Battlezone", "Combat", "Frogger", and "BattleTanx" are on one side, and "Arcade Battlezone", "RobotTank" and "DOOM" are on the other side isn't a good way of thinking about the world.

Makes perfect sense to me and everybody else.

 

I don't buy the elctronic periscope excuse for a minute. We're supposed to believe the tank has a webcam mounted on its rear antenna?

 

 

That wasn't an excuse, it was a quote from the game's manual (which I linked in my message.) So that's more 'gospel' than excuse, in these terms (since the people who created the game and wrote and printed the manual are more of an authority than you or I on the specifics of the 2600 battlezone game world.)

[kisrael]

There are many ways to represent either 1st person or 3rd person, but the basic definitions are very clear. Frogger and Enduro are both 3rd person but go in some very different play mechanic directions from that point on.

What do you mean by many ways to represent 1st person?

 

I guess that's part of the "problem"...3rd person is a MUCH broader category than 1st person. Also, one of those 3rd person subcategories, "Chase Camera", plays almost exactly like 1st Person...

 

Re: the "Electronic Periscope"...maybe that's just future techno-jargon for "virtual viewpoint built up by compiling radar and other electronic information sources". Of course, that's just retarded fanboy apologism for something that is that way just 'cause it looks cool.

Edited April 4, 2006 by kisrael

[NovaXpress]

That wasn't an excuse, it was a quote from the game's manual (which I linked in my message.) So that's more 'gospel' than excuse, in these terms (since the people who created the game and wrote and printed the manual are more of an authority than you or I on the specifics of the 2600 battlezone game world.)

Hombre, I quoted the same part of the manual earlier than the thread. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. The programmers clearly made a 3rd person game but some idiot in the msrketing department tried to come up with a 1st person excuse anyway.

 

Try it this way: Asteroids is really first person because you're looking at it from a passing camera ship. Well, that's an excuse but it doesn't magically change the game into first person.

[supercat]

Try it this way: Asteroids is really first person because you're looking at it from a passing camera ship. Well, that's an excuse but it doesn't magically change the game into first person.

 

In Asteroids, you don't control the camera ship, nor is there a plausible physical connection between it and the ship which the player does control. In Battlezone 2600, your controls operate the camera POV directly, and there's a plausible (albeit silly) physical connection between that viewpoint and the object being controlled.

[NovaXpress]

I'm with you. Now how about Defender? The "camera" is also operated directly by your controls and a 3rd party satellite camera is just as logical as an "electronic periscope" which is apparently also located in the ether.