Constitution Hill's made a really good point about the difference between third and first-person viewpoints. When you're playing first-person, you don't actually *care* about the character, because the character is you in an invincible suit. You die, you press a button, you come back to life near where you popped your clogs. With a third-person viewpoint, you're being made responsible for somebody else. When that individual dies, you're forced to see the consequences of your failure. I suspect that they tried to get a similar effect in Deus Ex with the switch in viewpoint, but it fails because the forced change hammers home the unreality of the situation.
I do see what you mean here. But I think it's partially because of the paucity of game writing, as much as the limitations of a 1st person game. I mean, it's a pretty unreal situation anyway. It's not really an extension of your self that is blowing shit up: you are 'in character', in a game world completely seperate from reality. Personally, I think there could be better writing in games, forming a character more solidly, without it seeming jarring.
But, I mean, maybe my problem also comes from being a girl and playing those games.
The Final Fantasy games seem to have it half right: the story lines are a lot stronger than most games, but that story isn't ever under your control. You participate in sequences of fights - in which a character is yet again reduced to it's 'stats' and weaponry, etc. Also the fights are boring. Really you are just playing in order to get to the next set piece: which is actually something seperate from the interactive 'gaming' part of playing.
All that said, I can't help but thinking better storylines and better characterisation would make playing games much more fun in the long run. Even just a 'blank' character operating in an interesting world full of interesting characters that you can interact with interestingly might work... |
)