| |
|
The problem with the idea of the viewpoint aiding immersion is that it makes it makes it much more jarring when you notice things that you can't do that you should be able to, or things that are missing. Example from a game that I'm playing right now: In Ghost Recon 2, you've got the choice of first or third-person viewpoints. Stick it into first and you immediately notice that you can't see your arms, you can't see your gun. You're basically a disembodied, floating invisi-weapon.
In contrast, the third-person viewpoint is far more successful at making you feel a connection with your avatar and the world around hir. Even running around in the zoomed scope view is better than the proper first-person setup, partly because it has either the scope surround or a blurring effect visible around the edges of the screen, reinforcing the feeling of having a physical presence, or because you know that, in that view, you’re not *supposed* to be able to see any part of your body. Possibly both those reasons.
It depends on how we're defining immersion, I suppose. If we're talking about games that don't make a big deal out of narrative, then sure, first-person can really make you feel as though you're in the middle of events. When there's a storyline involved, though, and that storyline is given a certain amount of importance as far as your enjoyment of the game is concerned, a first-person viewpoint can be counter-productive.
It's largely about characterisation and how presentation creates the link between the player and the character that they're supposed to be playing. It's not just about the sensation of having a physical presence within the game. Halo 2's got the best representation of an actual human point of view that I've seen so far - look down and you can see the rest of your body, move and it moves largely as you'd expect, with your POV being tied to your 'neck' and preventing you from seeing things you shouldn't be able to without turning your body to suit - but it fails to create any real feeling that you *are* this person, rather than just steering their body around for a while. When it wants to remind you that you're supposed to be this super soldier dude, the perspective changes and a cut scene jumps in. It's a jarring shift between the bits that are marked 'game' and the bits that are marked 'story'.
This isn't something that third-person games suffer from, because the perspective is consistent throughout the entire game.
(Not to mention the very odd bit of design wazzery that is lens flare - I don't know if there's just something wrong with my eyes, or what, but my vision isn't affected by lens flare whenever I look at or towards the sun in real life, so why the hell does that happen in most videogames?)
It's also about how you give an avatar personality. If I'm playing, say, one of the Metal Gears, there are a lot of things that I can immediately tell about the guy I'm controlling from the way he walks, the way he moves, how he carries his weight. His presence, basically. You're denied that in games that employ a first-person viewpoint. A gruff voice sample every now and then doesn't cut it.
the only first-person game I'd consider to really make any proper strides in this sort of personal immersion is Metroid Prime. A big part of that is the way that your point of view is framed to appear as though you're looking out of Samus' hemlmet visor - you get the visual point of reference that provides you with a sense of physical presence, you get to see your character (in the reflection caused by explosions and laser blasts), you're solidly plonked into the middle of this alien world (steam misting up the visor, droplets of rain hitting and running down it or evaporating, water smearing it when you emerge from rivers and pools.
Another reason that MP is so successful in this is because of the way Retro cleverly implement the rumble in the control pad and tie it into the audio spot effects. Double jump into the air and you can feel your boots' jets fizzing you upwards. Land and you can feel your feet hit the ground.
And that's all great stuff, but I think the real problem here is that, where every other FPS is concerned, that'd be your lot. At best, that is - chances are that they'd consider having some part of the body visible and some physical feedback to be enough to make you feel like you're there. What they need to take on board is the way that Samus is given personality by being so firmly integrated into the storyline, and in such an unusual manner. There's reference to her and her actions all over the shop, in the form of ancient texts detailing a prophesy, in the logs of the aliens she's hunting down.
But you don't have to read it. That's the trick, I think. It's there if you want it - that connection to the world, that information - but you can skip past it if you're not bothered. If you do that, it's still serving to increase the immersion, because you know that the world recognises your/Samus' presence in it - it's there in the background, even if you don't want to take on the extra task of hunting it all down.
Halo tries to make you feel your character's importance in the world by shoving it in your face at every turn, in horribly unsubtle ways. It's all bravado and gung-ho heroism. MP is quiet and subdued in comparison, and you feel far more a part of the world - and, more importantly, the character - than you do in other first-person games.
So no, I don't agree that the first-person perspective increases your connection to a game or a gameworld - at least, not in most cases. MP suggests a way forwards that could see that becoming the case, but no other developer has yet to demonstrate that they've understood the lessons it teaches, or even that they recognise that it's doing anything important/different. |
|
|
