First Or Third Person – What’s Your Perspective?

I think you’ve got some valid points, but partially that is because FPS games often put less emphasis on your character. Think of all of the games where you are climbing a ladder only to look down and not see your own body? Is Gordon Freeman invisible? No, they just didnt worry about the depiction of the player…

Judging distances is an important part of life that we do automatically. I know how far I need to reach my arm to touch a door knob or jump across a hole. Judging these things is often harder in a game from the First Person Perspective.

A friend and I were just talking about Jurassic park trespasser. It was one of the first FPS games to actually show your character when you looked at your feet. And it was really immersible, even if it was not a great game.

I dont know if it would be fun, but I’d love to try playing Mass Effect or Assassin’s Creed from a FPS perspective.

I think that immersion lies more in the actions of the player character than the portrayal of the player character. The games that I find to be more immersive are the ones where the player’s input corresponds to the character’s actions and where the player recognizes those actions as their own.

Amnesia, Penumbra and even Indigo Prophecy synchronize the player’s movement of the mouse or joystick with the movement of the player character.

I agree with the idea of the player character not actually being an independent character, but simply an interface for the player. But these interfaces and utilities can be used to portray the character and not just as a player surrogate. Indigo Prophecy uses interface metaphors to flesh out the characters, one of the most noteworthy would be the Underground Archive level.

Thanks for this most excellent read and discussion! Having played many videogames over the years I’ve contemplated this same phenomenon many times. However, I was most strongly reminded of it recently after playing a pair of drastically different RPGs back to back. The first was The Witcher, in which you play an extremely well defined character–Geralt of Rivia. Through a combination of movie-style cutscenes, narrated concept-art slide shows, fluidly animated combat segments and character discussions, you are firmly aware of the character that you are directing, and the legendary sense of purpose that he has in the game world. The game is entirely third person, but it is made no less immersive by that fact. You, the player, still get to decide how to approach combat, how to treat the other characters, and make crucial decisions that impact the story. The fact that your character is well defined then makes all of those actions “feel” more meaningful.

Conversely, the next game that I tried to play was the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (which, mechanically, is very similar to Fallout 3). The game starts with absolutely no character definition. You’re simply “some random guy” in a prison cell, who happens to run into the Emperor and be called on a world-changing quest. Your character has no voice, no backstory, no friends or relatives, and the characters around you will literally just stare at you for hours if you delay responding to them. The whole setup feels very silly, and the extent of your role-playing is “make it up as you go.” This is fine and dandy for people that just want to play in sandbox, but it lacks the potential emotional punch of a more directed experience like the Witcher.

If I had to draw a conclusion, though, I’d say that the gameplay perspective (first or third-person) is really only a part of establishing character identification and satisfaction. Like someone pointed out earlier, games like Fallout 3, Oblivion, and Half-Life would be no more identifiable if played in the third-person. Your character would still be a hollow shell offering no emotional attachment. On the other hand, a game like The Witcher played in first-person would still retain most of its charm.

This is because it’s the moments where the player is NOT playing that are crucial to setting up the character definition. Personally, I want some cutscenes and some voiceovers to tell me who I’m playing, and then let me go from there. Now of course providing any character definition alone does not make the experience memorable. There’s still the small catch that the backstory, cutscenes, and dialogue must be GOOD, which is an entirely different discussion all together :)

In the end, though, I think there is no “optimal” approach to gameplay perspective. It still must come down to player preference. And I’d argue that “player” preference is mirrored in one’s literary preference. There are those who want to write stories, starting from a completely blank page (not many games really offer this). Then there are those who want to write stories starting with a prompt (Fallout, Oblivion, etc.). There’s the people that hate writing and would rather just read a good book (The Witcher, Planescape). And finally there are those people who just want to turn their brain off and watch explosions (Call of Duty, Halo, etc). I’m glad that videogames have evolved to the point where there’s something out there for all audiences, and I encourage developers to keep making the games they want to make…don’t take too much stock in any one gamer’s opinion :)

It seems to me your bigger concern is how much backstory you have about the player character than the perspective. I’ve always preferred the first person perspective largely because it eliminates camera problems. Third person perspective, even with a generally excellent game like Uncharted 2, will tend to put you into positions where you cannot see things that the Player Character should be able to see.

As for the unreality of how the human body moves, in third person games I see equally unrealistic activities take place.

As for not personally being a space marine or physicist, I don’t find putting something of my personality into Gordon Freeman all that different from assuming the role of Max Payne.

All this not to say that you are wrong, but to say this is all subjective. What works for me (and many other FPS players) may not work for you in terms of immersion and character idendification. Likewise, what works for you (and many other players) does not work for me.

“I find this a strange and incomplete perspective. I, Adam, PhD student, would not make a very good space marine or theoretical physicist”
The main thing that’s interesting to me is the psychology behind that identification with the main character- a character that is oneself, or as a ‘puppeteer’ off a character that acts a conduit for oneself. I know I make a great Space Marine, I’ve been one often.

There’s too many aspects to discuss though, a lot which have been commented on already.
Largely I think it comes down to your reasons for playing, and how different game designs cater to those reasons- simply, first person games don’t focus on roleplaying, and roleplaying (or character) focused games tend to be third person.
There’s a few games that break the mold though (Pathologic?).

An interesting way to look at this would be in multiplayer though, especially when using a mic.
Although gameplay is generally still non-role playing focused, that, in my opinion, is the closest you can come to fully being the character you are playing- and being entirely seen as others as yourself, based on your skills and personality within that environment.

It’s a very opinionated discussion, so I will voice mine.

I find that I identify more with 3rd person, it gives your in-game ‘tool’ more of an identity that you can assume. First-person, however good has always removed this identity. If there are enough cut-scenes, however, you can feel like you are inserted into the person’s head. So I would say, if the first person game does show enough of your character, or mention/immerse you actively… it feels good. However if you are just a HUD and a gun, or a crosshair and a camera in some games, you feel removed, as if you have played this ‘role’ hundreds of times. Third person gives you a new voice, a new body, a new identity that you can play around with and act like. Like the OP said, you are basically acting.

Acting without an identity to assume, well that’s just talking meaningless gibberish on cue.

I tend to play games that make me feel like I’m actually in another world. No longer in this one. I think thats why video games exist. Its like the holodeck on star trek, or “the matrix.”. Lets pretend those things exists for a second:

Example: You have always wanted to fly a plane, like a real pilot! But it is expensive, and you need a license :( So you walk into your holodeck, or plug into your “matrix” (think of it as a magical thing that can take you anywhere your heart desires, in any circumstance and in any situation) and you are immediately transported. BOOM. You are standing on a tarmac. your feet firmly planted. In front of you is a plane. you walk into it, head into the cockpit then sit in the pilot seat. with your own eyes you see buttons and controls and a flight stick and all sorts of things you would see if sitting in a cockpit.
Thats as immersive as it gets man. Since we don’t have the technology for such awesome things as the matrix or a holodeck we have to make due with a gaming platform, monitor, keyboard, and mouse (or game controller that gives you clunky functionality and bairly any precise control over anything, ew). Anyway, point is, if you were in the matrix or the holodeck and completely immersed in whatever you wanted, I highly doubt you would be hovering around “yourself.” I want to fly the airplane, not WATCH myself fly the airplane.

So I guess it comes down to taste in gaming style. Would you rather be watching a movie, or actually IN the movie.

And that is all it really is. TASTE and PREFERENCE.

You can’t use facts to prove whether one or the other is better at immersion (we obviously know what the immersion of games will innevitably be like thanks to “the matrix” and other such things).
If you have a vivid imagination, are well adept at abstract thinking, and actually like doing things for yourself instead of simply living through something else (like a 3rd person character) first person will obviously be a more immersive experience for you. If your imagination isn’t so great, abstract concepts give you headaches and youd rather experience things vicariously through something else, then obviously a 3rd person perspective game will be a more immersive experience for you.
Im not saying you’re dumb if you like 3rd person games. Ive played many, many awesome 3rd person games (Anyone remember Ultima IX: Ascension, or MDK), and they were quaint and enjoyable. None of them however completely transported me into the game world like first person games have.
This article proves: Having, or working towards, a PhD doesn’t mean you’re not an idiot. AND: No amount of education can imbibe creativity, originality, and the ability see the big picture and every other picture individually and together at the same time.