is there a difference between rpg and fps anymore?

[Deraldin]

It's obvious what needs to be done here. Sand needs a three monitor setup to get his peripheral vision. In fact, I think everyone should have a three monitor setup and a graphics card that can power it!

[Sand]

Yet, first person does not allow for peripheral vision which is my major hang up with it.  I can see things at the corners of my eyes so I can see what is going on beside me but in FPV on the game I can only see what is going on right in front of me.  Because of that it breaks the immersion for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But looking behind you is A-OK!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. In First person mode I get only 1 narrow view of just what is in front of me. With Third I can get peripheral vision so I can get a wider vision range. I can take the hit about being able to see what is behind me because the overall view is more immersive.

[Sand]

It's obvious what needs to be done here. Sand needs a three monitor setup to get his peripheral vision. In fact, I think everyone should have a three monitor setup and a graphics card that can power it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can go for that. That would definitely kick some major ass.

[Wistrik]

I really enjoyed Ultima IX's hybrid camera system. You could play in third-person or first person, or toggle freely between the two modes. Typically I explored in third-person due to increased FOV, but would use first person when targeting with a bow or examining something. I am rather disappointed by the narrow-minded camera options in today's CRPGs.

 

Then again, today's CRPGs allow less world interaction than your typical modern FPS. In a typical FPS I can run, walk, swim, jump, climb, free-fall, smash things, stack things, move things, use computer terminals, etc. In CRPGs I can click on doors, NPCs, and barrels and chests. Yay. There tends to be more 'immersion', or feeling like I'm there, in Half-Life 2 than in the NWN series, for example.

 

Older games required more from the player's imagination. The tile-based engines of the early Ultimas provided enough detail that you could distinguish objects from each other, and your imagination filled in the gaps. I lost myself for hours playing Ultimas IV and V back in the day, and I'm considering recoding Ultima IV from scratch just for fun.

[alanschu]

The only time I usually have a preference to third person is when there is melee combat. Though at the same time, I played through Morrowind and Oblivion entirely in first person, so it's obviously not a deal breaker for me.

 

A lot of the time I prefer the perspective through the camera of FPS.

[Sand]

I played Morrowind and Oblivion third person exclusively without any problems. I tend to play mages to boot. HA!

[Mortis Nai]

But 1st person in Morrowind/Oblivion was horrific, that's really not something to base FPP from.

 

Morrowind/Oblivion has really messed up "Spacial Awareness" for lack of any better Term, even if someone is right in front of you they can quickly be to your side or behind you and the Melee Combat is still atrocious even in Oblivion.

 

Some Games do in my humble opinion do a very wonderful job of First Person View, but it is completely dependant upon the engine and combat system as to if the Game pulls it off well enough so that 1st person is an amazing and immerse experience or a pain in the arse, especialy where melee combat is conerned.

 

If its a game that involves a great deal of ranged combat, then I will play 1st Person Exclusivly as 3rd person seems really cheap in those instances. But if it involves Melee Combat then I generaly play in 3rd person unless the game does a really good job of it (Which I have yet to really see, even Bushido Blade 2 sucked in 1st person.)

Edited December 27, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Darque]

wha?

 

Morrowind was only playable in First person... at least for me.

 

Oddly, Morrowind was the first FPS I ever played... I think.

 

And before anyone argues... yes, you can play morrowind as a FPS> ^_^

[Sand]

I rather play it as a third person shooter. :D

[Llyranor]

Well, get used to it, because that's how you'll be playing FO3.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Having discussed this very same thing time and again, especially with Hell Kitty, I have to agree that immersion is largely in the eye of the beholder although I suspect if we went by the word's definition we'd probably shatter many of the ideas surrounding what it actually is. However, I can never find any kind of coherent argument that proves the triumph of firstperson over thirdperson as a more immersive factor in videogames. Even disregarding that 'immersive insofar as videogames are concerned simply denotes the quality of something that captivates the player to a point where the line between fiction and reality blurs, I find there's absolutely nothing that firstperson does better than thirdperson when it comes to interaction, story presentation, roleplaying, or much else. Crafting a role is achieved by making meaningful choices, interacting with characters, developing a personality - not by watching the character's arse or only seeing his desembodied arms or floating sword flailing in combat. A firstperson shooter has no merit or improvement over a thirdperson one if the underlying game mechanics are still the same, and the ability to roleplay is likewise uncompromised by wheter I'm looking at - or through - an avatar. Deus Ex was a great game that would work all the same in thirdperson. Trying to save Paul's life from a MJ12 raid would mean the exact same thing in first or thirdperson, and would not be better or worse in terms of character development because of how the player looks at the characters playing through the script. Fallout was a great roleplaying game that would not gain anything from a roleplaying perspective by showing the Master in firstperson.

 

I'm sure someone is going to say 'realism' but that remains a pretty superficial analysis, much like that of realtime being more 'realistic' than turnbased - window dressing for the mechanics buried behind the facade. Realtime is rather unrealistic if the opponents in a combat situation present unrealistic behaviour like shoothing themselves face to face until one's hit points drop to zero, just as firstperson in itself doesn't suggest to me one speck of realism as it's just a different kind of way to look at the same unreal worlds of always.

[alanschu]

I played Morrowind and Oblivion third person exclusively without any problems.  I tend to play mages to boot.  HA!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes I know. You've stated this several times. I figure since you seem be free wheeling in stating your preferences, I figure I'd state mine.

[Dark_Raven]

wha? 

 

Morrowind was only playable in First person... at least for me. 

 

Oddly, Morrowind was the first FPS I ever played... I think.

 

And before anyone argues... yes, you can play morrowind as a FPS> ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FPS with bows!

[angshuman]

I thought the original question was more about Twitch vs. Stats than camera views?

 

I have mixed feelings about twitch. IMO in most action games twitch is not implemented well. They all make me feel I am getting too old for reflex-action stuff (and I've always had poor reflexes to begin with). On the other hand, Ninja Gaiden made me fall in love with twitch action all over again. As an action/adventure game, it was perfect. The game did have some minor role-playing elements (weapon upgrades, semblance of a story), but I would have loved a proper RPG with NG-style action (JE made a genuine attempt but fell short).

 

IMO neither combat style nor camera angles have anything to do with RP'ing. If the player's intelligence and strategic abilities are allowed to affect how the character behaves in the gameworld, why shouldn't the player's reflex abilities also be allowed to have an effect on the character?

[kirottu]

First person and twitch combat is irrelevant when it comes to RPG experience for me. RPG is about choices.

 

Basicly, I agree with Hell Kitty.

[metadigital]

I am trying to reach a compromise here in which both camps of the debate can go away happy.  Is that so wrong?

 

Yes, it will cost time and money to implement both but in the end it will mean a higher quality game which will overall yield more sales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you are trying to rationalize your own peculiar requirement; I am not aware of anyone else who wants this, certainly not a minority significant enough to warrant the extra investment of resources that might better be utilized doing something

[kirottu]

Heh, I just wrote that same thing at tADS.

[Sand]

Well, one reason why, angsie, is that combat should rely on character skill instead of player skill. Character skill should determine if you hit the target or not, how much damage you do, and so forth and so on, not the player skill. If the combat is based anything on the player then its not a RPG. Its an action game. It doesn't matter if it is third person or first person.

[kirottu]

Well, one reason why, angsie, is that combat should rely on character skill instead of player skill.  Character skill should determine if you hit the target or not, how much damage you do, and so forth and so on, not the player skill.  If the combat is based anything on the player then its not a RPG.  Its an action game.  It doesn't matter if it is third person or first person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Combat is always based what you do. Always. It

Edited December 28, 2006 by kirottu

[metadigital]

There are only two types of games: chess and pong.

[Mortis Nai]

I am trying to reach a compromise here in which both camps of the debate can go away happy.  Is that so wrong?

 

Yes, it will cost time and money to implement both but in the end it will mean a higher quality game which will overall yield more sales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you are trying to rationalize your own peculiar requirement; I am not aware of anyone else who wants this, certainly not a minority significant enough to warrant the extra investment of resources that might better be utilized doing something

Edited December 28, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Darque]

wha? 

 

Morrowind was only playable in First person... at least for me. 

 

Oddly, Morrowind was the first FPS I ever played... I think.

 

And before anyone argues... yes, you can play morrowind as a FPS> ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FPS with bows!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, enchanted knives.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I am trying to reach a compromise here in which both camps of the debate can go away happy.  Is that so wrong?

 

Yes, it will cost time and money to implement both but in the end it will mean a higher quality game which will overall yield more sales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you are trying to rationalize your own peculiar requirement; I am not aware of anyone else who wants this, certainly not a minority significant enough to warrant the extra investment of resources that might better be utilized doing something

[Dark_Raven]

wha? 

 

Morrowind was only playable in First person... at least for me. 

 

Oddly, Morrowind was the first FPS I ever played... I think.

 

And before anyone argues... yes, you can play morrowind as a FPS> ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FPS with bows!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, enchanted knives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No

 

First Person Shooter means you have a projectile firing weapon.

 

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

wha? 

 

Morrowind was only playable in First person... at least for me. 

 

Oddly, Morrowind was the first FPS I ever played... I think.

 

And before anyone argues... yes, you can play morrowind as a FPS> ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FPS with bows!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, enchanted knives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No

 

First Person Shooter means you have a projectile firing weapon.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm inclined to agree... You need a gun for a game to be an FPS, and morrowind don't play like any of the FPS's I've ever played...