IGN interview

[H]

I think the reason why I tend to like the first person games is that they feel like movies and adapt many techniques from movie camera works. Third person games constantly remind me that I am playing a game. Since the strength of Obsidian is story/dialog, I think the first person view with cinematic technique would be suitable.

Obsdian's strength is non-linear storytelling that acknowledges player's choices, which is pretty much the exact opposite of da c1n3matic eXper1ence. Third person FTW, I say; I like games that don't shy away from the fact that they are games.

[Wombat]

[quote name='H

[H]

By cinematic, I didn't mean a fixated story but visual direction which enhances the story-telling/PC-NPC interactions.

You mean good cut scene direction? Sure, I'm all for that. And I happen to think that 3rd person perspective gives designers a lot more freedom with that. Makes it easier to take certain shots, you know. The confrontation with the Jedi Masters on Dantooine wouldn't look half as good as it does if it was in first person.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I cannot see my shoulders when I am typing this...I see my PC monitor. I believe it is same to you.

 

See, there you go with that "immersive" argument, you're just disguising it under different terminology

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

As long as the third person animation is smooth and transitions well, the game is good. Third Person Shooters tend to be better animated for some reason.

[pcrk2]

i don't think they have enough time to polish it enough for a march release... obsidian better delay it and take the necessary time to finish the game rather than hurry for a release because it will have the same problems as KotOR II!

in Obsidian I trust!

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

obsidian better delay it and take the necessary time to finish the game rather than hurry for a release because it will have the same problems as KotOR II!

 

Complete or no, KOTOR2 still trounces most of the CRPGs on the market IMO. So, I could go either way; whatever keeps Obs doing good business.

[Wombat]

[quote name='H

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

It's about the place of the camera. However, it is also true that I've already done immersive argument long time ago and that I tried a different approach this time around. I'm also interested in the introduction of cinematic techniques to the game industry.

 

Could you define "cinematic technique"? Usually in my mind that term refers to the camera, and the first person camera is by definition stuck wherever the person is.

[Wombat]

Could you define "cinematic technique"? Usually in my mind that term refers to the camera, and the first person camera is by definition stuck wherever the person is.

It's about the place of the camera. However, it is also true that I've already done immersive argument long time ago and that I tried a different approach this time around. I'm also interested in the introduction of cinematic techniques to the game industry.

 

Could you define "cinematic technique"? Usually in my mind that term refers to the camera, and the first person camera is by definition stuck wherever the person is.

From wikipedia,

Cinematic techniques are methods employed by film makers to communicate meaning, entertain, and to produce a particular emotional or psychological response in an audience.

I used it in much wider and probably vague sense. So, to some extent, it is right for you to point out it is "immersion" issue, too. In fact, the last time when I talked of this topic, it is mainly about Aliens RPG and it's horror factor. Considering Alpha Protocol being an action adventure role-playing game including sneak actions/melee combat, I think the third person view makes sense to some extent but Obsidian seeming to have not explored alternative camera views makes me wonder how much effort they are making to make their story-telling/NPC interactions more widely accepted. This is not Storm of Zehir, where the most of players know the charm of Obsidian. Checking the trailer again, I find the characters rather cartoonish with poor facial expressions, which is characteristic to third person games in my limited experience with them. Probably this is one of the reasons why I don't like to see the protagonist in front of the camera. Also, I think NPC's facial expressions are important in next gen role-playing game. As for this, I admit that I haven't played Mass Effect and don't know how these things worked out in it, though.

 

My point is that it's same with third person view...the camera stuck always somewhere behind the protagonist. In tactical RPG, I didn't care much about it since the content is mainly presented as writing. However, as the game nearing to the movies, I began to find something I didn't care before become annoying.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I used it in much wider and probably vague sense. So, to some extent, it is right for you to point out it is "immersion" issue, too. In fact, the last time when I talked of this topic, it is mainly about Aliens RPG and it's horror factor. Considering Alpha Protocol being an action adventure role-playing game including sneak actions/melee combat, I think the third person view makes sense to some extent but Obsidian seeming to have not explored alternative camera views makes me wonder how much effort they are making to make their story-telling/NPC interactions more widely accepted. This is not Storm of Zehir, where the most of players know the charm of Obsidian. Checking the trailer again, I find the characters rather cartoonish with poor facial expressions, which is characteristic to third person games in my limited experience with them. Probably this is one of the reasons why I don't like to see the protagonist in front of the camera. Also, I think NPC's facial expressions are important in next gen role-playing game. As for this, I admit that I haven't played Mass Effect and don't know how these things worked out in it, though.

 

I feel that's an unfair generalization about third person games. First, the facial animation is Mass Effect is great. Second, the MGS series, arguably one of the most cinematic franchises in history (HL2 pales in comparison), employed third person. It also features some of the most lifelike character animation and modeling to date (well, MGS4 does). Third, Gears of War is known as one of the best looking games on the market, also third person. I could go on, but the point is that some of if not the most visually stunning and lifelike-animated games available today use third person views.

 

The AP trailer looks like a prerendered cutscene to me. As such, it does not showcase the actual gameplay assets and, hence, no relevance to the distinction between first and third person. Watch the Left 4 Dead intro movie, you'll see pretty much the same thing (though Valve has a much higher budget for their CG trailers).

 

Honestly, I don't know why people still use CG when most of it looks worse than in-game stuff these days.

 

My point is that it's same with third person view...the camera stuck always somewhere behind the protagonist. In tactical RPG, I didn't care much about it since the content is mainly presented as writing. However, as the game nearing to the movies, I began to find something I didn't care before become annoying.

 

Franchises like God of War and Devil May Cry use a variety of third person camera angles. As far as today's interfaces go, however, you simply *cannot* use a wandering camera in a shooter. You *can* have the fixed third person camera smoothly transition into a cutscene, though (again, you really need to play Metal Gear Solid 4).

 

Also, I'm not sure pointing out they share some of the same problems is a compelling argument that first person is better.

 

I think perhaps the root of your skepticism in third person games is that you aren't immersed in the console market. That's where a lot of ground is broken with third person, and it's also a market to which AP is selling.

[Wombat]

I feel that's an unfair generalization about third person games. First, the facial animation is Mass Effect is great. Second, the MGS series, arguably one of the most cinematic franchises in history (HL2 pales in comparison), employed third person. It also features some of the most lifelike character animation and modeling to date (well, MGS4 does). Third, Gears of War is known as one of the best looking games on the market, also third person. I could go on, but the point is that some of if not the most visually stunning and lifelike-animated games available today use third person views.

I have to confess that I have played none of them. I guess I'm not pretty much a gamer.

 

The AP trailer looks like a prerendered cutscene to me. As such, it does not showcase the actual gameplay assets and, hence, no relevance to the distinction between first and third person. Watch the Left 4 Dead intro movie, you'll see pretty much the same thing (though Valve has a much higher budget for their CG trailers).

Left4Dead intro movie looks better but there doesn't seem to be so much content...

 

Honestly, I don't know why people still use CG when most of it looks worse than in-game stuff these days.

I think Bioshock 2's trailer is a nice one.

good, too

 

Franchises like God of War and Devil May Cry use a variety of third person camera angles. As far as today's interfaces go, however, you simply *cannot* use a wandering camera in a shooter. You *can* have the fixed third person camera smoothly transition into a cutscene, though (again, you really need to play Metal Gear Solid 4).

I watched some of DMC4 movies since some people here including a designer were enthusiastically talking of it but I found the movement of characters are rather cartoonish...especially DMC protagonists seem to have special abilities. I watched some of MSG movies but am not much impressed...maybe they were older ones, though.

 

I think perhaps the root of your skepticism in third person games is that you aren't immersed in the console market. That's where a lot of ground is broken with third person, and it's also a market to which AP is selling.

You may be right. At least it is a fact that I haven't touched consoles for quite a long time.

[Calax]

MGS4 was actually done with MoCap so their movements are pretty life like. albeit the gratuitous ass shots kinda throw it. Metal gear is more like a playable movie than anything else. Most of the time the movies are well done, if the dialogue is a bit cheesy so that they can tie up loose ends and not loose even the thickest players.

 

I'm just worried about Resident Evil 5's dialogue and movement :shutters:

[pcrk2]

obsidian better delay it and take the necessary time to finish the game rather than hurry for a release because it will have the same problems as KotOR II!

 

Complete or no, KOTOR2 still trounces most of the CRPGs on the market IMO. So, I could go either way; whatever keeps Obs doing good business.

yes it trounces most CRPG's but it could've been so much better...

[SirPetrakus]

There weren't that many news on that interview, basically a bunch of stuff from older interviews put together, important stuff nonetheless. I don't remember anything about Mike's team though. The idea that he will have a staff to back him up on his missions, doing the intelligence and field research, when that is possible, is a good addition.

 

I wonder if it will be the kind of support as it was used in Mercs 2? Where someone can guide you little by little through the radio and have other team members do other stuff, not like air strikes, but helping according to their field of expertise. This game just got a little warmer atmosphere for me and I like that.

[Wombat]

I checked some videos of MGS4. Now I am convinced what annoys me. Even the graphics is good, the protagonist repeats the same animation again and again in front of the camera. However, of course, I admit that there seem to be many game-play options in this game. The movable/zoomable camera in cut-scenes are amazing, too.

 

After watching MGS4 game-play, I don't think it is rational to expect Obsidian to make a game with a competent graphics considering the budget. Talented artists may be able to cover the lack of the resources, though.

 

Back to the interview, I wonder how the dialog choices with time-limit will turn out. Some of the ideas work fine on paper may not let the players happy depending on how they are presented.

[Hell Kitty]

I checked some videos of MGS4. Now I am convinced what annoys me. Even the graphics is good, the protagonist repeats the same animation again and again in front of the camera.

 

Huh? That's true of any game, no matter the perspective. In fact the only time this has ever bothered me is in first person games when, in the middle of a firefight the player character takes their sweet time reloading while being shot in the face.

[Wombat]

I checked some videos of MGS4. Now I am convinced what annoys me. Even the graphics is good, the protagonist repeats the same animation again and again in front of the camera.

 

Huh? That's true of any game, no matter the perspective.

Not in the first person view, where you cannot see the protagonist.

 

In fact the only time this has ever bothered me is in first person games when, in the middle of a firefight the player character takes their sweet time reloading while being shot in the face.

It's by design. You have to choose your weapons comparing their strengths and weaknesses. In your example, long/frequent reloading time must be a trade-off to a benefit of the weapon in question, which is not a matter of perspective but a game design. However, I guess I have to make it clear that my question is not about shooting but about the presentation.

[Hell Kitty]

You have to choose your weapons comparing their strengths and weaknesses.

 

It's got nothing to do with weapon strengths or weakness, it's that the animation is the same both in and out of combat, and when you have an NPC in your face trying to kill you it looks ridiculous having the player taking their sweet time with a long reload animation as if they don't have a care in the world.

 

Anyway, if the repetition of animations is a problem I don't see why it would only be a problem for the player character, and not for the NPCs.

[Wombat]

You have to choose your weapons comparing their strengths and weaknesses.

 

It's got nothing to do with weapon strengths or weakness, it's that the animation is the same both in and out of combat, and when you have an NPC in your face trying to kill you it looks ridiculous having the player taking their sweet time with a long reload animation as if they don't have a care in the world.

The protagonist still reloads in third person view.

 

Anyway, if the repetition of animations is a problem I don't see why it would only be a problem for the player character, and not for the NPCs.

The protagonist in third person perspective always stay before the camera while loading animation and NPCs in first person perspective don't.

 

P.S. I lost my interest in this simplified 1st person vs 3rd person view argument. If someone who has played a lot of games in both perspectives and compare them in artistic sense, I'd be still interested in his/her argument, though. Considering the number of action games I have played, I guess I'm not qualified to do so.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Wombat

[Hell Kitty]

The protagonist still reloads in third person view.

 

The problem I have isn't reloading, it's specifically when the reloading animation plays as though the character can take all the time in the world, which looks ridiculous when under heavy fire. It's only ever bothered me in a first person titles due to the animations being so in your face.

 

I still don't really understand why repetitive animations are only a problem for you when performed by the player character.

What animations from the MGS4 video you watched stood out as being annoyingly repetitive? I think something like this would be less of an issue when actually playing, rather than simply watching.

 

The protagonist in third person perspective always stay before the camera while loading animation and NPCs in first person perspective don't.

 

The protagonists arms almost always stay in view in first person games, so surely repetitive animation would be worse in that perspective due to player animations being even more limited, seeing as how the only animations tend to be holding, firing and reloading weapons.

 

If someone who has played a lot of games in both perspectives and compare them in artistic sense, I'd be still interested in his/her argument, though.

 

I've played loads of both! Though I don't really know quite what you mean by artistic. Earlier you said "I find the characters rather cartoonish with poor facial expressions, which is characteristic to third person games" which is complete and utter rubbish. I don't know how anyone can have this sort of view, even someone who points out they have limited experience with third person games, because the perspective used in a game has nothing to do with the quality of its animations, nor how cartoonish or realistic the graphics style is.

 

Fallout 3 has recently been hammered for the quality of its animations, and Deus Ex is known for rather basic, and sometimes downright silly animations (like characters running while revolving on the spot). Half-Life 2 has fantastic facial animations, but it looks ridiculous when characters have a conversation with me while walking backwards. Older Metal Gear Solid titles have had low polygonal and low res textured models, but they've always been superbly animated. Of course it's possible to find good and bad examples in both perspectives, because as I said perspective has nothing to do with the quality of its animations, nor how cartoonish or realistic the graphics style is.

 

I've always preferred first-person, with most of my favourite games being from this perspective, but I think it was Sawyer who said something along the lines of preferring third-person due to being able to see (and enjoy) your character performing different actions, and I tend to agree with this. It's especially true of games where I can customize the look of my character, which feels pointless if I'm not going to see the end result.

 

I know folks like to talk about how FP is so much more immersive, because it's more real, like you are the character, rather than merely controlling them, but there is something about that I don't get. If you're playing Hitman: Blood Money and switch from the default third person to a first person view, does the game suddenly become more immersive? "Whoa, now I feel like I totally am 47!" Do the assassinations become all the more disturbing because you, the player, are now the one performing them, whereas previously you were simply watching 47 do it all?

The same is true of all games with multiple views. Does Thief: Deadly Shadows become less immersive when switching to third person? Does a player no longer feel like Logan Keller when taking cover in Rainbow Six, Vegas? In cases like this "immersive" means little more than "I prefer it this way".

My take on the whole controlling my character versus being my character is that no matter how I do it, through their eyes, from over their shoulder, or from high above them, I'm always controlling my character. Some games give me direct control (Thief, in first person, Splinter Cell in third) while some I must direct their actions (BG series).

 

Part of the reason I like the first person perspective is the same as many people, the whole seeing through the players eyes deal. But it's not really like seeing through a persons eyes, it's like, well, exactly what it is, looking through a camera. Which is as close as we're going to get when looking at a monitor or TV. This is why movies and tv shows rarely use this perspective. Pointing out that movies or tv shows also don't have the camera constantly over the shoulder of the protagonist is pointless, because we don't control any of the characters in a movie or tv show.

 

Now if seeing the back of your character is really such a big issue that it stops you from enjoying a game, then third person games are definitely not for you, but no developer is ever going to change their design based on personal gripes like this.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[mkreku]

Even the graphics is good, the protagonist repeats the same animation again and again in front of the camera.

Huh? That's true of any game, no matter the perspective.

Not true. I played Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on a friend's PS3 a while ago and that game made me just stop and admire the "protagonists" animations as he stumbled, tripped and slid his way across the jungles. They're using some sort of procedural calculations to fit together a bundle of different animation sets and it looks absolutely fantastic in motion.

 

I'm hoping the Obsidian developers have played Uncharted and taken notice. I wouldn't count on it though, it's probably horribly complex.

[Wombat]

I've played loads of both! Though I don't really know quite what you mean by artistic. Earlier you said "I find the characters rather cartoonish with poor facial expressions, which is characteristic to third person games" which is complete and utter rubbish. I don't know how anyone can have this sort of view, even someone who points out they have limited experience with third person games, because the perspective used in a game has nothing to do with the quality of its animations, nor how cartoonish or realistic the graphics style is.

In a bad third person perspective, the player have to watch deformed protagonist in front of the camera. Metal Gear Solid 4 has much better graphics but it still has the inherited issue. The protagonist animation has an aspect of game-play interface, which shows the player the status of the protagonist. While the third person view is good as an indicator for various game-play, such as close-combat, stealth game-play, since it is an output of player control, the same order should result in the same animation. I think this is why I feel the animation repetitive. As you point out, the same can be said to reloading weapons animation, but, IMO, the protagonist doesn't continuously reloading. Inevitably, this is a weakpoint of first person perspective since it cannot give feedback to the players as much as its third person counterpart can. So, I think the whole thing is the issue of trade-offs.

 

Guess I don't contradict to what you say but in different words.

 

Now if seeing the back of your character is really such a big issue that it stops you from enjoying a game, then third person games are definitely not for you, but no developer is ever going to change their design based on personal gripes like this.

I don't expect to change the design. It's just my opinion and this is an internet board.

[Oblarg]

Sounds great, from the interview.