[Storygamer]

Hi all! I'm brand new to these forums and (dare I admit it?) haven't even read a single thread yet. So if I'm posting this in the wrong place, I sincerely apologize.

Recently I had an interesting discussion with a friend about which is better for a story-driven game--first person or third person? I've been thinking a lot about it since our discussion, and find myself suddenly unsatisfiably curious about what the general opinion of adventure gamers is on this subject. Since I've always been a big fan of adventuregamers.com, I figured I'd start a poll/discussion thread on the topic and see what the general opinions were.

I'm the type of person who thinks of games as an art form, and even run a low-traffic blog on the subject--I was thinking I might post our conclusions, if any, on the site. So, please don't look at this thread only as a poll but also as a discussion board--I don't just want to know which you prefer but why, and in what ways you think one option is better or worse than the other.

I realize this is probably a popular topic and if I'm duplicating any previous polls or threads I apologize. Chalk it up to newbie blunders if that's the case.

[kadji-kun]

I picked "They effect teh story in such completely different ways that it's impossible to compare them." because it truly does. You are literally changing the perspective of the story. Both perspectives discover information in there own ways. That's why First Person Shooters are different from Third Person Shooters, story wise. People don't see it, but as a developer, there is so much different, you won't find it funny.

[Ascovel]

What about the 2nd-Person games? They may not be as popular as the other two types, but they still are out there and many very respectful ones.

[Melanie68]

I like them both. It depends on what kind of gaming mood I'm in.

[Squinky]

I pick third-person purely out of personal preference, rather than attempting any claim of objectivity. First-person games are most effective at letting the player be the player character, whereas third-person is better for letting the player be the player character's conscience. I generally find the latter more interesting, from a storytelling standpoint.

[kadji-kun]

I'd have to say third person storytelling is less interesting. Why? Because you are considerably told everything but not enough, whereas while in Third Person, your job is to uncover what is happening. You are limited to what you have been told and what you have seen. Third Person is no different from a Movie, which is quite linear in the way you learn things.

No offense, but Third Person storytelling is quite boring compared to First Person. This is technically speaking. With Third Person though, your story can be as elaborate as possible without a complicated story structure.

In first person, the writer must plan how much information the player intakes at certain moments and so on, just like real life. Learning things first hand.

[Giligan]

Originally Posted by kadji-kun

No offense, but Third Person storytelling is quite boring compared to First Person.

I disagree. But third-person is a lot different. I can't speak for adventure games, because I'm not sure any modern adventure game has executed its potential well enough to serve as an example for other games, but I can speak for other game genres. Take Half-Life 2. It's considered by many to be the finest game ever made. If you've played it, you'd know that it would never work as a third-person shooter, because it relied on you seeing through Gordon Freeman's eyes. That personal experience that's made Half-Life so great would never work in a third-person shooter. On the other hand, consider Gears of War. It worked extremely well because while you did not see the world through the protagonist's eyes, you (as Squinky put it) served as the player's conscience, which made it an interesting experience. Gears of War is a game that would have never worked as an FPS. And the same logic can be applied to any game.

I think it's a matter a personal taste. If you like a genre or sub-genre that works well in one camera perspective and not another, you'll be biased towards that camera perspective.

[Storygamer]

kadji--you stated that the story of first-person shooters is always considerably different from third. Could you elaborate on that? I'm not much of a shooter player myself. Also, your statement about perspective affecting linearity is interesting. Looking back at adventure games over the years, I agree to an extent that your argument applies to that genre, but how do you explain role-playing games like Baldur's Gate (3rd-person), which are arguably every bit as nonlinear and interactive as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion (1st-person)?

Ascovel--What's a second-person game? Or were you joking? As far as I can figure, that would be...the game playing itself? I'm confused.

Squinky--the player's conscience? Now that's interesting. Can you give a few examples to show what you mean? I'm a bit unclear.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Storygamer

Ascovel--What's a second-person game? Or were you joking? As far as I can figure, that would be...the game playing itself? I'm confused.

It's when the game tells you what happens in second person. For example: "You've been eaten by a grue".

Instead of an independent observer's POV (third person), or a POV relative to your own perception (first person), you get a sort of a "second hand" POV of a narrator presenting his interpretations of the game's reality, through which you interact with it. In my opinion, when using this perspective it's easier to make the player believe in a world where connections between things are a bit weird and different from what we are used to.

[kadji-kun]

Originally Posted by Storygamer

kadji--you stated that the story of first-person shooters is always considerably different from third. Could you elaborate on that? I'm not much of a shooter player myself. Also, your statement about perspective affecting linearity is interesting. Looking back at adventure games over the years, I agree to an extent that your argument applies to that genre, but how do you explain role-playing games like Baldur's Gate (3rd-person), which are arguably every bit as nonlinear and interactive as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion (1st-person)?

My statement only applies to the adventure genre. :/ Obviously the stated games go against what I said. Just like Planescape Torment, Mass Effect, Indigo Prophecy, Beyond Good & Evil etc.

Originally Posted by Giligan

I disagree. But third-person is a lot different. I can't speak for adventure games, because I'm not sure any modern adventure game has executed its potential well enough to serve as an example for other games, but I can speak for other game genres. Take Half-Life 2. It's considered by many to be the finest game ever made. If you've played it, you'd know that it would never work as a third-person shooter, because it relied on you seeing through Gordon Freeman's eyes. That personal experience that's made Half-Life so great would never work in a third-person shooter. On the other hand, consider Gears of War. It worked extremely well because while you did not see the world through the protagonist's eyes, you (as Squinky put it) served as the player's conscience, which made it an interesting experience. Gears of War is a game that would have never worked as an FPS. And the same logic can be applied to any game.

I think it's a matter a personal taste. If you like a genre or sub-genre that works well in one camera perspective and not another, you'll be biased towards that camera perspective.

I can't say its a mater of personal taste. First Person and Third technically have completely different mechanics. Even though one person polled 'perspective does not effect the story ', haha.

One is for immersion, the other is for graphics...

Anyways, I don't expect anyone to select First Person anyways. From what I've gathered, practically most of the people on this forum has motion sickness, even if the motion is practically simple.

[Collector]

Originally Posted by kadji-kun

I'd have to say third person storytelling is less interesting. Why? Because you are considerably told everything but not enough, whereas while in Third Person, your job is to uncover what is happening. You are limited to what you have been told and what you have seen. Third Person is no different from a Movie, which is quite linear in the way you learn things.

No offense, but Third Person storytelling is quite boring compared to First Person. This is technically speaking. With Third Person though, your story can be as elaborate as possible without a complicated story structure.

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. It might make a difference artistically or in the perception of a player's game experience, but the things you mention, how much information that the player is given, how linear or complicated a game is, none of it, has anything to do with view. These are factors set by the developers, independent of view.

[Melanie68]

Anyways, I don't expect anyone to select First Person anyways. From what I've gathered, practically most of the people on this forum has motion sickness, even if the motion is practically simple.

Have you ever heard of sample bias? You are by no means getting a good representative, unbiased sample of adventure gamers around here. If this same poll were put up at Gameboomers or Mystery Manor e.g., the results may be astoundingly different. There are people who visit here who haven't participated in the poll (and may never participate). It doesn't mean it isn't a well-liked persepctive.

Also you'll get bias when someone sees a thread about motion sickness. Who is most likely to respond? Someone who has problems with motion sickness, so your results will be skewed as well.

Be very careful deriving conclusions about adventure games, their players, etc. from what happens at a forum.

[HandsFree]

I wanted to vote third person, because that's my personal preference, but to be fair I have to say that perspective does not seem to effect the story much.

Of all the story focused games I played, my favorites are the Tex Murphy games (1st), GK1&2 and Broken Sword 1 (3rd).
And The Moment of Silence told it's story very well in first person (although I didn't like the gameplay that suffered from the Syberia Syndrome where the game practically plays itself, but OK that has nothing to do with perspective).

Originally Posted by kadji-kun

Anyways, I don't expect anyone to select First Person anyways. From what I've gathered, practically most of the people on this forum has motion sickness, even if the motion is practically simple.

I think motion sickness has nothing to do with first person view, but with 3D.
If there was an avatar walking around in Sherlock Holmes the Awakened, that wouldn't have helped me at all.

By the way, why does it say 'you may not vote on this poll'?

EDIT: now I can vote...

[DustyShinigami]

I've chosen 'They are equally good but in different ways'.

I would've chosen third-person but, i, also think the story can be told just as well in first-person. When it comes to adventure games, i do tend to play more third-person ones than first. And i much prefer it too. Not meaning to sound lazy or anything, but I also prefer it when the characters explain the story etc. to me (the player) by talking to each other, as opposed to having to read documents, letters, newspaper clippings etc. and learn everything myself like in Myst. But that's not to say i don't enjoy piecing together the story by reading and learning everything myself. I enjoyed it very much when playing Scratches and Barrow Hill, but quite a number of first-person games, like Myst, just have faaaaar too much reading, that it becomes a bit tedious for me. Again, it's just personal preference.

And i have to be honest, i haven't really played many first-person adventures in my time. I've actually played more first-person shooters. But like Gilligan said, with games like Half-Life, it would never work in third-person and Gears of War probably would never have worked in first-person either. The same can definitely be said for first-person adventures (especially horrors). Scratches, for me, wouldn't have been the same if it was in third-person.

[DanAlt]

Not to be a pedant, but...

OK, yes I AM being a pedant.

It's "AFFECT", people! When something changes something else, it "AFFECTS" it. Affect is a verb. (It can be a noun sometimes, but not here)

"EFFECT," on the other hand, is a noun. (except when it isn't, but that's not here.)

Corrected:
"The perspective does not affect the story."
"They affect the story in completely different ways."

Oh, and "impact" is DEFINITELY not a verb, I don't care how many people use it that way.

I'm done ranting now.

[Ascovel]

Thank you, Captain Pedant!

[Ksandra]

I like both. I honestly can't choose between them, because they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Third-person perspective is more like watching characters in a movie, whereas first-person makes you feel like you are the main character.

[colpet]

My preference is 1st person in any type of game.
I prefer to be part of the story, the typical AFGNCAAP. Even when I'm assigned a character, I feel like I'm in the game instead when it's 1st person.
With 3rd person it's like watching a movie, or fascilitating the story.

[JackBurtonMe]

The only 1st person game I've ever enjoyed is It Came From the Desert.

I find all 1st person shooters especially boring and I can't think of another 1st person adventure that I've ever enjoyed.

[JackBurtonMe]

Also, I enjoy watching movies. I doubt I'd enjoy a movie where the entire film is through the eyes of one person.