Perspectives (offshoot of genres discssion)

Forums > MobyGames > Perspectives (offshoot of genres discssion)

Ace of Sevens (4479) on 6/9/2007 11:33 PM · Permalink · Report

The current perspectives system has numerous problems and I believe much easier to fix than genres. Here are the current options:

First-Person, Third-Person, Isometric, Platform, Side-Scrolling and Top-Down.

Here are the problems: This doesn't distinguish between a game like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time which is played in third-person and has a first-person look mode and Halo, which is played in first-person, but goes to third in vehicles. They both just show up as third and first.

The main problem is that it is mixing several unrelated things. Platform isn't really a perspective at all, but a gameplay type that can be done in any number of perspectives. First-person, third person only apply to 3D games but not all, but side-scrolling, top down and isometric don't cover all 2D possibilities. Namely, first and third person both assume that you have some sort of avatar, which isn't always the case. And it makes no allowance for sideview games that either don't scroll or only scroll vertically. So here is my proposal for categories:

text-only/na: games without graphics have no graphical perspective, obviously.

top-down: Used for any games viewed looking straight down. Ambiguous space perspectives like asteroids and Galaga go here as well.

side-view: used for any game that plays in 2D and is viewed more-or-less parallel to the ground. It needs to have a concept of up and down to qualify.

3/4 view: an angle somewhere between the above. It should not be used for third-person games. This replaces isometric as isometric is a specific kind of 3/4 pseudo-3D, but there are actual 3D games viewed the same way and several other kinds of pseudo 3D.

1st-person: Games where you play a character and view through the eyes of that character.

3rd-person: 3D games where you play a character and view them from the outside.

Additionally, there could a be a scrolling flag to be used for 2D games only or separate flags for horizontal and vertical scrolling. Platform is moved to a different section. I'd recommend also making a option to mark which (if any) is the main viewpoint of the game if both third and first person are checked.

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/10/2007 9:35 AM · Permalink · Report

This is almost exactly what I wanted to suggest after reading some of the other threads on this topic.

Sciere (930912) on 6/10/2007 9:50 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

I agree, that is a much clearer distinction indeed. The implementation or the change will be an admins' decision. If there is an agreement on matters such as these, with a majority of the approvers siding with a change, it would be nice to get a final admin's decision and a time-frame for the implementation. Despite the many magnificent improvements over the past years, we badly need to work on a solid, organized structure with priorities for these kind of changes, they seem often forgotten or appear out of thin air.

I don't mind spending days approving or submitting corrections when they favour a general improvement of the quality the site offers. Even minor matters such as still not having Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd. as the main name for the Japanese company makes the site look outdated and inaccurate.

Игги Друге (46653) on 6/10/2007 10:06 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Sciere wrote--]I agree, that is a much clearer distinction indeed. The implementation or the change will be an admins' decision. If there is an agreement on matters such as these, with a majority of the approvers siding with a change, it would be nice to get a final admin's decision and a time-frame for the implementation. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--]

Here you have a timeframe: Never.

Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 6/10/2007 5:18 PM · Permalink · Report

Here you have a timeframe: Never.

Unfortunately, I must say that this pessimism is justified. I'd love to hear admins' opinions on topics that most contributors/approver seem to agree on, but there's no reaction. Those topics appear sporadically and then die. Why?

Most of us agree that the current system is far from optimal. There is a good suggestion on how to fix that. People volunteer to do corrections. Why do admins ignore this?

Ace of Sevens (4479) on 6/10/2007 12:00 PM · Permalink · Report

I'd add that if this site is ever to be a major gaming resource, the IMDB of video games, stuff like this needs to be fixed.because it really limits its usefulness. There's little point in making people enter all this classification info if it isn't going to produce useful results.

Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 6/10/2007 5:14 PM · Permalink · Report

You are absolutely right. Come on, admins, let's do that!

chirinea (47496) on 6/11/2007 1:17 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--]First-person, third person only apply to 3D games but not all, but side-scrolling, top down and isometric don't cover all 2D possibilities...

3rd-person: 3D games where you play a character and view them from the outside. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--] Well, I'm "one of those" (quoting WK, =P) who think that 3D doesn't apply only for 3D games. Any game that has graphics and isn't 1st person is third person. So, if you can see your character in a 2D game, it is also 3rd person.

Ace of Sevens (4479) on 6/11/2007 1:34 AM · Permalink · Report

In every first-person game that I can think of, you can see characters that aren't you. Does this mean they are all third person as well? The term only refers to the viewpoint character, not characters in general.

chirinea (47496) on 6/11/2007 1:42 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

I didn't mention characters in general. I guess I didn't express myself the right way. I just edited my post 'cause I wrote "where you can see you character" instead of "where you can see your character".

What I'm saying is that 3rd person perspective applies to any game where you can see your character, no matter if it is a 2D or 3D game. So, even if 3rd person is a term usually related to 3D games (in opposition to 1st person), it is really strange to say that, for instance, Super Mario Brothers isn't 3rd person. I mean, you see Mario "from the outside", the same way you see Lara Croft in any Tomb Raider game. Lara Croft is a 3D model, Mario is a 2D sprite, but both are viewed from a 3rd person perspective, one variable and the other fixed.

Ace of Sevens (4479) on 6/11/2007 1:47 AM · Permalink · Report

All 2D games where you play a character are going to be 3rd person, though. It seems redundant to list it unless that's just how we're distinguishing between games where you play a character and those where you don't. Actually, that sounds like it could work.

chirinea (47496) on 6/11/2007 1:55 AM · Permalink · Report

Well, there are 2D 1st person games too. Shining in the Darkness is a perfect example, while Platoon and Phantasy Star have also have 1st person sections.

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/11/2007 7:23 AM · Permalink · Report

Yes, 3rd person should apply to 2D games as well, simply because there are also 2D 1st person games. That it's redundant in many cases shouldn't matter, because eventualy, I hope the game browser will allow more differentiated searches.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 6/11/2007 7:47 AM · Permalink · Report

Yes, 3rd person should apply to 2D games as well, simply because there are also 2D 1st person games.

Uhh... under my understanding of the term, "1st-person perspective" indicates a vantage point from inside the protagonist's eye sockets. Barring some hypothetical "car side door window" simulation I think the only case where that perspective could be said to apply in a 2D context is some sort of carny shooting gallery sim. (Of course, by and large what 1st-person perspective actually indicates is: inhabiting the eye sockets of a homocidal madman whose field of few is dominated by a pulsing, throbbing phallic boomstick, aka: first-person shooter. I suppose the exception is flight sims and games like Myst.)

(If all 2D games employ 3rd-person perspective, is it useful or redundant to note both?)

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/11/2007 9:22 AM · Permalink · Report

Chirinea has already given examples of 1st person 2D games. You should also know a few if games with graphics that are neither third person nor true 3D. It is only logical to assume that at one point or another the game browser will allow more differentiated searches, so if theese suggestions will be implemented you could search for games that feature a 1st person perspective but no 3rd person perspective (or at least not as "main perspective"), that feature a 3rd person perspective and are 3D but not 2D, have 1st person perspective as main perspective, are 2D but not 3D etc. etc. So yes, I think it would be very useful to note whether a 2D game is seen from a 1st or 3rd person perspective.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 6/11/2007 6:19 PM · Permalink · Report

neither third person nor true 3D

Where by "true 3D" we mean polygons? Heck, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to parallax scrollers like Shinobi since it has two fields of play depth (plus, I suppose the bonus stage is a FPS 8)

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/11/2007 6:40 PM · Permalink · Report

Please don't get hung up on the term "true 3D" as it might seriously derail the thread. If games with graphics aren't any kind of 3D. The point is, not all 2D games are also seen from a third person perspective which is in itself reason enough to mark which ones are and which aren't.

Игги Друге (46653) on 6/11/2007 6:40 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start chirinea wrote--]Well, there are 2D 1st person games too. Shining in the Darkness is a perfect example, while Platoon and Phantasy Star have also have 1st person sections. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--] Both Shining and Phantasy Star seem decidedly 3-D to me.

chirinea (47496) on 6/11/2007 7:29 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

That's my point actually, Iggy. People seem to call 3D only those games which use poligonal graphics. Well, I'm aware that one definition fo 3D could be the ability of moving in 6 directions (up, down, left, right, forward and backwards), and by that definition some people call 2.5 games those where you can' really go up or down (like Doom, which doesn't have real 3D environments in this sense). But if we consider that 3D is just the construction of images with height, width and profundity, then we have to consider games like Shining and PS and Platoon (I'm gonna contribute some screenshots for that one) as 3D.

Saying that you have no 1st person perspective in 2D games is rather a problem of considering bitmaped games as 2D only.

Joshua J. Slone (4666) on 6/11/2007 9:22 PM · Permalink · Report

Well, isn't that the case? Just because Phantasy Star cycles through a set of sprites drawn to make it look like you're looking down a hallway doesn't make it 3D, anymore than if I posted a picture of a hallway in my house and said it was a 3D image. Without anything occurring in that extra dimension, it's just a ruse.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 6/11/2007 10:38 PM · Permalink · Report

a set of sprites drawn to make it look like you're looking down a hallway doesn't make it 3D, anymore than if I posted a picture of a hallway in my house and said it was a 3D image

While a set of sprites isn't actual 3D (inasmuch as such a thing is not possible on a 2d monitor, and all animation being nothing more than collections of still images (of 2d sprites 8) played in rapid succession), I think what the player is experiencing (or the viewer of the painting 8) could still be described as a 1st-person perspective

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/12/2007 8:00 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]I think what the player is experiencing (or the viewer of the painting 8) could still be described as a 1st-person perspective [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] He (Joshua) is not questioning whether it's 1st-person perspective, but if it's actually 3D. So the question is: is any game viewed from a 1st-person perspective 3D, even if it's technically a 2D game? While I can see how one could argue that this is indeed the case, I think it's more practicable for the game browser to list games like Shining in the Darkness as 2D games from a 1st-person perspective. That way we would get a nice differentiation between "real" and "pseudo"-3D without having to come up with a way to classify all the different styles of 3D games (series of pictures as in many old RPGs, pseudo 3D as in Doom etc.) which would probably turn the game browser into a mess.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 6/12/2007 9:01 AM · Permalink · Report

I think it's more practicable for the game browser to list games like Shining in the Darkness as 2D games from a 1st-person perspective

So long as the perspective is 1st-person, I don't think the "perspective" category cares whether it's 2D, 3D or pseudo 3D 8) It seems like so much technological hair-splitting from this end...

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/12/2007 11:32 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q1 --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] So long as the perspective is 1st-person, I don't think the "perspective" category cares whether it's 2D, 3D or pseudo 3D 8)[/Q1 --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]

Not necessarily, but what's so difficult about checking one more box ("2D") under the perspective category to make the classification a little more accurate?

[Q2 --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] It seems like so much technological hair-splitting from this end... [/Q2 --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Implementing things as I suggested would actually avoid all that hairsplitting. Just check the right perspective(s) from the list (see OP) and additionally, check whether the game is 2D or 3D. If a game features 2D and 3D graphics, check both. Not all that complicated, really.

Игги Друге (46653) on 6/12/2007 11:09 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Joshua J. Slone wrote--]Well, isn't that the case? Just because Phantasy Star cycles through a set of sprites drawn to make it look like you're looking down a hallway doesn't make it 3D, anymore than if I posted a picture of a hallway in my house and said it was a 3D image. Without anything occurring in that extra dimension, it's just a ruse. [/Q --end Joshua J. Slone wrote--] Phantasy Star isn't a static picture of a hallway. You can move into the hallway, round corners and go down stairs. It's at least as 3-dimensional as Doom.

The only workable definition for 3-D that I can come up with is that the game gives you a feeling of depth, allowing you to move "into" the screen. After all, any top-down RPG with top-down dungeons in several levels is technically 3-dimensional, since it has three axes. But Phantasy Star allows you, like Doom and Quake, to move into a perspective-drawn environment.

Technically, Zaxxon is more 3-D than Doom. It isn't first-person 3-D, though.

Indra was here (20752) on 6/12/2007 1:33 PM · Permalink · Report

Here's my Technology Tree:

1st Person Perspective
3rd Person Perspective
a. Top Down.
b. Side-Scrolling
c. Isometric
d. Platform
e. Did I miss anything out?

This means technically all Platform, Isometric, Side-scrolling, top-down ARE 3rd Person Perspective games. The basic reasoning of this is, if you can see Your character (aka any character that you MAY DIRECTLY CONTROL) then it IS 3rd Person.

Problems with perspectives:

Games with multiple perspectives. There is a unwritten policy among the MG approvers that all perspectives in a game should be included, no matter how remote. Not quite sure if that has been expressed bluntly enough yet. Although this may provide some form of confusion, on which perspectives represent the primary game play. For now the only way to get around this is to explain the perspectives in the game description.

chirinea (47496) on 6/12/2007 2:00 PM · Permalink · Report

I have a minor issue with calling "platform" a perspective. Damn, you can't call that a perspective, it has more to do with gameplay than perspective. If "shooter" is placed under the "non-sport themes" category, maybe "platform" (or rather "platformer") should be placed there also.

Игги Друге (46653) on 6/12/2007 4:46 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start chirinea wrote--]I have a minor issue with calling "platform" a perspective. Damn, you can't call that a perspective, it has more to do with gameplay than perspective. If "shooter" is placed under the "non-sport themes" category, maybe "platform" (or rather "platformer") should be placed there also. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--] This is a usability issue with Mobygames, the fact that genres are referred to by what they are not. A newcomer who tries the game browser can only be confused by a rapsheet describing a game as "Non-sport: Shooter, sci-fi". If anything, sport is a sub-genre, or something parallel to the main genre system, instead of the opposite, as is the case now.

Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 6/12/2007 5:00 PM · Permalink · Report

Oh yes, I really dislike this "Non-Sport" thingy. Why not call it simply Genres or Sub-Genres?

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/12/2007 2:43 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q1 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]

I don't think anyone said anything to the contrary.

[Q2 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Problems with perspectives:

The top-down perspective is somewhat problematic to me. There really needs to be a difference between old-skool top-down RPGs (which to me really isn't top-down, since its kinda flat and all) compared to other games where you can only see the "head" of the character, which obviously is very "top-down" or "satelite perspective" if you will. [/Q2 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Do you really think it's necessary/possible that the game browser reflect marginal differences in perspectives like that? Games with multiple perspectives. There is a unwritten policy among the MG approvers that all perspectives in a game should be included, no matter how remote. Not quite sure if that has been expressed bluntly enough yet. Although this may provide some form of confusion, on which perspectives represent the primary game play. For now the only way to get around this is to explain the perspectives in the game description. This could be worked around by selecting one perspective as "main perspective", as already suggested by the OP. Another top-down perspective problem. There needs to be a separation for strategic top-down games, which usually use some sort of political map. These political maps up-till now are usually identified as a top-down perspective. Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Игги Друге (46653) on 6/12/2007 4:50 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Xenu wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] This means technically all Platform, Isometric, Side-scrolling, top-down ARE 3rd Person Perspective games. The basic reasoning of this is, if you can see Your character (aka any character that you MAY DIRECTLY CONTROL) then it IS 3rd Person. [/Q2 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] I don't think anyone said anything to the contrary. [/Q --end Xenu wrote--] The problem with defining everything non-first-person as third-person in our current perspective system is that we end up without any discrete perspective attribute for those games which have a third-person perspective outside of side-scrolling, top-down, isometric and platform. No definition for more abstract perspectives such as LucasArts adventures, Tombraider or Space Harrier. This is why we should have additional "3-D", "2-D" and "scrolling/flipscreen" attributes.

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/12/2007 5:59 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Xenu wrote--] [Q3 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] This means technically all Platform, Isometric, Side-scrolling, top-down ARE 3rd Person Perspective games. The basic reasoning of this is, if you can see Your character (aka any character that you MAY DIRECTLY CONTROL) then it IS 3rd Person. [/Q3 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] I don't think anyone said anything to the contrary. [/Q2 --end Xenu wrote--] The problem with defining everything non-first-person as third-person in our current perspective system is that we end up without any discrete perspective attribute for those games which have a third-person perspective outside of side-scrolling, top-down, isometric and platform. No definition for more abstract perspectives such as LucasArts adventures, Tombraider or Space Harrier. This is why we should have additional "3-D", "2-D" and "scrolling/flipscreen" attributes. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]

Yes, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. I know that it wouldn't make sense to define all non-first person games as third-person now, but we're talking about what we want the game browser to look like eventually, aren't we?

Игги Друге (46653) on 6/12/2007 4:43 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]Problems with perspectives:

Another top-down perspective problem. There needs to be a separation for strategic top-down games, which usually use some sort of political map. These political maps up-till now are usually identified as a top-down perspective. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] I agree. Management and strategy games often have no viable perspective. We should have one called "Graphs and tables" or something like that.

Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 6/12/2007 6:02 PM · Permalink · Report

I agree. Management and strategy games often have no viable perspective. We should have one called "Graphs and tables" or something like that.

Oh, that's what he meant. Yes, that makes sense.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 6/12/2007 6:13 PM · Permalink · Report

Management and strategy games often have no viable perspective.

Howabout text adventure games? (And then the kicker -- IF with Graphics often do present an illustration for each room that can be construed as being in the 1st-person perspective 8)

Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 6/12/2007 6:12 PM · Permalink · Report

old-skool top-down RPGs (which to me really isn't top-down, since its kinda flat and all)

Wouldn't that make it isometric, then? (grr... no, not quite 8)

chirinea (47496) on 6/12/2007 6:16 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Wouldn't that make it isometric, then? (grr... no, not quite 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Bear in mind that we use "isometric" with a greater "freedom" than the term allows. Most of our isometric games aren't really isometric, but dimetric instead.