Hello again!

One of the authors I work with (the same one that was writing about the games with alternating characters), likes to state that there are people who like third-person adventures, and those who like it first-person. Is that true? Does it matter how you look at the game world (in the adventure genre, specifically)? What's your preference, and why?

I only play third-person adventures, unless I have complete freedom in both movement and looking (e.g. Penumbra). I keep losing interest for those 1st-person slideshow games. Since most games heavily rely on story, I prefer to view the character itself while experiencing it, otherwise it takes away a lot of the emotions and it also completely changes the gameplay.

I don't think it has so much about the perspective to do, but what kind of gameplay they try to do. Most first person adventure games are Myst clones, while third person games often follows the Sierra/LucasArts tradition.

I never really liked Sierra, but LucasArts definitely trumps the argument for first-person.

I'll play either, but I drift towards the third-person because most games in that style have better plotlines and characters. Not all, but most. The problem for me, as Kabushi noted, is that most first-person adventure games are merely Myst clones, and I could never really get into Myst.

What about Under A Killing Moon clones?

Definitely third-person, since it spares me the effort to look around.