Forums > MobyGames > Third person
Indra was here (20752) on 4/29/2011 9:30 AM · Permalink · Report
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that third person perspective is only applicable when you are only controlling a single unit/party and cannot be applied to games that have numerous units?
Third person from whose point-of-view is sometimes an obvious but often problematic dilemma in games: which player character/unit?
Lain Crowley (6629) on 4/29/2011 5:11 PM · Permalink · Report
I've always been kind of annoyed by the use of "third person" in relation to camera position. Second person would be more accurate.
Indra was here (20752) on 4/29/2011 9:10 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Lain Crowley wrote--]Second person would be more accurate. [/Q --end Lain Crowley wrote--]Eh? Wasn't aware there was such a distinction.
Then again, I'm somewhat curious to the etymology on who the hell this third person is supposed to refer to. :p
[edit] After mucking around the net, it seems that using second person as a camera perspective would be traditionally incorrect.
Lain Crowley (6629) on 4/30/2011 3:40 AM · Permalink · Report
Traditionally incorrect, yes, but people are savage brutes who never learn their language before they start speaking it.
First/Second/Third person is like saying I/You/They. With a second person camera you'd be following "you" showing you what "you" are doing, which is basically every game ever where a camera follows the player's avatar. The only third person games would be things like RTS games or RPGs like Baldur's Gate, where the camera can look at the avatars, but you can also scroll it over somewhere else to look at what you feel like.
Maybe one's perspective on perspective has to do with how much of themselves they feel is invested in their avatar.
j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (98433) on 4/30/2011 4:39 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Lain Crowley wrote--]Traditionally incorrect, yes, but people are savage brutes who never learn their language before they start speaking it.
First/Second/Third person is like saying I/You/They. With a second person camera you'd be following "you" showing you what "you" are doing, which is basically every game ever where a camera follows the player's avatar. The only third person games would be things like RTS games or RPGs like Baldur's Gate, where the camera can look at the avatars, but you can also scroll it over somewhere else to look at what you feel like.
Maybe one's perspective on perspective has to do with how much of themselves they feel is invested in their avatar. [/Q --end Lain Crowley wrote--]I think it's determined by if, narrative-wise, the camera is represented or controlled by an actual character within the game-world itself, such as the cameraman Lakitu in Super Mario 64, or my skate example below.
Functionally, it's pretty much identical to a third-person camera, the difference is how the game itself presents it.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 4/29/2011 10:20 PM · Permalink · Report
The way I see it second-person would imply that you have the point of view of whomever the "main character", whoever that is at any particular moment, interacts with. I don't think any games use that. I think the traditional understanding is first person = subject, second person = object. Third-person would just designate anyone else who is not participating in any such bilateral action but merely observing. Hence any game in which you watch from a point of view different from that of any involved characters, active or passive.
j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (98433) on 4/29/2011 10:28 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]The way I see it second-person would imply that you have the point of view of whomever the "main character", whoever that is at any particular moment, interacts with. I don't think any games use that. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] skate kind of does this; the game is played from the point of view of a friend's video camera. He follows you around as if you were recording a skate video (which is a major element of the game itself). He also talks to you a lot, and in the second game even shows up in the cutscenes.
Indra was here (20752) on 4/29/2011 11:15 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Just for the sake of argument...let me see if I got this right:
First person
Subject: I, Me
Perspective: Through the eyes of the human player
Second person
Subject: You (when referring to the player avatar)
Perspective: Applicable when a story-teller or NPC views the player avatar, thus not applicable as a camera perspective. Applicable in interactive fiction text games.
Which basically means, we need to add this as a new viewpoint.
Third person
Subject: Hey, that's me!
Perspective: Human player able to see own avatar.
Top down
Subject: Everyone else with (when available) player avatar
Perspective: Human player able to see everyone from a bird's eye view.
Isometric
Note: Hybrid perspective of third person
Subject: Hey, that's me...a wee bit sideways!
Perceptive: Player woke up on the wrong side of the bed with a bad neck.
Not available:
Political Map view (hybrid perspective of first person)
Shoulder view (hybrid perspective of a first person wanting to be a third person)
Dunno what you call this (hybrid perspective of third person, but character is positioned either more to the left or right of the screen)
Puzzle game view (not really a view. considered to have no perspective and not under first person...er I think).
Non-Player third person (player avatar does not exist)
Among others.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 4/30/2011 1:44 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Dunno what you call this (hybrid perspective of third person, but character is positioned either more to the left or right of the screen)[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]
Blottovision. (It makes my head spin.)
j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (98433) on 4/30/2011 1:59 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
How about games like Maximo where the camera tilts back and forth like it's drunk?
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 4/30/2011 10:54 PM · Permalink · Report
This gets complicated by text adventures which do actually use first, second and third-person perspectives in the traditional literary sense.
Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 4/30/2011 6:12 AM · Permalink · Report
As always, attempts to re-define accepted definitions leads to more confusion and unnecessary over-complication.
I don't understand the need to be more "clever" than all those people before us who established genre definitions.
The current viewpoint classification is clear and doesn't require refinements, except for those suggested by vedder, but his system remains true to accepted classifications; in fact, one of its purposes is to feature genres and sub-genres than are commonly accepted everywhere except MobyGames.
Indra was here (20752) on 4/30/2011 7:38 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]As always, attempts to re-define accepted definitions leads to more confusion and unnecessary over-complication.
I don't understand the need to be more "clever" than all those people before us who established genre definitions.
The current viewpoint classification is clear and doesn't require refinements, except for those suggested by vedder, but his system remains true to accepted classifications; in fact, one of its purposes is to feature genres and sub-genres than are commonly accepted everywhere except MobyGames.
[/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
One the contrary. It is the responsible thing to do to avoid confusion. Why? Because words are subject to personal interpretation. Personal refers to:
[1] The person and experience
[2] The era/time period of the person
[3] Location of the person
[4] Everything else.
E.g. Democracy in ancient Greece, democracy in the U.S. and democracy in Indonesia are three different types of ideologies. Even if you ask three different persons the same place, you will get three different answers depending on their subjective opinion of what is important. Which is why we have hegemonies enforcing a particular interpretation.
Or another simple practice: contract law. People have trouble agreeing on extremely basic words. Why? Because here, people bother to discuss each word. Elsewhere, people don't. They assume they know. Try asking any RPG fanboi on what an RPG is. We've already established in the forums that apparently it isn't as common an understanding as one suspects it is.
Why does it need to be complicated? Same reason to the same person who created a genre system in the first place. Why not just call all of them games and be done with it? Hmph.
Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 4/30/2011 9:24 AM · Permalink · Report
Because words are subject to personal interpretation
Precisely because of that, I suggest we stick to the most commonly accepted interpretation of these words. Otherwise each one of us can come forward with "new" definitions bordering on sophisms.
I can suggest to call every game that has a controllable protagonist RPG, and reason it with the fact that "playing a role" doesn't necessarily imply statistics and charactres getting stronger. I can suggest to include the sub-genre "Fighting" into every game with combat, logically arguing that any game that has opponents in it is a fighting game. I can suggest to restrict the Platform genre to games that have real platforms in them. And so on, and so on.
Each one of us can suggest millions of combinations based on different understanding of words, and that's precisely why we need to follow the general consensus on the genres and stop playing those word games.
Which is why we have hegemonies enforcing a particular interpretation.
Exactly, that's why we have to follow the definitions "enforced" by the hegemony of people who play games, and not re-invent the wheel.
Indra was here (20752) on 4/30/2011 9:47 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Each one of us can suggest millions of combinations based on different understanding of words, and that's precisely why we need to follow the general consensus on the genres and stop playing those word games. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Which basically means that the current genre system should be fine as it is. Why bother changing it? Why change anything for that matter. A general consensus will always apply regardless.
Let's hear the because then. Hmph.
We don't have a hegemony. Stagnation.
Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 4/30/2011 9:54 AM · Permalink · Report
Which basically means that the current genre system should be fine as it is. Why bother changing it?
The current genre system is not (completely) fine precisely because it doesn't follow established conventions enough. The reason for that is the fact that the genre system of MG was designed back when the site supported only IBM PC platform, and its two founders initially wanted to created a database for documenting their own games (that's why the current genre system still reflects some of their particular preferences and specializations).
The established genres have been researched and proposed by the gaming community as a whole, that's why we should follow it as closely as we can. That's exactly what Vedder's genre re-organization does.
...by the way, is it me, or is it time to finally implement the new genre system?! :)
Indra was here (20752) on 4/30/2011 10:06 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]The established genres have been researched and proposed by the gaming community as a whole, that's why we should follow it as closely as we can. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]The amount and continuous genre corrections and endless debates regarding game genre's (in practically every gaming forum in existence) may otherwise indicate that this gaming community hasn't the foggiest idea what the bejeesus they're talking about.
Zelda isn't an RPG! Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. No, it isn't.
One day I hope to hear: According to MobyGames, the authorative gaming database... an RPG is.... but not with this attitude.
Unicorn Lynx (181771) on 4/30/2011 10:20 AM · Permalink · Report
Zelda isn't an RPG! Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. No, it isn't.
Debatable cases do exist, and the case of Zelda is perhaps the most famous one.
Though I do believe that the general consensus is that Zelda games are action adventures.
This article speaks for itself...
vedder (70970) on 4/30/2011 11:07 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--] One day I hope to hear: According to MobyGames, the authorative gaming database... an RPG is.... but not with this attitude. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]
But the whole idea of my genre revision is to reach this point.
But I don't believe inventing all kinds of new terms is the way to achieve that. That would be bound to fail. After more than a hundred years, how many people speak Esparanto or Ido? Hardly anyone, yet life would be so much easier if everyone spoke it.
If a new contributor is adding a game and has to choose between "second person", "third person", "fourth person" and "second and three quarters person" for Skate. He'll immediately pick out third, because that's the term he's familiar with. He won't start reading a 500 page manuscript detailing the subtle differences between the options. That's just not how people work.
While I do agree that our current system does not cover properly all the options. I do firmly belief we should and must stick to terms people are familiar with. No matter if they are used incorrectly or not.
Sciere (930919) on 4/30/2011 11:17 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
That's indeed the natural way to establish conventions. These genres are all based on interpretations, not facts, so we need to approach it like the natural development of a language where dictionaries are revised based on what is spoken, not what a select few in an ivory tower proclaim. That goes directly against what I used to say about the adventure genre, but on the other hand it should be noted that when a specific genre dies out or is re-invented with a new approach, we should be able to label the genre in its historical perspective, regardless of the modern twists and turns on it. That is not in contradiction with the premise, but very difficult to handle through a fixed genre system. The only way we can achieve this is through generic and very broadly-defined terms that describe the gameplay in non-gamer jargon.
Indra was here (20752) on 4/30/2011 11:30 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
However what people seem to be forgetting around here is that it is the very nature of language to later develop into more specific terms. Why? Because people want to be specific to fit their needs. You can't go and ask someone I'm looking for a game, they'd ask what type of game. You also probably can't say you want a 3rd person role-playing city building game. Why? Because it's too specific. However you can do that for a game database. Why? Because it's the nature of databases to be precise since the only people who bother with that kind of stuff are researchers. Not the average Joe.
Unless of course everyone here is telling me that the target audience is for casual Joe's and no additional support when Joe tries to evolve into a more complex gamer. I withdraw all my objections.
Dang there are a lot of sub-genre's in wikipedia. I wonder why they bother to create all these new terms I wonder? Hmph.
I can see the mess five years from now already. Muahahaha.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 4/30/2011 4:21 PM · Permalink · Report
The problems start when the conventionally accepted terms fail to distinguish some differences that are actually important in how one game looks or feels differently from another. Because in common spoken language, people don't usually go into that much detail, but for someone who is searching a database for a specifc kind of game, or a specific title, having that distinction might make the difference between finding what they're looking for or drowning in hundreds of results that aren't all to similar to what they're actually looking for.
That's why I think a more general tagging system, similar to the additional hardware flags, would make sense. Stiff, fixed categories work fine for that broad kind of filtering by genre, themes, etc. or a very basic viewpoint distinction. But the few games who do something special or unique could be tagged as such, so people who are interested in that level of detail can also browse by very specific additional classifications, without the need for average joe to keep the 500-page MobyGames Almanach at hand when they just want to browse through a couple of games.
vedder (70970) on 4/30/2011 4:26 PM · Permalink · Report
I agree about the tagging system. The game group system does that - sort of. The problem with game groups is that users can't directly create those. I think that once users can contribute game groups directly (still have to be approved of course) instead of having to plead their case on the forums, the game group system could be very useful for such tagging.
Indra was here (20752) on 4/30/2011 4:42 PM · Permalink · Report
Basically why I ended up working with game groups instead: if you want things done, got to do it yourself in seems (until that html glitch started popping up). Whether or not it will be implemented into the system into a more respectable feature is another issue...and something I've given up on.
Kartanym (12418) on 5/1/2011 12:38 PM · Permalink · Report
Wait. So we're having an argument about game genres because of a handful of the hundreds of thousands of games on the market?
I've always thought that a primary genre should always come from what the developer or creator believes it to be, not a fan base. Hence why Zelda is an action adventure and not an RPG, that's the way Nintendo made it and market it (and why Zelda II is considered an RPG more than the rest of the franchise.)
But that's beside the point. If we start creating new genres and try to be so specific that we begin to cloud the judgement of the creator, then we become more than just a database. We become a judge and jury, telling people what it is instead of documenting what exists.
It would be like calling NBA2k an RPG because you create your own player and build up his stats over time. We could get away with saying that considering 'our' logic of what an RPG is, but that's clearly beyond the scope of the game's target genre.
Indra was here (20752) on 5/1/2011 1:33 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Kartanym wrote--]I've always thought that a primary genre should always come from what the developer or creator believes it to be, not a fan base. [/Q --end Kartanym wrote--] My standpoint is neither. Prefer to use specific tags (see related links as an example) for surgical precision identification, that does not change, nor requires a gaming consensus.
Sub-genre's are actually a combination of two or more of these tags that no one really bother's to talk about. When people are talking about a genre, they're actually talking about a few characteristics they like which happened to be dominant in a particular genre. However, with hybrids and gamer mood swings, sub-genre's it seems are unreliable when you're looking for a chocolate chip cookie in the desert section.
Minecraft is an excellent example that does not successfully fit under any genre - gameplay wise.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 5/1/2011 4:51 PM · Permalink · Report
Minecraft is an excellent example that does not successfully fit under any genre - gameplay wise.
Isn't it just a simcity-style sandbox sim with more regular and fantastic obstacles?
Lain Crowley (6629) on 5/1/2011 6:02 PM · Permalink · Report
While the two games were derived from the same idea (Building things is fun!) I'd say they are vastly different as far as gameplay goes. Sim City is about careful management of resources and balancing the effects of each structure and zone on surrounding structures and zones. Minecraft is about exploring the unknown to find resources, and then doing with those resources what you will.
Indra was here (20752) on 5/1/2011 6:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Hardly. In this game you have to build that skyscraper brick-by-brick. :p It's probably one out of less than five games in existence with the same concept. Minecraft itself being inspired by an earlier game I can't seem to recall. One day I suppose, it'll fall under a sub-genre entitled Manual Labor. :p
Alaka (106470) on 5/1/2011 6:37 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Minecraft itself being inspired by an earlier game I can't seem to recall. One day I suppose, it'll fall under a sub-genre entitled Manual Labor. :p [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]
Tail of the Sun maybe?
Indra was here (20752) on 5/1/2011 7:40 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Nope. It more or less had exactly the same gameplay: mining stuff. Don't recall if that game is in the database. It's mentioned somewhere in the minecraft website.
Eh? A caveman RPG? Now that's something I've never played before. Dang, I hate it when the cover-art doesn't give an indication of what genre it's supposed to be. Dang artists.
Daniel Saner (3503) on 5/2/2011 2:23 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Sub-genre's are actually a combination of two or more of these tags that no one really bother's to talk about. When people are talking about a genre, they're actually talking about a few characteristics they like which happened to be dominant in a particular genre. However, with hybrids and gamer mood swings, sub-genre's it seems are unreliable when you're looking for a chocolate chip cookie in the desert section.[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]
That's how I see it as well. It's certainly a "clean" solution. I do think both approaches have their merits and rights to exist though, so while developing the schema for my own database I went back to add an (additional) genre classification system after all. It might be less helpful for titles which can amass quite a number of genre classifications, but as far as browsing goes it is very helpful to be able to throw away some ~90% of entries that are certainly not what one is looking for. I think it is more than worth having the additional issue of maybe having to try a second genre, as with a good system this is reduced to a minimum and mostly pretty obvious. Same goes for other closed categorisations like perspectives, of course.