3rd or 1st?
by Jordan · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 10/29/2007 (4:03 pm) · 5 replies
Hi im making a video game and I wanted it to be a shooter. I want it to be a shooter where you can control a group of soldiers. The only dilemma is I don't know if i should make an over-the-shoulder view or 1st person view. Which one?
About the author
#2
A lot of the decision should depend on your gameplay. For a great example of this, see Splinter Cell's multiplaer, spies versus mercenaries. The spies play in 3rd person, and it's awesome. The mercs have 1st person, and its awesome. The spies depend a lot more on having a sense of body - knowing exactly what they're walking on, whether they're visible, etc. The mercenaries don't need to do that stuff, and if they had a third-person camera, a spy would never be able to sneak up behind them to knock them out. It's all about balance and feel.
You didn't mention much about the gameplay other than you control a group - I think that 1st and 3rd person work equally well here. Brothers in Arms was a really good 1st person squad command game, but I'm sure there's other examples.
10/30/2007 (11:52 am)
I regard first person as the only way to go, but that's purely preference, and it has to be done right. I mean, third person allows 'cheating' (turning so the camera peeks around/over a wall, or seeing behind you, for example) and it's complicated to program a great 3rd person camera (but of course, there's resources for that ;)). First person is a lot more visceral, and puts the player in the hot seat - it's not some random game character doing stuff, it's you!A lot of the decision should depend on your gameplay. For a great example of this, see Splinter Cell's multiplaer, spies versus mercenaries. The spies play in 3rd person, and it's awesome. The mercs have 1st person, and its awesome. The spies depend a lot more on having a sense of body - knowing exactly what they're walking on, whether they're visible, etc. The mercenaries don't need to do that stuff, and if they had a third-person camera, a spy would never be able to sneak up behind them to knock them out. It's all about balance and feel.
You didn't mention much about the gameplay other than you control a group - I think that 1st and 3rd person work equally well here. Brothers in Arms was a really good 1st person squad command game, but I'm sure there's other examples.
#3
10/30/2007 (12:20 pm)
It depends on the type of shooter you are making. I've played both types that rock and suck.
#4
02/04/2008 (11:34 am)
I agree with the posts. One of my altime favorite shooters was Syphon Philter for the PS1, third person. I think the 3rd person view allows for more interesting animations and movements, rolling/diving, etcetera. Then again I like the FPS games too, so again, I think it depends on your preference, and what story you want to tell, and what the character will need to be able to do to adhere to the storyline.
#5
02/17/2008 (2:10 pm)
To me, I always feel a better sense of "brotherhood" in 3rd person. In first you pay attention to what's in front of you, not your allies on the side dying and needing aid (ie. Gears of war).
Torque Owner Stephen Howe
but it's all a matter of preference to you. the mechanics shouldn't be different (minus needed anim's in 3rd person).