I''m thinking that most Genres tend to have their own Graphical perspective in there games. Most rpg''s are isometric, rts''s are top view, fps is a genre named by its perspective. I think that its wrong to create a game within a genre and use the atypical perspective. I can understand why people are getting bored with games in general, it seems that knowone has the confidence to do anything new. I love Game Design and it loves me back. Our Goal is "Fun"!

I''d say most recent RPGs are isometric. Traditionally they were top-down. But as to your point, they are that way since it is the best way to do it. A first person RTS would be mind-numbing, no?

I think it''s just that we use the best view for the best possible way to play. Now that depends on the designer as well.

For instance, First Person is not really practical for platform tricks a la TombRaider, but Third Person is crap if you need to do some sniping. Top down, Isometric are useful as they give a better view on the action, generally frenetic, in all directions, and they allow better graphic quality (though that is changing slowly).
There have been quite a bunch of CRPG using first person, from DungeonMAster, to Eye of the Beholder, through Might & Magic, Bard''s Tale, Daggerfall, and soon Morrowind
And other using topdown, like the Ultima (except Ultima Underworld), Fallout.
What''s the difference ? I wouldn''t be too sure. Most FP views tried to create immersion in the game, and few really succeeded. But the main advantage was to offer much better graphics since there was more space to draw (almost fullscreen instead of a tile). With titles like Dagerfall, it became to really make a difference, as you had endless landscapes, massive dungeons, and such...
On the other hand, topdown still has this charm, probably due to the ability to create prerendered art that still kick major ass to anything realtime (BAldur''s gate, Planescape, etc).

Personally, I would think as technlogy gets better, it will be more and more a choice between 3rd Person and 1st person but in 3D. Because, the way 3D is done is more and more prerendered lightings and shadows, and special effects...
With good artists that know how to use the graphic engine, good tetures, and good lighting (which is still not that common IMHO, using colored lights is not necessarily a sign of good lighting), you''ll get more and more photorealistism. I thnk the only problem right now is the size taken by maps. But if coders find a nice way to gradually load/unload parts of map, and then make seamless transitions ... that would start something new.

Paul : I am not sure I understand what you think is wrong though. Do you really wanna play Quake in 3rd person and get your as$ wiped ? I don''t think I would make a 3rd person shooter, jsut because everybody else is making them 1st person...
I''d rather find a reason for this in terms of gameplay. If all my game was based on closecombat, swordfencing and such, for sure I''ll do it 3rd person, but that wouldn''t be a shooter anymore would it ? Maybe you can clarify what you meant ?

youpla :-P

RE:ahw
Just think about what it would be like to do a type (genre) of game in a new perspective and feel (in your mind) what the gameplay would be like. You''ve just got to think a little bit more creatively.

There''s no reason why a rts can''t be done in isometric or fps or third person. There''s no reason why a racing car game has to be done fps. I Understand what you''re saying ahw about increasing the immersivness by using fps for some games. But personally i think its a complete load of crap. Nothing personal ok Immersivness comes naturally if its a good game, using artifical tools like perspective to improve the immersivness is only fooling yourself and your employer/s. We need to think about how something like what i''m talking about could/would work. I''m not here to tell you how it "could be" or "would be", i''m sick of doing that. You''re just going to have to think about it people. Just think about it

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Well, actually it''s not the immersion I was pointing at, but more the fact that a point of view is a tool, and that it''s always a good thing to use the best tools to do the job...
I have seen a bunch of mods that implemented the 3rd person view in Quake 2, and *NEVER* found any other use than that of watching your arse and exclaim : "Do I look good or what ?!"
Now what I was saying it that most POV used at the moment are just naturally the best fitting in the existing genre/technology.

Of course I can think out of the box, the question is, is it appropriate, and is it doable with the technology we got (though I wouldn''t worry too much for the latter).

youpla :-P

I can think of a few other games that break this rule: Battlezone and Uprising 1 & 2 both had RTS elements. The two Crusader No Remorse action games were isometric. You can do it, but I think you have to know what''s fun and cool about the gameplay in the first place. In Crusader they included a lot of the running, jumping, sidestepping, and dodging that you get in an action game. So they got the Doom gameplay right.

Also, I don''t see why you can''t mix elements. As far as sniping, look at MDK. It was a 3rd person action game with platform elements where you could go into 1st person. And wasn''t Metal Gear Solid like this, too (top down action with a first person mode)

As long as you get the feel right in the player''s head, and he can do what he expects to be able to do, I think you''re fine whatever perspective you choose.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Even though its just the three of us partially agreeing on this i feel like there''s some progress being made. Now the harder question is: when in the development of a game do you decide to go with a specific perspective? As it seems to be mentioned so far that you should select the correct perspective for the game mechanics (gameplay) you''re making. But this is rarely done/yes? Most people choose the perspective first and then build the game mechanics around this vision, Is this wrong?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Luckily for the world, not everybody agrees. As you should have noticed (where you not bothering finding arguments for your own ideas) that most games start to phase. RTS is starting to go low-ground (see ground-control, DR 2, etc) and this has a reason, it will expand to other games too.

The point in using a SINGLE POV, was from the POV of memory . Nowadays, people have 500+ MHz, 128+ Mb, and 3Dfx-cards that can even make Charlie Chaplin see color. So restraining to ''SIMPLEMINDED'' games from one perspective is not interesting anymore, and surely not bringing in cash. POV will lose it''s meaning, because a game will become more free, more ''godlike'' (you can manage, use strategy and shoot people first-person-perspective. I will give you one other example, besides the RTS-games: Metal Gear Solid. It is a game, where you shoot in isometric-view, AND in First-person, you need the radar to set out strategies etc. This game gives somuch potential possibilities, it keeps you coming back for more.

Stated my case, I rest my prosecution,

|nterf@ce

agreed with anonymous, the main reason behind choosing one persepctive is usually for technical reason, and as well, it seems, to not confuse the user (some get confused with jsut one view ...)
Of course it''s wrong to choose a view and then modify the game to suit that. But technically, it''s kinda easier. A free camera is much more annoying, as it means less predefined parameters, which means you can''t use tricks due to a fixed POV (see DOOM and the like).
Personally, I think this will quickly change, at least for 3D games. Just look at the Halflife SDK (if you''re a coder that is), they modified the game to allow for free camera. You would think doing a First Person view is just like having a 3rd person view, but heck no, they had to modify quite a bunch of stuff apparently.

But again, I am wondering if having too many views / original POV will not affect the spacially challenged people among us. I mean, the number of llamas I heard complaining that Homeworld was very confusing because it was full 3D ... d''uh, with so many wussies how do you want game makers to try something new, if they get people to complain all the time ?

youpla :-P

G''day folks.

A game you might be interested in is Winback for the 64. This game is great! It is action but is third person. You don''t really need to aim *that* much because it auto targets, but you control a secret agent who does all these kick ass moves like flips and somersaults and sidling along a wall and spinning out and shooting someone.

Basically I guess it is just Crusader but with better graphics, but it works brilliantly.

Anyway, i would like to see games from different viewpoints, even different technologies. There is a skating game coming out for dreamcast which has "paper-cutout" characters on 3D backgrounds. It is very different and looks very good.

Many people seem to be displaying things the same in 3D games, but I wonder if people could start making radically different 3D engines. Most games now use the same technique of flat polygons with textures, no matter what the engine is called. Why not something like true curved surfaces, defined mathematically?

Also why am I only talking about 3D? Basically because it is the future. As processor power increases, almost every game will be 3D in graphics, if not 3D in gameplay. Why bother rendering 128 different frames of animation and storing them all in video memory when you can just load in vertex positions?

Aaahhh too much rambling. I must stop myself now.

wise_guy