Hey all, A question I've found myself stumped on lately is one of which perspective to use for my project. I guess you could give the simple answer to "use what you prefer". However, the more I think about it, the more I realise how huge an impact this single element of the game will have on my whole project. I should make note that I am referring to a top down 3rd person perspective, but if you'd like to comment on another form of 3rd person perspective, such as behind the character, feel free. If I gave an answer to which control scheme I prefer, it would probably be the 1st person perspective. I find it immersive, I find it allows for very precise control while also allowing for a truly 3d experience. Thinking in more depth though, here is a list of pros and cons that I see for both different types of perspective. 1st PersonPro Full 3d viewpoint Precise control/aiming Immersive No "hacks" necessary to render indoor environments Large potential view distance Con More graphically intensive No sense of what the body is doing PCs renowned for having an abundance of first person games 3rd PersonPro No need to render a sky Less need for LOD/intensive culling, as polycount is much more stable/predictable as long as you don't allow the player to zoom out too far Less graphically intensive Player can perform impressive moves (such as a spinning attack) without being left disoriented as with 1st person Con Cannot view the scene from every angle/position How would you handle/represent flying entities? Need to alter camera or chop off tops of buildings at times to see player Able to see things out of line of sight (or need LOS algorithms) Smaller view distance, possibly making a radar type system a necessity The above list is still somewhat incomplete, so I'd love to hear of any additions you may have. The main reason I'm weighing up the options though, is to determine which best suits my project. I've considered all options, 1st person, 3rd person, and the option to switch between the two. I can't quite work out which would be the best option to go for though. My main limitation is that I'd like to get the game rolling as soon as possible, so I'd like to take the option which will be easiest to implement across my whole project, but not at the expense of ending up with an engine that isn't suitable for my game. My game of course, as has been detailed in previous posts, is a RPG. I'm building it up in manageable stages though, probably working on a 2 player battle mode to start with, and eventually building it up to a full RPG system with mutiple players and a GM or GMs running the game. To sum up the problem particularly in relation to my project, I've considered making a RPG that is in top down 3rd person perspective that plays something like a RTS game. I envisage a system on a scale such that players are small low poly models, but are viewed from afar, rather than up close. I imagine that this should allow me to have larger battles approaching a medium to large skirmish size, rather than encounters with a small handful of monsters as in most RPGs. I also imagine this would allow me to focus less on the minute detail, such as having pots and plates carefully placed on tables, and allow me to concentrate much more on the grand scheme of things. I am in doubt as to whether this is the best choice to follow or not though. As 1st person perspective games tend to be the norm for RPGs/MMORPGs nowadays, I wonder if I should just stick to what works and is popular now, and I wonder if I'm giving up too much viewpoint/control freedom by sticking with 3rd person. So what are your preferences? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in both types of perspective? How do you think viewpoint affects the gameplay? I'm also interested in hearing how people think gameplay would differ given a RPG with a far off viewpoint (ie more monsters,less small details, etc) All comments are welcome. Thanks, Steve

Huh, this is very similar to another thread.

Anyway, as I said to the other person, it's about verbs... I mean what you want the player to do, and what viewpoint or system works best for them doing that.

Unfortunately, you also have to consider scope, financially and technically. Are you well funded? Do you have a large team? If you don't have the resources to really polish the details on, then don't worry about it. Make something that conceptually works.

I've also visioned a similar scaled RPG, where players are smaller, all details are smaller, but the world feels bigger and more complex. If you're a good designer, you can create the effect of "more" with visually "less." As you said, if more is happening (verbs, actions) on screen with a more scaled out view, not many folks are going to be paying attention to the tea pots and fine china lined on tables and shelves.

I think instead of doing a general pro and con list for 3rd person vs. first person, you should be making a list of things you WANT in your game (actions!) and things you don't want or things you're willing to toss out.

From there, you can make your perspective choices. It'll become clear which one will better suit what you ultimately want IN your game. Don't pick one because it's popular or mainstream! Shame on thee!

*lashes you*

Ahh, yes, that is very strange. I just spotted the other thread before receiving your reply, but I feel my own topic goes into slightly more detail, and has different reasoning over the choice of perspective, so I think it warrants a separate thread, otherwise I think I'd be hijacking the other thread with my own issues.

Anyway, that is a good reply. I think you are correct, and upon further thought, I think I am going to stick with my 3rd person perspective with a scaled out viewpoint. This is for 3 reasons, those being that it should be less graphically intensive, less work to implement and that I'm intrigued as to what could be possible with a more epic scaled RPG.

I envisage a system where dealing with an individual player, NPC or monster would take less processing power due to less concentration on minute detail, which would allow the game to deal with larger numbers of players in a single area, and larger scale battles. I also believe that not having to worry about the minute detail will save a lot of time.

In an effort to move this thread onto a different topic than the other similar thread, perhaps further replies from this point onwards could also look into the possibilities of an epic scale RPG. However, I do not want this to go off in the direction of a RTS/RPG combo, as this is not what I'm aiming for. I'd like to know what interesting possibilities people think an RPG on this kind of scale could open up? What could we do with this kind of a game premise that could not be done (or would be hard to do) with a more up close and personal RPG? I'll get thinking on the idea and contribute any I come up with ASAP (although I'm on holiday for a week in Ibiza as of Sunday!!)

Cheers,

Steve

As far as computer role-playing games are concerned, I tend to prefer first person perspective for single player character games, and third person if I'm controlling a party of characters.

First person gives you "I'm there" feeling ie. immersiveness while 3rd person allows you to relate to that character better and it's why is used in rpgs. 3rd person is harder to code and leads to more problems ie. camera clipping and stuck on world ie. collision detection on things between your character and camera unless you want user to go thru rocks, etc. Some racing games like midnight club racing 2 I think works great with 3rd person camera and is the right choice. Doom3 needs 1st person for immersiveness and an rpg game could use either I guess. Remember Eric the Unready game? It was a mix of both so you could do that too like when going to a store switch to 1st person. I think gta3 does that. Experiment with it a bit and see what you come up with.