AAA games that aren't in first person, or over the shoulder 3rd person.

[Eric the Orange]

So I was thinking about what games get the press and the hype and the big budgets and so on. And I noticed that they almost always seem to be in either first person or over the shoulder third person perspective. For example some of the recent big releases have been, Call of Duty: Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Assassins Creed 4, and Batman Arkham Origins.

That not to say all are. First party Nintendo games are pretty big releases and they are almost never first person. But other than those I really can't think of many.

So my question is, why is this? Why has the games industry but all it's big titles in these perspectives?

I can only assume more people buy them and thus they make more money. But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

 

[DoPo]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

 

[Requia]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

I assume he means fixed camera angles, isometric view, top down views etc. The reason AAA doesn't use them is its not usually a convenient way to move a single character in 3 dimensions.

 

[Eric the Orange]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

Less realistic. Like an old arcade game like Pac-Man. First or over the shoulder 3rd person views are more similar to how we see the world. Where as an over head or side view is very different. Or more like a game, hence "gamey".

 

[Eric the Orange]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

I assume he means fixed camera angles, isometric view, top down views etc. The reason AAA doesn't use them is its not usually a convenient way to move a single character in 3 dimensions.

OK so why should most AAA game NEED to move in 3 dimensions then? what about that would make the people with the budgets think it's worth the risk? Or alternatively why do more people buy it (assuming that the reason they get the budgets is more people buy them)?

 

[shrekfan246]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

I assume he means fixed camera angles, isometric view, top down views etc. The reason AAA doesn't use them is its not usually a convenient way to move a single character in 3 dimensions.

OK so why should most AAA game NEED to move in 3 dimensions then? what about that would make the people with the budgets think it's worth the risk? Or alternatively why do more people buy it (assuming that the reason they get the budgets is more people buy them)?

Because that's the trend the industry has taken so far? People don't buy platformers or strategy games in the same numbers as they do first- and third-person action games? Because it often allows for more immediate depth within gameplay with a simpler approach compared to the slow burn of X-COM, the frenetic pace of Starcraft II, or the cheery wackiness of Rayman (hey look, there's three that aren't first- or third-person)?

Also because with the exception of side-scrollers, they're the perspectives that work the best on consoles and pretty much the only thing that actually takes advantage of analog controls. You may also be interested in knowing that classic-styled Pac-Man games are still being made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man_Championship_Edition_DX]

 

[Eric the Orange]

snip

Well for one I did point out that non first person or over the shoulder third person games are being made in the AAA sphere. Just that they are in the minority.

for two, X-Com and Rayman are mid budget titles not AAA. They sold well, but were not made for as much as say an Uncharted or a Gears of War.

Your reasoning is that they work best on consoles makes sense. But I do wonder about the days before 3D was viable on consoles. It wasn't all side scrollers top down looking things like most JRPGs or action games in the style of Akari Warriors were also popular.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Lets knock out the overview first. To do this, your game cannot revolve around on specific NPC. Well, you can, kind of, but zooming in and out will change the control scheme, which is why most games that are overview are strategy games. If you were to try making a shooter like this, you'd end up with Asteroids that turns into god-knows-what-kind-of-gameplay-nightmare when trying to change the scope. Doesn't work. Pretty much only works for strategy games where you're the hand-of-god (Command & Conquer, The Sims, etc)

I think overview is more versatile than you give it credit. Some times it's referred to as Isometric 3/4 down 3D. You see it from things as different as action RPGs like Diablo, to old games like Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past.

2D games. They're great games, really, but they can be rather limiting. There's just things you cannot do in 2D that you can do in 3D. Mark of the Ninja is easily one of the best stealth games I've ever played, but looking over the game, it didn't have to face many challenges that most stealth games go through because it was 2D. Not only does it limit some gameplay possibilities, but it forces the developers and games to approach the game differently. It can more difficult for some developers to make a 2D game than a 3D game, and from what I've seen for most players its harder to get adjusted to a 2D control scheme than a 3D control scheme. Remember, we don't see ourselves from the outside of our bodies. When we jump, what we're looking at changes. Not in 2D games.

Thing about this is 2D games are much cheaper to make so they seem to have become the property of indie titles. Which is why I'm confused that they aren't made by big companies as that would be so much more towards there profit margin.

Which brings us to first-person. Very popular, and for good reason. Great for immersion, and the most familiar to us, because this is actually how we view the world. As a con, it tends to require more power to run the game and is generally more expensive to develop than 2D.
And third person has a lot of advantages that first-person has, while also allowing us to view our surroundings more easily. We don't have to retain as much of what we see in our peripheral vision to know whether there's an object directly to our right or left. Its a very accessible control-scheme that deals with some of the problems with first-person view, mainly those that there are some things that we can't conceive in first person view. A good example would be our sense of balance - we can do that in real-life, much harder in a first-person videogame.

So the Gist of your argument is that people get more immersed in 3D as it's more natural to play in. And that this style is easier to get used to by people who don't play games often.

This makes sense as they would need a large audience to makeup for the large budget. But I also think it feeds into certain misconceptions that many of the purse string holders have at game companies. One being that any thing that looks "gamey" or "kids stuff" is beneath it's target audience(teens and twenty something men) and people wont buy it. Two that they are unable to take risks on such big budget projects. Makes sense I guess, but it leads to all the AAA feeling pretty similar.

 

[DoPo]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

Less realistic. Like an old arcade game like Pac-Man. First or over the shoulder 3rd person views are more similar to how we see the world. Where as an over head or side view is very different. Or more like a game, hence "gamey".

Hopefully, you are aware that old arcade games didn't do 3D much because of limitations, not because "it was the gamey way to do games". Some of the first games I played were Delta Force and Blood 2 - can you explain how are they less of a game than StarCraft or something, for example? I mean, there seems to be a "game way" to do games and "non-game way" despite this sounding completely ridiculous and self-disproving.

 

[Eric the Orange]

But why is that? perhaps non-traditional gamers feel more comfortable with a more realistic perspective rather than a more "gamey" one.

I've been gaming for more than a decade now. OK, it's not really a long long time, to be sure, but it's been a while, still I have only one question...what is a "gamey" perspective?

Less realistic. Like an old arcade game like Pac-Man. First or over the shoulder 3rd person views are more similar to how we see the world. Where as an over head or side view is very different. Or more like a game, hence "gamey".

Hopefully, you are aware that old arcade games didn't do 3D much because of limitations, not because "it was the gamey way to do games". Some of the first games I played were Delta Force and Blood 2 - can you explain how are they less of a game than StarCraft or something, for example? I mean, there seems to be a "game way" to do games and "non-game way" despite this sounding completely ridiculous and self-disproving.

Let me put it another way. Think of "Gamey" as less realistic, Less mimicking of real life. Not "gamey" games aren't less games, they just focus more on creating realistic experiences.

 

[skywolfblue]

There are only 4 basic views (that are any good)
1) FPS
2) Third Person
3) Overview/Isometric
4) 2D

I think overview is more versatile than you give it credit. Some times it's referred to as Isometric 3/4 down 3D. You see it from things as different as action RPGs like Diablo, to old games like Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past.

Overview is great for RTS's, there are a number of AAA RTS games for the PC, so I'm guessing you are only referring to consoles. Consoles miss out on the RTS action because of memory issues, lack of buttons on controllers, and developers not choosing to port. It's not so great for shooters, it's ...passable... for some RPGs (but in my personal opinion Third Person+Zoom does that job better).

2D titles have moved to the Indie genre and is doing fine. Just because it's not labeled "AAA" doesn't mean it can't make a profit. Indies are doing really successful right now. I think you'll see more big companies jump on the indie bandwagon this next console generation.

So the long and short:

Why has the games industry but all it's big titles in these perspectives?

Because those views are best suited to the games they were trying to produce. Making Call of Duty 2D wouldn't exactly be an amazing and worthwhile step forwards, making Skyrim or Mass Effect Isometric wouldn't accomplish much.

I'd love to see more RTS games with their overview make it to consoles, but the limitations on the current console generation get in the way. Maybe the next generation will do a little better? /hope

 

[Macroplasm]

It would be hard to make a "AAA" game that's either 2d or has isometric view because those type of games cost less.
The closest I can think of is the wonderful 101 on the Wii U.