Are First-Person Games Inherently More Immersive?
- Thread starter alphamalet
- Start date
Considering the games I've had the most emotional reaction to, and immersive experience with weren't first person, I would have to disagree with that statement.
For me at least, it depends on the quality of the game, and how well the pull me into their story. The ability to do this, has nothing to do with whether it's 1st or 3rd person.
For me at least, it depends on the quality of the game, and how well the pull me into their story. The ability to do this, has nothing to do with whether it's 1st or 3rd person.
First person is more immersive, in my experience. This is not a matter of preference to a specific genre or game type. Writing, world design, characters etc play a huge role, and the most immersive games in my experience, like Planescape or Mass Effect were not first person, simply because the first person view does not traditionally attract developers interested in immersive expiriences. But I do notice that a first person game needs to give a lot less effort to pull me in.
The reason is, ofcourse, the sense of momentum, weight, and paranoia first person games can produce with minimal effort. Due to the limited view of yourself and your body in FP, by necessity you project your own body movements into the game. The newer Fallout or Elder Scrolls games would not work nearly as well with third person perspectives, simply because they focus so much on the exploration and, well, hiking experience for their appeal. By showing me just my hands and legs, my brain can basically translate the movement and sounds of the world to a realistic sensation of walking. The fact that you cannot see things coming up around the corner or behind you makes you feel more of a participant and less like you are watching a movie. And the impact of weapons on your shield or an explosion next to you feel more visceral because your vision shakes or gets blurry. Your mind can fill in the rest. This is why so many shooters can be immerse without actually putting much effort in their world or writing.
On the flipside, third person games often feel like I am watching a movie. The characters do not move like a normal person would, or they perform moves that completely defy gravity, etc. This does not lessen the game's appeal, but there is immersive and realistic and there is bombastic and spectacular, and the two generally are not the same. Devil May Cry 3 or Ninja Gaiden are spectacular games, but I would not call them immersive. Dishnoured, on the other hand, is, even though it features magical powers.
Sooo, yeah, there is definitely less of an effort required for a first person game to draw me in. Which is why it's such a terrible shame that first person melee combat seems to be something people don't seem to try to do any more. It is so much more satisfying. Atleast the first person stealth genre seems to be going strong.
The reason is, ofcourse, the sense of momentum, weight, and paranoia first person games can produce with minimal effort. Due to the limited view of yourself and your body in FP, by necessity you project your own body movements into the game. The newer Fallout or Elder Scrolls games would not work nearly as well with third person perspectives, simply because they focus so much on the exploration and, well, hiking experience for their appeal. By showing me just my hands and legs, my brain can basically translate the movement and sounds of the world to a realistic sensation of walking. The fact that you cannot see things coming up around the corner or behind you makes you feel more of a participant and less like you are watching a movie. And the impact of weapons on your shield or an explosion next to you feel more visceral because your vision shakes or gets blurry. Your mind can fill in the rest. This is why so many shooters can be immerse without actually putting much effort in their world or writing.
On the flipside, third person games often feel like I am watching a movie. The characters do not move like a normal person would, or they perform moves that completely defy gravity, etc. This does not lessen the game's appeal, but there is immersive and realistic and there is bombastic and spectacular, and the two generally are not the same. Devil May Cry 3 or Ninja Gaiden are spectacular games, but I would not call them immersive. Dishnoured, on the other hand, is, even though it features magical powers.
Sooo, yeah, there is definitely less of an effort required for a first person game to draw me in. Which is why it's such a terrible shame that first person melee combat seems to be something people don't seem to try to do any more. It is so much more satisfying. Atleast the first person stealth genre seems to be going strong.
Except both of the games you just mentioned allow third person perspective with the tap of a button. In fact most people I see playing them online play them in 3rd person mode.DrDuckman said:
Oh they do, but it's neigh unplayable. There is a reason why first person is the default in both games. Even the devs described it as vanity cam, and certainly videos use it to show off equipment. But it's a good point, try playing New Vegas in first and third person. It's obvious that third person is a lot less effective at drawing you in.
No. The key concept for immersion is "willing suspension of disbelief". It comes from theatre and similar arts, where obvious inconsistencies will be ignored if they facilitate the telling of the story or would be impractical to eliminate. For instance, the characters will not usually acknowledge the audience, the stage will be a football field in one scene and utility closet in the next while remaining the same size, and characters whispering secrets can nonetheless be clearly heard from the back of the theatre. These are obvious inconsistencies, but the audience chooses to ignore them in order to enjoy the show.
In games, there will also be things that aren't realistic. AI, for example, is terrible. We forgive this, to an extent, because no game AI is believably human and is only as smart as humans in very specific cases. There are checkpoints everywhere and regenerating health because while the player might like to feel like a badass, he is usually not. It is not usually possible to go wherever we like because it would require the production of a huge amount of unnecessary content. We forgive these things, because they are necessary evils.
As long as a game is engaging enough, we will be immersed. Even a game like Doom, with horrible graphics, an excuse plot and fairly stupid enemies, can still be immersive because it is still fun in spite of that. You won't notice how unrealistic Doom is if you are focused on playing it.
Therefore, the most immersive perspective is simply the one that best facilitates play, which could even be top-down. A first person camera can actually break immersion in some cases, such as when platforming.
In games, there will also be things that aren't realistic. AI, for example, is terrible. We forgive this, to an extent, because no game AI is believably human and is only as smart as humans in very specific cases. There are checkpoints everywhere and regenerating health because while the player might like to feel like a badass, he is usually not. It is not usually possible to go wherever we like because it would require the production of a huge amount of unnecessary content. We forgive these things, because they are necessary evils.
As long as a game is engaging enough, we will be immersed. Even a game like Doom, with horrible graphics, an excuse plot and fairly stupid enemies, can still be immersive because it is still fun in spite of that. You won't notice how unrealistic Doom is if you are focused on playing it.
Therefore, the most immersive perspective is simply the one that best facilitates play, which could even be top-down. A first person camera can actually break immersion in some cases, such as when platforming.
Logically, yes.
But, think about it; Condemned, SIREN, more horror themed dungeon crawlers than you can count, Fallout 3...
All nowhere near as immersive as the Silent Hill games.
For me, an organic soundtrack, a willing suspension of disbelief, and a moderate sense of realism, are all more immersive than a camcorder zipping along the ground at 6 feet.
But, think about it; Condemned, SIREN, more horror themed dungeon crawlers than you can count, Fallout 3...
All nowhere near as immersive as the Silent Hill games.
For me, an organic soundtrack, a willing suspension of disbelief, and a moderate sense of realism, are all more immersive than a camcorder zipping along the ground at 6 feet.
Ha. I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but if not, I can run and look behind me in real life (not just when moving a snail's pace).Blood Brain Barrier said:
I haven't played Amnesia as I don't PC game game. I'm actually playing Divinity Original Sin now, but that's like the 1st PC game I've played in 10+ years. But, anyways, I'm not a fan of horror games taking away basic things you can do as a normal human to make it scarier. Humans, in most horror situations, are already rather feeble to begin with. Just the limiting view (no peripheral vision), I'm not a fan of and why I prefer 3rd-person shooters way more than FPSs. The Fatal Frame games are the scariest games I've played and they're 3rd-person. You forget you're "watching" some other character for the most most just like you forget you're playing with a controller or KB/M when you play.Doom972 said:
Scary does not equal immersive. I don't see how you can forget that you are watching a character when it's right in front of your eyes. I'm not trying to say that you should prefer first person games, just that first person has better immersion potential, which means a specific 3rd person game could be more immersive than a specific 1st person game. For example: The Witcher 2 is far more immersive than Quake 3. The first person perspective has more potential for achieving immersion, but it doesn't automatically mean that all games that use it are more immersive than those that don't.Phoenixmgs said:
I'm not being sarcastic, there is absolutely NO difference between 1st and 3rd person when it comes to looking behind you. If you can run forwards in a 1st person game, then you can do it while looking behind. Just like 3rd person. I think the problem is that you may be a console peasant so your controller might not allow you to do what mouse and keyboard does.Phoenixmgs said:
I just came back to this thread for the first time since posting, and I must say that the responses so far have been quite intriguing both in what people say immerses them and how each person defines immersion.
With that being said...
I see we seem to agree that good game design above all else will be the best facilitator of immersion.
With that being said...
So is what you are suggesting that to truly invest a player (or more specifically, you), then a game must strive to mimic reality as best as it can? Would you call a fantasty game with a first-person perspective less immersive than a realistic-looking game played from a first-person perspective?Smooth Operator said:
I think you touch on something interesting with what you describe as the key pillar for immersion, willful suspension of disbelief, and I want to expand on it. Willful suspension of disbelief is something someone must do when they sit down to derive any sort of entertainment from an experience rooted in the arts. Would you not say that perhaps the true cornerstone of immersion is the level of effort one must take to willfully suspend their disbelief about what they are experiencing? Essentially, the less someone feels as though they engage in willful suspension of disbelief, the more immersed they are feeling.Bad Jim said:
I see we seem to agree that good game design above all else will be the best facilitator of immersion.
In all the 1st-person games I play, the only way to not move in a direction the camera is facing is to move backwards, which your character moves slowly and you can't sprint. At least us peasants can utilize analog inputs.Blood Brain Barrier said:
No no, I wasn't referring to realism I meant context consistency and suspension of disbelief.alphamalet said:
Once you establish the observed is a person which we have very strong context for you can't have blocky models because up close they won't look like people, can't have textures fill in for geometry because it will not look like the right object, can't have lips out of sinc, can't have animation stutter, can't have static faces when trying to convey emotion, can't have noises that don't come out of a human,... so on and so forth.
All of this is of course cool if you establish the observed is some race of robotics that have flat angular faces and move mechanically, but once that context is established then you need to stick with it again or suffer severe immersion breaks.
So all that needs a much higher fidelity with FPS games because we observe things so closely, and if you can't really get it there people will be taken out of the experience as they can see the jarring gaps.
I dont really play survival horror except for Don't Starve, which isnt first person or realistic but still very immersive. But take this for example, I consider Icewind Dale to be much MUCH more immersive than most first person games I've played.
I would say no.
The problem with first person games is that their very structure limits what can be done with them, and, without some kind of VR Setup, cannot accurately convery the feeling of being in the first person, only vaugely simulate it.
Bob has an old video on this, I don't agree with everything he says in it, but I do think he makes some very good points...
The problem with first person games is that their very structure limits what can be done with them, and, without some kind of VR Setup, cannot accurately convery the feeling of being in the first person, only vaugely simulate it.
Bob has an old video on this, I don't agree with everything he says in it, but I do think he makes some very good points...
No. I can understand the concept, why folks might think so... but no. Immersion is a connection to the story and characters that really has nothing to do with graphics at all. A text-based game can be more immersive than an FPS, if its good enough. A pen and papr rpg with NO display can be more immersive than an fps.
That doesn't mean an immersive 1st person game can't be made. But perspective isn't a short-cut.
That doesn't mean an immersive 1st person game can't be made. But perspective isn't a short-cut.
Not really. What's important is whether it's justified that we must suspend our disbelief. For instance, we poke fun at Lois Lane for not realising that Clark Kent is Superman, but we never question the fact that Superman can fly or stop a locomotive with his bare hands. Supermans' abilies are far less realistic than Lois Lanes' obliviousness, but they are justified because if we want to enjoy a superhero story, we must accept that the hero is super. On the other hand, we can still have a perfectly good superhero story when Lois knows Clarks' secret, and indeed there are such stories, so there is no justification for her being so oblivious, it's just bad writing.alphamalet said:
Being highly unrealistic does not make it difficult to suspend our disbelief. That said, it is sometimes hard to suspend our disbelief. In the Matrix, for example, a powerful AI is using humans as a power source. This is not how physics works, but that is not the issue. The issue is that it raises questions like "why not use cows instead?" that the movie doesn't answer. The scenario defies our attempt to understand it. In this case, we do indeed lose immersion because we cannot suspend our disbelief. But it's far more common that we are not given a good reason to suspend our disbelief, either because the issue could easily be fixed or that the work simply isn't compelling enough to bother with.