BioShock Creator Extols the Immersive Properties of the First Person Perspective

[purf]

He thought that getting the player to "transpose" his or her identity onto someone else's [...] could lead to a very powerful experience.

Funnily, especially Bioshock is extremly guilty of making me feel like merely controlling a detached pair of stupid and exceptionally subordinate arms.

 

[RuralGamer]

Only criticism of what he says is this; Why in first-person perspective games aren't we allowed to look at ourselves? I mean, why don't developers of such games let us look down at our character's body and always seem to have an excuse for no mirrors in a game unless the protagonists appearance is preset. Being able to do said things would be more immersive, but I've yet to see a FP game do so. Oh and since I played the Stalker games, I believe all first-person perspective game should let you peer round corners; that would make sneaking around or fighting gun battles in a lot of other games way better.

 

[Irridium]

I can't really be immersed in a game if I can't see my own feet when I look down. The head bobbing is also a pain in the ass. Yes you do it in life, but in life your brain compensates for it. It doesn't translate to the game so well, and ends up just being nauseating.

When I look down, in most games it just makes me realize that I'm controlling a floating camera with arms.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

I think Bioshock is a specific example of this because you never hear Jack's voice, or see his face. For all intents and purposes, you are Jack. It's your adventure.

You know, except that I'm not called Jack. Nor Male.

Touche =) But I mean when a character is faceless and voiceless, it's far easier to put yourself in their place.

And about the male thing... Just imagine those male grunts of pain are coming from someone else =D

I'll try. People tell me I act more like a guy anyways. My one weaknes is baby animals.

EDIT:

I may be a Bioshock fan but being a faceless mute isn't what I consider amazing in this sense. I actually felt kind of glad in Black Ops when your character actually SPOKE for a change.

I agree with you there, I felt the same way about Isaac speaking in Dead Space 2, It was much more emersive and somtimes actually mirrored my thoughts, for instance 'Crap.' 'Shit!' 'The fuck was that?' and of course 'Fuck!'.

 

[DustyDrB]

"First person is more immersive": It's true for some people and not for others. I happen to be one of the others.

 

[Syntax Error]

I can't really be immersed in a game if I can't see my own feet when I look down. The head bobbing is also a pain in the ass. Yes you do it in life, but in life your brain compensates for it. It doesn't translate to the game so well, and ends up just being nauseating.

When I look down, in most games it just makes me realize that I'm controlling a floating camera with arms.

Part of the reason why I use cl_bobcycle 0 whenever me and my friends suddenly get the urge to play shotguns only Counter Strike.

 

[Dired]

My big problems are the lack of peripheral vision, the inability to have any idea where your feet/legs are and what they are doing (or pretty much any part of your body except your straight-ahead eyes and hands). FPS also tend to rely on superhuman turning and spinning ability to compensate for not really having a working neck. But when you run up against a low wall or obstruction and realize you have to walk backwards to have any idea what the issue is utterly kills any immersion.

I think first-person *could* work, but needs a lot more than the currently accepted default to really feel like you're in anything but a wheelchair (though a very fast one that can spin and has rocket boosts or something) and in a neck brace. Third-person has a lot of problems as well (your own body often blocking what's right in front of you while being able to see what's right behind you); each could use some real innovation.

 

[Motakikurushi]

I've played Condemned, so I really can't argue with this point. You can even see your feet walking if you look downwards. Highly immersive FPS game... without the S part. So it's an FPM I guess.

 

[Vrach]

You can't really argue with Levine's point, especially not when he's demonstrated just how immersive the first person perspective can be time and time again with games like System Shock 2, Thief: The Dark Project and BioShock. Of course, it's also fair to say that third person perspective games can be just as immersive if they're done well, although that's not something that Levine really seems to be disputing.

the third person viewpoint is actually a lot more accurate of what a person really sees. your eyes will only focus at one part of the screen (usually the center). the stuff that is happening offcenter is what happens in our peripheric vision, just like in real life.
in first person, you get a lot less peripheric vision.

so i could argue that although first person can be immersive, third is actually more so.
(especially since i've only ever ducked in my office chair while playing mount and blade :3)

^This. Yahtzee actually had an Extra Punctuation on this iirc, to use his words, "first person view is more like the view of a person with a pair of tape recorders stuck to the side of his face" (or something along those lines). To actually get full immersion from first person, I'd argue we would need a screen big enough so that it encompasses our vision. That or goggles of course, the latter being a much more cost effective solution.

Problem with third person of course is that a person can't actually see themselves or behind themselves and such. As to which is more immersive and which downsides bring down the immersion more, I'd say it's all a matter of how you use them. F. ex., in Morrowind/Oblivion, I feel that while fighting, a first person view is more immersive, however, while going around, third person is. That could just be related to the crappyness of combat in third person within TES series however :\

 

[Something Amyss]

I find the FPP to be the exact opposite of immersive. nothing breaks immersion faster than a perspective that removes my depth perception and cannot even pretend to give me free movement.

Unless, I suppose, I'm roleplaying a camera with an arm strapped to it.

 

[9Darksoul6]

In real life, my body is more than one (max two) arms; in this case, in order to "help put the player in the character's shoes" you should at least give that character some shoes... lol
What most first-person games seem to forget is: I have two feet, two legs, a belly, fucking shoulders, etc.
(that's one of the many things that makes Mirror's Edge so visionary, btw)

I kinda agree with the ideia, but it's still not being well implemented.

 

[Something Amyss]

You can't really argue with Levine's point, especially not when he's demonstrated just how immersive the first person perspective can be time and time again with games like System Shock 2, Thief: The Dark Project and BioShock. Of course, it's also fair to say that third person perspective games can be just as immersive if they're done well, although that's not something that Levine really seems to be disputing.

the third person viewpoint is actually a lot more accurate of what a person really sees. your eyes will only focus at one part of the screen (usually the center). the stuff that is happening offcenter is what happens in our peripheric vision, just like in real life.
in first person, you get a lot less peripheric vision.

so i could argue that although first person can be immersive, third is actually more so.
(especially since i've only ever ducked in my office chair while playing mount and blade :3)

^This. Yahtzee actually had an Extra Punctuation on this iirc, to use his words, "first person view is more like the view of a person with a pair of tape recorders stuck to the side of his face" (or something along those lines). To actually get full immersion from first person, I'd argue we would need a screen big enough so that it encompasses our vision. That or goggles of course, the latter being a much more cost effective solution.

Problem with third person of course is that a person can't actually see themselves or behind themselves and such. As to which is more immersive and which downsides bring down the immersion more, I'd say it's all a matter of how you use them. F. ex., in Morrowind/Oblivion, I feel that while fighting, a first person view is more immersive, however, while going around, third person is. That could just be related to the crappyness of combat in third person within TES series however :\

"Immersive" and "realistic" are not the same. It's immersive to be able to see "your" body to give you a sense od weight and location. It's realistic to not see it.

I mean, the thing is, side scrolling platformers can be immersive if properly approached. That's because "immersion" and "character perspective" are completely. Freaking. Unrelated. Similar to them downsides you mentioned (before you think I'm being argumentative).

I think the reason people call FPP more immersive by default is lack of imagination.

 

[Vrach]

You can't really argue with Levine's point, especially not when he's demonstrated just how immersive the first person perspective can be time and time again with games like System Shock 2, Thief: The Dark Project and BioShock. Of course, it's also fair to say that third person perspective games can be just as immersive if they're done well, although that's not something that Levine really seems to be disputing.

the third person viewpoint is actually a lot more accurate of what a person really sees. your eyes will only focus at one part of the screen (usually the center). the stuff that is happening offcenter is what happens in our peripheric vision, just like in real life.
in first person, you get a lot less peripheric vision.

so i could argue that although first person can be immersive, third is actually more so.
(especially since i've only ever ducked in my office chair while playing mount and blade :3)

^This. Yahtzee actually had an Extra Punctuation on this iirc, to use his words, "first person view is more like the view of a person with a pair of tape recorders stuck to the side of his face" (or something along those lines). To actually get full immersion from first person, I'd argue we would need a screen big enough so that it encompasses our vision. That or goggles of course, the latter being a much more cost effective solution.

Problem with third person of course is that a person can't actually see themselves or behind themselves and such. As to which is more immersive and which downsides bring down the immersion more, I'd say it's all a matter of how you use them. F. ex., in Morrowind/Oblivion, I feel that while fighting, a first person view is more immersive, however, while going around, third person is. That could just be related to the crappyness of combat in third person within TES series however :\

"Immersive" and "realistic" are not the same. It's immersive to be able to see "your" body to give you a sense od weight and location. It's realistic to not see it.

I mean, the thing is, side scrolling platformers can be immersive if properly approached. That's because "immersion" and "character perspective" are completely. Freaking. Unrelated. Similar to them downsides you mentioned (before you think I'm being argumentative).

I think the reason people call FPP more immersive by default is lack of imagination.

Your argument doesn't make much sense. You're basically saying the position that FPP is valid, but only so when imagination is low. However, by nature of your argument, imagination would need to be at an infinite value (something I doubt you'd praise yourself at possessing) in order for FPP to NOT be more immersive (at all). We're talking about relation of two perspectives and which is greater (by whatever value), not necessarily a highly greater value that would perhaps invalidate the immersiveness of another perspective.

In short, FPP is more immersive because it makes it easier to become immersed in the game. Needing to use something extra (like, f.ex. imagination) to bypass the fact a game is not in FPP in order to get immersed directly means other perspectives are LESS immersive. Are they completely unimmmersive? Not at all. Can they be more immersive than certain FPP games? Of course. As I said before, it's more a matter of how you do it. But judged on perspective alone, FPP is THE most immersive perspective by having the highest potential for immersiveness. Sadly, that potential has not been reached yet, at least not (widely) commercially.

 

[imperialreign]

I want to say that it works easier with a controller but i'm not sure.

it gives you more of a movie like experience I think, I remember at school one of my friends loved how the camera shake as it followed you sprining in the first gears made it seem like he was watching a well shot war movie while playing. its probably just the spectacle of it.

I don't really have a preferred pov. they've both worked well in the past.

I guess it really boils down to preference. My biggest gripe with 3rd is the occasinal horrible camera angles - or cameras that can pass through walls. Plus, it also allows the player to "see" around corners and such, which reduces any surprises, etc. I think one title that just didn't feel right with 3rd person was Thief: Deadly Shadows - the 1st felt so much more immersive, and felt "true" to the Thief style.

But, it can also be beneficial when faced with a complex puzzle you need to solve across a large space . . .

Then there's 3rd person "fixed" . . .

 

[Ailia]

With a third person game I always feel like I'm a puppet-master, even if the character is almost entirely mute (*couhgLinkcough*). FPP really sinks me into the game, makes me wander around with the camera more to see every corner. They're also better for tension in most cases; Thief, BioShock and Amensia are key examples, as I find myself trying to shrink into corners and looking wildly around.
Thief: Deafly Shadows is a good point for 3rd-vs-1rst. 1rst felt more natural, more real, than the third person, as it suits that style of game more.
As for "immersion", any good game can pull it off. It's true that I feel more distant in 3rd person but I've found myself immersed in those types of games before.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Being a clod on an internet forum, I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. Levine. First person does not allow players to be immersed in their character. In first person, the character matters the least of any other perspective. What first person does is allow the player to explore the environment 'better' since it's the closest to how the player themselves would experience a place if the physical location actually existed. But first person actually reduces the character to a non-entity so the player can simply be themselves in the game world.