Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Destiny Discussion: Keeping things in Perspective
  • Subject: Destiny Discussion: Keeping things in Perspective
Subject: Destiny Discussion: Keeping things in Perspective

Key

To address the third person v.s. first person dilemma, I feel like if they went first person with a sci-fantasy shooter people would just cry out "Oh look another space shooter of space about space shooting space in space space space".

However, if they went third person, had more of an open world dynamic, made the first WoW competitor since... WoW and did all of this on a console, the critics would have a hard time criticizing them. Sure, they could still make comments about the monotony of the continued Space Theme but all they could do was point out how Bungie is doing something they're clearly amazing at doing.

  • 08.23.2012 7:51 PM PDT

Posted by: A Bit Of Zero
This thread would have appealed to me more if it was written with crayons.
Posted by: King Dutchy
I broke one of the cords for my X11s because I couldn't get past the final American course in Doritos Crash Course.

Nice read Hylebos, taking the community forum back indeed!

I have never been a huge fan of 3rd person but you made some points that I've never really considered before about its benefits.
Personally I still prefer 1st person, I dont think the Chief would have been so popular if you were just looking at his back the whole time, the immersion of 1st person is definitley stronger for me.
I think the weaknesses of first person gameplay often resemble our own weaknesses, I dont want to be able to see behind me because I can't in real life unless I physically turn around.

Funnily enough, when Im playing racing games I will always go to the view which is furthest away though, for the same reasons you mentioned 3rd person is better, I like to have a greater awareness of my surroundings.
Perhaps it is because a car isn't really a character that I don't mind being more detached, or maybe its because navigating the space in racers is much more important than shooters.

Either way, I'm sure what Bungie have up their sleeves will be immersive and awesome no matter what perspective I'm viewing it from.

  • 08.23.2012 7:58 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: SkilPhil
I dont think the Chief would have been so popular if you were just looking at his back the whole time, the immersion of 1st person is definitley stronger for me.
The thing about immersion is that you only need to be looking through the eyes of another person to believe you're them if you are told that they're a different person. We know who Master Chief is and we know he's not us, so we need to have some sort of way to be put into his perspective to be immersed in the gameplay. There were several ways Bungie did this, one was never showing his face, another was having him talk as little as possible, and finally was the first person perspective.

But, if people have customizable characters* that better represent themselves and makes them unique, we don't need all these "tricks" to make them believe that they're them. Look at World of Warcraft; the likelihood of running into someone with your exact armor build once you get into about the 50-70 level range (the level cap is 85 at the moment, I believe). There's just so much stuff to collect from so many places for so many classes and so many builds of each class that your uniqueness is almost guaranteed (unless you strive for uniformity, of course). People don't need to have a first person perspective to have a feeling of immersion and identity because they are their own person and they have worked and customized their persona to the point that it's at.

Since I may have rambled a bit, I'll try to restate my main point: with the third person perspective and the idea of MMO characteristics in a game, you can allow a decent amount of customizability that gives people all the identity and immersion they would've gotten out of a first person perspective. First person games use their set of tools to have you be immerse within the game, and third person games have another one, but they can be equally as effective.


*This is only meant to a degree. Extreme customizability (E.G. something like Saints Row the 3rd) can lead to silliness and a great bit of "taking you out of the game" so to speak. This can happen with a feature as simple as allowing players to run around (virtually) naked, to allowing them a color scheme worthy of a Jester (obnoxious, basic, MSPaint-y colors).

  • 08.23.2012 8:13 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything

I find there are intrinsically good and bad aspects to both viewpoints in shooters, yet do not believe I can provide much more input to this discussion on the mechanics (from the perspective of a gamer) of the two systems. We see how there are differences in the cover, vehicle, and general movement of the two.

However, if we are to talk about game immersion with the two systems, I think I can share some thoughts. When Hylebos first posted this in a private group, I read through and ran with the discussion of groundbreaking titles.
Posted by: Kickimanjaro
I was reading your points about how games that have both views available still play based around a single one. For some reason, Mirror's Edge immediately popped into my mind. See, I had always thought of platform video games were 3rd Person and that they would not work in 1st Person. That game took that "rule" and kicked it in the balls. I don't know what is coming, but I share the belief that we will see much more interaction with Bungie.next.

We have heard hinted in the most recent Mail Sack that the difference between what we have now and what will be is striking. What that means, we can't be certain. But change is the key. Bungie perfected the party system and friends list in Halo 2. A goram feature from their game was then brought back in the next iteration of Xbox LIVE as an integral part--the friends list. They pioneered stat tracking, making it intuitive and easy as well as full of interesting data presented in a meaningful way.

What is next? I have no idea. I thought at first to reply saying that, Maybe Destiny is in a new # Person! but I then realized that the wording of that was...stupid. Although, think about this, we use the term groundbreaking or genre defining now and then. Halo was a genre defining FPS while World of Warcraft defined MMOs. The company that brought us Halo, has partnered with the company that has "leading market positions across all categories" (Activision) and most notably owns the company that brought us World of Warcraft.

Continuing with the groundbreaking theme, or change, we come to Shadowrun. When you break the Shadowrun universe down to the fundamentals, it is a near-futuristic Sci-Fantasy RPG that combines the genres of cyberpunk, urban fantasy, and crime. The Shadowrun universe has inspired a couple games, but the one I will be talking about here is the game from 2007 (it's tricky because there are apparently a couple games about Shadowrun titled Shadowrun). In 2007, there was a game created for the Xbox 360 and Windows Vista. Then there is some history that I only just discovered while looking up quick facts about the game on Wikipedia (perhaps not the best source). Initial work on Shadowrun was apparently done using the Halo CE engine until the studio (FASA Interactive) created their own engine. Shortly after the game was released, facing criticism, the studio closed down. Later, in 2009, the game was released to the Games for Windows Live platform by Microsoft. So, I sidetracked myself slightly, but the point is this: Shadowrun eventually allowed for cross-platform play between Xbox LIVE and Games for Windows LIVE.

Now let's put together the jig-saw puzzles pieces that we've just cut out of paper (so they'll obviously fit together, right?). Destiny is futuristic Sci-Fantacy FPS with MMO characteristics, that's what we've learned from all the legal -blam!-. Shadowrun was a game released in '07, used Halo CE's engine during early development (unsure if that is important at all, but it is one hell of a coincidence), incorporated cross-platform play, but do you know where this gets even more interesting?

Derek Carroll. Yeah, the guy from the Mail Sacks. Well, he was one of the lead designers of Shadowrun.

To conclude, I just unmasked Destiny.

In all seriousness, I think there are some interesting connections that could be looked into, I do not know what to conclude. I do not want to be the one who says that because 1 + 1 = 2, the Universe is Square. We called all these games genre defining or groundbreaking in some way, so what happens if you combine all the games that defined a genre, that broke new ground, that took people new places and told new stories...what if you combined them? Well, quite simply my friends, that would be our Destiny, to play and to hold.

What if the phones rang?


Sometimes, we focus so much on one part of a whole, that we fail to see what is right in front of us. This thread helped me step back slightly, put down the magnifying glass, look up and wonder...all to rush back and think all the more. To put more succinctly what I've ranted about above, what if elements from all the games considered genre-defining or groundbreaking were rolled into one package?

I look forward to new web-interaction and information gathering that will be translated into something meaningful to us, and perhaps even new ways to play a genre that we had not before imagined.

  • 08.23.2012 8:15 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Izak609
Not to mention that third person has flaws in it's perspective. In third person, your ability to see into the distance is worsen the by how far behind your character the camera is. Don't forget about all the annoying occasions where the camera finds a little hole where it could completely blind you for a split second.
Wouldn't said holes be resolved with extensive playtesting?
But these holes can be both small and large. It can be a narrow tunnel, a gap between two columns, or a crack in some armor. It's a problem that doesn't happen too often, but it still happens.

Basically, I'm just talking about those times when the camera seems to have a mind of it's own.

By the way, third person does not give you a greater field of vision (FOV). FOV is measured in viewable degrees from the viewer. When you move into third person, the character is no longer the viewer.Ah, but who exactly is the viewer? Is it the pixels that are drawn onto the television that we call the "character", or is it the human being that sits in front of that television?Neither, in this instance. The "viewer" is the point at which the image is being broadcasted from, in the game. It's basically where the TV is in the game world.

Like I said, FOV is no longer measured from the character's placement when not in first person, as where he stands is now irrelevant to the FOV.

[Edited on 08.23.2012 9:42 PM PDT]

  • 08.23.2012 8:22 PM PDT

Posted by: A Bit Of Zero
This thread would have appealed to me more if it was written with crayons.
Posted by: King Dutchy
I broke one of the cords for my X11s because I couldn't get past the final American course in Doritos Crash Course.

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
People don't need to have a first person perspective to have a feeling of immersion and identity because they are their own person and they have worked and customized their persona to the point that it's at.

Fair point, I do find myself in Skyrim going into 3rd person just to see how bad ass my character looks (which is not very by the way haha) but it is my character and he reflects the choices I made more than 1st person could.

  • 08.23.2012 8:32 PM PDT

Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien.
Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar.
tenn' Ambar-metta!


Posted by: x Foman123 x
Good thread. I think that Destiny should be in second-person. In other words, you only see the angry contortions of your own face (thanks to Kinect, obviously) as you frustratedly mash buttons and move thumbsticks in an effort to make something else happen.


It would be nice if you can have the option to change between first to third person at will, so it fits equally everybody's game type.

  • 08.23.2012 8:33 PM PDT

Posted by: MasterSin
Posted by: x Foman123 x
Good thread. I think that Destiny should be in second-person. In other words, you only see the angry contortions of your own face (thanks to Kinect, obviously) as you frustratedly mash buttons and move thumbsticks in an effort to make something else happen.


It would be nice if you can have the option to change between first to third person at will, so it fits equally everybody's game type.
As I mentioned in the introduction, that doesn't exactly work. Games are designed for and limited by a single predominant perspective.

  • 08.23.2012 8:43 PM PDT

My name is Mark Mezzetta and I was a beta tester for Bungie's game Oni and Take Two's game Myth 3: The Wolf Age.

Why can't we just choose a la Skyrim? If it is a shooter like so many say it is, first person would probably be most preferable except for certain vehicles.

  • 08.23.2012 8:54 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: pfhor007
Why can't we just choose a la Skyrim? If it is a shooter like so many say it is, first person would probably be most preferable except for certain vehicles.
It is a shooter.

  • 08.23.2012 8:56 PM PDT

Posted by: pfhor007
Why can't we just choose a la Skyrim? If it is a shooter like so many say it is, first person would probably be most preferable except for certain vehicles.
From the Introduction:Posted by: Hylebos
I should probably clarify that although some games like Skyrim or Battlefront give you the option to play from either the first or third person perspective, Destiny will either be a first person shooter or a third person shooter, but not both. What you need to understand is that despite the fact that Skyrim gives you an option to play from a third person perspective, you'll notice that the game still plays like a first person adventure game. And despite the fact that Battlefront gives you an option to play from a first person perspective, you'll notice that the game still plays like a third person shooter. These games might give you the illusion that they have both the advantages of the first and third person perspective, but at the end of the day, they are designed for and limited by a single predominant perspective. The option to swap between the two perspectives is a nice addition, but is ultimately vestigial.

  • 08.23.2012 9:00 PM PDT

Key

Easy example:

In a first person medieval action game if you're playing a wizard, all of the spells you do are likely to be projectile and/or most of the physical effects and visible manifestations of the magic will occur in front of you. In a third person perspective, things can occur around a character, behind a character, beyond the periphery of the character because of the ability to view all of the area surrounding you.

Also, combat (specifically of the melee variety) is very different in first person than it is in third person. First person combat can be very jarring and can take you out of the game with it being unrealistic and not easily replicating how one would actually experience a hand-to-hand fight. Also, the movements must be rather simplistic so as to not have the camera (field of view of the character) shake or move too much (and risk the induction of nausea in the player). However, in third person you can have any sort of back-flipping, barrel-rolling, roundhouse-kicking action you want.

Just trying to provide perspective, I haven't been able to adequately come up with an example for HUD in 1st/3rd person, so maybe Hyle could help me out with that one.

  • 08.23.2012 9:18 PM PDT

"Except we, we're the zebras. All fenced in...and ready for the slaughter!"

||S-fen Knee-cheh
||19th Shock Troops Battalion

An example of a exceptional 3rd person shooter HUD is the one seen in the Dead Space franchise. I particularly enjoyed the use of the characters armor to show health/power. If Destiny ends up as a 3rd person shooter, I hope Bungie employs this technique in some way.

[Edited on 08.23.2012 9:42 PM PDT]

  • 08.23.2012 9:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Talk to the Soul | ~B.B. | Know Your Duardo |  | Hero | ISFJ | 77135 | 94371

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."

Third-person is something that Bungie has never really tackled. On one hand you can see that that is something they would possibly want to explore. On the other hand, they have first-person in their DNA, from Marathon to Halo. Plus, I would think that Activision would want their own space-opera.

Whichever way Bungie chooses to go, I'm sure it will be awesome.

  • 08.23.2012 9:35 PM PDT

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Easy example:

In a first person medieval action game if you're playing a wizard, all of the spells you do are likely to be projectile and/or most of the physical effects and visible manifestations of the magic will occur in front of you. In a third person perspective, things can occur around a character, behind a character, beyond the periphery of the character because of the ability to view all of the area surrounding you.

Also, combat (specifically of the melee variety) is very different in first person than it is in third person. First person combat can be very jarring and can take you out of the game with it being unrealistic and not easily replicating how one would actually experience a hand-to-hand fight. Also, the movements must be rather simplistic so as to not have the camera (field of view of the character) shake or move too much (and risk the induction of nausea in the player). However, in third person you can have any sort of back-flipping, barrel-rolling, roundhouse-kicking action you want.

Just trying to provide perspective, I haven't been able to adequately come up with an example for HUD in 1st/3rd person, so maybe Hyle could help me out with that one.
I'm not sure about the UI, that doesn't seem like a big deal in terms of swapping between the two. However, another easy example can be seen when you compare the way that enemies behave in games like Skyrim and Dark Souls.

In Dark Souls, enemies will ambush you from the sides and from behind, mobs will surround you, and as the player you can deal with that because you have the expanded vision to keep track of all your opponents and guard and position yourself appropriately to avoid being overwhelmed.

On the other hand, in Skyrim you tend to walk headlong into your enemies. They all come at you and attack you from a single direction, and they don't tend to surround you purposefully as that would overwhelm the player (who can't turn quick enough to keep track of all of his enemies at once).

Changing to the third person perspective in Skyrim doesn't magically make the enemies start to swarm you, they still behave as though it were a first person perspective game. And if you were capable of playing Dark Souls from the first person perspective (Hyper-Hard Mode Engage?), the enemies there most certainetly wouldn't line up and take turns attacking you, because the game was designed for the third person perspective.

Does that make sense? It was originally going to be a larger part of my thread but I never got the wording right and I ultimately cut it out.

  • 08.23.2012 9:40 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

I understand nothing because my life is a conspiracy.

While that was an excellent read, I do have to disagree with your some of the things you are trying to say here. From reading through your 3 posts, I concluded that basically you were discussing the pros and cons of first or third person shooters and which one is more likely for Bungie to utilize. You brought of great points throughout the article, but I think Bungie does want to reinvent the first person shooter (as well as many other aspects of video games).

First of all, I don't think Bungie would want to stray too far away from what made them so successful, which was the first person shooter known as Halo (obviously). But they were also successful with other FPS games like Pathways into Darkness or the Marathon series. Also, Bungie didn't move on from Halo because they were tired of the first person shooter genre, they were tired of the Halo Universe; They wanted to make something new because they had an idea and wanted to peruse it. But, Halo wasn't really your traditional first person shooter to begin with.

As any fan of the Halo series would know, when you get onto a vehicle or a turret (save the front seat of the Warthog in Combat Evolved or the Falcon gunner in Reach), the perspective of the game switches to third person. So Halo sort of bridged the gap between the two shooters. Anyways, in your post, you mention how Fallout/The Elder Scrolls let you play in both perspectives, but was mainly an first person shooter, and vice versa for Battlefront. This doesn't mean Bungie has to pick one or the other, this means that they can expand, or reinvent, what they did in Halo and make a shooter that combines these elements in major ways. Now in my opinion, they can approach this in two ways: toggle or set. Instead of elaborating on those two aspects, let's just dive in to the most likely possibility of how this could work.

Imagine this: Halo combined with Uncharted (or Assassin's Creed). Sounds pretty cool, huh? But what is even cooler is that this could work. Instead of limiting the third person aspect to vehicles, why not expand it to the environment? This means that, just like in Halo, when not interacting with anything, you have the basic first person shooter. But now let's incorporate cover into this. A first person cover mechanic sound great on paper, but would not work well in-game. That is why it would need to stay as a third person interaction, just like the Warthog or the Banshee. Then, after you exit this interaction, it goes right back into first person. But that's probably been done before. Now we have to expand on this.

I remember you saying in your original post that you find first person environments to be bland because you cannot interact with them in the way that you can in games like Uncharted and Assassin's Creed. But hat if we introduce this aspect of gameplay via the first to third person transmission that I've been talking about. Now environments can become more elaborate, interesting, interactive, creative, and cool without losing that famous first person gameplay. If this is incorporated into the game, now you can approach a building or a mountain and scale it in third person, then after you're done, smoothly transmission back into the comfortable first person mode.

Well, that's just my two cents on what I think there going to do, but once again, I loved how you broke down and analyzed those genres; It really helped develop my understanding of the two.

  • 08.23.2012 9:44 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
I'm not sure about the UI, that doesn't seem like a big deal in terms of swapping between the two. However, another easy example can be seen when you compare the way that enemies behave in games like Skyrim and Dark Souls.

In Dark Souls, enemies will ambush you from the sides and from behind, mobs will surround you, and as the player you can deal with that because you have the expanded vision to keep track of all your opponents and guard and position yourself appropriately to avoid being overwhelmed.

On the other hand, in Skyrim you tend to walk headlong into your enemies. They all come at you and attack you from a single direction, and they don't tend to surround you purposefully as that would overwhelm the player (who can't turn quick enough to keep track of all of his enemies at once).

Changing to the third person perspective in Skyrim doesn't magically make the enemies start to swarm you, they still behave as though it were a first person perspective game. And if you were capable of playing Dark Souls from the first person perspective (Hyper-Hard Mode Engage?), the enemies there most certainetly wouldn't line up and take turns attacking you, because the game was designed for the third person perspective.

Does that make sense? It was originally going to be a larger part of my thread but I never got the wording right and I ultimately cut it out.
I do feel like there should be some balance that can be had between the two.

As you said, without some in-game mechanic to know when something is behind you (a hyper-sensitive radar of some sort), swarming a player isn't exactly a "fair" thing to do as a game developer, nor is it particular interesting to have enemies attack you in a straight, single file line, one at a time (not unlike most adversaries in kung fu movies) when you have full view of all of your surroundings in the 3rd person perspective.

But I guess the point, as far as immersion goes, is so that you don't notice. If you're playing in a first person game, you don't notice that you're only attacking enemies that happen to be in your field of view because you can't see any that would be outside of it and everything is visible to you (as it should be). At the same time, you don't notice that you're being swarmed in a third person game (as long as the game allows you to be able to) because having them all be in front of you all the time would be silly, wouldn't it?

We subconsciously know how any given perspective should operate even if we've never given much thought to the manner in which enemies approach us in different games; we shouldn't have to and any game that doesn't make me is a good game (in that respect).

Back to the main topic: I feel like it depends on the environment of the game. If they're planning on going full-on space opera, but with a customizable character, it fully depends on the scope. If things tend to take place in space ships, then it should be done via first person. If events largely occur on a planet's surface and the game is very (if not fully) open-world, then 3rd person would be the way to go.

If there's lots of action that the team thinks the player should experience as if they were the protagonist, to the point where it would be annoying not being able to view things as such, then first person makes sense. If we have customizable characters and we are able to openly interact with lots other players in real-time, all the time, then third person is the perspective to go with.

  • 08.23.2012 9:53 PM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins

As much as I love third person shooters, I really don't want Destiny to become one. I like FPS a lot more. I love games such as Gears of war and Assassins creed but I can't stand their multiplayer, I only like them for the campaign.

  • 08.23.2012 10:00 PM PDT

Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien.
Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar.
tenn' Ambar-metta!

Well I've seen this game Arma II with the mode DayZ and it's very similar to a FPS/RPG and you have the choice to switch from first person to third person and I don't see any bad change or if that affects the game. But I think, the capability to switch from both perspectives allows you to be more aware of your surroundings.

[Edited on 08.23.2012 10:13 PM PDT]

  • 08.23.2012 10:12 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

I came for Halo, but I heard the Tru7h, fought thru Carnage, and stayed for Bungie.

No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.--Teddy Roosevelt

Posted by: Verachi
As much as I love third person shooters, I really don't want Destiny to become one. I like FPS a lot more. I love games such as Gears of war and Assassins creed but I can't stand their multiplayer, I only like them for the campaign.

Amen, brother. I don't like it how in Assassin's Creed multiplayer, you can swivel the camera around without causing you to also move your assassin's head. I have no way of knowing if my target has even looked in my general direction or not as I approach him or her.
I really hope Destiny doesn't turn out to be this type of multiplayer.

[Edited on 08.23.2012 11:29 PM PDT]

  • 08.23.2012 11:29 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

I came for Halo, but I heard the Tru7h, fought thru Carnage, and stayed for Bungie.

No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.--Teddy Roosevelt

Posted by: Duardo
Third-person is something that Bungie has never really tackled. On one hand you can see that that is something they would possibly want to explore. On the other hand, they have first-person in their DNA, from Marathon to Halo. Plus, I would think that Activision would want their own space-opera.

Whichever way Bungie chooses to go, I'm sure it will be awesome.

And I am sure it will be a game-changer like Halo was a game-changer. It's in Bungie's DNA after all.

[Edited on 08.23.2012 11:36 PM PDT]

  • 08.23.2012 11:33 PM PDT

// Chapter
// My PC


2/15/12: Francisco Porras, I'll miss you. Rest in Peace.

Great thread. I'll definitely reread this tomorrow to make sure I got everything. You do make some really good points.

The problem with third person games though, is that it's insanely hard to immerse yourself into the story and make you feel like you are the character you're playing. Or is that just me? (i.e. lets say Reach was in third person; I would never be able to take myself seriously as Noble 6. I would never believe that I was him, which is exactly what Bungie was trying to do.)

[Edited on 08.23.2012 11:41 PM PDT]

  • 08.23.2012 11:37 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Exalted Unexplainable Member

Posted by: GPK Ethan
The problem with third person games though, is that it's insanely hard to immerse yourself into the story and make you feel like you are the character you're playing. Or is that just me?

The only games I've felt outstandingly immersed in are Oblivion and Skyrim, both while playing in first person, but both are made by the same company as a part of the same genre and game series. I think third person is more of a limitation for immersion, that it doesn't really take away from immersion, as most games don't reach that level of immersion anyway.

  • 08.24.2012 12:34 AM PDT

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
-Omar Khayyám-

[spoilers][/spoilers]

  • 08.24.2012 6:11 AM PDT

Posted by: Enormous Corgi
Posted by: Unanimate Objec
There's no way Nate Hawbaker's favorite hero is Alan Stuart


ALAN IS A BEAUTIFUL MAN!


Posted by: MasterSin
Well I've seen this game Arma II with the mode DayZ and it's very similar to a FPS/RPG and you have the choice to switch from first person to third person and I don't see any bad change or if that affects the game. But I think, the capability to switch from both perspectives allows you to be more aware of your surroundings.




This is an excellent example of a game that allows great gameplay in both Field of Views. Playing DayZ is great in first-person because you can see your hands, feet, and body which makes you think you are there running for your dear life.

Then you have third-person in the game which really helps when you're sniping, peaking around corners, or just seeing what your character looks like.

As opposed to Skyrim, this third-person is much more than just aesthetics, it can be a game changer.

Skyrim was very limited in what it could do in third-person, but DayZ allowed you to drive, fly, or walk in third-person while allowing room for first-person, which makes it a very enjoyable game.

  • 08.24.2012 7:00 AM PDT