Saturday, November 13, 2010

Game Design Lesson: Perspectives

To understand this essay you need to have a foundation to start with. Game design is the process of constructing experiences through an interactive medium, such as a computer or other platform (electronic or otherwise). A medium by definition is something intermediate in nature or degree. Used in this context, a medium is the "middle ground" between the player and the experience (such as a computer). By having this medium interactive, the player has a higher degree of influence over their experience, or at least the illusion of so.

What I'm going to talk about today is perspective. This lies in the context of the medium and experience. The two perspectives in games are the first and third person perspectives. In literature, a statement such as I move, I run, or I hide is in first person perspective, while statements such as she moves, she runs, or she hides is referring to third person. When we use the term in the context of games, we refer to the placement of the players vision. See below:

view is from behind the character
view is from the characters eyes

Now we move to personification. The main reason people use the first person perspective is because they try to enhance the experience by placing the player in the main characters shoes as much as possible. I believe instead that the third person perspective is even better yet as a tool of personification. In the first person setting, the player at first feels deep in the game world because of their vision, but soon more questions come into their mind, such as: "What am I?", "Who am I?", and "What do I look like?". These are a few of the question that riddle the mind of players in the first person perspective. The first person perspective does immerse the player in the game at the beginning, but chokes the introspection that the player so desires, as a tree growing in a metal box. As a game designer, it's a well know rule of thumb to give the player what they want, or hide it so that they don't know they want it. I believe the first person perspective can indeed be something of beauty, but may need some well thought-out craftsmanship to do so.

Now for the third person perspective. At first it seems as though there is an obvious separation between the player (one entity) and the game character (a completely different entity). This is true, in the beginning, but just as when you watch a good movie, or read a good book, this gap between the two entities becomes increasingly shallow. The person reading should associate with the character being presented in the story. After unification is complete, there is room for the player to answer question about themselves, just as a tree growing in an open field. This perspective is, in a way, completely opposite of the previously one. The first person perspective fosters immersion in the beginning, but become awkward over time. While the third person perceptive doesn't immediately set the player in place, it does over time grow the player to be one with the game character.

Now lets look at the technical dark side of both perspectives. The third person perspective is notorious with having terrible camera views. Because of the cameras distance from the play, this can cause many technical problems in closed areas, such as a room, cave, or other limited spaces. The first person perspective also has many flaws of its own. Because of the physical limitation of computer and television screens, the player of first person games have very limited peripheral vision. This mixed with the fact that most first person games feature action or horror, the player usually tend to never feel safe. This is actually a significant disadvantage to the perspective. I personally try to build games around the contrast of anxiety and safety. Without safety, the players eventually become numb to anxiety. Game designers strive to have a game filled with experiences. To numb the player to a sense, in anyway, is severely hindering the medium's potential.

That last problem with the first person perspective is motion sickness. It's a phenomenon where people become temporarily disoriented and/or nauseous. This is because in real life people can move their heads with complete control, and if you take the time to notice, your eyes dart around from object to object. People almost never slowly turn their eyes to something. This is probably why cinematography used the concept of scenes. It just seems natural to see the scene suddenly change without any movement what so ever. It is how our eyes work. Because of the way people interact with a game, (computer mouse, joy stick, etc.), it is extremely hard to imitate this in a game.

With all this said, I hope you have a fresh understanding of the deep logic that goes on behind a game. I feel that the best experience might lie somewhere in between these two perspectives. Maybe the game should start in first person only to switch to third person after the player has outgrown their "box". I may try experimenting with this. I deeply thank you for you time.

3 comments:

  1. Fascinating read, Bullfrog. :)

    Personally, I strongly prefer 3'rd person perspective. I can't even play 1'st person perspective games for a second. But the nausea problem hasn't been restricted to just 1'st person, I've had it in 3'rd person perspectives as well. Something about the Okami Wii game made me very nauseous, even though it was mostly 3'rd person.

    I'll say one more thing about 3'rd person perspectives... When I play Guildwars, I always play in 3'rd person, but I eventually get tired of always seeing my character's back. Sometimes I wish I would see his face once and a while. Maybe when a new scene appears you could see the character from front on, and then as you move forward it goes back to normal position? I duuno, just something I've noticed.

    That's a fascinating observation about scenes and cinematography. I've never thought about it before, but it really makes sense. People never slowly drag their eyes across an area, I can't even make my eyes go slow! Maybe if you figure out how to do that in games you'll be the best game designer ever. (nah, maybe that's not worth it.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is completely true. Go and search an Internet video for Okami. Examine the game-play. If you notice, all the movement is slow and smooth. That mixed with the fact that the camera is almost always in movement (especially in scenes where action is taking place) and the unnatural nature of the movement taking place, the perspective is very disorienting. Out eyes aren't meant to move in such ways.

    I also completely agree with what you said about the third-person perspective. I've to had that urge to see the players face much more frequently. People are made by God to not only recognize faces, but sympathize deeply with them through their expression. In everyday life we personify ourselves with others through expression. There seems to be something that just 'clicks' where we are suddenly projected into their place. You see someone crying, you feel it. You see someone angry, you feel it. This, I think, is the ultimate tool a designer has to personify their audience.

    As far as figuring out how to do this technically, I'm still working on it. We have to be careful not to hinder game-play in any way. Turning the camera around at the wrong moment will be a sure fire way to annoy the player. At the same time, never showing their face will limit the emotional impact the game will deliver, which is what the player will remember years later.

    As far as figuring out how to make a game correspond with real eye movements, I think I already figured it out :). If you have a set range of view, the players eyes can dart around the limits of the screen as their eyes would do within their range of vision, and when they move the mouse, it's the equivalent of moving their heads. People already do this subconsciously when playing, so the job of the design is to make the view as stable as possible and let the mind do the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just a little note, a lot of people are debating whether games should be considered art. (this debate made it to the supreme court, I'm not kidding)

    The main definition of art:
    "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."

    That's really what games are made of, elements arranged in a way to affect the emotions.

    Maybe I should make the next game design lesson about this, huh?

    ReplyDelete