• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

True First Person and Body Awareness

This topic is 3324 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I'm not at all saying that a lot of First Person games are not true First Person, so let me set the stage for what I mean. "Traditional" First Person: Your viewpoint is basically a floating camera on rails, looking down does not yield a vision of your feet or torso, and if you see anything, it's your hands and gun, no matter how you turn or where you look (with the exception of into a reflective surface) this is all you see. "True" First Person (commonly referred to as Body Awareness): Perhaps slight bobbing of moment when walking, or perhaps more pronounced when running. Running flat out might bring your hands into view (as it commonly does), looking down you would see your torso and feet, etc. This was done well (not gameplay wise in my opinion, but visually in Mirrors Edge), it's not a terribly novel idea, it's been done. I'm envisioning the gameplay elements that were touted for Mirrors Edge (and not executed very well in my opinion) would be available in a different genre of game, running through the forest, jump over a downed log, slide under a branch, running from your opponent, you come to a ravine with a tree before it, jump up, in all your acrobatic finesse swinging off the branch to clear the ravine, your pursuer not being as athletic, doesn't have the confidence or skill to attempt to follow. What in your eyes would be the cons of "True" First Person (by my above definition), over that of "Traditional" First Person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
The two cons I see are:
1: A first person view is going to have much less peripheral vision than real life so it good not to clutter up what little you have with unnecessary things like feet.
2: A lot of people find it extremely disorientating for a fps camera to move on its own or bob up and down. This is because in real life you have acceleration sensors in your inner ear that compensate so view moment with no associated head movement can go as far as to cause motion sickness especially if its not player controlled or too fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's my opinion that true fps and body awareness adds a layer of immersion with little to no drawbacks, except for production costs and maybe difficulty dealing with putting on-screen an action that is crammed into fewer frames to keep it short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kaze
The two cons I see are:
1: A first person view is going to have much less peripheral vision than real life so it good not to clutter up what little you have with unnecessary things like feet.


This could be compensated for by using a widescreen view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember playing Montezuma's Return (
) and it was the first time I saw the character's feet in a first person game and it impressed my a lot. Maybe done before, but it was the first I played. I think Operation Flashpoint was like this too, but I didn't play much. A more recent game would be Call of Juarez, it's pretty cool to fall into the ravine and to see your arms and legs crushing on impact in first person. It's becoming more and more common nowadays in shooters.

Still, I agree it should not have any head bobbing cause it get the player sick fast enough. And it's also true that a computer monitor (even widescreen ratio) have a much smaller peripheral vision than your human eyes. Forget about being able to see your shoulders without moving your head like you can do in real life just by looking sideways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing with the "True" first person view is that Mirror's Edge is one of those games that made me sick after playing it for a while, COD: World at War also does it to me.

I'm assuming this happens because the camera moves on it's own a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're never going to achieve "true" first person view unless they find a way to rewire your brain signals so that you're seeing through game cameras instead of your own eyes. Even then the logistics would be a nightmare and it's not going to be like the real thing.

The simple fact is, you're still in 3rd person view. You're a person watching a screen that is looking through a camera mounted on the game character's head. I would prefer they stop trying to make super realistic "first person shooters" since it's just not possible. I'd like to see more third person shooters where you can actually see your character. At least it's more realistic this way in the sense that you have a far better peripheral view. In real life you are not looking through a box that is taped to your head. You can easily see to your left and right using your peripherals.

You can easily detect when someone is coming up behind you in real life... either by shadows, peripherals, sound, movement in the air... whatever. So isn't it more realistic to use 3rd person?

I think including shaking of the camera is silly. Like mentioned already, your vision doesn't naturally bounce around when you walk and run. Should you see the player's feet? Sure why not. While we're at it, I guess you should be able to see partial bits of their nose at certain angles... you should be able to look down and see your entire body from the armpits down, if you want to get technical.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, where it just gets silly and unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Konidias
You're never going to achieve "true" first person view unless they find a way to rewire your brain signals so that you're seeing through game cameras instead of your own eyes. Even then the logistics would be a nightmare and it's not going to be like the real thing.

The simple fact is, you're still in 3rd person view. You're a person watching a screen that is looking through a camera mounted on the game character's head. I would prefer they stop trying to make super realistic "first person shooters" since it's just not possible. I'd like to see more third person shooters where you can actually see your character. At least it's more realistic this way in the sense that you have a far better peripheral view. In real life you are not looking through a box that is taped to your head. You can easily see to your left and right using your peripherals.

You can easily detect when someone is coming up behind you in real life... either by shadows, peripherals, sound, movement in the air... whatever. So isn't it more realistic to use 3rd person?

I think including shaking of the camera is silly. Like mentioned already, your vision doesn't naturally bounce around when you walk and run. Should you see the player's feet? Sure why not. While we're at it, I guess you should be able to see partial bits of their nose at certain angles... you should be able to look down and see your entire body from the armpits down, if you want to get technical.

There's a line that needs to be drawn, where it just gets silly and unnecessary.


I appreciate your response and your opinion however, that's why I called it "True" first person, I'm pretty aware that nothing is really first person unless, you know, you're there.

I only disagree with 3rd person views (and personally don't like them) because of things like the fact that I can see someone standing behind me, where in first person I would have no idea (just like in real life, unless you hear them breathing or moving, you wouldn't just "know"), I agree that in REALITY you would see your nose, or shoulders and arms, etc.

I'm not referring to making a body simulator, and I'm also not approaching 100% realism, 'nor did I mention anything about a first person shooter, I was just looking for input on the First Person perspective.

I can gather from your input that you are opposed to my definition of "True" First Person being in any sort of game.

Thanks again for your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may have came off as a bit harsh... but I just dislike people saying things like "true" 1st person as if it's better than "traditional" first person. I was simply pointing out how it's no closer to true than the traditional method, in fact in some ways it's a step back. (camera shaking when running, etc)

Honestly it works better if you think about it not as if you are looking through the person's eyes, but that you're watching the action through a camera being carried/attached to the person you're controlling. Then the shaking screen and stuff makes sense. It's more of a "war documentary" point of view, where a camera man is in the middle of a battlefield. You're seeing what he's seeing through the lens. That makes more sense.

3rd person view doesn't necessarily mean you have to see behind the character. You could have the character right at the bottom of the screen so that nothing can appear behind them on screen.

Again, the effects they used in Mirror's Edge closely resemble the sort of imagery you'd imagine if she had a camera taped to her head. Yes it would be disorienting and jumpy and you'd see legs and arms flailing about. But that's not "true" first person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify a bit some of the criticisms of the "true" view another common argument is about health bars and numerically representing stats. Though on paper its not very realistic to have a numeric representation of how dead your are floating in front of you its also not very realisitc to have no idea how dead you are or if that next kitten scratch is going to kill you.

Just remember that sacrificing usability for precived realism usually makes a game less realistic in practice and less fun to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are wanting to add peripheral vision on a first person why not make it widescreen and just distort the far sides of the screen?

I can see perfectly clear in front of me, but things in my peripherals are more blurred, I'd say it's pretty easily done in a game, just make it more focused on things in your direct line of vision.

Doesn't make it a "true" view as you referred to, but it's a start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Konidias
You're never going to achieve "true" first person view unless they find a way to rewire your brain signals so that you're seeing through game cameras instead of your own eyes. Even then the logistics would be a nightmare and it's not going to be like the real thing.

From what I understand of human vision (which is limited), a nearly realistic perspective of the game world could be achieved with simple goggles. The left and right eye area would need to run back to around 90 degrees to the side.

In real life, while looking straight forward (with my eyes, relative to my head), I can see things 90 degrees to the left and right, but those things are a little blurry. This would also be the case with the goggles. The perspective should be very close to the real thing.

I'm not sure how things would be for people who are near/far sighted, since the entire game world is less than inches from their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the whole point of third person shooters is to let the player know what their character is doing. In real-life, you can feel where all your limbs are, so you don't need to stare at them all the time to know where they are. But in a game, if I had to do all the acrobatic stuff you talked about, I would want to know where everything is without panning the camera all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Quote:
Original post by Kaze
The two cons I see are:
1: A first person view is going to have much less peripheral vision than real life so it good not to clutter up what little you have with unnecessary things like feet.


This could be compensated for by using a widescreen view?


Compensated, but we really do have huge peripheral vision. Even the huge Imax does not completely fill your vision (although it comes close!) Partly because as the screen gets bigger, we move back. If you had no peripheral vision, it might be awesome, but it might also make you sick. I am not sure, but the monitor would have to be huge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement