•  
  • yeah_write
  • Level: 27 (23%) 
  • Rank: Sheng Long
  • Member since: Jul 18, 2007
  • Last online: 12/24/09 12:51 pm PT
  • My Emblems:
    • Rank: Registered Member
    • Popular
    • Webby Awards People's Voice 2009 Voter
    • PoP-o-Matic Emblem
    • Virtually There: E3 2008 Nintendo & Sony Conferences
    • Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Sony Conference.
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Nintendo Conference
    • Rank: Registered Member
    • Popular
    • +1 Orator of Distinction
    • Old-School
    • Good Taste
    • Grandfathered Community Reviewers
    • Tagger Flirt
    • Public Access
    • MK Scream It Contest
    • After Hours: Virtually There
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Nintendo Conference
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Sony Conference.
    • Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
    • Virtually There: E3 2008 Nintendo & Sony Conferences
    • PoP-o-Matic Emblem
    • Webby Awards People's Voice 2009 Voter
     
     
    Close

My Friends

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Schizoid 7.0
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence 9.5
Call of Duty 2 9.0
Indigo Prophecy 8.0
Black 7.5
New Super Mario Bros. 9.0
Conan 7.5
Assassin's Creed 9.0
Skate 8.0
TMNT 6.5
24Jan 08

The end of civilization, and seeing my feet

Ok so last night after American Idol (which was in my hometown of Charleston) was the premiere of the show Moment of Truth. This show was being tagged as the possible end to our civilization, and the most controversial show ever. Well I watched it, and have no fear folks our civilization is still intact. Yes it is a bit controversial; they ask contestants to answer some very personal questions (have you ever done anything that would make your wife not trust you?) in front of family members to win cash. This is where the drama is of course, as we are supposed to enjoy watching the contestant squirm as he/she struggles to choose money or potentially destroying relationships. In true reality show fashion, there is a ridiculous "tension building" delay between the contestant's answer and the lie detector answer. It's a cheap tactic that tries to make the show more interesting than it is.

I also have problems with the contestants. While I'm sure some of them are great people, they don't come off that way on the show. In most hit reality game shows, you get behind the contestant, but on Moment of Truth, each question reveals more and more of the unlikable side of every person. It gets to the point where you're no longer cheering for the contestant but jeering them. So if you haven't watched it yet, there's no need to, I've already wasted an hour of my life for you, and I've wasted another few minutes typing up this review. That's' all the Moment of Truth you'll ever need.

______________________________________________________________________

In gaming news, I tried the demo for Fall of Liberty last night and I liked it, but only for one specific reason. No, it's not the alternate take on reality, the floaty controls or the somewhat pedestrian graphics. What I liked most was that when I tilted the right stick down, I could see my feet.



Yeah, you read that right. I liked that I could see my feet, and not only that, I liked the that the camera pulled out to a third person view when I climbed down ladders, shimmied across pipes, and grappled with Nazis. "Immersion" is a word we throw around a lot in the gaming world but I think it's been used the wrong way for years now. For most developers, and I'm talking mainly about FPSs here, immersion means a hudless display, and/or a silent protagonist. This is where the Half-Life purists come out and shout about Gordon Freeman and his immersive glory, but I'm going to disagree.

For me, playing as Gordon was the least immersive experience I've ever had in a shooter. Forget about the fact that he doesn't say a word (which seems absurd in the later episodes), what really bothers me is that he doesn't have a presence. When I look down I want to see my HEV suit-covered feet. When I climb a ladder I want to see my hands on each rung, and when I drive a car I want to see my gloved hands grasping the steering wheel.

Now I've heard all the arguments about the amazing immersive qualities of Gordon Freeman (this one is particularly well written), and that's not what I'm here to argue about, so I'll leave Half-Life alone. All I'm trying to suggest is that maybe there is something else to this immersion thing. To me, a well-represented character does a lot more to immerse me in the story than a faceless floating gun. I love when first person shooters pull out to third person and show me the body that controls the hands. Games like Fall of Liberty or Chronicles of Riddick really make you feel like a character in the game world. Riddick is a fantastic example of putting the player in the characters shoes. Not only does it pull out to third person during certain activities, but it also keeps Riddick's hands in the picture at all times. You see him grab shivs, punch inmates in the face, and silently assassinate guards as if you were looking out of his eyes. Now that's immersion!

Adjusting the camera and adding some voice work seem like such little things, but I think they add to the immersive experience in big ways. Why did Bioware finally decide to voice their main character? Because it pulls you in more, makes you a part of the story. In their previous games, the protagonist "spoke" but was never voiced. They were still great games, but they couldn't pull me in as well as Mass Effect. For me, the best experience is when both voice and camera are used, but I'll take either one over nothing. Here are a few examples of good immersion and a few missed opportunities.

-The Halo series, Chronicles of Riddick, and the Metroid Prime series are all terrific games that make the player feel like they are Master Chief, Riddick, and Samus respectively. All three of them feature voice work of some kind and third person elements.

-The third person camera made a huge difference in Oblivion. Customizing your character wouldn't be near as fun if you couldn't pull the camera out and see the sun glistening on his new armor.

-The lack of voice work might have hurt Call of Duty 4. Mid way through the campaign, a tragic incident occurs that results in the end of a character. Imagine how much more impact that death would have had if the character had a personality. Also, towards the end of the game, your squad mates participate in some hilarious chatter, it's a shame that your character doesn't get to take part.

-King Kong was an excellent game that pulled off the hudless view. The action was relentless and the character was well defined. It never pulled out to third person, but the voice work was there, in fact that was the only way you'd know how many bullets you had left.

-Far Cry Instincts used voice work to create an interesting character in Jack. To me, Jack came off as a bit of a tool, but still, his inner monologue was immersive in that it helped the player understand that the strange primal abilities infecting him were freaking him out.

I'm sure there are several other examples I could go through, but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now. To me, FPS games with third person elements and good voice work are always better than those without (story wise). Do they always have better stories? No, sometimes they throw those things in there to distract you from realizing their story sucks. The quality of the Halo stories is disputable, but at least they do a good job making you feel like Master Chief. Imagine playing that game without his iconic voice, it wouldn't be the same.

I know some of you disagree, and I'd like to hear why. I like to think I have a pretty awesome imagination, but I'd still rather play as a character than have to pretend I am one, or try to make Gordon Freeman my own.

  • Posted Jan 24, 2008 7:56 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 61 Comments

61 Comments

  • laughlyn12

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 8:17 am PT

    My issue with "Moment of Truth" is that its inaccurate. My mother is an attorney and was screaming at the TV over the weekend when I was over there watching football because a polygraph test cannot accurately measure the truth to a hypothetical question.

    With that being said I never bought into the whole "the character doesn't speak so it can immerse you more in the story" crap. HL isn't a great franchise because Gordon Freeman doesn't talk, its because of a beautiful world, amazing gameplay, perfect pacing and a few other things, not because your protagonist is some kind of scientifically brilliant mute! Same goes with Bioshock... other things make that game great, not the lack of speaking from the main character.

    Mass Effect is a better STORY than KOTOR because you actually see Shepard speak instead of just standing there while you choose the text.

    I just dont understand why the games where "you're more immersed" seem to chalk it up to a speech impaired protagonist instead of the fact that the game design and other aspects of the game are simply amazing.

  • MrCHUP0N Site moderator

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 8:50 am PT

    To just touch on Gordon Freeman specifically for a second:

    I'm on both sides of this fence. I find it awkward that you don't see his feet or arms. It just looks weird. There's no way that me "imagining" that his arms are on the ladder will chase away the fact that you still don't see it on-screen.

    On the other hand, while Gordon himself doesn't help the immersion, the rest of the game does with just how well they've scripted the sequences, set up the "natural" and believably constructed physics puzzles, and organic level design (yes, you're boxed in and on rails - but you couldn't tell that just from looking at the levels as you run by trying not to get shot unless you were specifically looking for it).

    As such, while Gordon's invisibility can be distracting, it only is so for me when I choose to look for it. Given how fantastic the world around me is, that's what I'm more often paying attention to, and as a result I'm sucked in all the same.

  • GabuEx Site moderator

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 11:23 am PT

    The problem you're having with Gordon Freeman is that you're trying to look at him as a character, which means you're coming at him from the wrong perspective. Gordon Freeman was never intended to be a character external to yourself whom you're watching interacting with others. The whole idea behind the Gordon Freeman experience is that you're supposed to be Gordon Freeman. This is why there are no cutscenes, no "meanwhile..." moments where you observe people that you aren't around, or anything like that. The idea is that you are Gordon Freeman: everything you do is what Gordon does and everything you see is what Gordon sees.

    Thus, a cutscene in which Gordon acted in his own accord would be completely out of place. This is why Gordon Freeman essentially disappeared from the world between Half-Life and Half-Life 2: if Gordon had done anything you were unaware of between those points in time, it would have ruined the whole idea, because then Gordon would have experienced something that you were not present for.

    React to this as you will, but it's wrong to act as if Half-Life is missing something; it is, in fact, exactly and fully how the designers intended it to be.

  • yeah_write

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 11:57 am PT

    ok, perhaps I should clear this up. I don't hate Gordon Freeman, and I totally understand what Valve was doing when they created him. In fact I actually played through episode one (and portal) a second time to listen to the commentary. Gab, you should read that article I linked too, it expresses many of the views that you did. I know I'm coming at Gordon from the wrong perspective, that's why I said I've already heard all the arguments. I know you're supposed to be him. My point was that they could have done a little more to make you feel like him.

    "As such, while Gordon's invisibility can be distracting, it only is so for me when I choose to look for it. Given how fantastic the world around me is, that's what I'm more often paying attention to, and as a result I'm sucked in all the same."

    CHUP is right, it's not Gordon that immerses you, it's the environment. Some of those physics puzzles were awesome, and the deserted towns and houses you drive by during the vehicle sequences do a lot to make the world feel real.

    "With that being said I never bought into the whole "the character doesn't speak so it can immerse you more in the story" crap. HL isn't a great franchise because Gordon Freeman doesn't talk, its because of a beautiful world, amazing gameplay, perfect pacing and a few other things, not because your protagonist is some kind of scientifically brilliant mute! Same goes with Bioshock... other things make that game great, not the lack of speaking from the main character."

    That is exactly how I felt. The story didn't do much for me (though the ending of episode two was pretty intense), but the world sold me on the experience. Like I said in the editorial, it's not that I have bad imagination, I just prefer to play as characters. For me, it makes the experience better. The Gordon Freeman "experience" works for some people, but not for me. I'll take a character like Kratos any day.

  • MogFromLeipzig

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 12:24 pm PT

    I wonder when the moment of truth show will come to Germany. We have alot of crappy chanels that long for such stuff.

    I totally agree on the second topic. I like third person view best (I don't play FPS). I want a character that I can feel for.

  • tclvis

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 12:45 pm PT

    Actually, I think the two parts of your blog are related. Much like you don't want to watch Moment of Truth (the most crass and vile pandering to the common denominator I've yet seen; rewards for bad behavior on Survivor and its ilk are bad enough, but to actually pay people? I wonder what Edward Gibbon would have to say about "reality" television) because you don't like the contestants, playing a video game in which you aren't much interested or invested in either your character or those around you isn't nearly as much fun as when you care what happens. Limited camera is my most frequent gripe about shooters and RPGs (along with the linear inability to jump; I hate when they leave that out). Seeing feet gives life to a body, and the kind of shoes etc. tell you a little bit more of the story, who your character is. If you can see hands on the ever-present FPS gun, what do they look like? What do they tell you? Storytelling isn't just in the writing. These details do help to immerse us because they contribute to the story, which makes you care. There are different kinds and levels of immersion, but the more there is the better the experience. I like it when they talk, but if they don't, if other aspects make up for it, then it isn't too jarring, but sometimes it is. Depends on the game. As for Turning Point, I can't wait to dl the demo when us Silver schlubs become eligible.

  • raven28256

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 1:05 pm PT

    I found the Turning Point demo to be a moderately fun distraction. I probably won't buy the full game, I might rent it sometime, it wasn't exactly all bad. The graphics and sound aren't that amazing, but it IS a budget title after all, and the controls are a bit iffy. If the control issues are just cleaned up then it would be a really solid rental.

    I will not even dignify The Moment of Truth with a response, as I hate reality shows.

    Anyway, while I do agree that Gordon is annoying if you are looking at him as a character, Gabu pretty much sums up why Gordon was designed the way he is. However, here is my question on the debate regarding seeing your character in first person: When I look down at myself, I see my torso, arms, legs, and feet. I would like a game that has that amount of detail when you look down at yourself in the game. Of course, such a thing would be very tricky to animate to look good and not fake, and it would likely take up some extra processing power, but I think it would be a nice feature to experiment with in a game. I think that such a game would be a lot more immersive that most other shooters.

  • tclvis

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 1:16 pm PT

    Coincidentally enough, Games Radar has an article up by Tyler Wilde discussing literary conventions, narrative, and archetypes in gaming. Voice and POV are among the topics dissected. http://tinyurl.com/ypmec9

  • 31160618

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 2:07 pm PT

    I think what most of people who discuss 'immersion' fail to see is that they are arguing about an experience that's fundamentally personal. Each person has their own favorite "type of immersion" and sometimes it could be personal enough that they tout it as the end-all-be-all of all immersion techniques, regardless of whether or not they speak from the consensus.

    In any case, I fundamentally believe that any medium can be "immersive" if it's well-made. It's not so much of "breaking the fourth wall" in a play... as making the player want to become a certain character. In Half Life 2 and 1, Gordon is a blank surrogate action figure to be inhabited by the player and assumes all the characteristics of the player other than the voice (which doesn't matter if you are a mute)... so it's kind of easy for players to be immersed... especially when the personality attributes are nothing in comparison to the intriguing atmosphere, so you don't give your own muteness much thought (as you said in a comment). In Max Payne 2 and 1, Payne is such an intriguing character that you want to affiliate yourself with him even if they are in direct contrast with all of your personality traits (which I hope is the case).

    The beauty of having something masterly done is that it may make people like something that may seem vaguely demeaning. Take 'The Witcher' for example. It's a game that borders on sexism and the complete objectification of women, but it's a masterly done RPG with innovative, new gameplay mechanics and an intriguing atmosphere... thus many female videogame players recommend playing it.

  • f15srcool

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 5:08 pm PT

    Well, Turok sports that whole flailing feet thing whenever a dino knocks you over- from what I've seen it's not so immersive. I do see your point, however; in far to many First Person Shooters (especially Halo!!) I feel like I'm a camera with a gun. This is especially amplified in Halo, a game where you can jump like 15 feet in a single bound, fall any distance without getting hurt, and seem to be able to shake off and amount of damage by stepping behind a pillar and recharging. While Halo is an incredibly potent case, it affect many (most, really) FPSs, as you said. Perhaps a more realistic way of alerting you to bullet hits, like a hit throwing you off of bit, or a nearby grenade lifting you in the air and depositing you face first into a wall or the ground.

  • ChiliDragon

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 9:33 pm PT

    To be honest, I find it kind of refreshing that at long last, there is finally a show that doesn't bother pretending that it is not trying to appeal to our "dark side". Reality shows that are pretending they have a noble goal are even more disgusting than regular reality TV.

    As for first person view that won't let you look down and make sure your feet are on the rocks and not in the water during that river crossing... or won't let you see the your hands on the steering wheel.. I agree with the comments above that said it makes me feel like a camera with a gun. I can see most of my own body below my collar bone... Gordon Freeman can't?

  • Author_Jerry

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 10:59 pm PT

    Has anyone here played Crysis? You can look down at your feet and so on. But does it give the game more immersive value? As 311 pointed out, everyone has their own type of immersion. If you ask me, I think the graphics and physics in Crysis give it much more immersion than such an insignificant thing as seeing your feet; I think seeing realistic hand motions adds more immersion than seeing your feet.

    Let me put this in more perspective. It's a good idea to add more immersion to a video game. Depending on who you ask, there are more significant elements that add to immersion. Personally, focusing on feet is silly. Unless you're looking for such details, I don't find it important.

    Someone can then counter that it's the little details that make the difference; fair enough. What I'm saying is, excluding feet from the FPS perspective doesn't decrease my so-called immersion. (I only started noticing the lack of feet in FPSes is when a friend of mine brought it up once.) In short, they would be nice to have, but they're not essential.

  • parrot_of_adun

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 11:30 pm PT

    Well first off, it's my honest opinion that the phrase "Reality Show" should be an oxymoron, and more than that, stricken from the airwaves.

    Regarding the feet stuff, such details certainly don't hurt, but they're really not as important as... well, anything else. Being able to see your feet and hands is possibly the LEAST important aspect to an FPS. While it can help, if you're looking straight down anyway, it does almost nothing to immerse someone. Take COD4 for example, IMO the most immersive game thus far (honestly, ever), and yet you can't see your feet, you can't even look down that far. And yet it soars above the likes of halo and COR (not that those are at all bad).

    Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Yes ALL the things you metioned DO help immerse people, But less than almost every other aspect of your average game.

  • EarthThatWas

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 1:16 am PT


    As far as Half Life goes, I was immersed enough in that game to think I'd landed in a world where people kept getting my name wrong, but for the sake of simplicity I just let them call me Gordon.


    All in all though, I think immersion is a tricky thing to master. What immerses some may not immerse all. I guess the variable in the whole equation would be to what extent you allow yourself to be "seduced" by the world you're put in. Developers can help pursuade a person through interaction with NPC's, pacing, exposition, etc, but all in all, its really how much you come to love the game that determines the level of immersion. That's just my two cents, anyway.

  • diablobasher

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 1:51 am PT

    You're getting things the wrong way around.

    Halo/Riddick/Etc are immersive because they make YOU feel as if you are the character in the game.

    However, Half Life is done the opposite way, the world around you and characters around you are so lively and fleshed out that the game makes you feel as if Gordon Freeman is YOU.

    It's not trying to put you in a characters shoes, it IS making you the character.

    Personally, while i loved chronicles of riddick, and many other games mentioned, i have never been so immersed as i have in Half Life.

  • yeah_write

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 5:04 am PT

    At the risk of slaughtering our already beaten and dead horse I'll go ahead and throw another comment out there.

    First I'd like to thank everyone for their well-thought articulate responses. It seems everyone here knows what they want out of a game.

    Second, "seeing my feet" was my way of saying having a well-represented character. I do not believe that feet alone make a game more immersive, though they do help. It's all the little things like feet, hands on a ladder, voice work, etc. Parrot is right, they might not be the most important aspect, but they can make a difference.

    Third, EarthThatWas hit the nail on the head. Immersion is a tricky thing. For some people, myself included, a well-rounded character with some voice work and interesting camera angles is what sells them on the experience, for others a silent protagonist really helps them put themselves in the character's shoes. To each his own.

    Oh and as for the Moment of Truth. I should have stated that my main reason for watching it was for school (though I was hoping it would be at least mildly entertaining). Next week I'll be teaching a lesson on nonverbal communication and there's no better exercise in nonverbal than watching someone lie. Unfortunately the show was too crappy to sit through. I might show a clip if I can fit it in, but I've got better clips (some great stuff from Ocean's 11) than that reality show.

  • RebelMac

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 5:32 am PT

    At last someone noticed lack of feet, hands etc. in FPS. That's why I was shocked about Killzone. Hands on ladder! And not plenty of weapons (and grenades and medkits) to carry. Some realism. At last. But wait... You gave Assassin's Creed 9.0 score? Really?

  • ChiliDragon

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 5:33 am PT

    YW:
    Instead of Moment of truth, show clips from the Word Poker Tour.

  • EarthThatWas

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 5:48 am PT

    @ChiliDragon: Yes! WPT! Nothing like a Holdem' tourney to see professional liars in action.

  • AguFightingOxy

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 6:17 am PT

    Blame the writers strike. Expect a lot of these shows.

  • IGDetail

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 6:28 am PT

    Hey YW There was a moment in playing Suffering last week (very old reference, I know) towards the end that my friend (who was playing alongside me) said "have you noticed that Torque [the lead character] hasn't said a single word?"... I was quite taken aback because I HADN'T noticed it. I was too involved with BEING Torque and playing the game that I didn't care if he wanted to say anything about how I was treating him. Maybe the same can be said about all voicework or character qualities.... unless they want to digitize my hands, feet, and funny quips, I guess I consider seeing flailing body parts just a minor gimmick that can't add much to a bad story or an inept game.

  • Noct

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 7:49 am PT

    I just need to voice my disgust about "The Moment of Truth".

    It annoys me to no end that the sensationalized commercials for the show try to make it seem like the contestants are being blindsided by these questions when they (obviously) know full-well what is going to be asked before they ever hit that stage. The dramatic pauses and looks of shock they give are just the usual staged "reality" garbage that makes me want to put a foot through my TV. Based on this knowledge I would have to imagine that if they agreed to do the show they must be innocent of anything truly damaging, which makes me question the results of anything they are said to be "lying" about.

    Polygraphs are really more of a "stress detector" then a "lie detector", so tell me that a person in these contestant's position are not going to be stressed out about these questions regardless of the truth. Just putting me in the possible position of being asked something that could ruin my marriage is going to give me stress, regardless of whether or not I'm guilty of anything... So, on top of the fact that some people may well be damaged by this show without ever having done anything wrong, where is the entertainment value here when we all know the results are totally meaningless?

    As far as immersion in games go, I don't particularly find voice acting to make or break it either way unless you are forced to read on-screen dialogue in the absence of it. Nothing breaks the flow of a game to me more then stopping to scroll through pages of text. (I'm looking at you Twilight Princess!) I definitely agree with you that little touches like seeing your hands and feet really do help though. As I've been screaming for years, play a Virtuality game if you want true immersion. An HMD alone makes a huge difference (as all you see is the game world), but the true immersion of VR is that your gestures are interpreted in real time. Moving you head moves the characters view, move your hand IRL, your hand in the game moves accordingly. That is true immersion, and is the real future of gaming in my opinion. I just wish the industry would start working towards it again... Where are our home VR systems game industry?!

  • N8A

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 8:34 am PT

    Man and I wanted to watch moment of truth...I had my hopes up, but now I won't bother. I liked the premise, but without knowing or caring for the character there isn't really a point. Back to American Gladiators hahaha

  • OmegaHavok

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 9:06 am PT

    In order for a game to be truly immersive there needs to be well developed characters and an engaging plot that sees these characters tested and even develop. Take the PS ONE classics FF7 and FF8 you had to read through pages of dialogue for over 50 hours to beat the game but people still enjoyed the experience and were able to connect with the protagnists even till today some are still calling FF7 one of the greatest games of all time.

    However, immersion into video games isn't neccesairly a good thing either.

  • kori911

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 9:40 am PT

    When I read this yesterday I had zero time to comment, but I knew it was going to be soapboxed. Congrats! Now for my 2 zenny.

    I have to disagree with Half Life 2 and it's episodes not being immersive. For me it's not the fact that I can see certain parts of the body or watch my "hands" do work on screen. It's the narrative. Alex, Kliner and all the rest are what immerse me. Their voice acting is so well done that they make me feel real. Every time I'm spoken to, every dialog blurb that Alex spits out is exactly as it should be. I don't need a voice in this world because Valve has done an excellent job of antisapating what I am thinking.

    I don't have any problem with Gordon being mute because to me Gordan Freeman isn't the real character, I am.

  • 705H1R0

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 10:33 am PT

    The real reason they choose not to give some characters voices is to give the player a better feeling of actually being there and doing everything himself. Once you give a character a voice, it drives a wedge between player and character, you're playing as someone else, rather than being there yourself. It's a subtle thing, and in either case if it's done well it can really make a difference.

    I love the half-life series, I've been playing it since the beginning and I'll also have to disagree with you. F.E.A.R. also has you in the shoes (you can see them!) of a mute, which they pulled off very nicely.

    Then Chronicles of Riddick, as you mentioned, has great characterization and changes viewpoints and Riddick speaks during cinematics. Another game that does this pretty well is Rainbow Six: Vegas. But that's the difference. In cinematics, I'd always get the feel Riddick is doing the talking, so there's a separation between me and him. In a game like Half-Life, there are no cinematics where you hear Gordon talk or actually see him, and because of that we can easily replace him for ourselves.

  • Dualmask

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 12:18 pm PT

    I wholeheartedly agree, even though I don't like first person perspective games (shooters or otherwise) in general because I don't play them very well, that lack of immersion you speak of is something else I hate about FPS. I enjoyed the Metroid Prime games, but outside of that I tend to stick to 3rd person games like Devil May Cry.

  • RK-Mara

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 12:59 pm PT

    You mentioned Oblivion and I do agree that the third-person camera adds immersion, for a while at least. Third person would have been my preferred camera view, if the animators had worked more than one day on the third-person. Lackluster running and jumping animations break the immersion for me and they are also one of the reasons why I find Gothic 3 more immersive. Now that I think about it, your character also speaks in Gothic 3. I've discussed about this a couple times before, but never really took your own character speaking as a better thing. Both were fine for me, but this editorial has changed my attitude. Thank you

    There's something magical about the PC version of Dark Messiah too: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KDWjhliN3PE

  • sentay0

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 1:39 pm PT

    I agree whole heartedly I like to see my characters hands and feet, not being able to do so is really weird for me, however voice acting I can live without (with some characters).

  • infect999

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 3:38 pm PT

    i get what you're saying about the hands and feet...i remember the first time i played FEAR, i was amazed at how you could see your feet when you looked down. now i wonder why other developers still havent done this.

  • Vishant

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 3:56 pm PT

    Just deleted HL2, I stopped caring a few months ago but just left the game dormant on my system. Oh well, theres always COD4

  • Col_Kilgore

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 4:00 pm PT

    I like that you can see your feet in games like FEAR and Crysis, yet I find myself more "immersed" in games like Half-Life 2 and the eps. It may sound silly, but I can say whatever I want to to Alex as she and I make our way through an abandoned town towards some enemies ahead. Gordon doesn't say it, I do. I can tell her I like her boobs or whatever. But it is cool to leap high in the air in Crysis and look down and see your feet stomp the ground as you land.

  • delcidanddarth

    Posted Jan 25, 2008 5:38 pm PT

    laughlyn12 :

    I agree. The polygraph cannot possibly detect how you feel about a hypothetical situation... only if you aren't 100% comfortable with your own answer. So technically, it's possible that for some of those questions, no matter what you answer, it will come out as a lie.

  • parrot_of_adun

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 12:50 am PT

    @"delcidanddarth"

    Very true, there are even a good number of people who can easily get the polygraph to ring "truth" (or the corresponding readouts) every time. Far from infallible, in fact it's inadmissible in court.

  • ax23000

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 2:45 am PT

    I love how ancient arguments and conversations become new again when applied to video games. All the stuff you guys are talking about relates to the concept of point of view in narrative. All stories take on a point of view. In the world of literature the most basic povs are 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person.

    These can be broken down in more complicated ways (for example 3rd person is usually broken down into 3rd person limited and 3rd person omniscient), but the basic concepts remain the same.

    Each point of view brings different traits to a story. First person (where a narrator tells you the story from his/her point of view) is interesting because of the idea of unreliable narration. That is, the story is naturally skewed by the narrator who can't help but tell things as they see it. Games don't use this POV often (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time almost fits it as the game is the Prince telling the story--although there is little in the way of unreliable narration). In the matter of this debate Half-Life is an example of 2nd person. Second person is rarely seen in written works, because it is an illusion that requires an incredibly brilliant author to pull off well. A second person narration must tell a story wherein the main character is the reader. The example most of us are familiar with is that of Choose Your Own Adventure. When done properly second person narration imbues a special sense of immediacy to a story.

    Writing a story in second person is almost impossible, but video games can do it with ease because they can give the player control over every choice the main character makes. In a written story inevitably something will happen where the reader thinks 'I wouldn't do that'. In a properly scripted second person game this issue never arises (or when it does, is less severe).

    Games like Chronicles of Ridick fall into one of the two third person point of views. Third Person allows the greatest narrative freedom to a writer because they are less tethered to a specific point of view. The difference between limited and omniscient is simple. In a limited third person narrative the story must always remain focused on the main character. There can be no cut aways to action happening elsewhere and the reader is not allowed to know anything that isn't known to the main character of the story.

    Omniscient on the other hand allows the story teller full reign. Nothing is off limits. Either third person pov can work just fine in a video game, but there is a slight issue that requires the player to suspend disbelief. This caveat arises from a narrative no-no, switching point of views. In a written story it is almost never done (although brilliant authors have managed to pull if off wonderfully). But it is a requirement for a first person shooter that also wants to tell a third person narrative.

    While you are playing a first person shooter you essentially are the character. You make the tactical choices. You decides which tunnel to go down. You pick up ammo. You decide to kill soldiers or hide from them. The key word up there is 'you' and that word makes it clear that during the play sections of the game the player is experiencing a second person point of view.

    The moment a cut scene shows up though and the camera pulls out the pov changes. Now he is making the decisions. He kills. He chooses which corridor to take. He...he...he. Third person.

    From a traditional point of view Half-Life has the more coherent narrative because of this. It chooses a point of view and sticks to it throughout. A third person first person shooter is a game that wants to have its cake and eat it too.

    The funny thing is that video games are not traditional experiences. Half-Life should be respected for managing point of view as well as it does, but a game like Chronicles of Ridick should also be respected for representing the ways that games can do things that normal narratives can not.

    The issue isn't really whether one point of view is better than another for immersing the player. Instead it becomes what does a certain point of view take to a game and what does it take away. One of the key questions any writer has to decide when writing a story is what point of view will best express the story in mind. Different stories work better with different points of view.

    Imagine Poe's "A Tell Tale Heart" in third person--it just wouldn't work. That story demands first person. Likewise Half-Life 2 demands second person. The dystopian mystery of the world and story fits perfectly with the mute presence of Gordon Freeman. On the other hand Chronicles of Ridick requires the personality of Ridick to really work and thus must have been told in third person.

    I guess I'm just trying to make clear that no one pov is better then any other. A point of view is a tool that a game designer uses to tell his story/game. A tool can be misused, but it is not the fault of the tool.

    Dear god I've been typing forever. Enough of my rambling.

  • ThaSod

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 4:29 am PT

    I find, for me, that the audio does more for immersion than the visual. I was playing Resident Evil 4 yesterday and it was bright outside. I kept closing the shades and my wife would come by and open them. So a lot of the feeling was destroyed because I wasn't playing at night. But the sound was creepy and scary no matter what time I played it.
    So: Work on that soundtrack!

  • Uidin

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 7:07 am PT

    Personally I found myself not that hung up about feet, or the entire body that is. But it is always a bonus when you can see your feet, or your hands. The Darkness is great in doing that, and I really feel like seeing things from Jackies point of view. But I do not feel like I am him. I think one of the few games that have done that is Half Life 2. Because Gordon does not talk, because you only see things from his perspective, which then becomes your perspective.

    But I like both kind of games. Halo, The Darkness, Half Life, Crysis. As long as we get more games like that, I am fine with the characters body being left out in some games : P

    Oh, when it comes to Halo, I really got immersed in the games after reading the books. The games are good, but storywise they seem to suck. Till you read the books, and see all the thought they have put into this universe.

  • polsci1503

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 9:13 am PT

    Thanks for the bit on Moment of Truth, I can now sleep at night knowing I missed it. I think it's horrible that a show is selling the creepy side of people like that. I don't get that perverted sense of glee from watching people squirm in that kind of way. As for immersion, I tend to agree with most of your points. Gordon's depiction would have been better had it included the things you mentioned. I loved HL and HL2 because of the world it created and the atmosphere. Does Freeman need to talk? Not necessarily... I leave that up to the developers to decide because I don't want each game to look and feel too similar. Shaking it up and taking different approaches is what keeps it fresh for me.

  • xraystar

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 12:05 pm PT

    totally disagree with your take on half-life. the absent of The FreeMan's body does not take away the immersion of the game. What makes the game so immersive are the outstanding facial expersions (a testament of half-life's ahead-of-time graphics) and believeable character development. I've, unfortunately, played the Turning Point demo, which in no-way is impressive (I feel like I'm controlling a crate full of lead weight). The Darkness did right with including a full body when looking down. ... I mean, why is it when you crouch in Turning Point, the character's friggin knee is up to his face - even while his moving around in that position?!

  • KaotixGTX

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 1:58 pm PT

    I've done it, you've done it, I'm pretty sure we've all done it. When Alyx asks a question and Freeman just stands there and there's that moment of silence; we all say something in place of that like "Let's get moving then," "Come on stupid b***h," and "Did you see that guys head explode?"
    And you forgot to mention Breakdown: it shows the characters hands and feet while walking around, blocking, shooting, climbing, fighting and even goes as far as showing the reflection once. Even the shadows show what the character does. He even speaks but only one of two choices when the moments arise.

  • Hiroki_30303

    Posted Jan 26, 2008 2:13 pm PT

    Glad to see I'm not alone. It's always bothered me when I'm playing a first-person game and my character is invisible except for the arms. I can understand being so immersed in a world that you don't notice but I always end up looking down and wondering where the rest of me is. The character will be climbing up a ladder or driving a vehicle and appear to be floating upward or moving the steering wheel with telekinesis. The Darkness stands out as an example of rendering the character very well. If you looked downward in the game you'd see Jackie's entire body. Not only that, but the speed at which he moved his legs actually matched his walking speed. I suppose lack of legs is more of a pet peeve than a game breaking detail. Personally every time I play a first person game the first thing I do is look down and see if my feet are there. A recent example that stands out is the scene where you're thrown into the car in Call of Duty 4. I remember looking around thinking "Why is this backseat empty?"

    The Gordon Freeman thing always bothered me too. I understand that you're supposed to feel like you are Gordon Freeman and that all the other characters are supposed to carry the narrative but sometimes it just doesn't work. Throughout the games characters will speak directly to Gordon and all of them are completely fine with the fact that he never says anything. You figure they'd be at least a little weirded out that Gordon never has any manner of response to anything they say.

    Lastly, I disagree entirely about the third person camera in Oblivion. The animation was weird and it was nigh-impossible to fight or aim at anything. Seeing your shiny new armor was all that view was good for.

  • Cortolio

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 12:25 am PT

    I hate Jar Jar Binks...

  • Snake6phw

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 9:37 am PT

    Great blog. While I agree that it would be nice to actually see Gordon's (example, not just him) hands and feet, its just not really that big a deal to me. Sure, seeing your hands is a nice touch and adds a little bit to realism, but its a games story and gameplay that draw me in. Take Burnout Paradise for example, there is NEVER a driver in the car. But does that really bother me? No, because the game is hella fun to play.

  • 2w-sephiroth

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 2:21 am PT

    Don't worry, I am sure that games in the near future will have all does elementes that you are seeking, specially with PS3 and XBOX360 power. If you dint see in the past games its because:

    1. it blocks the view from other more important things like shooting enemies, you cant control directly the hands and feet (until all consoles and pc develop a more advanced and brilliant "a la wii" controls)

    2. uses computer power that is really not needed, instead of making the gaming world more realistic, they have to use polygonal and texture power to see a very closed in hand/feet. Got to consider that while things far away don't need so much detail while things that are that close use much more memory. Adding these will make the whole game look crappier or slower. Ever played a awesome game and then moved the camera super close to textures or hands/feet? they look like their fingers and toes are cut off.

    anyways... you should check FEAR, I am sure they did a good job in all the inversive attributes, man that game was scary and you did really feel like you were there!! And as well maybe do a couple of video games and see how good you can do.

  • -INKling-

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 7:06 am PT

    I think that having a mute Gordon or floaty Master Chief do detract a little from the immersive experience of gaming but I am sure they are design choices chosen to fit the game overall.

    I agree with your comments about Riddick. In fact, my latest blog entry is all about how good that game is. Everything about it sucked you right in. Not only did the environments look good but they somehow felt right. The forthcoming 360 reissue will hopefully be publicized a lot better.

  • grim22x7

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 9:19 am PT

    Immersion has several levels. When going with the silent protagonist you have to realize that the character is "you." therefore it is more detracting from the game to have the character speak for you. for example in an exchange between you and a sqaudmate he says "do you think we're going to make it?" and the character speaks for you and says "I've no blinking idea" when you would have said "of course" that's detracting from the idea that you are the main character. So from that point of view the silent protagonist is more immersive than a character that does speak. I think you are right about seeing your feet and hands. looking down and seeing your feet is part of the immersion. shooting yourself in the foot is part of that as well. The most immersive thing about an FPS is walking past a mirror. that's a very natural thing for a person to pass a mirror and have that as the only way to see what they look like.

    That's not to say that 3rd person games can't be immersive it's just a different expectation, different part of the brain. I think that's the basis of any disagreement on this topic.

  • grim22x7

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 9:26 am PT

    as for moment of truth...well it's a lot like the romans and their colloseum. tortureing people for the amusement of others. It's disgraceful that anyone would watch someone be exposed like that. Especially since it's all done with the idea of hurting someone. Now if you were to pull someone up there and ask them amusing questions, with the idea that everyone is laughing at the question and not shocked at the persons answer then i wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

  • podliver

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 3:52 pm PT

    Right at the part where you started talking about immersion in video games, I instantly thought of Riddick. That game is a great example. That game is intense and makes me feel as if I'm really there and the atmosphere can really freak you out, especially if a guard or monster pops out of nowhere.

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Schizoid 7.0
Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence 9.5
Call of Duty 2 9.0
Indigo Prophecy 8.0
Black 7.5
New Super Mario Bros. 9.0
Conan 7.5
Assassin's Creed 9.0
Skate 8.0
TMNT 6.5
advertisement