The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
God knows how many years ago, Zelda numbero one was released. A few years back, Ocarina of Time was released on the N64.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
Page:
Nah, completely different thing. :0)
I would explain, but I'm having great fun playing first person poker. :0)
I would explain, but I'm having great fun playing first person poker. :0)
Isn't having some enemy 'hidden' around a corner pretty much the same as having something leap out at you though?
Can't think when it's been used, no... no idea why not. It's that inital jumping fear in first person, I think.
Nintendo ARE making the GBA version, by the way.
I just think that the style of Metroid isn't a shoot and blast sort of game... and that's what it would be if it was third person.
Jet Force Gemini had the best sound on the N64, full stop. The music fitted excellently, and the effects were great. It was irritating to play, when you realised you had to go back and do it all again, but good fun, while it lasted.
But Metroid wouldn't work like that, I'm sure. In bits it could, easily, but it would be TOO easy to keep it all third person. But it's got to be done perfectly, or not at all.
Just keep Strafex away from them, that's all. ;0)
Nintendo ARE making the GBA version, by the way.
I just think that the style of Metroid isn't a shoot and blast sort of game... and that's what it would be if it was third person.
Jet Force Gemini had the best sound on the N64, full stop. The music fitted excellently, and the effects were great. It was irritating to play, when you realised you had to go back and do it all again, but good fun, while it lasted.
But Metroid wouldn't work like that, I'm sure. In bits it could, easily, but it would be TOO easy to keep it all third person. But it's got to be done perfectly, or not at all.
Just keep Strafex away from them, that's all. ;0)
Right, Georgia's having an after dinner nap, and Malibu is watching Toy Story 2, so back to the post. ;-)
Starting with sound, it can make a real impact on the way you feel when playing a game.
I finally got away from those damn zombies in Conker over the weekend, and into the war section. With both the Tediz and the zombies the music changes into something much more frantic in the seconds before you are attacked. As such you have a little time to draw your weapon, but the sudden burst of music also gets the heart rate pounding.
I'm hoping that the games make use of surround sound, as when watching movies it really adds to the atmosphere. With games the effects could be shocking, like 'don't play if you have a heart condition' scary.
Now onto perspective. And indeed, back to Conker. Third person, though I felt that the shooting worked remarkably well. You could aim and move, so you could creep around the corner, already aiming at a zombie head height, rather than walking, having to stop to aim, then shooting, you can do it all in a fluid movement. This was with using the 'c' buttons, using a second control stick to do this would lead to better movement still.
Onto one of the Gamecube's launch titles, 'Luigi's Mansion'. It takes a third person perspective, but the main aim of the game is to trap ghosts, by catching them in a light beam, then zapping them with a vacuum cleaner, which, basically, is shooting. Again, the key to it is having two control sticks.
So shooting in third persom can indeed work.
But jumping in first person doesn't.
Though jumping in third person, in 3D worlds is a pain too. How often to you think that you're above a platform, only to fall either behind or in front of it, because of no vision of depth?
So what is the game pitching at? A third person adventure, it has been dubbed. Super Metroid invloved a great deal of exploration. You couldn't access certain sections until you got certain items. Could exploration and shock tactics be more what this game is about than jumping on platforms?
Of course, the solution to all naff jumping problems in first person games would be an 'auto-jump' like Link does in the N64 Zelda games. Has that ever been used in 1st person before? If not, why not?
Starting with sound, it can make a real impact on the way you feel when playing a game.
I finally got away from those damn zombies in Conker over the weekend, and into the war section. With both the Tediz and the zombies the music changes into something much more frantic in the seconds before you are attacked. As such you have a little time to draw your weapon, but the sudden burst of music also gets the heart rate pounding.
I'm hoping that the games make use of surround sound, as when watching movies it really adds to the atmosphere. With games the effects could be shocking, like 'don't play if you have a heart condition' scary.
Now onto perspective. And indeed, back to Conker. Third person, though I felt that the shooting worked remarkably well. You could aim and move, so you could creep around the corner, already aiming at a zombie head height, rather than walking, having to stop to aim, then shooting, you can do it all in a fluid movement. This was with using the 'c' buttons, using a second control stick to do this would lead to better movement still.
Onto one of the Gamecube's launch titles, 'Luigi's Mansion'. It takes a third person perspective, but the main aim of the game is to trap ghosts, by catching them in a light beam, then zapping them with a vacuum cleaner, which, basically, is shooting. Again, the key to it is having two control sticks.
So shooting in third persom can indeed work.
But jumping in first person doesn't.
Though jumping in third person, in 3D worlds is a pain too. How often to you think that you're above a platform, only to fall either behind or in front of it, because of no vision of depth?
So what is the game pitching at? A third person adventure, it has been dubbed. Super Metroid invloved a great deal of exploration. You couldn't access certain sections until you got certain items. Could exploration and shock tactics be more what this game is about than jumping on platforms?
Of course, the solution to all naff jumping problems in first person games would be an 'auto-jump' like Link does in the N64 Zelda games. Has that ever been used in 1st person before? If not, why not?
yeah, I had Zsnes before, maybe I'll try Super Metroid.
Anyway, if you want the 'old skool' Metroid there is a side scroller Metroid coming to GBA, maybe it'll connect up to the GC version. But who is making the GBA one, Retro or Ninty? I think it would be better if Ninty did, because they are more experienced in the 2D Metroid world, Retro probably only got the Metroid GC because it is 3D, and Ninty have no experience (that I can think if anyway) in making a 3D shooter platformy game like Metroid. They've done Lylatwars, but that is a space shooter, and I can't think of any other shooty titles Ninty have done in 3D...
Anyway, if you want the 'old skool' Metroid there is a side scroller Metroid coming to GBA, maybe it'll connect up to the GC version. But who is making the GBA one, Retro or Ninty? I think it would be better if Ninty did, because they are more experienced in the 2D Metroid world, Retro probably only got the Metroid GC because it is 3D, and Ninty have no experience (that I can think if anyway) in making a 3D shooter platformy game like Metroid. They've done Lylatwars, but that is a space shooter, and I can't think of any other shooty titles Ninty have done in 3D...
Ah, about the Half-Life platforming...
Perhaps it's just we're all terrified of Turok, but the judgement of jumping might make everyone... a little sick. In Half-Life, you basically had to look straight down every time you jumped. The Japanese have trouble enough as it is playing these games... so it's unlikely they'll try and make it even more sickening. :0)
But I really do prefer jumping in third person.
Perhaps it's just we're all terrified of Turok, but the judgement of jumping might make everyone... a little sick. In Half-Life, you basically had to look straight down every time you jumped. The Japanese have trouble enough as it is playing these games... so it's unlikely they'll try and make it even more sickening. :0)
But I really do prefer jumping in third person.
Sibs wrote:
"didn't they make a 1st person gun game of Resi Evil that was absolute s***?"
Thought someone might bring that up. First person shooter isn't a ruddy label, it's a design process. Capcom can't make first person shooters. That's why it's crap.
"Not trying to disagree with Grix, because I don't think Resi Evil had that much atmoshpere."
Well you aren't, you're agreeing with me. :0)
"It just relied on the fact that things would jump out at you (eg. through a window) or as soon as the camera angle switched, an enemy would be revealed that you couldn't see before. Certainly not the kind of tension felt when playing Half-Life, and just another thing, Half-Life had platformy parts, which it actually pulled off very well and rarely got annoying."
Yup, that's the sort of thing I was getting at.
"Having never played Metroid, I cannot really comment on whether it should be third person to give the right 'feel' but I have heard much about Metroid, so know about the rolling into a ball stuff, and hookshot stuff, but you are bound to lose SOME of those in the 3D transition. Many will be kept, the ball rolling is so I've heard and probably the hook shot thing too, but it is possible to transfer the game to 3D and keep the right 'feel' even if you do lose a few of the abilities."
Yeah, was thinking that myself. I can't imagine them putting all the old moves in... basically because of laziness. If something doesn't work the first time, it's usually given up on.
Well, Retro's got enough time at the moment, anyway. :0)
If you're interested, try downloading ZSNES and the Super Metroid rom. It was a great game to play, and it still is.
"didn't they make a 1st person gun game of Resi Evil that was absolute s***?"
Thought someone might bring that up. First person shooter isn't a ruddy label, it's a design process. Capcom can't make first person shooters. That's why it's crap.
"Not trying to disagree with Grix, because I don't think Resi Evil had that much atmoshpere."
Well you aren't, you're agreeing with me. :0)
"It just relied on the fact that things would jump out at you (eg. through a window) or as soon as the camera angle switched, an enemy would be revealed that you couldn't see before. Certainly not the kind of tension felt when playing Half-Life, and just another thing, Half-Life had platformy parts, which it actually pulled off very well and rarely got annoying."
Yup, that's the sort of thing I was getting at.
"Having never played Metroid, I cannot really comment on whether it should be third person to give the right 'feel' but I have heard much about Metroid, so know about the rolling into a ball stuff, and hookshot stuff, but you are bound to lose SOME of those in the 3D transition. Many will be kept, the ball rolling is so I've heard and probably the hook shot thing too, but it is possible to transfer the game to 3D and keep the right 'feel' even if you do lose a few of the abilities."
Yeah, was thinking that myself. I can't imagine them putting all the old moves in... basically because of laziness. If something doesn't work the first time, it's usually given up on.
Well, Retro's got enough time at the moment, anyway. :0)
If you're interested, try downloading ZSNES and the Super Metroid rom. It was a great game to play, and it still is.
Sibs wrote:
> didn't they make a 1st person gun game of Resi Evil that was absolute s***?
YES
> didn't they make a 1st person gun game of Resi Evil that was absolute s***?
YES
didn't they make a 1st person gun game of Resi Evil that was absolute s***? Not trying to disagree with Grix, because I don't think Resi Evil had that much atmoshpere. It just relied on the fact that things would jump out at you (eg. through a window) or as soon as the camera angle switched, an enemy would be revealed that you couldn't see before. Certainly not the kind of tension felt when playing Half-Life, and just another thing, Half-Life had platformy parts, which it actually pulled off very well and rarely got annoying.
Having never played Metroid, I cannot really comment on whether it should be third person to give the right 'feel' but I have heard much about Metroid, so know about the rolling into a ball stuff, and hookshot stuff, but you are bound to lose SOME of those in the 3D transition. Many will be kept, the ball rolling is so I've heard and probably the hook shot thing too, but it is possible to transfer the game to 3D and keep the right 'feel' even if you do lose a few of the abilities.
Having never played Metroid, I cannot really comment on whether it should be third person to give the right 'feel' but I have heard much about Metroid, so know about the rolling into a ball stuff, and hookshot stuff, but you are bound to lose SOME of those in the 3D transition. Many will be kept, the ball rolling is so I've heard and probably the hook shot thing too, but it is possible to transfer the game to 3D and keep the right 'feel' even if you do lose a few of the abilities.
Sorry, get carried away sometimes.
I would say yes, actually, Resident Evil did lose a lot of atmosphere being from fixed camera angles. It's a fun game, yeah, but that's as far as it goes. It was only shock value that really scared you, but getting trapped in a corner would have been a lot better first person.
I would say yes, actually, Resident Evil did lose a lot of atmosphere being from fixed camera angles. It's a fun game, yeah, but that's as far as it goes. It was only shock value that really scared you, but getting trapped in a corner would have been a lot better first person.
Page: