Why the attachment to overhead/top-down isometric POV?

Kan-Kerai said:
Have you seen the kissing scene in Jedi Knight II?

That was some of the most awkward shit I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing. I literally had no words.

It probably would have been BETTER in isometric. At least with that, you can just type up a rough description and let the player's imagination go to town.


:wink: poor implementation says nothing about the concept, only about the designers
 
xdarkyrex said:
Arguably, the kissing scene in The Darkness did more with it then you would EVER be able to manage with a isometric view, period.
Of course, what this has to do with Fallout and whether or not FPP is good or appropriate, who knows.

I've read romantic scenes in books that "did more with it" than I've ever seen any game or movie manage, myself. Doesn't that mean that a text description would be the best presentation?

Note I'm really arguing more with VistraNORREZ than you, xdarkyrex, but it was just a little more convenient to quote you. :P
 
I do suppose there is one huge HUGE limitation of FPP.

If you describe things with text, it feels forced and lazy unless you can ALSO see it.

and our technology isn't quite to the point of models that are quite that level of dynamic and natural looking.
 
This discussion reminds me of conversations I've had about the difference between old movie and TV special effects and new CG special effects. Roger Ebert dexterously summed up the difference when he called modern CG special effects "more realistic but less convincing." I believe he was talking about those old black and white monster movies from the forties and fifties that used a form of stop-frame claymation, which has a specific name I can't remember. The first King Kong movie is an example.

It's all about the gap left for the imagination. FPP tries its hardest to put you in the actual physical place of the character, and to represent every object and location that would exist if the situation was real. Unfortunately it falls short of this lofty goal. FPP attempts to shrink the gap left for the player's imagination, but fails to adequately fill the territory it claims; it's more realistic but less convincing.

Even a modest human imagination is far more capable of creating "immersion" than the best movie or computer game graphics. ISO doesn't attempt (and fail) to simulate reality; it provides a vehicle for the imagination of the player. Fallout doesn't try (and fail) to trick me into believing I *am* the main character, it merely represents the experiences of the main character in a manner that fosters my imagining of those experiences. That's immersion.

But then, I grew up playing and loving INFOCOM text adventures; I understand clearly that a computer game (or a story) without any graphics is more immersive than a game with failed (as opposed to beautiful, or good) graphics.

I'm not stuck on ISO. I'm willing to look at any system that might be better, and judge it according to its merits. I have no doubt that better is possible. I simply haven't seen anything better yet, certainly not FPP. I agree especially with those who have problems with the fixed-neck-and-eyes issue, and I don't see how you could ever remedy that without a domed or spherical display like you find with military flight simulators. Maybe a helmet with an interior display, or a big pair of goggles would work, but do you want to wear VR goggles while playing games on your computer? Maybe you do.

There are things FPP does do well, and I appreciate it for those things, but I prefer ISO in most respects.

The one limitation I dislike the most about ISO is that you can never see the sky.
 
UniversalWolf said:
This discussion reminds me of conversations I've had about the difference between old movie and TV special effects and new CG special effects. Roger Ebert dexterously summed up the difference when he called modern CG special effects "more realistic but less convincing." I believe he was talking about those old black and white monster movies from the forties and fifties that used a form of stop-frame claymation, which has a specific name I can't remember. The first King Kong movie is an example.
He also referred to movies like Star Wars, or the Jim Henson movies using mostly puppets, costumes and scale models.
UniversalWolf said:
It's all about the gap left for the imagination. FPP tries its hardest to put you in the actual physical place of the character, and to represent every object and location that would exist if the situation was real. Unfortunately it falls short of this lofty goal. FPP attempts to shrink the gap left for the player's imagination, but fails to adequately fill the territory it claims; it's more realistic but less convincing.

Even a modest human imagination is far more capable of creating "immersion" than the best movie or computer game graphics. ISO doesn't attempt (and fail) to simulate reality; it provides a vehicle for the imagination of the player. Fallout doesn't try (and fail) to trick me into believing I *am* the main character, it merely represents the experiences of the main character in a manner that fosters my imagining of those experiences. That's immersion.

But then, I grew up playing and loving INFOCOM text adventures; I understand clearly that a computer game (or a story) without any graphics is more immersive than a game with failed (as opposed to beautiful, or good) graphics.

I'm not stuck on ISO. I'm willing to look at any system that might be better, and judge it according to its merits. I have no doubt that better is possible. I simply haven't seen anything better yet, certainly not FPP. I agree especially with those who have problems with the fixed-neck-and-eyes issue, and I don't see how you could ever remedy that without a domed or spherical display like you find with military flight simulators. Maybe a helmet with an interior display, or a big pair of goggles would work, but do you want to wear VR goggles while playing games on your computer? Maybe you do.

There are things FPP does do well, and I appreciate it for those things, but I prefer ISO in most respects.

The one limitation I dislike the most about ISO is that you can never see the sky.
Well said, although you are ignoring the implications the perspective has for gameplay and interface.
 
I couldn't have said it better, UniversalWolf (i tried before heh).

Being able to look around the world in FPP is nice, but it is a bit too constricting at certain parts of the game. An FPS experience is indeed immersive during heated gun fights or exploration of confined spaces. However, as proved by Stalker and Oblivion, having to traverse terrain at speeds almost identical to reality, the game experience becomes very tedious and boring.

I understand those games' environments are huge and require large amounts of time to polish, but useable mouse directed character movement and a playable 3rd person perspective seem to me like a more important aspect of a game.

What I feel is needed for truly immersive games is not to constrict the player to one point of view but allow multiple controls and camera modes. Heck, you might even reach a wider audience, regardless of the content.
 
Back
Top