Point of View
Ever played Ultima 8? If your answer is no, I'd not be surprised, as its an old game, and even us of the first and second gaming generations, who are in their twenties, thirties and forties have missed out on some classic. Even in ye olden days there were more games than there was time. Ultima 8, to get to the point, offered an Isometric point of view. A what? Well, that same one that present in Diablo I and II. Oh, that. No free-moving cam, but the guy in the middle as the centre of the universe. Of course, Ultima 8 was not the first game to offer Isometric p.o.v., as there were many others before it. Today I want to ramble a bit about point of view, and what the advantages and disadvantages are.
First, let us take a look at the different point of views that are easily discernable. We have side-scrolling, top-down, isometric, 1st person 3D, 3rd person 3D and free-view 3D. That's it. Oh, and overview maps like the ones used in "Civilization" and the likes, but they're usually either top-down or isometric as well. And we could argue that isometric/top down/side-scrolling are simply different variants of the 3rd person view, so I have differentiated between 3rd person 3D and the former categories. Oh, and I am going to leave out MUDs and the like, because they work in your head and are text-based.
One of the first view modes was side-scroller. Indeed, some of the best games are side-scrollers. Ancient space-fighter sims offered side-scrolling with waves and waves of enemies coming for you, terrain which changed under your feet and loads of guns. Old platform games like Super Mario are also side-scrollers. The basic principles are the same: You move in a flat 2D world, and you have only 2D directions, whilst seeing the side of your character. You might have the feeling you move depth wise (games like Moonstone or Golden Axe might give you that illusion) but it is still side-scrolling. Comparable, but not the same is the top-down view in older games. The world is still 2D, and your movements are still 2D, but you see your head. Hope you got pretty hair. Movement in this type of game is usually less restricted, and you can move in all directions. Tactically and strategically speaking it offers the same basic options as a side-scroller though.
Then, there is isometric. Isometric can offer you the 3rd dimension. XCOM functions by the virtue of Isometric view, as does Diablo. Diablo still resembles a side-scroller though (sorry to all you Diablo fans, but as much as you and I would like to think otherwise, DII is a side-scroller very reminiscent of the older variants, but with more options.), and the actual 3D is limited to the terrain variation, and not to the movement options. XCOM offered real 3D terrain, 3D movement (ground and air), and most importantly, effects could stay localized so it was possible to avoid explosion effects by being under or above the explosion area of effect. Although the graphics were not 3D, the movement was.
From Isometric we hopped towards true 3D (bypassing Wolf3D and Doom). Quake I offered true 3D, with all the nice possibilities that came with it, in 1st person. It also caused some people to vomit thanks to the movement bobbing (a problem that already existed in Doom, for some). A 1st person viewpoint is excellent for shooters where accuracy is one of the required skills. Games like Unreal, Doom and Farcry exploit this, and if you're good with a gun and a mouse-pointer, you can shoot people's fingers off, so to speak.
And then someone came up with the 3rd person 3D view. 3rd person 3D is not suited for shooters, unless you have auto-aiming (really, who wants that in a shooter?). Games like RogueTrooper do offer a 3rd person view, but the movement and actions of the character, and his gun-aim, is not really 3rd person… the mouse pointer moves as if it is 1st person, and once you get used to it, it is just as easy. Oblivion does do true 3rd person 3D. Its still possible to use a bow at short range, but shooting a target at a long range requires a lot of extra skill. It is extremely well suited for close-combat fighting though as it enables you to keep an eye out on all sides. You have less to worry about when fighting on a cliff because you can see where you are going. Leaping and jumping around an enemy is also very easy. But shooting that bow is almost impossible at longer ranges.
Whilst 1st person view is also suited for close combat, it offers a different experience. In 1st person view you need to keep a mental record of the position of your enemies, your own location and any possible err, positional errors (the Deep Pit of Doom, for example). This makes 1st person fighting a rather tense matter at times. Games like Heretic, with its semi-close combat status already showed this, but it wasn't until the likes of Hexen with its narrow ledges and deadly drops as well as a the Warrior as Close Combat Class that things got really tense. It might seem that a 3rd person 3D view has preference over the 1st, but once you get the hang of it and know how everything moves it becomes very easy to adjust your fighting style, speed and tactics to the 1st person pov. Lastly, we have the freeview. Freeview is only suited for tactical games like Dawn of War, at least for me personally. I'd rather not have freeview in an FPS or something similar. Together, all these modes offer a wide range of possibilities and options. The development process was mostly stimulated, I think, by better computers. The next point of view will be virtual reality.
//Barry
|
