What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
32 Comments
- McGrude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27That's a difficult one Dr. Scott. It depends on the game.
- DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -17/+43Diggpoll: Digg me up if you prefer a player-oriented camera (eg: first person, grounded camera, static third person). Digg me down if you prefer camera control via the controller.
- WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Both, like world of warcraft (hold down left click to steer with the mouse, or right to move camera around).
Unless it's an FPS, then really there is only one option (unless you want to get your ass beat) - swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I thought this article was going to be interesting, or at very least have something new to say. Blogspam, dull dull blogspam.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I've gotten on a MAME/retro kick recently and it's made me realize how much I miss the simplicity of 2D games. One joystick, a button or two, and no messy camera problems. I don't want 3D to go away, I'd just love to see a few more good 2D and 2.5D games. As for camera systems I don't think anything can beat first person with a keyboard/mouse.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@drscott (#6473826)
In the case of games which are "full immersion" (FPS, driving), the purist in me wants to say that the camera view should be that of the character. But it's a pain in the ass to "turn the character's head" to change the camera view while still speeding along in the same direction - even if we are able to do that kind of thing instinctively with our own heads. Having a third person camera in, say, an FPS would give the player an unusual advantage of being able to see things that their in-game character shouldn't be able to see.
In a sports game, where the player is controlling a number of different in-game characters (simultaneously or consecutively), you need to have a third person camera. The player needs to see the whole field of play. In sports games, the in-game characters/athletes are less "characters" and more "pawns." - CalipsoII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Agreed, I found this article particularly full of fluff. It's a step or two above stream of consciousness writing - which would be interesting if the author was John Carmack. As it stands, this article teaches nothing.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed. Working in the field for a while now, there's a ton of actual literature to read, even formal studies, which could be distilled into more than a "we think this is best" response.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You think you're kidding, but...
"The term fourth person is also sometimes used for the category of indefinite or generic referents, that work like one in English phrases such as "one should be prepared", when the grammar treats them differently from ordinary third-person forms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person
So a good example of that would be the safety card in your airplane seatback pocket. That's depicted in the fourth person. ;) - stupergenius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah some games like Mario 64 worked great with a controller camera but others like Resident Evil would suck I think.
But in general I prefer the player oriented camera. I would rather have the game control the camera than be burdened with controlling the character and the camera in most games. - MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The best camera feature that I've seen is World of Warcraft and other games that use the same scheme. You can zoom all the way out (with the mouse wheel) to get a top view and see all your surroundings, or zoom all the way in for a first person view and play that way. This is all in conjunction with the wasd keys to move your character.
Why other character based games don't follow these rules is beyond me. This should be the standard. - jkyjynrkrsee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no duh!!! Thats what i was referring to!
- masterthiefster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Having the weapon to the right is based on reality. No game "started" it. Many guns are too long to hold in front of your chest with your arms still in a comfortable position, so, since most people are right-handed, it gets stowed under the right armpit so the more responsive right hand can pull the trigger.
HUD streamlining is also a factor; in modern FPSes it's made of individual segments (sometimes even transparent), meaning you can't just have the muzzle visible and the location of the rest of the gun left to the imagination. Putting the gun on the right has the added bonus of freeing up more screen space, with the crosshair (rather than the gun itself) determining whether shots are lined up.
A few games, like Counter-Strike, let you select which side the gun is stowed on, but as a general rule it's always on the right. - pak314, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't like first person point of view in games. It for some reason makes me dizzy after playing a while.
- heidtmare, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If we could only design a view that actually make use of the natural peripheral vision we have..
- dracflamloc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're not the only one. I love a good 2D game. Thats why I loved my Dreamcast so much...good mix of 2d and 3d games.
- KielKilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You should check out LittleBigPlanet it has 3d effects but look exactly like a 2d scroller. Reminds me of lost vikings.
- jkyjynrkrsee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+74th person
- MJM6783, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the initial analysis is solid, but nothing we don't already know. The conclusion is short-sighted at best. Not every game can have a user controlled camera, simply because it would over complicate control structures. Not to mention the tedium of minor adjustments. Games don't really come with 100% user controlled cameras anyway. They all have some degree of autmoation, it's all about finding the balance and testing the hell out of it for glitches.
- tchawla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The best method is to relegate camera control to the player. You see what you WANT to see, of course...and you want your games to do just the same."
I severely disagree with the writer with this point -
There's no way to name a best method that covers all games.
Can you imagine playing an action game like devil may cry or ninja gaiden, and having to constantly tweak the camera? I definitely depends on genre and gameplay style for this point. - alexforcefive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Third-Person Isometric (Secret Of Mana, Cannon Fodder) is still the best.
- wizpig64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay was a great example of a game in which the developers thought about how the camera affected both immersion and gameplay. In combat and other normal play, you would use direct camera control FPS-style. While climbing ladders, viewing cut scenes, or doing other things that could have you staring at a wall, the camera pulled out to show Vin Diesel (your character).
- grumbel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A static camera that moves automatically with the player can be interesting, since it frees the second analog stick for dodge moves (God of War, God Hand). Completely static ones in RE are for most part there due to technical limitations and for horror effect, not being able to see a zombie is half of the fun there. In the end I however never really had much of an issue, no matter if static or dynamic like in Mario64 (which is actually quite cool, since the camera itself is a character), some camera are betters then others, but overall must are good enough today.
What I however find annoying are FPSs, sure first person perspective sounds nice, but that is *not* what most games are doing, in reality your weapon aim is not glued to your head, not even close, neither is the walking direction and normally you have a body, in many FPS today, you however still don't. There are a few games that break the standard such as Breakdown(Xbox) where you have a complete body and interact a lot with the environment with it, or OperationFlashpoint where the weapon is separate from your aim, thus reducing a lot of motion sickness, but most still use almost the same view as Doom1 did. In the end I think FPS camera can still be improved a lot.
Little question: Which game started the "weapon on the right side of the screen"-trend in FPS? In Doom1 and Quake the Weapon was in the center, in Dark Forces its on the right side, was there any earlier game with "weapon on the right"? - Dunge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is this article supposed to tell us something?
- grumbel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Um, yeah, I can imagine a game like Ninja Gaiden where I have to constantly tweak the camera, since that is *exactly* what you have to do in that game, the camera is one of the worst I had to play with, it has such moments of brilliance were you walk through a door and the camera ends up facing towards the door after you walked through it, with all the bad guys on the other side of the camera, completly out of view. Ninja Gaiden has plenty of good points, but the camera is really not one of them.
- GabeUtsecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Off the top of my head, my favorite camera control scheme was Metal Gear Solid 2. It was a dynamic combination of fixed-camera, close third-person, distant third person/aerial view, and at any time, the player could switch to third person. But that wouldn't work for some games. It really depends on the gameplay dynamic the creators are going for. Like Nougat said, you can't have a first person view in a game in which you are managing multiple "pawns."
That said, here are my likes and dislikes:
- I prefer when the camera is automatic, but not loose, as it is in some 3D platforming games. I like it tight, and I can't stand when there is no way to quickly reset the camera to be directly behind the character.
- The ability to manually change the camera-style is nice. I love that sports games usually give tons of camera options.
- I hate moving around in first-person view. I like going into first person to snipe in predominantly third person games, but I can't stand FPSs and whatnot.
- In the end, I just don't want the camera to ***** around to much and get in the way of gameplay. - skillet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Nougat
Look into TrackIR. It is becoming a common feature of flight and racing sims. It's basically first-person perspective with the ability to turn your head left and right to change your view while moving in a different direction. Some games also support an advanced version called 6 Degrees of Freedom (6DOF) where you can lean forwards and backwards -- imagine being in the cockpit of a plane and leaning a bit forward to the left or right to 'see around' part of the canopy that is blocking your view. It's basically a way of simulating our natural view of the world. It fits well with the flight/racing sims that use it, but there is no reason it should't/couldn't be used in other games, they just have to include support for it. - idathunkit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did anyone else find the writing style in this article really annoying? I.e. long winded, without really saying anything. Just thought I'd check, because it really bothered me.
- masterthiefster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Mouse-style free aiming is the best. That way if a stupid camera angle DOES occur it's entirely the player's fault. The developers just have to ensure the ceilings are high enough for the camera (if it's a third-person game) and that the response time is fast enough. Dual analogs can emulate this very well.
- Elliuotatar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Article? You call this an article? It's more like a post on a messageboard saying "third person cameras suck". There's nothing in here which is even remotely insightful or worth reading. How the hell did it get dug up so far? Third person cameras frustrate gamers? HOLY CRAP, NEWS FLASH!
- FrankBattaglia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Third-Person Isometric (Infinity Engine, FallOut, etc) is still the best.
- ColdSnickersBar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I bought the original release of Metal Gear Solid 3, and had an alright time playing it, although it suffered from the ridiculous camera that all the others had, especially in a game where just being spotted by an enemy at all causes you to die when you can't see some enemies who are right in front of your face.
Then, I bought the re-release that included the multiplayer engine. The re-release was exactly the same, but added camera control to the second analog stick. It was easily a landmark improvement and made MGS3 one of my favorite games. I played the game through all over again just because I could finally see.
Considering how much the camera control improved the game, I doubt the MGS franchise will return to its old camera model.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is