Have third-person PnC adventure games a special charm for you?

[DZ-Jay]

@Someone

I agree with you, except for the atmosphere: In a third person view I can see the surrounding. In a first person game I only see a small section of the world. For example I can’t see what’s behind me (but maybe hear it ). This produces a completely different atmosphere and the developer has to deal with that.

I think atmosphere can be captured in many different ways. It’s a matter of execution and personal preference, of course.

I have been in “haunted houses” that leave me unimpressed, and I have read books that scare the living wits out of me. That does not mean that books are “better” necessarily for the sake of being books. I’ve also read really lame horror books that make no good impression on me. So obviously there is more to it than merely presentation and medium.

That’s what I was trying to say. Immersion comes not necessarily because it’s first person, but because a first person perspective was executed well. Likewise, it could have a third person perspective executed just as well or even better. It’s all relative.

Now, of course, if you personally prefer first person, then that’s different.

@milanfahrnholz

That would actually explain a lot, I don´t remember that. Still the actual sales numbers were astonishing. Funny thing is that the makers of Myst weren´t gamers themselves. It was like a game from non gamers for non gamers (not exclusivly, mind you but it managed to reach them somehow).

I’ll try to find some reference but what I have read in the past is that Myst was a very hot seller for what it represented: a seminal point in the mainstream adoption of personal computer games, and that the fact that it was on CD-ROM – back when that was considered akin to time travel into the future – helped a lot.

Even the Digital Antiquarian, based on his research suggests at various times that the game was well known and well bought, just not well played:

Yet there was also something more going on with Wing Commander than just a cool-looking game for showing off the latest hardware, else it would have suffered the fate of the slightly later bestseller Myst: that of being widely purchased, but very rarely actually, seriously played.

Also, my recollection at the time was that a lot of people owned it because “they had to”: if the computer had a CD-ROM and multi-media capabilities, salesmen and friends typically pressured for you to buy the game to show off the machine.

In my opinion, a lot of the positive reviews were trying to justify an absolutely bizarre phenomenon: a virtual slide show that just happened to become the best selling game of all time. It also would explain why the myriad contemporary copycats could not get even a significant portion of the popularity with very similar visuals and game-play characteristics.

It was very much a product of its time.

-dZ.

[milanfahrnholz]

That makes actually a lot more sense than a game being as non intuitive as Myst is having such a mass appeal.

It sounds like you could say it´s the Bible of video games.
Everyone knows it, most people have it, but hardly anyone went through the whole thing.

[DZ-Jay]

@milanfahrnholz

That makes actually a lot more sense than a game being as non intuitive as Myst is having such a mass appeal.

It sounds like you could say it´s the Bible of video games.
Everyone knows it, most people have it, but hardly anyone went through the whole thing.

Yeah, but that’s not to say that it has no merit or that the critics were wrong. However, its success needs to be put in the contemporary context.

Also, reviews at the time, as much as they praised the game, also pointed out the strange position of best seller. Let’s not forget that a lot of critics called it something like “a walkthrough a virtual museum,” suggesting it’s less-than-impressive game-play.

-dZ.

[milanfahrnholz]

@DZ-Jay

Also, reviews at the time, as much as they praised the game, also pointed out the strange position of best seller. Let’s not forget that a lot of critics called it something like “a walkthrough a virtual museum,” suggesting it’s less-than-impressive game-play.

I think that was at a time when the term “walking simulator” didn´t exist(I only heard that in recent years and almost always in a negative context). Today there is so much of that stuff (especially in the indie market) that something like that is hardly impressive. I don´t think that it was considered as negative back then. People found it impressive. I know I did. For like half an hour…

[DZ-Jay]

@milanfahrnholz

@DZ-Jay

Also, reviews at the time, as much as they praised the game, also pointed out the strange position of best seller. Let’s not forget that a lot of critics called it something like “a walkthrough a virtual museum,” suggesting it’s less-than-impressive game-play.

I think that was at a time when the term “walking simulator” didn´t exist(I only heard that in recent years and almost always in a negative context). Today there is so much of that stuff (especially in the indie market) that something like that is hardly impressive. I don´t think that it was considered as negative back then. People found it impressive. I know I did. For like half an hour…

OK, fine. The actual phrase was “not more than an interactive slideshow.” (That was the New York Times, by the way.) It was still considered negative. It wasn’t trying to say that the game was crap, it was pointing out a level of bafflement that it was actually so successful.

[LowLevel]

@Someone

I like the third-person view much more, but I can’t say exactly why.

It happens the same to me. It’s difficult for me to understand why I like third-person PnC adventure games more.

One of the possible reasons might be that games that show the playable character to me, help me to understand my role better and maybe also help me to identify with them more easily.

For example, I like noir settings like those in “Grim Fandango” and seeing Manny Calavera in his white tuxedo, lighting a cigarette, helped me to understand which role I was playing, who was the character I was supposed to play, how he moves, etc.

First-person adventure games tell me who I am while third-person adventure games also show me who I am. This might have an impact on my preference.

Still, personal preferences don’t explain why PnC adventure games, including recent ones, use a third-person view more often than not.

@milanfahrnholz

When I play videogames, I usually want to play a character. I always feel a bit cheated when I actually play a camera instead.

Have you also played any modern first-person adventure game, like one of those “walking simulators”? I have discovered that some of them manage to make me identify with the character using methods that don’t require the character to be shown on the screen.

@DZ-Jay

Most notably? How about The 7th Guest, The 11th Hour, The Journeyman Project, and a few other contemporary?

Yes, Myst was so popular that it’s usually cited as one of the most iconic first-person adventure games; its reputation is probably influenced by the fact that the game was a best seller, regardless of its quality. I don’t find it strange that it’s the first first-person adventure game that came to my mind, even if I’m not a fan of that kind of games. Of course, it wasn’t the only first-person PnC adventure game of that era.

[milanfahrnholz]

@LowLevel

Have you also played any modern first-person adventure game, like one of those “walking simulators”? I have discovered that some of them manage to make me identify with the character using methods that don’t require the character to be shown on the screen.

Actually recently I tried “Slender: The Arrival” and really loved the first two chapters. The third one is just impossible and I gave up.

But I know what you mean. There actually are some games that build a twist on the fact that you don´t know who you are playing as until the very end of the game (using funny methods to avoid reflections, like every mirror being broken. etc).

[seguso]

@LowLevel

seeing Manny Calavera in his white tuxedo, lighting a cigarette, helped me to understand which role I was playing

I should note that first person games can still show you your character during cutscenes and during dialogs. This happens extensively eg in detective grimoire (dialogs). Also in Eric (cutscenes).

So it’s not like first person games struggle particularly in making you identify with your character.

[DZ-Jay]

@LowLevel

Yes, Myst was so popular that it’s usually cited as one of the most iconic first-person adventure games; its reputation is probably influenced by the fact that the game was a best seller, regardless of its quality. I don’t find it strange that it’s the first first-person adventure game that came to my mind, even if I’m not a fan of that kind of games. Of course, it wasn’t the only first-person PnC adventure game of that era.

I actually said that not for Myst, but for the other examples mentioned. Also, because it seems to have been presented as an anomaly, when in fact it was rather de rigueur at the time to make first-person games.

[Someone]

@LowLevel

Still, personal preferences don’t explain why PnC adventure games, including recent ones, use a third-person view more often than not.

I don’t think that’s true. There are many PnC adventures in the first person view, especially if we include the “walking simulators”. Especially in the 80s and 90s first person PnC adventures were common. I named some examples above (Tass Times, the Icom games, …).

So it would be interesting to see some numbers. Do you have some or is/was it just your feeling/impression that there are more PnC adventures in a third person view?

[LowLevel]

@Someone

So it would be interesting to see some numbers. Do you have some or is/was it just your feeling/impression that there are more PnC adventures in a third person view?

It’s just an impression, I have no idea how to get statistics about the games that were published along the years. My feeling is probably badly influenced by the fact that I don’t consider some modern first-person 3D adventure games (like “The Vanishing of Ethan Carter”) to be “point-and-click”.

[kaiman]

@DZ-Jay

Reports actually suggest that a significant number of people who purchased the game, did not actually play it.

That isn’t hard to believe. I only ever played the original Myst, and I found it a very tough game. It required a lot of observation, as an action you performed might have an effect on something multiple screen away. It’s also the only game I ever bought that had a clue book right inside the box, and without I would not have stood a chance at ever completing it. After that experience, I never bothered with the sequels.

[DZ-Jay]

@LowLevel

Still, personal preferences don’t explain why PnC adventure games, including recent ones, use a third-person view more often than not.

I’m not sure about that. Like I said, it was mostly Sierra and LucasFilms that did the third-person, and it might be a genre thing. There were plenty of first-person Point-and-Click adventures back in the day, including the ones I named above.

-dZ.

[nihilquest]

@LowLevel

The exceptions are, most notably, the games in the Myst series, those (incredibly ugly, in my opinion) Tex Murphy FMV games and also more recent titles like “Gone Home” or “Firewatch”.

No… just no. Some of my favorite adventure games are 1st person. KGB, Gateway, Plan 9 From Outer Space… None of these have anything to do with games like Myst. They are true adventure games and there’s plenty of them. It’s just none of them were made by Sierra or Lucasarts. I’m more used to the third person view but in the end that’s the least important part to me.

[LowLevel]

@DZ-Jay

Like I said, it was mostly Sierra and LucasFilms that did the third-person, and it might be a genre thing.

@nihilquest

It’s just none of them were made by Sierra or Lucasarts.

Yeah, probably my impression is heavily skewed towards Sierra and Lucas adventure games. I have no statistics to establish which kind of perspective has been used more often in PnC adventure games.

[LowLevel]

I have found a source for statistics. AdventureGamers has classified adventure games for years, taking also note of their perspective and everyone can search their archive.

If I exclude casual and hybrid games (hidden object games, RPG, Action) their archive has 1602 third-person games classified as point-and-click and 558 first-person games classified as point-and-click. It’s about a 3:1 ratio.

However, if I include also casual and hybrid games, the number of first-person point-and-click games explodes to 1681, versus just 1621 third-person point-and-click games. Practically a 1:1 ratio.

I was curious to see how many of those 1681 first-person point-and-click games were “hidden object” games and the answer is 1096!

It’s hardly a reliable source of data, but maybe the very different ratios that we get when we include/exclude hybrid games can be considered an interesting information.

[nihilquest]

It really doesn’t matter how many are there. It’s true most iconic adventure games that defined the genre are TPP. It just that the perspective is not a very important thing for an adventure game. For action - yes, it’s huge. But for the FPP games I mentioned, you can convert them into TPP and you won’t lose a thing. You’d still walk around, talk to people, use inventory, bitch at pixel hunting (if present). It’s the same thing. I’d say often they are not even FPP, it’s just that there’s no character walking around. The main difference is: there’s no time consumed on walking to an object you want to use or look at. You just point, click and something happens (or it doesn’t).

[LowLevel]

@nihilquest

It really doesn’t matter how many are there.

It was an indirect answer to Someone, who wrote:

@Someone

So it would be interesting to see some numbers.

[nihilquest]

Yeah, ok : ). There’s always a problem when defining an adventure game so I don’t think a statistic relevant for us can be made.

BTW since you like serious sci-fi games I urge you to try Gateway. It was released free (if you can get it running of course). It’s really good and based on a brilliant source material (a book by Frederik Pohl).

[LowLevel]

@nihilquest

BTW since you like serious sci-fi games I urge you to try Gateway. It was released free (if you can get it running of course). It’s really good and based on a brilliant source material (a book by Frederik Pohl).

Thanks, I’ll give it a look!