Quit looking over my shoulder - January 21th, 2000 - Drew Cosner
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. Honk if I'm horny. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Well, George W. Bush is officially the president of our fine nation, despite not attaining the majority of votes. Which
kind of sucks, because now it's a lot harder to make fun of other English-speaking countries and be
taken seriously enough to upset anybody. His election was obviously just a ploy to ruin my fun; to poop
on my parade, if you will.
And yes, I realize that I just went against my character in speaking about real-world events. I'm sorry;
I apologize. I was hard up for something to talk about in the introduction. I promise I'll keep it to
videogame rants with absolutely no impact on reality or anything remotely important in the grand scheme
of things, just as it should be.
| Ask an editor |
|
Editor (or whatever) -- [Your personal touch really gets me in the heart. -Drew]
I think the thing that should be kept in mind here is that this
aspect of the game was decided primarily to tie in with the
gameplay itself. Sakaguchi could put in an over-the-shoulder
camera, or a user-defined POV, or include zesty low-cal seafood
recipes or *whatever* -- if it doesn't improve the feel of
wandering around a town or overworld, then it is resource
spending without cause, and thusly I say that it can go to
hell.
Given that Sakaguchi has seen the game in a 80% completed form
and we haven't, I trust him to know what POV style best suits
the feel of game.
In case you don't buy that argument, keep in mind that we've
yet to see any indication that an over-the-shoulder POV is
going to be particularly important to the gameplay. (Unlike,
for example, Half-Life, in which the entire plot presentation
revloved around the POV.) The only real problem with POVs in
the past has been with pre-rendered backgrounds like in the
PSX FF trilogy and tile-based backgrounds in the other six,
in which everything in a given room is seen from the exact
same camera location always, unless it's FMV.
If you need evidence that a fully 3D environment with no
restriction on camera placement will make plot presentation
any better simply by its own merit, I present to you
Xenogears.
-J.S. Powell
|
Okay, I have to be honest and admit that I don't get what you're trying to say with about 90% of your
letter, but I printed it because of your comment regarding Sakaguchi and his involvement. Yes, it is
true that he's seen more of the game than I have to make the executive decision, but that doesn't negate
the fact that I prefer the over-the-shoulder view. And from the video I'd seen of the game in action
when it still was using that camera angle, it looked to be working wonderfully. So that's my opinion and
I'm sticking with it.
| Official giant letter/giant response combo of the day |
|
Drew—
I may be in the minority, but I’m incredibly excited about what Square is doing with the
camera in FF X. I’ll concede that an over-the-shoulder camera gives you more of a feeling that you’re
“in” the environments, but I don’t want Square to switch to that any more than I’d like to see them
switch to first-person view to make you feel like you “are” Tidus. Just as in writing, where a first
person perspective lets you do things you can't accomplish with a third person perspective, each
viewpoint has its advantages and disadvantages. It’s not just about immersion – it’s about
presentation.
Case in point: I’m in the middle of playing Skies of Arcadia right now. And while
Overworks has managed to construct some of the most vast and stunning settings ever seen in an RPG, 90%
of the time is spent staring at Vyse’s butt and the small strip of walkway in front of him. When you
want to admire the wonderful environments, you usually need to switch to the first person view. See the
problem? A fixed camera system doesn't have to mean "wasting" the third dimension; it just means it
will be a little more organized.
Not that we've ever really seen a well done camera like this. You're exactly right -- Resident
Evil: Code Veronica more or less looked like a prettier RE. But then again, that's all Capcom was
trying to do. As they’ve show again and again with that series, they don’t know their ass from their
elbows in terms of cinematography. A better example would be Metal Gear Solid. While most of the game
is in a fixed top down perspective, there is dynamic camera work that adds immensely to the atmosphere.
If you duck against a wall while Snake is sneaking around the Metal Gear Rex storage area, the camera
switches to a low angle reverse shot, rather than the standard one, so you can get a full view of the
giant mech. This kind of attention to detail, on a much larger scale, is what I'm hoping to see from FF
X. Who knows if Square will succeed, but they certainly have it in them.
The other big problem with the over-the-shoulder view is it doesn’t lend itself well to anything
besides large, empty rooms connected by corridors. We’ve all experienced countless games where the
camera gets hung up on an object, or switches to an idiotic angle when you walk into a corner. Sooner
or later designers have to realize that the camera is just as big a part of the design of the world
they're creating as the environments themselves. You can’t just make an interesting, well-constructed
environment, then tie the camera to the main character’s ass and expect it to all work out in the end.
I’m not saying one system is better than the other, just that each has its strengths and weaknesses and
should be employed to different ends. The over-the-shoulder view works great in Zelda, and is necessary
for an action game, but even in those games it will switch to a fixed view in close quarters.
All I'm saying is give Square the benefit of the doubt on this one. Who knows, maybe it will end up
just as static as the prerended backgrounds, but I think Square has something more ambitious in mind.
-Zak McClendon, who specifically used the word "ass" twice to guarantee this letter would get printed.
|
A couple of people made that same point: that if I wanted to feel a part of the environment so much,
then first-person would be better suited. However, I disagree for a couple of reasons. For one thing,
the first-person viewpoint is a bit removing as it fails to take into consideration things like
peripheral vision, the ability to see your own legs and arms, and the fact that nobody walks on a
perfectly straight plane at all times. It's not particularly realistic, and while it does work for
certain games, when it comes to explorative titles, third-person just works better.
Similarly, with the third-person perspective, you have a visual representation on-screen of the
character or characters you're currently in command of, and that's necessary to RPGs with characters as
well-defined and essential to the storyline as Square's are. For a PC RPG, perhaps the first-person
perspective would work, since you're supposed to be your character, but for games like the Final
Fantasies, that's not the case, and it would be a out of place in my eyes.
My argument isn't that I want to feel as though I am Tidus or whomever, it's that I want to feel
immersed in and surrounded by the virtual world Tidus and his friends inhabit. And from the sound of it,
Skies of Arcadia just gets it a bit wrong; that doesn't mean every game would have to. (Again, see
Zelda: OoT. That game's camera was perfect. You know the developers have done something right
when only one button is reserved for the occasional camera adjustments.)
However, I will agree with you when it comes to Metal Gear Solid. A sort of 3D compromise would work for
me, too. For example, when in more confined areas, such as homes or back alleyways, a fixed camera
perspective would probably be for the best. But in larger areas, like the dungeons or world map, I'd
really prefer something more dynamic. As you say, hopefully Square will go Konami route rather than the
Capcom route. However, in dissention with the Konami point, we have the next letter.
| Let's customize! |
|
This whole FFX camera issue brings up something deeper about games recently
thats getting on my nerves... why the heck are game designers so damn anal
retentive with the cameras and other options?
For instance, in Final Fantasy X, why the heck not allow BOTH types of
camera
angles? If somebody like you wants to play it in an over-the-shoulder
perspective -- or even a first-person perspective -- why shouldn't the
designers
add that feature in. Maybe I'm stupid, but isn't the one of the attractions
of
3D graphics the idea that you can change camera angles and scale in and out?
Metal Gear Solid is another offender here. There are times when it would
have
been a heck of a lot better to view that game and move from a First Person
perspective -- and all they would have had to do was fix the 3D camera in a
different place. But no -- we've got to experience the game they way Kojima
wants us to.
This is also evident in other recent games. In FF8, you couldn't alter the
color
of the textboxes (White-on-blue forever, baby!) In Xenogears, you couldn't
speed
up the text or remap the controller. Am I the only one who finds this lack
of
flexibility annoying? I think more games need Quake-style consoles where you
can
alter every setting in the game...
|
Well, getting a camera system to work at all in the first place is a pretty daunting task it would seem,
so it would probably be a tall order to ask for both fixed camera shots and an over-the-shoulder view in
the same game. At least if you didn't want to have both be crappy. Not only that, but certain camera
angles only work for certain games. In fact, that camera angle has a huge effect on the game itself, and
needs to be chosen early in the design of the game (generally speaking). For, say, Harvest Moon to have
been over-the-shoulder, the game would have to have been entirely different. And it probably wouldn't
have worked.
On another note, anybody remember Shadows of the Empire for the N64? If you need proof that it's best to
stick with one complementary camera system, check that game out sometime. You could switch between first
and third-person perspective, and both were done shoddily. The first-person mode had a very limited
field of view, and the third-person mode was like the first-person mode with the added bonus of having
your character hog up part of the limited field of view.
I don't really know where I'm going with all of this, either. I need to quit writing these columns so
late.
| Considering wanting it considerably less |
|
Hey Drew,
I think that Squares decision to use pre-scripted camera shots is
regrettable but kind
of understandable when you think about it. The Final Fantasy series,
and especially
with the last three, really never had that feeling of exploration that
Zelda OOT had,
and I think that comes back to the fact that the backgrounds in Final
Fantasy are
pretty, they dont really serve any function except just being there.
You cant go in a
majority of building, its kind of like walking around in a painting.
Square not
jumping into full 3D seems kind of fitting to me, but it does make me
want the game
considerably less.
-pw
|
That's certainly true with FFVII and even FFVIII to a lesser extent, but I would argue that FFIX really
was pretty explorative. While FFIX may not be my favorite of the bunch, it did have some really nice
additions: more interactive and animated backgrounds, the little exclamation bubble, and in general a
greater number of objects to find about made it fairly explorative. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing
that notion taken a step further with FFX, rather than sanctimoniously passing off exploration as
something for the Zeldas or Marios of the gaming world.
| I hate it when that happens |
|
Drew,
I agree with your point about free vs fixed cameras. I only hope that
that FFX will not employ the nonsensical trick of enemies or objects hiding
in plain sight by being outside or behind whatever the camera chooses to
show you. That being said, I think fixed camerawork hurts multicharacter
rpgs (especially considering their more sedate pacing) much less than it
hurts fast-paced single character adventures.
-Mark
|
Yes, to put it eloquently, I hate that shit. It's pretty lame when a developer will not just gloss over
a limited camera system (rather than making sure it complements the gameplay appropriately), but
actually see to it that it works to your disadvantage. This means you, Breath of Fire series. Hiding
boxes and enemies in areas that would easily be seen were it not for your poor execution of the
isometric perspective is not cool.
| I can only take so much of the sap |
|
I fear the day text boxes are removed from RPGs. I think a cool feature
would be the ability to turn voice acting on and off. Off for when we want
to blow through those really boring -erm- "emotional" soliloquies we've
already heard. Or On for when we see them the first time. Also, I'm a fan of
gaming at around 3am. For those of you who don't live in an apartment with
paper-thin walls, this means stealth-gaming with the TV on mute. With out
the boxes I guess I'd have to learn how to read lips, and Japanese for that
matter if the lips are moving to Japanese words. Additionally, think of the
added localization times. I'm no localization director, but I'd wager that a
game with all voice acting takes a couple extra weeks to cross the pond.
~EidosWetsuit, Ninja Gamer.
|
Excellent points I have no choice but to agree with. I was embarrased by the idea that somebody may have
come walking in on me during that damned "Eyes on Me" scene on the Ragnarok; at least I was able to turn
the sound down and just read the action. If I had to deal with that kind of music and that kind of scene
in spoken speech, it would all be a tad too sappy for me.
| Snail mail |
|
Hello again.
Just to say: Do you people ever wonder why our language is called "English"?
Or have I broke the un-written law of pointing out the obvious flaws in the
Agent's arguments after he has the last word?
Cheers,
-Snail
|
I know what you're getting at, and I agree: it's a real shame the English can't pronounce their own
language correctly. Maybe if they spent their tax dollars on better schools instead of making sure an
entire family of powerless figureheads live the highlife, that wouldn't be the case. I don't know why
America always needs to think of everything for everybody.
Remember, readers, there are two groups of people you can get away with insulting on the Internet: the
Amish, because they don't have computers, and the British, because they can't read anyway. And I think
you've pretty much forced me to use up another Disclaimer Award. Thanks a lot, Snail.
Neither the Gaming Intelligence Agency (hereafter the GIA) nor "Double Agent" Drew Cosner (hereafter DA)
feel all British are illiterate, stinky slobs who would make a sandwhich by putting meat between two
slices of meat if it didn't get their fingers all greasy. Likewise, neither the GIA nor DA feel America
(hereafter America) or Americans (hereafter Americans) are superior in any fashion to people of other
nations, and both the GIA and DA frown heavily upon nationalism.
| See me work my petty insults into the column |
|
I was just reading through one of my (amazingly not so) old issues
of Nintendo Power (Mar. 98) and was amazed at what I saw. Check out this
letter that they printed.
"I thought that if you buy something, you own it and all that it
contains. Obviously, you do not think so. I don't know what reasons you
have for limiting my fun, but they better be good. I own Golden Eye 007,
so I should be able to play any level and be any character I want,
regardless of how "far" I've gotten in the game. There should be an
option for this; none of this "you have to beat certain things in order"
stuff. I own this game. I discussed this with many of my friends, and
some side with you, saying that it makes the game more fun."
Heh, I liked the use of quotes in that one, here is another...
"You know what stinks about today's games? There's way too much emphasis
on beating the game and finding everything. It used to be that you never
got a thing for finding all the items. Now players expect to get a
reward for finding everything, then they complain that they've done it
all and proceed to sell their game. What I suggest is that players stop
and take a look at what's around them in the game. Maybe, just maybe,
these "no replay value" complaints will disappear."
Can you make sense of that one, I certainly can't. Just think of the
letters they didn't print. Anyway let us flip to the back of the issue
for a preview of Zelda 64...
(Quote next to a picture of Link throwing a boomerang): "Link seems to
be able to do just about everything, from throwing a boomerang to
reading road signs to Mt. Goron."
Yep that sounds like just about "everything"! Here is another...
(Quote next to a picture of Link in Town): "The town is one of the most
realistic spaces ever created for a video game. Link has complete
freedom of motion here."
Now that is warping the truth. The town in Zelda 64 was pretty good
looking, nothing really special though. And it was one of the most
limited places in the game because it used pre-rendered backgrounds. Go
figure.
Why did I get these things for so long? They did have pretty good
strategy though. Anyway enough Nintendo Pravda for now.
|
Since Nintendo needs to maintain their spotless image, Nintendo Power writers seem obligated to both
print letters supporting asinine viewpoints, and not respond to them with the scathing sarcasm they
deserve. Fortunately, I'm here to help.
I especially like that first letter. That is the stupidest argument I've seen in a while. Yeah, you're
right, we should get rid of secrets and unlockable features in games that reward players for
thoroughness! And what's with this commie crap, having to go through levels in a pre-decided order? It's
a rip-off is what it is; game developers just have some kind of god complex and need to force players to
perform tasks in the order they see fit to support their enormous egos. Why should we be forced to put
up with this "playing" garbage just to get to the final boss, anyway? In fact, we should be able to just
skip right to the ending sequence. Better yet, they should just put the ending CG on a disc and call
that a wrap! That would be a more suitable way to reward players for spending 50 dollars on a game.
Give me a break.
Closing comments:
Sorry, my brain is spent. No funny little closing comments for you. Just mail Chris to amuse yourself, I guess.
-Drew Cosner, sneaking up on you ever-so slowly, disguised as a tree
|
|
|
|
