Are First-Person Games Inherently More Immersive?

[Brennan]

Oh they do, but it's neigh unplayable... ...try playing New Vegas in first and third person. It's obvious that third person is a lot less effective at drawing you in.

As a gamer (not "hardcore" gamer, just "person who games" gamer), I find the assertion that they are "nigh unplayable" so hyperbolic that I question whether the person who made it has any experience with 3rd person games in general. Both games are as easy to play in 3rd person as any other 3rd person game. I play(ed) both Skyrim and New Vegas primarily in third person specifically because it felt much more analogous to real life when peripheral vision and proprioceptive sense are taken into account. Playing them in first person felt awkward and claustrophobic, like playing someone strapped to a gurney and wearing welding goggles. As an IRL hiker, I find the assertion that either of these games in 1rst person are closer to the real experience to be so bizarre it can only come from someone who doesn't hike.

Even with FOV cranked up, 1rst person does not look or feel more like I'm inhabiting the character, because I'm still only looking through a window (the TV/monitor frame) in a small central zone of my IRL field of vision. If anything, this half-attempt to make things more natural only emphasizes the (massive) remaining unnaturalness in an uncanny valley way. 3rd person gives me more natural, immersive body awareness because I can see my character's actual body position and motions. There is no direct proprioceptive output in games, only what we can interpolate from visuals, so a 3rd person game does better by giving some kind of actual body map I can project onto myself and interact with like I do naturally with my own body, where in 1rst person I'm just a flying fridge with hands.

Not saying 1rst person is worse than third person, but the claims that it's better or "closer to a natural experience" are horseshit because it takes away as much immersion-related data as it adds relative to 3rd person. It's pretty much an even trade off where neither really adds up to "better". I can only suspect that people who do find 1rst person that much more immersive must be people accustomed to not using their proprioceptive sense or full visual field very much, if at all, in real life.

 

[Harpalyce]

I'd have to go with no, but I'm pretty biased with first person view - it has a lot of things that metaphorically get on my tits and rustle whatever jimmies I have at that time. Most of the time if you're in first person, you're going to be a dude. That's just kinda how video game protags are these days. So in first person view I'm being pushed to see these great big ol' man hands as "mine". I'm not saying I expect Corvo Attano to stop his business of revenge to sit down for a nice mani-pedi, but it is sometimes a little jarring, and it's just a slightly aggravating disconnect. But in general I don't really buy video games attempting the first person view to get it to be "me" in the game because, well, being me is actually quite boring and sad business. I play video games so I can stop being me for a little while and be somebody far more awesome. The way to my heart - and to immersion, in that sweet spot where you forget that there's a computer between you and the game and there seems to be just the game - is to give me a character in third-person, preferably one I can customize in some way.

But that's just me. Things vary widely of course, and I'm the kind of maniac that has an entire bank storage full of clothes for outfits in World of Warcraft and then made a vanity guild just for more storage for yet more clothes, so I'm a little biased in some ways

 

[havoc33]

One of the most immersive games I've ever played relied on obscure and fixed camera angles. That sort of cinematic immersion is difficult to recreate in 1st person view. So no, don't necessarily agree that 1st person is more immersive. It's tied to story and characters anyway.

 

[The Random Critic]

In terms of begin living as the person, and acting out his every action. When it comes to experience said story as the person, and not as the one that's controlling him though any other perspective. I would said that it's pretty subjective that First person game is the most natural way to do it.

Over the years I found that different camera angles has different ways in designing a game. (I'll elaborate but that would take too long and no one would cares) And that the best story considered as every told in all first person games are the ones that understand we as a single human begin knows very little due to our tunnel vision/our pride. (Bioshock, Stalker and definitely any form of strong narrative written by Valve) This is the best vision that represent us as human begins, and as such, it can be hard for other people take it as seriously due to the nature of this begin a video game.

With all that begin said, option to zoom out to see and interact with the character are nice. (Would like that in Borderland 2 for example, Cause I got those skin and I don't get to see how I different look in a real environment)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't see how you can forget that you are watching a character when it's right in front of your eyes.

Same way you forget you're playing with a controller.

It's not in front on your eyes. Unless you actually hold it in front of your eyes, which sounds a very uncomfortable way to play.

It's in your freaking hands. When you're running, your sitting on your ass and pressing a button. But you get immersed in the game and you don't think about it anymore.

 

[laggyteabag]

Compared to a third-person perspective, sure, but only if I have a half decent and somewhat acceptable FOV, otherwise I just feel like im wearing blinders.

 

[endtherapture]

Yep. Take Half Life for instance. You get a real sense of danger, vertigo etc. from the environments. It feels really dangerous and tense, and I never really get that feeling from 3rd person games. You never feel terrified of falling off a cliff or having your bones crushed because you're a further level removed from the character you are playing as.

 

[Doom972]

I don't see how you can forget that you are watching a character when it's right in front of your eyes.

Same way you forget you're playing with a controller.

It's not in front on your eyes. Unless you actually hold it in front of your eyes, which sounds a very uncomfortable way to play.

It's in your freaking hands. When you're running, your sitting on your ass and pressing a button. But you get immersed in the game and you don't think about it anymore.

It's in your hands, but after enough time it becomes an extension of them due to muscle memory. Do you see the character on the screen as an extension of yourself? I don't see it happening, but I can't argue about how you personally experience it.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Games in first person certainely are more immersive, in some cases it's actually easier for me to bond/roleplay/whatever with a character which I can't in third person.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It's in your hands, but after enough time it becomes an extension of them due to muscle memory. Do you see the character on the screen as an extension of yourself? I don't see it happening, but I can't argue about how you personally experience it.

It depends on how much of a "character" the character is; you got quite a spectrum from Bayonetta to Mario to Aiden Pearce to your character in Dark Souls. The limiting aspect of 1st-person is immersion breaking too. Moving forward or backward in 1st-person and getting stuck on a little like lip that is a couple inches higher than the floor is something that happens in a 1st-person game that doesn't happen in real life nor 3rd-person. Or getting say stuck on a corner of a table or chair, in real life you can "feel" your surroundings and you know the exact position of the table or chair. 3rd-person allows you to see that kind of stuff. Could you imagine playing a game like Bayonetta in 1st-person, you just wouldn't be able to keep track of the enemies.

 

[cypher-raige]

1st-person is not inherently more immersive. Firstly, you can't even move forward and look backwards like you can in real life or with a 3rd-person camera. Secondly, you have like no peripheral vision in 1st-person like you do in real life. Thirdly, lots of mechanics don't work (or work poorly) in 1st-person like a cover system or jumping. 1st-person can help with immersion with a game designed for the perspective, but there are indeed limitations. Too many games are in 1st-person just because developers are lazy and coding a 1st-person camera is so much easier than a good 3rd-person camera.

Valve's first-person shooters have excellent jumping mechanics. They invented the crouch jump.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Valve's first-person shooters have excellent jumping mechanics. They invented the crouch jump.

The only 1st-person game that I actually enjoyed jumping was Mirror's Edge.

 

[Doom972]

It's in your hands, but after enough time it becomes an extension of them due to muscle memory. Do you see the character on the screen as an extension of yourself? I don't see it happening, but I can't argue about how you personally experience it.

It depends on how much of a "character" the character is; you got quite a spectrum from Bayonetta to Mario to Aiden Pearce to your character in Dark Souls. The limiting aspect of 1st-person is immersion breaking too. Moving forward or backward in 1st-person and getting stuck on a little like lip that is a couple inches higher than the floor is something that happens in a 1st-person game that doesn't happen in real life nor 3rd-person. Or getting say stuck on a corner of a table or chair, in real life you can "feel" your surroundings and you know the exact position of the table or chair. 3rd-person allows you to see that kind of stuff. Could you imagine playing a game like Bayonetta in 1st-person, you just wouldn't be able to keep track of the enemies.

Both perspectives have immersion breaking issues, but as long as a game is properly designed to work with either perspective, these issues are kept to a minimum. Baynoetta would work poorly in first person because its game mechanics are designed for a third-person perspective.

 

[Nazulu]

It's funny. I actually dislike first person more than 3rd person games and some others because it's easier to see every imperfection, including I feel I always have less vision than I want. I was usually playing Skyrim in 3rd person, even though the game was developed better for first person, because I could take in more, and seeing the characters movement really adds a lot for me.

Though there are some first person games I have to praise for incredible design and atmosphere, like Half Life 1 & 2 and Metroid Prime. You just can't ignore those beauty's.

Yep. Take Half Life for instance. You get a real sense of danger, vertigo etc. from the environments. It feels really dangerous and tense, and I never really get that feeling from 3rd person games. You never feel terrified of falling off a cliff or having your bones crushed because you're a further level removed from the character you are playing as.

I felt that sense of danger in many 3rd person games. Ocarina Of Time was a near favourite for awhile because I loved the temples so, with it's dangerous and haunting vibes almost everywhere, and some things made you nervous when getting near them because you had no idea what was going to happen.

Then there is my favourite, Super Metroid, which still has my favourite atmosphere out of all. And I absolutely adore the design in that game because it knows what to keep you focused on and so can feel real claustrophobic at times.

Then there's games that are nowhere near my favourite but left me a lot to remember. The haunted houses in Super Mario World always put me on the edge. I almost always panic nearly every time I play those stages, and I don't how to describe it, but it certainly makes you feel small and weak.

I reckon if a game knows how to keep you focused, you'll be feeling whatever the hell the developers wants you to feel.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I'd say its more about how the game flows than anything else.
First person or not, if I run into something that feels out of place or jarring it will ruin the immersion. For something like Skyrim, it was just so unrealistic (often due to bugs) and not intense that it just wasn't immersive. I still enjoyed the game, but I was always just playing a game.

Whereas in Dark Souls for example, it often came down to the wire and I would even flinch if I was about to get hit by a giant flaming fist of death.
To put it more plainly, I felt in skyrim like I was controlling a character with my controller, whereas in darksouls I couldn't even tell you if I was using a controller, I just remember thinking 'oh shit, dodge' like it was actually in real life or something and the character doing it.

The games were just used an an example for third/first person. I liked both.

 

[havoc33]

Yep. Take Half Life for instance. You get a real sense of danger, vertigo etc. from the environments. It feels really dangerous and tense, and I never really get that feeling from 3rd person games. You never feel terrified of falling off a cliff or having your bones crushed because you're a further level removed from the character you are playing as.

The original Tomb Raider games say hello. Wether or not you're scared of falling has more to do with the game design than actual perspective. If the game punishes you heavily for falling, then you get tense. If you just respawn close by anyway, you don't care. I remember quite a few leap of faith in those original Tomb Raider games.. good times.

 

[rob_simple]

I've never found first-person to be more immersive; there's nothing inherently immersive about piloting a pair of disembodied hands around, it generally just makes navigation a pain in the dick (particularly when jumping is involved).

I will always opt for the third person option because it just makes movement so much smoother when I'm less likely to get stuck on things I can't see in my tiny first-person cone of vision.

 

[maidenm]

I would say that what little immersion the camera perspective gives is blown out of the water by the immersion created by everything else in a game that does it well. That being said, here's my thoughts:

I never roleplay a character who is "me". I always play as the character the game gives me or the character I create. If I then get to play first person, I loose some of the connection with that character. That reminds me that it really is a game after all.
If I play third person, I start noticing little things. How the character walks, how they stand, how they hold their weapons. This helps me think of the character as, well, a character rather than a... camera. Sure, I never feel "that is me", but as I mentioned that is not how I play anyway.

Also, as some have mentioned, periphial vision. I can never ever forget that I'm actually looking at a box-shaped screen for as long as my perspective is basically only 90° wide. Unless it creates a enviroment in wich the lack of width is justified in a good way. The only game I've played in first person that did that perfectly IMO is Dishonored. The mask really really helped.
If I'm in third person, it creates a illusion of periphial vision. That's a good enough illusion for me.

Closing thoughts; Immersion can be made and broken by so many many things. Camera perspective is one of them, but like everything else it needs to be done well together with everything else. And lastly, it is also very individual. What works for me does not work for my boyfriend for example. But I'm also sure I'm not alone with this view.

 

[havoc33]

I would say that what little immersion the camera perspective gives is blown out of the water by the immersion created by everything else in a game that does it well. That being said, here's my thoughts:

I never roleplay a character who is "me". I always play as the character the game gives me or the character I create. If I then get to play first person, I loose some of the connection with that character. That reminds me that it really is a game after all.
If I play third person, I start noticing little things. How the character walks, how they stand, how they hold their weapons. This helps me think of the character as, well, a character rather than a... camera. Sure, I never feel "that is me", but as I mentioned that is not how I play anyway.

Also, as some have mentioned, periphial vision. I can never ever forget that I'm actually looking at a box-shaped screen for as long as my perspective is basically only 90° wide. Unless it creates a enviroment in wich the lack of width is justified in a good way. The only game I've played in first person that did that perfectly IMO is Dishonored. The mask really really helped.
If I'm in third person, it creates a illusion of periphial vision. That's a good enough illusion for me.

Closing thoughts; Immersion can be made and broken by so many many things. Camera perspective is one of them, but like everything else it needs to be done well together with everything else. And lastly, it is also very individual. What works for me does not work for my boyfriend for example. But I'm also sure I'm not alone with this view.

Great post. This is why I never cared much for creating your own character in games. I'd rather have the developers present me an interesting character to take control of. Generally, the story in the game will also be better if the developers have actually have created a proper character with a real story arc. The lack of this is what I feel is missing from Skyrim for example. Amazing freedom and world, but the story and characters leave much to be desired.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Both perspectives have immersion breaking issues, but as long as a game is properly designed to work with either perspective, these issues are kept to a minimum. Baynoetta would work poorly in first person because its game mechanics are designed for a third-person perspective.

1st-person is more limiting from a gameplay mechanics standpoint. The main reason why Bayonetta wouldn't work in 1st-person would be due to the very limiting field of vision, which is much smaller than real life. Plus, you'd lose out on seeing the actual moves and such for the most part. I think the game's actual combat of performing combos would be alright in 1st-person.