Total Annihilation... as best RTS ever.

[GORDON]

God just called, and he said UO was king and 1st person had serious limitations, immersion-wise. He said IRL your vision isn't limited to a 30 degree arc in front of you. A top-down view helps take peripheral vision and senses into account.

As it is God's word, it is beyond contestation.

Don't argue with me, I'm just God's messenger. I have no interest in arguing this.

[mbilderback]

Yeah, cause full visibility behind you is what peripheral vision and hearing give you...especially during combat.

[Zetleft]

You know what helps immersion, having to be within some visual range to hear people and knowing right away who is talking. Chat boxes suck.

[mbilderback]

Agreed, I think they could have implemented a better chat process. But I think chat boxes are necessary, but nothing says they can't be distance limited. I haven't seen the chat util for UO, but the chat on EQ never really bothered me.

And, Issues with Chat < Issues with Overall Gameplay

[Leisher]

Wow, where to begin?

Mbilderback, can I call you MBB? MBB, chill. Calm down. You are WAY too defensive. All I did was ask a simple question and you're going nuts about opinions and assholes. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

However, I do have to point out that you can't carpet bomb all opinions by saying they all stink, then claim to love debates, and ask to continue on with this one. Debates don't exist without differing opinions. Remember, "debate" is just a fancy word for "argument."

You can't have a debate or an argument if all parties agree that everything said is fact. Taking it a step farther, since a debate or argument cannot exist without differing opinions and someone has won an argument or debate in the history of mankind...well, you get my point.

Back to the topic at hand.

I asked:

Take away graphics and please explain how EQ is better than UO.

You responded with:

Gameplay, 1st person always involves the user better than 3rd person.

Ok, first of all, gameplay and perspective are two totally different topics. Gameplay does NOT equal perspective. Gameplay is about the act of playing a game, not looking at it. Perspective can affect gameplay, but it is not gameplay.

Second, "the user" indicates you are speaking for the whole world and as you said, it's a matter of opinion. I might just be nitpicking here to be difficult. I might not. You decide.

Third, 1st person or FP does NOT "always" provide more immersion than 3rd person. (For those reading along, immersion is what he meant by "involves the user".) Again, perspective is NOT everything. Anyone can feel immersed in games and not have them be in the FP perspective. I mean, why is The Sims the top selling game ever if it's not viewed through FP? Why did real people get so lost in UO that they lost their jobs, wives, etc. if it's not immersive because it's not viewed through FP? (Don't argue that peeps did that in EQ too, it's irrelevant to this point.) And hey, let's go old school and talk about D&D, those people sure got into that game despite having NO perspective.

Last, you avoided my question entirely. I said take graphics out of it and that's the only thing you focused on.

I'm not saying graphics aren't important. I know they can be. However, I think you're undersestimating the importance of gameplay, sound, control, level design, storyline, community, etc.

I will take fun gameplay over graphics every day of the week.

Now, let me ask again, for MBB or TPR or any other EQ defender: Removing graphics from the equation, how is EQ better than UO?

I'm looking for someone to run down the features, unique stuff that no other game had, how the community changed the game world, historic moments that are now part of gaming lore, etc. What did EQ bring to the table that UO didn't have or what did EQ do better than UO?

[mbilderback]

Ok, I was just getting irritated at the fact that we've hashed over this before, not to mention the severe off-topic nature of the conversaton. HOWEVER, perspective is one of the most notable features in gameplay.

Now, let me ask again, for MBB or TPR or any other EQ defender: Removing graphics from the equation, how is EQ better than UO?

Perspective, if you will, has nothing to do with graphics. You could have lines dictating the different objects (can't remember the name of that old tank game using lines) but still be in first person or third person. Fact is, all graphics aside, first person is more imersive IMHO (and it is opinion, just like the statement that one is better than the other) than 3rd person could ever be, particularly with the top down not over-the-shoulder perspective given by UO. The perspective was my biggest complaint with UO. After that, I really don't feel they are that different.



Edited By mbilderback on 1148416540

[mbilderback]

And I feel that over the shoulder 3rd person can be just as immersive as 1st person, but most of the time I prefer 1st.

[Cakedaddy]

Please address the 'as much, or more' part of your earlier statement:

you can do as much or more on EQ as you can on UO

And this carries Leisher's question further, or asks it again, or something.

What could you do in EQ that you couldn't in UO? Cause I can name a few things you could do in UO that you couldn't do in EQ.

[TPRJones]

Now, let me ask again, for MBB or TPR or any other EQ defender:

Hey, now, don't lump me in that group. EQ sucks.

All I said is UO sucks, too.

[Leisher]

HOWEVER, perspective is one of the most notable features in gameplay.

Perspective can be important to gameplay, but it is much more important to graphics, which is why it is usually lumped there. Go read reviews of games, perspective (first or third or top down or isometric) is ALWAYS discussed with graphics.

Oh and just a little FYI, you keep implying UO is in 3rd person, it's not. It's isometric.

Gaming views:

FP (1st person) - You see the world from the eyes of the playable character. (Example: Doom, Half-Life, F.E.A.R., etc.)

3rd person - You see the world over the shoulder of the playable character. (Example: Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto series, etc.)

Sidescroller - You see the world and characters from only the side. (Example: Mario games, the first Duke Nukem, etc.)

Top down - You look down upon the world and characters. (Example: Early RTS games like Warcraft and Command & Conquer)

Isometric - You look down upon the world and characters, but at an angle. (Example: Later RTS games, UO, etc.)

Fact is, all graphics aside, first person is more imersive IMHO

FP is ALL about the graphics. Take Oblivion (the most current, beautiful, big name FP game on the market) and remove the storyline, sound, control scheme, level design, etc. What do you have then? A really, really boring walk through a bland enviroment.

Now put all that stuff back in, but change the view to isometric or 3rd person. What do you have now? A compelling, immersive adventure through a fully fleshed out world.

The ONLY genre that must have FP is the FPS genre. Every other genre and game can be done through 3rd person or isometric and still be just as good.

And at some point, a player and his/her imagination has to be held responsible for their immersion too right? I mean, if you're playing the most well written story of all time and it happens to be in the best designed game ever and you still can't get into it because the view is over the shoulder rather than through the characters eyes...it might just be you.

I think you agree:

And I feel that over the shoulder 3rd person can be just as immersive as 1st person, but most of the time I prefer 1st.

I did like your response though. You were very honest about the perspective being the selling point of EQ for you. I didn't expect that. I was expecting a totally different argument.

After that, I really don't feel they are that different.

Honestly, Cake is right. UO, in its prime, was so much more than EQ. We can get into that debate too, but sticking with perspective, let me just finish by saying FP is supposed to replicate real life. However, everyone forgets that you don't walk around the real world with just your eyes as your guide. You have your nose to smell, your ears to hear, your skin to feel, your hand and feet to navigate, and even your nervousness, paranoia, sixth sense, and/or other things like that to help you progress safely.

Games cannot replicate all those things at once. That's the biggest problem with FP. That's why developers add things like certain sides of the screen lighting up to show which way to damage is coming from. That's not immersive and it proves the weakness in FP.

Plus, have you played a sports game in FP? It sucks. How about playing Command & Conquer or TA in FP? It would suck. How would you see the battlefield or control all your units?

A person's preference is ALWAYS key and important, but I'm just trying to point out that UO didn't suck because it wasn't in FP, no game sucks just because it isn't in FP, and a game isn't good just because it is in FP.



Edited By Leisher on 1148479991

[mbilderback]

Taking it to the other thread.