An open letter to Phoenix Studios:

[snabbott]

The only thing you can shoot is a rather non-lethal set of portals.

They can be lethal to *you* if misused. Besides, there's plenty of attempted killing going on.

[wilco64256]

It's kinda funny because I really like the Deus Ex games (am REALLY looking forward to the new one of those and Thief 4, both awesome series) but I don't get his comparison from Gabriel Knight to Deus Ex at all.  The stars of the Deus Ex games are bionic killing machines, they're nothing like Gabriel at all.

[dark-daventry]

It's kinda funny because I really like the Deus Ex games (am REALLY looking forward to the new one of those and Thief 4, both awesome series) but I don't get his comparison from Gabriel Knight to Deus Ex at all.  The stars of the Deus Ex games are bionic killing machines, they're nothing like Gabriel at all.

Wait, so you're telling me Gabriel's NOT an Endodroid from the future?! CRAP!

[darthkiwi]

Well, I can *kind* of see where he's coming from-- Wait, no! Stay back, don't kill me!

In all seriousness, a first person perspective might afford a deeper connection with the character. In a third-person game, you tend to sympathise with the character, ie. you understand what they're going through but don't completely identify with them because they're "out there", not "in here". In a FP game, you and the character inhabit the same space so you tend to empathise, ie. rather than understanding the character, you literally put yourself in their shoes and experience what they experiene. If Gabriel gets his head smashed apart in GK1, it's Gabriel who's been killed; if Gordon Freeman is wallopped to death in HL2, it's *me* who's been killed.

Plus, I've always thought that the FP perspective lends itself better to feelings of wonder, sublimity and threat. Take this shot from the Cradle level in Thief 3:



The building looms over you; you get a sense of insignificance. As you continue to explore the cradle, you peer through corridor after corridor and look in room after room, constantly aware of your limited perception: what if someone is sneaking up behind you? What's beyond this door? Is that murky shape ahead a dummy, or a terrifying enemy?

Compare that with these shots of Schloss Ritter in Gabriel Knight 1:





Both shots are of extremely impressive scenes: the great hall of the castle, and the beautiful chapel with bright, stunning stained glass windows and tapestries. The thing is, although these screens are beautiful, I don't think they quite capture the majesty and age of the castle, simply because they have to be drawn to fit into a particular screen size, and in such a way that most of the screen has to be filled with empty space for Gabriel to walk in. This means that the focus of the great hall screen, for example, is on the floor; there's a suggestion of grandeur in the windows letting light in at the centre, but if this were first person you'd be able to walk around an impressive hall which would hopefully tower above you into darkness. As it is, we're left with the impression that this room is about as high as every other room in the game, which robs the scene of some of its majesty. Furthermore, that sense of limited perception you have in Thief is gone here: instead of seeing a small bit of the whole structure through your eyes, you get the whole thing laid out neatly in front of you. This doesn't lend itself well to wonder, since if everything is neatly contained you don't get that sense of "This thing is TALL!" which you get with the cradle, helped by the fact that Garrett really has to crane his neck to see the whole structure: it's greater than he is in an immediate, physical sense.

Of course, I'm speaking in very general terms. The Schloss may not be particularly impressive in that picture, but when Gabriel arrives at the castle we're given this shot:



which makes it a damn sight more impressive.

My point is, there are certain aspects of the GK games - the sense of discovery, mystery, feeling threatened, wonder and awe at buildings, structures and setpieces, the limitation of your own viewpoint in a much wider, more dangerous world - which might suit themselves to the first-person perspective. I'm not saying that GK1-3 would have been better if they were first-person, but if someone makes a reboot and makes it first-person then I'll certainly be interested to see what they do with it.

I do have one significant problem with the FP perspective for GK, though, and that's Gabriel himself. While I love Gabriel (in the way you love a completely un-politically-correct but extremely outspoken uncle), I don't feel that I could ever be him. He's bold, brash, misogynistic, insulting, and uses people for his own ends. True, by the end of GK1 he's come a long way, but he's still very much not me: when I played GK1 I felt that I was an external force controlling him and that Gabriel himself was the main character, not so much due to the third-person perspective but because he was so unlike me.

So, in conclusion, I also don't think it would work - but if someone gave it a shot I wouldn't pounce on the "Heresy!" wagon. There are a number of things in its favour.

Just... you know, the shooting would be a bit odd. There should probably be no shooting. At all.

[snabbott]

Yeah - I think it's more the "shooter" part that upsets people than the "first-person" part.

[Cez]

No, actually

If GK had been a FP game, I would not care a damn about Gabriel. What I like about 3rd person games is how I get to know the character. I don't want to "be" Gabriel, I want to help him. That's how I better relate to the characters.

In the Tex Murphy FMV games, I felt as if everytime Tex came on a cutscene, it was a character that used to pop in every once in a while (because of all the FP gameplay). I'd lose that connection with him. It's the reason why I never got into games like Myst, I just couldn't feel the connection to the character.

[snabbott]

Hmmm... interesting point. Personally, I initially had trouble getting into Myst because I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to be doing.

It seems like there are a lot of people who want games where the character is just a shell that you can "be" and a lot of other people who want the character to have an actual personality and backstory.

I suppose it would be weird playing GK as first person - for someone trying to "be" the character, all of Gabriel's dialogue would probably break the immersion.

[Baggins]

Just Adventure did reviews for the Thief series, at least Thief Gold. They considered them to be just as immersive as any adventure game of the time!.

...and Garrett is one of the most interesting characters in gaming, IMO... I found him more interesting than Gabriel, loved his wit and dialogue. You get into his head, and are given his own monologue.

Alot different than say Gordon Freeman in which he's a silent protagnist. You never really get to know him personally on any level. What little you know about him, is described by other characters.

[KatieHal]

Well, I think to immerse a player in a third-person game and a first-person game, it takes very different game design. Both can be accomplished, but they need particular approaches.

[darthkiwi]

I don't want to "be" Gabriel, I want to help him. That's how I better relate to the characters.

I think that's an excellent distinction.

Regarding Thief - when I was playing the Thief games, I always felt that I was the thief sneaking around and stealing things. When I stole things, it was definitely my victory, and when I was presented with terrifying situations (like the Cradle or the incredible Cathedral level in Thief 1), I feared for *my* life, not Garrett's. For me, this is why the games were immersive.

BUT, I still adore Garrett, and he's definitely one of the most wilful and striking characters I've ever had the pleasure of seeing on-screen. I can only surmise that, when I'm playing, I'm playing *myself* with a touch of Garrett, but when there's a cutscene, I'm seeing Garrett, who is barely associated with me (for the simple reason that he is *not* me). I think this applies to the times where Garrett emerges as a character during gameplay, too: if Garrett says something during gameplay then the impression I get is not that I am controlling Garrett who has just said something, but that Garrett is more like a little voice in my ear, and is not necessarily associated with the avatar sneaking around, almost as if he's a disembodied NPC companion.

Of course, these are just my own thoughts and they should be taken with a pinch of salt: I don't really conceive of Garrett as separated from the player avatar, it's just that that's what it feels like even if, story-wise, I know that's not the case.

[wilco64256]

ITT - I sit around agreeing with a whole bunch of posts and then realize that what we're all describing is the exact definition of what the terms first and third person mean to begin with.  A solid game that's done in first-person perspective (like the Thief series, or Deus Ex, also very good IMO) really should make the player feel like they actually are the character.  A good third-person perspective game should create a stronger bond between the player and the character they are controlling.

[Baggins]

I don't feel disconnected from Garret I feel like I become Garret and inside of his head.

[wilco64256]

I don't feel disconnected from Garret I feel like I become Garret and inside of his head.

Right, that's exactly what's supposed to happen, hence the actual term "first person."  You are the character.  I don't feel like I AM the character when I play King's Quest the same way I do when I play Thief.

[dark-daventry]

ITT - I sit around agreeing with a whole bunch of posts and then realize that what we're all describing is the exact definition of what the terms first and third person mean to begin with.  A solid game that's done in first-person perspective (like the Thief series, or Deus Ex, also very good IMO) really should make the player feel like they actually are the character.  A good third-person perspective game should create a stronger bond between the player and the character they are controlling.

Exactly. I like both third and first person games, but those styles work for some games and not for others. First person, in my opinion, just does NOT work for Gabriel Knight. At the same time, third person just would not work for a game like Portal or Goldeneye.

[wilco64256]

*Wonders what a third person Halo game would seem like*

[snabbott]

I've seen comments (either here or on the IA forums) from people who consider the early KQ games more immersive because they can "be" Graham - even though it is a 3rd-person game.

[dark-daventry]

*Wonders what a third person Halo game would seem like*

*brain hurts from trying to imagine such a catastrophe* Third person halo=fail. Then again, I'm strongly opposed to the halo franchise to begin with, so i'm a little biased.

[Baggins]

Metroid Prime vs. Metroid: Other M.

They had similarieties, but were also very different. Both fun, but 'prime' was way more immersive.

[wilco64256]

Other M is the worst Metroid game I have ever played.  It was mildly interesting but WAY too short and the plot was just one huge WTF.

[ATMachine]

I've seen comments (either here or on the IA forums) from people who consider the early KQ games more immersive because they can "be" Graham - even though it is a 3rd-person game.

I think that largely has to do with the style of the narration. In KQ 1-4, all the narrative text was in second person, describing what "you" saw and did. For example, "You reach into the stump and pull out a bag full of diamonds!" But from KQ5 onward the narration described the main character's actions in third person, separating him/her from the player. "Alexander pulls out his magic map!"