Although I'm sure to regret this, I've decided to make a debate area for 3D v.s 2D and I hope to reduce the amount of arguing in other threads. I have a simple rule which is: ANY INSULTS TO ANYONE WILL BE REPORTED SO NO NAME CALLING OR INSULTS. the only allowed thing close to insults would be the word "ignorent" and can not be used with opinions only when somone gets somthing very wrong about the other diminsion.

I've opened up a bonus poll if anyones interested, and voted myself, if thats okay.

so somone please start us off with a well thought up post about 2d or 3D

oh and make sure you have enough knowledge about each diminsion so that you don't make a fool of yourself, okay;)

If "you know who" decides to answer you thread, you have started a flame war. Else... well why not. :p

I think both 2D and 3D are great, both have their own pros and cons. Actually, 3D is not really as fun as 2D, because of some limitations that aren't always easy to remove. But if you can remove some of these limitations, I'm sure it would be as good as 2D games.

The 3d games aren't that bad, they are great fun, but any time spent making a new 3d game is a waste of time that should be put into making the perfect 2d game. (Note: W:A is not the perfect 2d game, it's just the closest we have).
Why? Because current hardware is just not capable of running a 3d worms game that works properly, it'll just feel unfinished and the terrain deformation will allways be blocky... and I don't think that will change soon. And even if it were capable, the hearth of worms is in 2d, it's just the best way to play it. Offers a ton more possibilities than 3d worms.

The sad thing is, T17 seem to like to keep their games simple now, as they seem to aim for younger audiences, which is why I don't think we'll ever see that perfect 2d game with a ****load of options, features, weapons, customization, etc... :(

Damnit, if they are aiming for younger audiences, we'll never see a moddable Worms, 2D or not, then ? :(

2D and 3D were both great. Although every part had his pro's and con's, like _Kilburn already mentioned.

2D (example: WA):
+ More weapons (ca 60 weapons)
+ More themes, voice packs
+ More worms per team
- 2D Landscapes (yeah, I prefer the 3D landscapes)

3D (example: W4):
+ Great graphics (I really like it)
- Less weapons, voice packs
+ 3D Landscapes
+ Less but great themes (yeah, would take a lot of time for Team17 if they would convert every theme of WA for W4! xD)

New points will be added soon.

I feel that the gameplay in the 2D games is just much smoother than that in the 3D games. I may be totally alone in this feeling though.

Comparing the 2D to the 3D games is pointless, Cons and Pros are subjective, and if we go by objective attributes and figures then the 2D series will always win over the 3D series.
But like I said, the comparison is silly, they're different games that share the same characters, the 3D games aren't "worms" they're just another kind of turn based strategy game, more similar to a turn based RPG battle with lots of characters and water.

This thread is going a lot better then I thought it would:)

I think There should be a 3D game and then a 2D game and then team17 just keeps taking turns for a while. that way no one gets frustrated over long waits and everyone gets what they want.:D

The sad thing is, T17 seem to like to keep their games simple now, as they seem to aim for younger audiences, which is why I don't think we'll ever see that perfect 2d game with a ****load of options, features, weapons, customization, etc... :(

Yeah, I've noticed that in the last few games, which feels a little odd. when was the last time anyone saw blood? And what about the few voices like the military voice with the few cursing they did? I wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but worms has changed.

Fair enough, the 2D games have smoother gameplay and graphics, and its always good to see the worms can still hold out when it comes to retro games, but I just bought WOW2 on ds, and i dont think it can compare to Mayhem at all. OW2 has ****** backgrounds and the use of the stylus is even worse, all you can do in a match with it is open and choose a weapon!

In my eyes, the main benefit of 2D is the "pick-up-and-play-ability" - you can get someone who's never played the game before and in a few moments explain how to play it and they generally pick it up with ease. However, with 3D, there's a lot more factors that make the game a bit more challenging for new players.

In my eyes, the main benefit of 2D is the "pick-up-and-play-ability" - you can get someone who's never played the game before and in a few moments explain how to play it and they generally pick it up with ease. However, with 3D, there's a lot more factors that make the game a bit more challenging for new players.

true, you'd have to teach them about mine factories and all the other things in W4.

true, you'd have to teach them about mine factories and all the other things in W4.
Errr, no.

I was thinking more of the controls for basic moving and shooting (say, firing a bazooka). In 3D, you have to pan the camera around (360° and/or the six axes), see where the nearest enemy is, select the required weapon, enter first person mode, make sure you're pointing the correct direction (at least 360 possibilities, assuming the worms turn 1° at a time), aim up or down as required, taking into account the parabolic nature of the weapon, and then fire.

In 2D, you pan around left and right or up and down to locate the enemy, select the weapon, turn either to the left or right, aim up or down and then fire, only for very long shots requiring knowledge of parabolas.


See, much simpler in 2D

Errr, no.

I was thinking more of the controls for basic moving and shooting (say, firing a bazooka). In 3D, you have to pan the camera around (360° and/or the six axes), see where the nearest enemy is, select the required weapon, enter first person mode, make sure you're pointing the correct direction (at least 360 possibilities, assuming the worms turn 1° at a time), aim up or down as required, taking into account the parabolic nature of the weapon, and then fire.

In 2D, you pan around left and right or up and down to locate the enemy, select the weapon, turn either to the left or right, aim up or down and then fire, only for very long shots requiring knowledge of parabolas.


See, much simpler in 2D

Oh, I see what you're saying. I agree, I've played W:A with one hand before but I can't do that with W4.

What I like about 2D over 3D is that it's much clearer what's going on -- in 3D you can sometimes have trouble locating everyone and even then it's very easy to miss something. In 2D you're far less likely to lose out to an observational error.

Also, in 2D it's much more practical (without being easy) to shoot any point on the map from any other point on the map. In 3D it's too hard to do that, and too easy to jet walk everywhere and do close-range moves, which isn't in the spirit of the game to me.

I like the 3D games and all, but they're not the Worms I grew up with.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I agree, I've played W:A with one hand before but I can't do that with W4.
And you try explaining all of that (the 3D explanation) to a friend, or even worse, a grandparent, before their go.

Well everyone knows how i feel about the 3d versions.....

Am I the "You Know who" Kilburn??? LoL :)

For the moment, until ALOT of 3D issues get fixed, the 2D versions are BY FAR the most addictive and fun. no comparison. for now.

2D versions, require Skill, where quite frankly the 3D versions, can be mastered by a
5 year old, after about 5 matches at the most.

3D versions have better graphics... thats about it.
3D versions have clothes and helmets and hats... something i really like.
2D versions have MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better choices of weapons.
2D versions have MANY MANY MANY MORE different types of landscapes, and im sure there are a few MILLION more random generated levels in 2D than 3D
2D games seem to play faster and quicker...
Where 3D games seem to drag on, especially waiting for crates to EVENTUALLY hit the ground.
2D are more fun.
2D offers more STRATEGY by far, than the 3D versions...

so without me even going furthur, the winner is still 2D BY FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(read my thread "the way WORMS 5 must be" for all my reasoning and possible fixes to enhance and bring addictiveness to 3D versions, plus all the other great ideas our fellow wormers gave too...)

Hey Pieman, you been quiet lately, where is your World Cup Registration????

Well done AndrewTaylor, You just said it perfectly, i feel exactly the same....!!!!

Am I the "You Know who" Kilburn??? LoL :)

No, I know who he's talking about. I seem to get into arguments with him a lot.


Hey Pieman, you been quiet lately, where is your World Cup Registration????

I guess I didn't go onto the forum as much as usual because I just got a new game to finally work:D What do you mean by the world cup registration? it sounds fun.:)

well pieman, checkout my other thread, in the games discussion section "THE UNOFFICIAL HaK's WORMS WORLD CUP!"

just please read it carefully to fully understand how it will work, or just ask me, and ill explain it. (Its offline, not online) Hope to see your country and team names...

well pieman, checkout my other thread, in the games discussion section "THE UNOFFICIAL HaK's WORMS WORLD CUP!"

just please read it carefully to fully understand how it will work, or just ask me, and ill explain it. (Its offline, not online) Hope to see your country and team names...

sounds good:D I'll go check it out now....

2D always wins...

fact.

one word says it all.

I love both, I find the both fun to play, enjoyable etc, etc, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

I do still think, though, that W4M is a better game than the 2d ones. True, it's not as easy to 'pick up and play' as WA, but I like the way it looks and feels. It doesn't have the same landscape problems as W3D, and with the introduction of the bubble trouble, etc, there's a lot more strategy. No, not on the same level as 2D yet, but still pretty good.

Really, the only problem I have with W4M is the ridiculous 'fishing' use of ninja ropes, especially as they don't use up a turn. But that can be solved by limiting or disabling the rope.

On the other hand, I find the animations funnier, the action funner and like the different skills required. I've always found aiming and firing a long range 'zook in 3d much more fun than 2d. Infact, almost all the weapons except the ones than only really work in 2d I find more fun to use.

In the end it's a matter of personal preference, but when I go back and play W2 these days, I find it plain.

Really, the only problem I have with W4M is the ridiculous 'fishing' use of ninja ropes, especially as they don't use up a turn. But that can be solved by limiting or disabling the rope.
AGREED! It's fun now and then, but when people keep using it as much as they can, it's not fun at all.

I'm personally getting bored with the 2D games. W:A was great and all, but I really don't care for Open Warfare 1 or 2, or Worms Xbox Live. I just plain don't have fun with them. I wish Team 17 would take on the challenge of making a 3D game again, because I've spent much more time with W:3D or W4:M then these sad excuses of worms games that have been released lately.

I'm personally getting bored with the 2D games. W:A was great and all, but I really don't care for Open Warfare 1 or 2, or Worms Xbox Live. I just plain don't have fun with them. I wish Team 17 would take on the challenge of making a 3D game again, because I've spent much more time with W:3D or W4:M then these sad excuses of worms games that have been released lately.

I sort of agree with you. I think everyone would be happy if T17 would just take turns with how worms are made. for example:
Year one: 3D
year two: 2D
year three: 3D
year four: 2D
and you get the point by now. I disagree with W:OW2 being a sad excuse as they've introduced new things like skin color, buffalo of lies, and new things to the map maker. as far as gameplay goes, they got rid of one or two cool things.:( now, as for W:OW1 that game was just sad.

W:A could be getting boring because it's an old game and you've probably played it over and over again. I'm starting to get bored of W4 (Surprising isn't it) because I've played all of it's levels 20 times by now. I have 100% of it unlocked and there's no goal for me anymore. I'm actually a little bored at all of the worms games because I've played them a lot.

I'm not bored of WA and have played it for 8 years, and I've played it over and over, I'm still learning and I'm still enjoying it, I wonder if anyone has been able to experience this with any of the 3D games, or will in a future, I know quite a few people other than myself who have enjoyed WA just as much as myself too.

I'm not bored of WA and have played it for 8 years, and I've played it over and over, I'm still learning and I'm still enjoying it, I wonder if anyone has been able to experience this with any of the 3D games, or will in a future, I know quite a few people other than myself who have enjoyed WA just as much as myself too.

I bet some people have.;) I think they'll do it more in the future though.

i like both and i cant really decide. right now my favorite worms game is mayhem and its 3d. 3d is cool because of graphics and 2d has probably better movement. i think 3d is for more skilled people because of aiming and the wind and stuff but in 2d its iether left or right.

edit: hers a sorta dumb idea but some of you guys might agree. they should make 2 versions of every game so for people who like 2d better buy the 2d version and people who like the 3d versions buy that

i like both and i cant really decide. right now my favorite worms game is mayhem and its 3d. 3d is cool because of graphics and 2d has probably better movement. i think 3d is for more skilled people because of aiming and the wind and stuff but in 2d its iether left or right.

edit: hers a sorta dumb idea but some of you guys might agree. they should make 2 versions of every game so for people who like 2d better buy the 2d version and people who like the 3d versions buy that

What 2D games have you played to be able to make this comparison?

What 2D games have you played to be able to make this comparison?

he could have played any game to make that comparison.

edit: hers a sorta dumb idea but some of you guys might agree. they should make 2 versions of every game so for people who like 2d better buy the 2d version and people who like the 3d versions buy that

Yeah.

Also, they should make a sci-fi version and a costume-drama version of every film, so that everyone likes them.

he could have played any game to make that comparison.

Thank god you made that clear. Now, I still want to know which game it is he played, hence I asked. I think it wouldn't be fair I claimed 2D was better because WA is better than Worms Fort or that 3D was superior because W4M is better than Worms 1 (which would still get a bunch of people to disagree)

Thank god you made that clear.

I can't help but laugh at this:)

Now, I still want to know which game it is he played, hence I asked.

Yes I know that, I just gave you an estimated answer.

I think it wouldn't be fair I claimed 2D was better because WA is better than Worms Fort or that 3D was superior because W4M is better than Worms 1 (which would still get a bunch of people to disagree)

even though you're right, I really don't know what brought this up. Worm wod said that his favorite game was W4 and then he explained things good about both versions, then you questioned him with what 2D game he's played , and then I gave you a guessed answer.

Your previous reply didn't help me nor did this one. I doubt if someone asked you for directions to the hospital you'd answer "It's somewhere".

Ok, now that I'm thinking about it again, Worms Armageddon is far better and addictive than Worms 3D and Worms Forts. It would have been better than Worms 4 if this one was not a little moddable.

This does not mean I think 2D is better than 3D. 3D is a much more interesting technology than 2D, and you can do much more interesting stuff with physics, etc... And this interesting stuff has never been implemented in the 3D Worms games. :( So why do I want a moddable 3D Worms game, and not a moddable 2D one ? I love mods, and I think 3D has many more modding abilities than 2D. For instance, take a worm holding a shotgun. Unless you create a new animation, you can't make him throw the shotgun in a 2D game. In a 3D game, it's damn easy, you don't even have to create any new animation.

hey kilburn, i think you should start a thread about how you mod worms 4.
Im sure alot of us would enjoy that alot... so we can all stop moaning about what we want in 3d... so please enlighten us? :)

Try this (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=25728) and this (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32585).

Maybe I will do an advanced tweaking guide some day... But I'm still disappointed because Worms 4 is not moddable enough to change the whole gameplay. Modding becomes interesting only when you can completely modify the game (yay for total conversions).

I think if the 3d version had a original map editor and the maps can be downloaded when u connect a game(like in Counter Strike,for example)it will be better than the 2d.Now i think worms 2d and worms 3d are two diferent games(i love both)

2D and 3D are both great, but i think 3D looked better and the landscapes in 3D looked awesome. I also think they should give a 3D Worms game another try. 2D is good as well, and it suites the series more than 3D. But there are fans out there somewhere that like 3D better than 2d. I think they should go back and create another 3D worms game, which could be the sequel to Worms 4 Mayhem.

I wish it would be more moddable. Complete moddability is not always easy to implement, but it's really worth it. It multiplies the game lifetime by 1000 and opens nearly infinite possibilities.

I think that as stated earlier in the thread they should stick to 2d for now. They should wait until the average computer is improved and there is a greater understanding of 3d on the computer.

Personally I liked 3D but not even close to 2D one of my first problems was the roping. The rope was reduced to nothing. When they announced a 3D game, I was so exited imagining in my head a 3D Rope Race in a cube. It ran smoothly in my head and brought my hopes up only to find it to be nothing special. If they could find a way to master 3D roping, I would be drawn to a new 3D game.

Ghost;621971']Personally I liked 3D but not even close to 2D one of my first problems was the roping. The rope was reduced to nothing. When they announced a 3D game, I was so exited imagining in my head a 3D Rope Race in a cube. It ran smoothly in my head and brought my hopes up only to find it to be nothing special.

Yeah, 2D roping is always better. I hated the rope in W3D and the rope in W4 was okay, but still not the type thing people liked.

If they could find a way to master 3D roping, I would be drawn to a new 3D game

Well there are a few awsome clans for W4 that will blow your mind out with how good they are when it comes to roping.

3D is ok, but it doesn't suit the series well. This is whats bad about 3D

1. It is more difficult to aim than 2D
2. The Rope is rubbish.
3. Its not as fun as 2D.
4. Its more difficult to control your worm than 2D.


This is whats good.

1. Landscapes look better
2. Better graphics
3. 3D is powerfull enough to include customisation for your worms.
4. Worms look a bit better.

However i cannot think of much bad things to say about 2D. So i do think 2D is better than 3D. But it would be great to see another 3D worms game.

So let me get this straight, out of your 4 good points about 3D, 3 of them are "better graphics" and one of them is that it somehow requires LESS power to customise worms in 3D, which is the exact opposite to the truth. Hmmm.....

So let me get this straight, out of your 4 good points about 3D, 3 of them are "better graphics" and one of them is that it somehow requires LESS power to customise worms in 3D, which is the exact opposite to the truth. Hmmm.....
...And out of the four bad points, three of them are "too hard" and one of them is a vague, opinionated point.

I think I'm noticing a trend here...

I think i'm right in thinking that they should give 3D another try. People might like 2D better, but there are still fans that prefer 3D to 2D. They should definitely give it another try. There is nothing bad about this at all. Worms 4: Mayhem was great and all though most people like 2D, why not do 3D and 2D games sometimes? this would be fair for everybody if this happened.

Yes they should make like 40 games a year, 20 in 3d and the other 20 in 2d. :cool:

I agree for another try for a 3D game. But no more 2D game. They have released loads of 2D games for different console in only one year. Enough.

Yes they should make like 40 games a year, 20 in 3d and the other 20 in 2d. :cool:


I think Team 17 would be too busy to do that. I think that they should just make another 3D game and see how it goes. Worms 3D was good, Worms: Forts Under Seige was ok, and Worms 4 Mayhem was great. They could do
2D and 3D as well. 2D one year and then 3D next year. That would work very well.

3D is ok, but it doesn't suit the series well. This is whats bad about 3D

1. It is more difficult to aim than 2D
2. The Rope is rubbish.
3. Its not as fun as 2D.
4. Its more difficult to control your worm than 2D.


This is whats good.

1. Landscapes look better
2. Better graphics
3. 3D is powerfull enough to include customisation for your worms.
4. Worms look a bit better.

However i cannot think of much bad things to say about 2D. So i do think 2D is better than 3D. But it would be great to see another 3D worms game.

This reason list isn't very correct. "3D is not better than 2D" is not a pro or a con but an opinion and another thing wrong with this is you made a list to see which one was better so you can't put in the conclusion.

and the "3D is better for customisation for worms" I really don't see where you got this from, they both can be custimised.

there are a few others but I don't feel like pointing them out now

2D one year and then 3D next year. That would work very well.


that's what I've been saying for a while now. :) if they did this, not only would the fans be happy, but some of the complaints and flamewars may stop.

All we can do is hope for a return. I must say i did like 3D but 2D is top, and always will be. If they do another 3D game it should be the sequel to Worms 4 Mayhem.

Why should Team17 do a new game every year? Newer isn't necessarily better. EA keep churning out updates every year and they certainly aren't worthwhile.

Worms Armageddon is probably as good a 2D worms game as we are ever going to get, thanks to the updates. It won't make economic sense for Team17 to spend as much time and effort that has gone into WA in total to make a better version, and to make something better than WA they really are going to have to put in a lot of effort.

The problem with the 3D games is the fact that it very easily turns into a close combat game. You're never that far away from your nearest opponent, and there isn't really much you can do about this. This is the fundamental flaw in 3D worms that no amount of trying will solve. I doubt Team17 will make another 3D game, they spent a lot of effort on Worms 4 Mayhem and it wasn't well recieved. I don't think they're going to make much money with another 3D worms game.

In my honest opinion, I think the series should be laid to rest for quite a while, for more than a few years. Personally, I believe that they're making all these worms games for different consoles now because that's the work that they're being offered at the moment.

Why should Team17 do a new game every year? Newer isn't necessarily better. EA keep churning out updates every year and they certainly aren't worthwhile.

Worms Armageddon is probably as good a 2D worms game as we are ever going to get, thanks to the updates. It won't make economic sense for Team17 to spend as much time and effort that has gone into WA in total to make a better version, and to make something better than WA they really are going to have to put in a lot of effort.

The problem with the 3D games is the fact that it very easily turns into a close combat game. You're never that far away from your nearest opponent, and there isn't really much you can do about this. This is the fundamental flaw in 3D worms that no amount of trying will solve. I doubt Team17 will make another 3D game, they spent a lot of effort on Worms 4 Mayhem and it wasn't well recieved. I don't think they're going to make much money with another 3D worms game.

In my honest opinion, I think the series should be laid to rest for quite a while, for more than a few years. Personally, I believe that they're making all these worms games for different consoles now because that's the work that they're being offered at the moment.

I Disagree. Have the series laid to rest? if that happens then there will be complaints and attacks on the forum. They should try a new 3D worms game one more time. And they should not have the series laid to rest at all. Are you dissapointed with worms or something? also if they did do one 2D game and a 3D game the following year, the fans would be happy.

Nah one more 2d....but for the pc! Even if they just put a team of staff type people and have them work with dc and cs and come up with a new version of wa or an 'expansion pack'. It would sell. Or a new 2d worms game from scratch with full modding and customization would be nice.

Ghost;622207']Nah one more 2d....but for the pc! Even if they just put a team of staff type people and have them work with dc and cs and come up with a new version of wa or an 'expansion pack'. It would sell. Or a new 2d worms game from scratch with full modding and customization would be nice.

Do you mean they should create one more 2D worms game, and then go back to 3D?

The problem with the 3D games is the fact that it very easily turns into a close combat game. You're never that far away from your nearest opponent, and there isn't really much you can do about this. This is the fundamental flaw in 3D worms that no amount of trying will solve.

really I think that 2D is more of closer combat because the land is usually smaller in the 2D worlds. in a 3D worms game, if you go online, there are a lot of people that will use close combat weapons and it bothers me, but when there's a person who chooses to use real tactics in a 3D game, it makes me proud to fight thoes people. so I guess overall they are both close combat-ish.

Ghost;622207']Nah one more 2d....but for the pc! Even if they just put a team of staff type people and have them work with dc and cs and come up with a new version of wa or an 'expansion pack'. It would sell. Or a new 2d worms game from scratch with full modding and customization would be nice.

You're in luck! spadge has said that they're making one. we should hear more about it soon.


I hope it's not a W:A expansion pack, that wouldn't be but so much fun. I think the fans would rather see a new 2D game.

Where did Spadge say it?

Where did Spadge say it?

I can't remember where I saw it. I remember that I've seen it somewhere before. I think a few others know.... and I think I just thought of where to find it. hold on a second....

Edit:
the next worms game will be announced on the 17th of december.

edit: in other news, I have a bridge for sale if you're interested.

I'm not sure about where spadge said it himself, but here's something close to it.

Its going to be great to see 2D worms back on PC. After 6 years since WWP. This could be the new WA, And the best in the series yet. Can't wait till 17th December!:cool:

You're in luck! spadge has said that they're making one. we should hear more about it soon.
Hold up there! Nobody said anything about it being 2D. All Spadge said was that there's a PC worms game in the works.

Yes, but it doesn't look like there will be a 3D game again. But if it is 3D then that will be great. I think the game will be in 2D.

Isn't Worms Open Warfare 1 and 2 2D?

I like both 2D and 3D. They has their own strongness and weakness.

3D is always harder than 2D...

Hold up there! Nobody said anything about it being 2D. All Spadge said was that there's a PC worms game in the works.

oh, sorry. I thought I've seen it say 2D somewhere, guess I was wrong. can someone show me the place where spadge said it in?

Right now i don't think Spadge would have announced what type it would be, he will probably announce what type it will be next year.

oh, sorry. I thought I've seen it say 2D somewhere, guess I was wrong. can someone show me the place where spadge said it in?
Sure:
http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=587251&postcount=17

So it doesn't say 2D..... Spadge will probably announce what type it will be like later this year. There is a higher chance of it been 2D than 3D. Team 17 have already told us that there are no more plans for 3D worms games.

Team 17 have already told us that there are no more plans for 3D worms games.
...how long ago was that? Because the only thing I remember them saying that was along those lines was "we're taking a break from 3D games for a while" right after they released Worms4, and nothing since.

Team 17 have already told us that there are no more plans for 3D worms games.

I think you're getting that mixed up with an IGN review.

Its on Ign.com, and it is called no more plans for 2D worms games. It definitely said that they weren't working on any. Maybe we may see a return in the future.

Its on Ign.com, and it is called no more plans for 2D worms games.
Right... so now you're saying that it won't be 2D either? Well what the heck is it supposed to be?

Woops! i meant 3D. Check on ign. There is a news article there that tells you that Team 17 have no more plans for 3D worms games.

I'm not sure about where spadge said it himself, but here's something close to it.so, interested in that bridge I offered, then?

Worms is a platform game, how many 2D games went 3D without losing its fun factor and style? Mario or maybe Prince of Persia.

Worms is a X Y axis game. Making it a X Y Z axis game adds complexity and confusion. I think T17 should try a Worms 2.5D game, like those 2D games that fake a 3D perspective (diablo, simcity or something). Or they could mix both and make a 2D perspective game with 3D graphics :P

Think about fighting games, third person isn't really an option unless you go DBZ style.

Worms is a platform game, how many 2D games went 3D without losing its fun factor and style? Mario or maybe Prince of Persia.

Worms is a X Y axis game. Making it a X Y Z axis game adds complexity and confusion. I think T17 should try a Worms 2.5D game, like those 2D games that fake a 3D perspective (diablo, simcity or something). Or they could mix both and make a 2D perspective game with 3D graphics :P

Think about fighting games, third person isn't really an option unless you go DBZ style.

You do have a point there. But i would like to see another 3D game in the future... there's fans out there that want 3D back. 3D may have weak support but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try again. And boy am i glad that this hasn't turned into a flame war.

Think about fighting games, third person isn't really an option unless you go DBZ style.Soul Caliber ring a bell? :p I mean, it's still somewhat 2D, but it does make use of the third plane quite a bit.

though I do completel agree with your other points. a 2D game with 3D graphics would work best for worms.

Think about fighting games, third person isn't really an option unless you go DBZ style.

Actually, all fighting games are third-person. Third-person refers to any game where you can see the character you control. The alternatives are first-person, where you see what they see, and second person which really doesn't exist with the possible exception of text adventures that say "you are standing outside a white house; there is a mailbox here".

Many 3D fighting games do exist, however the characters generally turn to face each other automatically so it ends up not making any difference.

a 2D game with 3D graphics would work best for worms.
I think you have to be careful doing that. WOW (on the PSP) was about as close to this as you can really get. Using 3D graphics for the terrain would be a total disaster, so you're still looking at just pasting little 3D models into a 2D world, New Super Mario Bros style.

It's not "2.5D", though. That's a rather stupid name.

Actually, all fighting games are third-person. Third-person refers to any game where you can see the character you control. The alternatives are first-person, where you see what they see, and second person which really doesn't exist with the possible exception of text adventures that say "you are standing outside a white house; there is a mailbox here".

Many 3D fighting games do exist, however the characters generally turn to face each other automatically so it ends up not making any difference.


I think you have to be careful doing that. WOW (on the PSP) was about as close to this as you can really get. Using 3D graphics for the terrain would be a total disaster, so you're still looking at just pasting little 3D models into a 2D world, New Super Mario Bros style.

It's not "2.5D", though. That's a rather stupid name.

2nd person in videogames is when the camera is fixed behind the player.

I think you have to be careful doing that. WOW (on the PSP) was about as close to this as you can really get. Using 3D graphics for the terrain would be a total disaster, so you're still looking at just pasting little 3D models into a 2D world, New Super Mario Bros style.

It's not "2.5D", though. That's a rather stupid name.you've got a point there. didn't really think about the poxel thing.

and yes, 2.5D is a completely retarded term.

2nd person in videogames is when the camera is fixed behind the player.no, that's third person. same as in a book, third person means viewing something from a viewpoint not actually within the action. a first person viewpoint means actually seeing the action from someone directly involved in the action. there is no second person.

no, that's third person. same as in a book, third person means viewing something from a viewpoint not actually within the action. a first person viewpoint means actually seeing the action from someone directly involved in the action. there is no second person.

There is second person in a book, it's rare, but it exists. The term is vague and there's lots of interpretation, but any shooter in which you can see the model from his forehead and can't rotate the camera I consider to be 2nd person, I'm not claiming it's the correct term, but it's what I consider right.

There is second person in a book, it's rare, but it exists. The term is vague and there's lots of interpretation, but any shooter in which you can see the model from his forehead and can't rotate the camera I consider to be 2nd person, I'm not claiming it's the correct term, but it's what I consider right.

Grammatically it's all well defined: first person is when you say "I did it", second person is "you did it" and third person is "he did it". Much like first party software (the console makers), second party (companies who the console makers wholly or partially own) and third party (anyone else) -- those terms also have legal definitions. The whole application to videogames is generalising it further.

Alas, though, no second-person games exist, so people who know the terms "first-" and "third-person" keep thinking "there should be a second-person" and then apply it to whatever they feel like.

Very little fiction is written in the second person. It's just confusing.

How about a game in which you see through a monster and control the hero and you're supposed to kill "yourself"? That'd be 2nd person. At the same time, technically, it's also third person, which also happens to work viceversa. What if we treated the cameras in Resident Evil as the eyes of a real person, or a monster, a monster who happens to be the objective of the whole game?

How about a game in which you see through a monster and control the hero and you're supposed to kill "yourself"? That'd be 2nd person. At the same time, technically, it's also third person, which also happens to work viceversa. What if we treated the cameras in Resident Evil as the eyes of a real person, or a monster, a monster who happens to be the objective of the whole game?
No, that's just third-person.
Second-person viewpoints don't exist because a defnition of it was never made, but don't try making up something for it just because you feel it should apply somewhere. Either you see through a character's eyes, or you see a character as you see regular people: there's no other alternative.

If I was the one who invented English, then I would've made it second-person instead of third-person. But the Queen beat me to it!

No, that's just third-person.
Second-person viewpoints don't exist because a defnition of it was never made, but don't try making up something for it just because you feel it should apply somewhere. Either you see through a character's eyes, or you see a character as you see regular people: there's no other alternative.

If I was the one who invented English, then I would've made it second-person instead of third-person. But the Queen beat me to it!

Doesn't apply. The terms first, second and third person where not created to describe views, the definition only applies to literature, I know you tried to be funny, but next time make sure you've got a valid point. On top of that, videogames didn't exist when the language was invented, so your reasoning is irrelevant.
In fact, it could be said all games are first person, in 2D Mario Bros, I jump, I killed the enemy. When you're playing a videogame and a mate of yours is spectating he will refer to you as second person, like many of the walkthroughs you can also read, implying the character to be yourself, first person: "You have to jump from there", "You've gotta collect 10 stars".
If I'm not aware of an official definition that applies to videogames then that's my mistake, but as far as I'm concerned, those who claim Super Mario Bros is a 3rd person plataformer have no official sources to make their claims, and only use their own reasoning, which has now been widely accepted.
For me, a 3rd person view is a view in which you can freely move out of the main character, like an spectate mode in Quake, per example. But that's just my translation of a literal term to videogames, it might not be the correct one, but there's a lack of an official term, so leave your Queen out of it.

Hmm...
For your convenience, I decided to highlight everything wrong in that post.

"The terms first, second and third person where not created to describe views, the definition only applies to literature,"
"I know you tried to be funny,"
"the language was invented,"
"your reasoning is irrelevant."
"those who claim Super Mario Bros is a 3rd person plataformer have no official sources to make their claims"
"but there's a lack of an official term,"

Now, just because I believe there's a good chance that you just got up and didn't actually think about what you just said when you said it, I'm going to give you a chance to point out why each of these six sentences are horribly wrong before I pick through them myself in a daunting manner that will make everyone who reads it wonder what's going on in that head of yours.

Wait a moment.... English is not even your native language, and you are actually trying to reinvent English, and criticize English people that do not agree with your crazy thoughts ? This just doesn't make sense. Don't try to be smarter than other people, you really fail at this, seriously.

I prefer this quoted section because it's the easiest to point out how wrong it is, so I'm going to be lazy and not bother with the rest.

In fact, it could be said all games are first person, in 2D Mario Bros, I jump, I killed the enemy. When you're playing a videogame and a mate of yours is spectating he will refer to you as second person, like many of the walkthroughs you can also read, implying the character to be yourself, first person: "You have to jump from there", "You've gotta collect 10 stars". WRONG! first second and third person views are, as andrew said, views from within the viewpoint of a character or views from outside of the viewpoint of a character. second person is a vague definition that loosely works in books (I realize my last post was confusing, I meant that second person doesn't exist in a video game. in a book it exists, it's just rarely used and confusing :p), but there is no second person in a video game. Mario games view the character from a third-person view point because you don't see from within the eyes of the character. as in a book, you see from a viewpoint other than the main character's, which makes it third person. just because you can easily identify the main character without really having to think about it doesn't mean that it's first person. in fact, the idea that it could be is complete nonsense. perhaps if it were a book about someone playing a mario game, second person could be used, but that example confuses me and I'd rather not wrap my head around it :p

<long cut short>

to MY opinion, whatever YOU said is just YOUR opinion, and not wholly fact.

First person - You step into the character's shoes, see through the character's eyes and grab stuff using the character's hands. You ARE the character. E.g. Counter Strike.

Second person - Non Existent Term (just like how 1D is not existent whereas 2D exists)

Third person - You are OUTSIDE the character; it doesn't matter whether you control the character or not. As in ... (interrupted...)
In fact, it could be said all games are first person, in 2D Mario Bros, I jump, I killed the enemy.
... Objection!

Someone who plays a game in third person view claim that the character is theirs because no one else is controlling it.

E.g. (may not be relevant but still applicable) You are Lewis Hamilton and your partner Fernando Alonso invites you to a friendly 2v2 go-karting race.

You team with Fernando and you win the race with the help of Fernando. Then, the victory isnt yours alone; its both of yours. In that case, you will say "We raced, we defeated the opponent team."

But in a game you say it is YOURS because its only yours and the character's and no one elses'. Thus, you can claim that its yours (for the character isnt living so it wont fight for the victory from you). And it is because you are lazy; if you would take the trouble, you will say "I controlled the character who jumped, I controlled the character who killed the enemy."

E.g. Warcraft.

And... wait! Why is this "2D v.s 3D" thread suddenly becoming a "2D v.s 3D plus 1st Person v.s 3rd Person AND 2nd Person"?

Bottom line: 2D games are in decline. Even great games like Metal Slug are being neglected (Anthology, for example) and really, the only profitable choice is against our wants. 3D will prevail. It's ultimately inevitable, since even handhelds have 3D capabilities now.

On top of that, videogames didn't exist when the language was invented, so your reasoning is irrelevant.
I'm sorry, but I would like to present this facts here:

Fact Number One: We now know, courtesy of wave (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=618007&postcount=23) [Also, this (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=618130&postcount=25)], that the Queen(of England) invented english. This refers, obviously, to the current Queen(because if this referred to a previous Queen, the name of said Queen would have been provided).
Ok, the current Queen was born in 1926, I think, but she was only made Queen in 1952, I think. We don't know yet exactly when was that she invented English(wave hasn't told us), but it must have been after she was made Queen, otherwise she wouldn't have the authority to do so. So in this case, lets asume it was invented in 1952(only to help your case tho, I really doubt she invented english in less than a year). 1952, learn this year.

Fact Number Two: The first record of a videogame dates from 1947(according to Wikipedia), which consisted of an analog device that allowed a user to control a vector drawn dot on the screen to simulate a missile being fired at targets represented by drawings fixed to the screen. 1947, learn this year too.

Fact Number Three: 1947 does actually come before 1952.

Conclusion: Videogames were invented BEFORE the queen invented English.

Now, don't thank me for pointing you in the right direction... thank wave instead. Witouth him and his deep knowledge and research, I wouldn't have been able to reach this conclusion. :)

I prefer this quoted section because it's the easiest to point out how wrong it is, so I'm going to be lazy and not bother with the rest.

WRONG! first second and third person views are, as andrew said, views from within the viewpoint of a character or views from outside of the viewpoint of a character. second person is a vague definition that loosely works in books (I realize my last post was confusing, I meant that second person doesn't exist in a video game. in a book it exists, it's just rarely used and confusing :p), but there is no second person in a video game. Mario games view the character from a third-person view point because you don't see from within the eyes of the character. as in a book, you see from a viewpoint other than the main character's, which makes it third person. just because you can easily identify the main character without really having to think about it doesn't mean that it's first person. in fact, the idea that it could be is complete nonsense. perhaps if it were a book about someone playing a mario game, second person could be used, but that example confuses me and I'd rather not wrap my head around it :p

I'm still waiting for a source of a definition that doesn't only apply to literature and that states that the word "view", in the phrase "point of view" has anything to do with actual human eye vision. I can't find it myself, any help would be appreciated.

If you were to play a game in which the character was talking in first person about what he saw in the scenario and the actions you performed, but you saw the guy in action, you'd be quick to jump and say it's a 3rd person adventure game, however what's the difference between that and a 1st person book? We can compare the actual playing to turning the pages of a book.

What about a first person movie in which you see the narrator going through life?

Surely there must be two definitions of point of view? One that applies to literature and one, which is the one you use, that applies to everything else and of which I can't seem to find an official definition myself.

If you were to play a game in which the character was talking in first person about what he saw in the scenario and the actions you performed, but you saw the guy in action, you'd be quick to jump and say it's a 3rd person adventure game, however what's the difference between that and a 1st person book? We can compare the actual playing to turning the pages of a book.so you completely ignore what I was saying and just jump on what was literally stated......

books and video games are different, but the terms referring to video games are based off of the terms for books. first person describes a book where you view the events from the perspective of the main character(s). you see their thoughts and how events happen in their own mind. second person is little used because it's somewhat like talking to someone (best example I can think of) and therefore hard to write a book in. third person is viewing the characters and events from a detached angle. you see the events as they actually transpire, regardless of how the characters view the events. from those pre-existing literary definitions, you move over to video games, since video games were invented much later. in video games the viewpoints are defined based on the camera. if you play through the game and you see the entire game through the eyes of the main character, it's a first person game. if you see the game through the viewpoint of a third-party (such as a floating camera) that means it's a third person game. I can honestly say I have no concept of what a second-person view would be in a video game, so I won't go into that. obviously you're going to view the events from the perspective of the character regardless of what the camera is doing, so you have the choice of saying that ALL games are first person (because they all are in this sense) or you say that the camera defines the description. logically, they (whoever "they" is in this case) decided to go with the latter.

so you completely ignore what I was saying and just jump on what was literally stated......

books and video games are different, but the terms referring to video games are based off of the terms for books. first person describes a book where you view the events from the perspective of the main character(s). you see their thoughts and how events happen in their own mind. second person is little used because it's somewhat like talking to someone (best example I can think of) and therefore hard to write a book in. third person is viewing the characters and events from a detached angle. you see the events as they actually transpire, regardless of how the characters view the events. from those pre-existing literary definitions, you move over to video games, since video games were invented much later. in video games the viewpoints are defined based on the camera. if you play through the game and you see the entire game through the eyes of the main character, it's a first person game. if you see the game through the viewpoint of a third-party (such as a floating camera) that means it's a third person game. I can honestly say I have no concept of what a second-person view would be in a video game, so I won't go into that. obviously you're going to view the events from the perspective of the character regardless of what the camera is doing, so you have the choice of saying that ALL games are first person (because they all are in this sense) or you say that the camera defines the description. logically, they (whoever "they" is in this case) decided to go with the latter.

I suggest you stop repeating yourself. I'd still like to see an official definition that states what you say, unless of course, there isn't, and you just find it logical to say that cameras define view points, which is fair enough, because it makes sense to me, the same way it makes sense to me to call Max Payne 3 a 1st person game and you can't argue against that, unless you prove there's that cameras are actually in charge of defining point of views in videogames and not the plot of the game and the way the story is told, like in books and movies. If you lot can't, I suggest you don't be so quick to judge.

Wait a moment.... English is not even your native language, and you are actually trying to reinvent English, and criticize English people that do not agree with your crazy thoughts ? This just doesn't make sense. Don't try to be smarter than other people, you really fail at this, seriously.

Funny thing is, I'm actually using the dictionary definition whilst the rest are using a more modern definition which I'm yet discover its existance. Which not only makes your post inacurate, but also makes the childish banter look even more childish.

I suggest you stop repeating yourself. I'd still like to see an official definition that states what you say, unless of course, there isn't, and you just find it logical to say that cameras define view points, which is fair enough, because it makes sense to me, the same way it makes sense to me to call Max Payne 3 a 1st person game and you can't argue against that, unless you prove there's that cameras are actually in charge of defining point of views in videogames and not the plot of the game and the way the story is told, like in books and movies. If you lot can't, I suggest you don't be so quick to judge.you can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" until I come up with an official definition all you want, but you're the ONLY person who disagrees with the cameras defining viewpoints. every gaming information source, producer, and player agrees that first person games are games where you see from the characters view point and a third person game is where the camera is anywhere else.

I mean, feel free to argue against everyone on the planet because we're all wrong, but don't expect anyone to listen.

and before you ask, no I'm not providing proof for my claim, because if you don't already know what I'm saying in this post is true then you're simply ignoring every video game ever made and every information source about those games.

I suggest you stop repeating yourself. I'd still like to see an official definition that states what you say, unless of course, there isn't, and you just find it logical to say that cameras define view points, which is fair enough, because it makes sense to me, the same way it makes sense to me to call Max Payne 3 a 1st person game and you can't argue against that, unless you prove there's that cameras are actually in charge of defining point of views in videogames and not the plot of the game and the way the story is told, like in books and movies. If you lot can't, I suggest you don't be so quick to judge.



Funny thing is, I'm actually using the dictionary definition whilst the rest are using a more modern definition which I'm yet discover its existance. Which not only makes your post inacurate, but also makes the childish banter look even more childish.

There's a case to be made for the Principle Of Common Usage, which states that the definition that everyone in the world except you uses is by definition the correct one.

There's a case to be made for the Principle Of Common Usage, which states that the definition that everyone in the world except you uses is by definition the correct one.

I understand that, that the most common definition is the correct one when an official one lacks, however that's still no reason to say that a different opinion is wrong, when it makes sense, literally, more sense than the common used one, even if the latter is more useful and practical. There is no logical argument against calling Max Payne 3 a first person game, when the story is presented in first person, other than to say that because the camera is not inside the character it can't be first person, you see, this counter argument, is not valid if we study the actual definition of first person view point, however, it is valid if we consider the common way of defining the view.
Everyone said that the world was flat and by definition it was, as well as far as common opinion went, I'm not saying my personal definition of the term is more correct than the one used, like I said, it's definitely not as practical and useful, but I'm still to see a technical point as to which it's wrong, other than saying that because magazine writers use the term first person to define shooters in which you only see the gun, in order to clear disctinct between genres.

I understand that, that the most common definition is the correct one when an official one lacks, however that's still no reason to say that a different opinion is wrong no, that's not at all true. everyone in the world says the sky is blue. there's no concrete proof that says the sky is blue except that everyone in the world sees the sky as being blue. for all we know our perception is skewed so that we see the sky incorrectly, but does that change the fact that when I look at the sky I see blue? no, it doesn't. if I feel like it, I can say that the sky is actually red and everyone on the planet is just looking at it wrong, but to do so will accomplish nothing but getting me funny looks.

edit: I mean, feel free to continue arguing that your sky is red (so to speak), just don't expect anyone to actually LISTEN to your ranting.

edit: the world being round is a proven fact. there's concrete evidence for that. there is no concrete proof for anything that is subjective, like what term to use to describe something. therefore, there can be no one answer that proves all others wrong (which is what you're asking for).

no, that's not at all true. everyone in the world says the sky is blue. there's no concrete proof that says the sky is blue except that everyone in the world sees the sky as being blue. for all we know our perception is skewed so that we see the sky incorrectly, but does that change the fact that when I look at the sky I see blue? no, it doesn't. if I feel like it, I can say that the sky is actually red and everyone on the planet is just looking at it wrong, but to do so will accomplish nothing but getting me funny looks.

edit: I mean, feel free to continue arguing that your sky is red (so to speak), just don't expect anyone to actually LISTEN to your ranting.

edit: the world being round is a proven fact. there's concrete evidence for that. there is no concrete proof for anything that is subjective, like what term to use to describe something. therefore, there can be no one answer that proves all others wrong (which is what you're asking for).


The sky looks blue but isn't. Of course, your comparison is not fair, and you've said so in your own post, there's is actual proof that the sky looks blue, because colors have fixed values that everyone shares. I'm not asking for a proof that my subjective definition is wrong, or right, I've already stated there isn't, all I'm asking is for a valid argument other than "it's wrong because we don't use it", if you can't figure one out, that's fair enough, but I wouldn't have replied if 4 people where so quick on the "you're wrong lolololol don't try to be a smartass" trigger.
Also, I'm not just making up facts, I've pretty much added a few points that I consider valid, you may disagree, but if you're going to, publically, at least take the time to write a few points down, that explain why my definition is technially wrong.

Funny thing is, I'm actually using the dictionary definition whilst the rest are using a more modern definition which I'm yet discover its existance. Which not only makes your post inacurate, but also makes the childish banter look even more childish.

Are you trying to be funny by mispelling my name and then pretending that I am childish ? Also, knowing how to open a dictionnary and read it doesn't make you smarter than native English people.

at least take the time to write a few points down, that explain why my definition is technially wrong.

Right. It's simple. In a first person game, when you are talking about the character, you can refer to this character using "I" (first person). "Hah, I killed the boss"
In a "third" persone game, just take Worms as an example, you can refer to the character you are controlling using "He", or "She", or "It"... or whatever is third person. You can say "My worm has killed yours".

But you can't refer to this character using "You" (second person). It just doesn't make sense. Try to build up a sentence replacing "My worm" by "You". You can't.

So your definition doesn't make sense at all.

*sigh*
This is another "nothing exists" thing again, isn't it?

Look, in video games, first-person and third-person refer to visual perspective only! The easiest way to think about it is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the X-person in literature.
Where's the proof that it's real? Andrew already told you: in the English language, if enough people consider somethin to be a word, then it's a word. That's how languages work, and there's no disputing that.

I understand that, that the most common definition is the correct one when an official one lacks, however that's still no reason to say that a different opinion is wrong, when it makes sense, literally, more sense than the common used one, even if the latter is more useful and practical. There is no logical argument against calling Max Payne 3 a first person game, when the story is presented in first person, other than to say that because the camera is not inside the character it can't be first person, you see, this counter argument, is not valid if we study the actual definition of first person view point, however, it is valid if we consider the common way of defining the view.
Oh, don't get me wrong, you're perfectly free to define any word you like any way you like as long as you're consistent and clear about it. But for the sake of informal discussions, it's much easier for everyone if you stick to the accepted definitions. Honestly, I can't figure out what your definition is.

Certainly the plot points in Max Payne (I've not played the third one but I assume it's much the same as the first) are always constructed and delivered in the first person. But that's like saying that since my eyes are blue my arms are blue. You can't say "it is a first person game" because it contains first person grammar: so do all games with dialogue, and most contain second- and third-person grammar as well. The gameplay is, by all accepted definitions, presented in the third person.
Everyone said that the world was flat and by definition it was, as well as far as common opinion went, I'm not saying my personal definition of the term is more correct than the one used, like I said, it's definitely not as practical and useful, but I'm still to see a technical point as to which it's wrong, other than saying that because magazine writers use the term first person to define shooters in which you only see the gun, in order to clear disctinct between genres.
The principal of common usage applies only to language, not to scientific facts such as the shapes of planets.

Ultimately, there's no special reason why we have to use this specific phrase for this specific type of game, but it's universally understood and ties in neatly to the grammatical person, so it would seem silly to try to redefine it now. In a first person game, I can see things, I can hear things, I can shoot and run and jump. In a third-person game I can point to the screen and say he can run and jump. (In theory, I should add "she" but aside from Metroid I can't think when I would, and then that's mostly first-person anyway.)

Are you trying to be funny by mispelling my name and then pretending that I am childish ? Also, knowing how to open a dictionnary and read it doesn't make you smarter than native English people.

I'm not trying to be funny misspelling your nickname, since "_" doesn't have a sound I didn't feel it was needed for me to add it, I'm really sorry if it offended you, it wasn't my aim Mr. _Killburn.
I'm not trying to be smarter, in fact, I've never said that my definition was better in any shape or way to the commonly used one. I was just explaining the reasons I had to use that definition. I'm still yet to figure out what does not being a native English speaker have to do with anything, though.



Right. It's simple. In a first person game, when you are talking about the character, you can refer to this character using "I" (first person). "Hah, I killed the boss"
In a "third" persone game, just take Worms as an example, you can refer to the character you are controlling using "He", or "She", or "It"... or whatever is third person. You can say "My worm has killed yours".

But you can't refer to this character using "You" (second person). It just doesn't make sense. Try to build up a sentence replacing "My worm" by "You". You can't.

So your definition doesn't make sense at all.

I suggest you actually think before typing as the above quoted could have been easily avoided if you actually took the time to play a worms game online or remember one. To put some realistic examples, when you do something spectacular and unique in a match, people will ask "how did you do that?" When your teammate wants you to collect a certain crate he will say " (you) Collect that crate". There's a bunch of examples and I feel silly I had to mention a pair to get my point across. I'm not presenting this as any sort of evidence as to why I'm right, once again, I never said I was over something that wasn't, I'm only telling you to think before making a mistake.

Certainly the plot points in Max Payne (I've not played the third one but I assume it's much the same as the first) are always constructed and delivered in the first person. But that's like saying that since my eyes are blue my arms are blue.

The game is delivered in first person, that's why I personally consider it to be first person, literally, it is. Just to avoid people from being overly annoying though, I totally understand that Max Payne is considered to be third person because the camera is out of the character, and that the reasons are commonly shared by the majority of the userbase, but that's not enough reason to say that it doesn't make any sense, or that it's wrong to say it can't be considered first person because the literal definition and the modern use of the word do not cancel each other and I'm just offering my interpretation, not because I wanted to, it just came up and I've been since then trying to explain and defend myself from the bunch of people who don't seem able to grasp the concept and insist on explaining me how the word is used nowadays even though I've made it clear I knew before this thread took place.

3D sidescrolling like this http://hardqore.planetquake.gamespy.com/media/gamemodeltestsarge01.htm

Or like Duke nukem Manhattan

2D isometric perspective like this http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/crusader-no-regret/screenshots

Or like this http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/baldurs-gate-ii-throne-of-bhaal/screenshots/gameShotId,24321/

GTA2 perspective

AOEIII perspective

3D overhead like this http://www.psxa2z.com/gpgs/BT0044.html

Alien breed Tower Assault perspective

And for a 3D worms I'd prefer cell shading like in Star Wars Clone Wars, the animated series.

The chance of a new worms 3D game is extremely low. If you look at Mario Galaxy you should realize that Mario is great in both 2D and 3D. Not in worms.....

I really do think that Team 17 should give it another try. 2D is what worms started in, so most people are going to love 2D. I don't think its fair for the
3D worms game lovers.

The game is delivered in first person, that's why I personally consider it to be first person, literally, it is.

Don't you see that you're not arguing a position here? You're just stating, against all evidence, that Max Payne 3 is a first person game without offering a word of explanation as to why. What makes that, in your opinion, first person whereas Worms or whatever isn't? (Is there a game that you think isn't first-person? And if not, why use the term?)

You keep saying "my definition isn't necessarily wrong" but you've not stated your definition. You're defending an unspecified position.

As far as I can see your "definition" appears to be that all games are silumtaneously first-, second- and third-person because it would be possible to describe them using several different sentences.

You've just failed to grasp the parallel. We're not saying that FPS games are intrinsically and grammatically first-person; they're just presented from a first-person viewpoint, and therefore are termed "first-person games" because "games presented from a first-person viewpoint" isn't a very catchy phrase.

Don't you see that you're not arguing a position here? You're just stating, against all evidence, that Max Payne 3 is a first person game without offering a word of explanation as to why. What makes that, in your opinion, first person whereas Worms or whatever isn't? (Is there a game that you think isn't first-person? And if not, why use the term?)

You keep saying "my definition isn't necessarily wrong" but you've not stated your definition. You're defending an unspecified position.

As far as I can see your "definition" appears to be that all games are silumtaneously first-, second- and third-person because it would be possible to describe them using several different sentences.

You've just failed to grasp the parallel. We're not saying that FPS games are intrinsically and grammatically first-person; they're just presented from a first-person viewpoint, and therefore are termed "first-person games" because "games presented from a first-person viewpoint" isn't a very catchy phrase.

I have actually stated why I consider Max Payne 3 to be first person, it's because the story is given from a first person point of view, there's even levels where you're transported to the memories of the narrator (Max Payne), and he actively treats them as memories with real time comments, in fact, the game tries hard to make the player feel as Max Payne in these black outs, with blur effects and so on, it's not a coincidence, the developers are actually trying to immerse you into the game as the main actor, you might not be looking through the eyes of the main character, but they certainly try to make you feel like him. Again, don't treat this as if I'm trying to prove something here, but since you're asking for an explanation, here is one. I don't think first person should be exclusive to camera view.

I have actually stated why I consider Max Payne 3 to be first person, it's because the story is given from a first person point of view,

That doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the story is "given from a purple point of view" or "given from an ionised point of view". You're misusing the phrase "first person".


I mean, there are large chunks of The Selfish Gene written in the first person, but the focus is on evolution and the point of view belongs to Richard Dawkins. Anansi Boys is written entirely in the third person but is written entirely from the point of view of Fat Charlie Nancy.

I'm not trying to be funny misspelling your nickname, I'm really sorry if it offended you,
That's nice.
since "_" doesn't have a sound I didn't feel it was needed for me to add it,
That's.. uhh... not so nice.
_Killburn.
And that's downright shameful!

mispelling
There are two Ss in misspelling.

That doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the story is "given from a purple point of view" or "given from an ionised point of view". You're misusing the phrase "first person".


I mean, there are large chunks of The Selfish Gene written in the first person, but the focus is on evolution and the point of view belongs to Richard Dawkins. Anansi Boys is written entirely in the third person but is written entirely from the point of view of Fat Charlie Nancy.

I'm not misusing the phrase first person, you're missing the point. Not only the grammar is in first person, the narrator is the player controlled character. I'm not saying a game in which the story is being told by X and you control the Z should be considered first person, according to the literal definition.
If we pretend for a second that instead of playing the game you're just turning the pages of a book you'd see Max Payne through the story of his family murder and so on, telling the story in first person: "I got to the room and everyone was dead", it'd be a first person novel.
And Plasma, here's your plate of attention, bon apetit.

If we pretend for a second that instead of playing the game you're just turning the pages of a book you'd see Max Payne through the story of his family murder and so on, telling the story in first person: "I got to the room and everyone was dead", it'd be a first person novel.
Correct.
However, as it isn't a novel, it's not in first person. As that definition of the phrase only applies in literature.

Correct.
However, as it isn't a novel, it's not in first person. As that definition of the phrase only applies in literature.

I knew I should have tried to stop people from typing what you just did in my last post, however I thought most would be able to notice I'm actually answering AndrewTaylor and giving him reasons, instead of sharing an actual proof with everyone else, because I've said numerous times already, I'm not selling this concept as a fact, nor implying I have evidence. I guess I forgot there's people in this forum who have the memory of a goldfish, and can only remember the last post they've read. You're one of those people.
Also, the definition doesn't only apply to literature, get your facts straight.

I'm not misusing the phrase first person, you're missing the point. Not only the grammar is in first person, the narrator is the player controlled character.

That is not called "first person"! At least, not by anyone except you. Not least because you could write an entire novel like that without it being first-person. (Anansi Boys, for example.) In any case, most games have no narrator. What's that? "Zero'th person"?

You've identified a property of the game and you've chosen a phrase to describe it, which is all correct, but you've made a really bad choice of phrase for the following reasons:

You're drawing a flawed parallel to the grammatical person
You've chosen a phrase that everyone in the world except you already understands to mean something else.
You're categorising games mostly by their cutscenes, possibly the single least important aspect of a game.

Both of those things make your definition needlessly confusing, so nobody will ever use it.

Also, the definition doesn't only apply to literature, get your facts straight.
Hmm?
First Person:
-A form of narrative writing using verbs in the first person in order to give the impression that the action is happening to the narrator.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/first_person

Look, mabye we should go over this again:
Your knowledge of the English language, your secondary language, is not better than our combined knowledge of the English language, our primary language.

That is not called "first person"! At least, not by anyone except you. Not least because you could write an entire novel like that without it being first-person. (Anansi Boys, for example.) In any case, most games have no narrator. What's that? "Zero'th person"?

You've identified a property of the game and you've chosen a phrase to describe it, which is all correct, but you've made a really bad choice of phrase for the following reasons:
[LIST=1]
You're drawing a flawed parallel to the grammatical person

I don't really see the flawed parallel, the reader and the player seem like the same connection to the source to me, be it pages of a book or a game, unless I'm missing what you're trying to say.


You've chosen a phrase that everyone in the world except you already understands to mean something else.

I understand this, I'm not trying to make the definition popular, I'm only explaining the reasons of why I used it.

You're categorising games mostly by their cutscenes, possibly the single least important aspect of a game.

Actually, in the example I've presented, these blackouts are playable, you control Max Payne in his memory flashes, and you walk down stairs that are longer than usual stairs because Max remembers them longer than usual, you only see what Max saw, notes are not readable, many faces are not recogniceable (by using blur and other techniques) because you don't remember them, so, if the game master (or narrator) was someone other than Max, you would be able to see these things, you'd be a 3rd person, you should be able to see these things, providing there wasn't a plot reason as to why you shouldn't.
But yes, I know it won't be used, it's not useful nor practical, but it makes more sense to me, unless of course, we agree that the term First person in the phrase First Person Shooter has nothing to do with the actual definition of first person point of view.

Hmm?
First Person:
-A form of narrative writing using verbs in the first person in order to give the impression that the action is happening to the narrator.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/first_person

Look, mabye we should go over this again:
Your knowledge of the English language, your secondary language, is not better than our combined knowledge of the English language, our primary language.

Do you realize that the fact English is my second language is irrelevant? I could be having this argument in my native language and it would be the same.

But either way I'm sorry. You see, in Spanish we can talk in first person, I never knew this wasn't possible in English, my sincere apologies.

But either way I'm sorry. You see, in Spanish we can talk in first person, I never knew this wasn't possible in English, my sincere apologies.
...oh, right. I forgot that. I didn't think that was a good definition to begin with.
However, 'narrative' and 'narrator' are still keywords for that definition. And as videogames aren't narrated, they can't be called under that definition.

...oh, right. I forgot that. I didn't think that was a good definition to begin with.
However, 'narrative' and 'narrator' are still keywords for that definition. And as videogames aren't narrated, they can't be called under that definition.

Hence I don't present my opinion as a definite answer and have been all this time trying to explain why it subjectively closer to the original definition than the commonly used term, in the videogame scenario, the narrator could be the game master, what you see as opposed to how you see it (from the eyes of the character, from a top prespective).

I don't really see the flawed parallel, the reader and the player seem like the same connection to the source to me, be it pages of a book or a game, unless I'm missing what you're trying to say.
Well yeah, I'm not disputing the player-reader equivalence. I'm disputing that "the game's story is told from the main protagonist's point of view" is equivalent to "the story is told in the first person". As I have repeatedly pointed out, most novels are told from the main protagonist's point of view, but they're still written in the third person. Max Payne is exactly like that.

But yes, I know it won't be used, it's not useful nor practical, but it makes more sense to me, unless of course, we agree that the term First person in the phrase First Person Shooter has nothing to do with the actual definition of first person point of view.
That would be a pretty stupid thing to agree, because it's clearly false.

That would be a pretty stupid thing to agree, because it's clearly false.

Well, care to explain me what resemblance then does it have? Because I see no absolute connection between having the same vision the videogame playable character has and the first person point of view dictionary definition. You see, even if you see through the eyes of the character you still see the guy (in most games) in cut scenes, which defeats the purpose of pointing at him and saying "that's me", at least, brings it to the same level to pointing at mario and saying "I killed Bowser", for all we know it could also be a camera struck inside his skull.
I know it makes sense to use the term, but like I said, I just don't see any technical, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy that first used the term came up with it because "first person point of view" includes the word "view", which can mean eye mission although it doesn't in the context of the definition.

Well, care to explain me what resemblance then does it have? Because I see no absolute connection between having the same vision the videogame playable character has and the first person point of view dictionary definition. You see, even if you see through the eyes of the character you still see the guy (in most games) in cut scenes, which defeats the purpose of pointing at him and saying "that's me", at least, brings it to the same level to pointing at mario and saying "I killed Bowser", for all we know it could also be a camera struck inside his skull.
I know it makes sense to use the term, but like I said, I just don't see any technical, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy that first used the term came up with it because "first person point of view" includes the word "view", which can mean eye mission although it doesn't in the context of the definition.

Look at it this way: everything you think is relevant is irrelevant.

In a first-person sentence you read exactly what the subject of the verb is thinking/saying. In a first-person game, you see and hear exactly what the subject of the verbs (your actions) sees and hears. (e.g. "I launched the translocator exit!" as you see exactly what you'd see if you really did that.) In a third person, you watch them do it, much like you do while reading a third person sentence. (e.g. "Mario collects the coins" as you watch a little animated Mario collect the coins.)

And what do you think the phrase "eye mission" means? We've been over this: you have to use phrases that people other than you know too, or else you're just talking nonsense.

(e.g. "I launched the translocator exit!" as you see exactly what you'd see if you really did that.)

Or "I just took 50 heath points off that monster according to the floating health bar on the top of his head"?

ok yakuza. if first-person games are any games that you act as a character (which is, in fact, your definition, based on the fact that you stated worms, mario and max payne are all first person games), then I want you to list me a third person game based on your own definition.

you've already stated that all first person shooters, platformers, and strategy games are first person. that definition would default to also include all action, RPG, adventure and racing games because they share the properties you define as first-person. aside from arcade games, I don't see what you consider to be third-person, so I want you to name me one.

I have actually stated why I consider Max Payne 3 to be first person, it's because the story is given from a first person point of view,blah blah blah
Except that, there is no Max Payne 3.
There is Max Payne, Max Payne 2 and Max Payne for GBA.
And a movie in the making.

Also, what the feck are you arguing about, yakuza? The definitions are rather clear: First person = First person view = From the viewpoint of the character. There is no Second person, and Third person = Third person view = From any point of view outside the character(regardless if it's a free roaming point of view or an over the shoulder fixed one).
That's IT.
If you don't agree with that, keep it to yourself because, chances are, you're stupid.

Or "I just took 50 heath points off that monster according to the floating health bar on the top of his head"?

No, no no no no!

The little character on the screen did that. You just told him to. You can tell because you watched it happen on the screen. Colloquially you can say you did it, but for the purposes of this discussion we have to treat that as incorrect.

In a true first-person game, it is designed to look and sound exactly like you, personally, Yakuza The Thick-Skulled, did it.

What about coming back to the subject of this thread and leave this pointless arguing ?

What about coming back to the subject of this thread and leave this pointless arguing ?

I second that. :)

Well I'm not convinced the topic of this thread doesn't constitute "pointless arguing" but good plan anyway.

just slipping in a last note before the arguement ends (should i make another thread for first-person and third-person debate? :p)

There is no logical argument against calling Max Payne 3 a first person game, when the story is presented in first person, other than to say that because the camera is not inside the character it can't be first person, you see, this counter argument, is not valid if we study the actual definition of first person view point, however, it is valid if we consider the common way of defining the view.

OK. all games are third person games AS LONG AS YOU ARE PLAYING IT FROM OUTSIDE THE CHARACTER(S) YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CONTROL.

Even if the gameplay is about a person's dream or memories.

Even if the gameplay IS presented in first person, e.g. cutscenes which have the voice of the main character saying "I still remember Angelina Jolie standing there... by the doorway... when she mutated into a boogeywoman...", it is still outside you, therefore it is a third person game.

however, yakuza, if you still insist on your "counter arguement", we'd be better off saying "The gameplay of that first person game is in third person's view." That statement is half correct, as the game is a first person's game, but you play it in third person view, and has some flaws because if a game is in first person (e.g. Counter Strike), it's gameplay MUST BE first-person.

What about a first person movie in which you see the narrator going through life?

As said above... and oh, you CANT see a narrator (you're not supposed to be able to see the narrator)

If you say that the narrator is the main character later in life, recalling his early days.. nope, its still third person if you are outside the character during gameplay. maybe thats what you meant by "the story is presented in first person".

take for example, a conversation with a friend. he may say, "I saw a person fall down the tenth floor.". that dialogue is presented in first person, but it isn't YOUR first person. it is your friend's first person's view. if you "translate" it to YOUR point of view, it would come out as second person, "You saw a person fall down the tenth floor." or third person, "He saw a person fall down the tenth floor."...

Anyhow, games where the camera is OUTSIDE the character most of the time (sometimes cutscenes show what the character sees through his eyes) is third person. other way round for first person.

There are some alterations to the statements everyone says about first person and third person because due to the ability of today's computers, some games can be switched between first person and third person (e.g. Final Fantasy 7: Dirge of Ceberus). In the future, the rigid statements will have to be changed, so, yakuza, your statements may be wrong now, but in the future, it MAY be right.

and i respect your strong determination and belief in youself even though others keep trying to pull you down :) Keep up the spirit! :cool:

and looks like this pointless arguement (which took up 2 pages) started due to this little post:

Think about fighting games, third person isn't really an option unless you go DBZ style.

Why is there still people who are trying to teach me what first person is widely known as? yahui don't waste your time telling me that because the camera is outside the character it's third person, I mean, take your time to read, and you'll realize that's been acknowledged since the beginning.

No, no no no no!

The little character on the screen did that. You just told him to. You can tell because you watched it happen on the screen. Colloquially you can say you did it, but for the purposes of this discussion we have to treat that as incorrect.

In a true first-person game, it is designed to look and sound exactly like you, personally, Yakuza The Thick-Skulled, did it.


What little character on the screen? Played Hellgate London? It has a first person view (on some characters) yet they still see health bars on the top of monsters, coin signs floating on the top of shop owners. The character isn't supposed to see that, so your previous definition is flawed, don't try to offend.

Okay, sure, in that case the analogy breaks down slightly, you're right. But almost all games add coutners and stuff to the screen. That's what games do. I think we just have to work around them.

How on earth was I supposed to know you were talking about that game, though?

Okay, sure, in that case the analogy breaks down slightly, you're right. But almost all games add coutners and stuff to the screen. That's what games do. I think we just have to work around them.

How on earth was I supposed to know you were talking about that game, though?

Well, you weren't supposed to know what game I was talking about, all you had to know is I was talking about a 1st person game. You made an example of something you would say while playing a first person game, I quoted that phrase and added "Or, bla bla bla", you assumed I was talking about a 3rd person game, for some reason. If it wasn't clear, it is now.

That was only because almost all games that do that are third-person and you'd repeatedly described third-person games that way in the past. Now, I think we agree on everything, so if there's anything else, can you just email me about it, and I'll probably delete a bunch of stuff from this thread sometime tomorrow (or whenever I think you've read this) so the thread can get back on topic, or more preferably, die.

Edit: (the thread. not you)

What little character on the screen? Played Hellgate London? It has a first person view (on some characters) yet they still see health bars on the top of monsters, coin signs floating on the top of shop owners. The character isn't supposed to see that, so your previous definition is flawed, don't try to offend. just want to point out that doesn't entirely work. hellgate is first person, but its also third-person so they probably just designed it to be played like a third person game. I know the melee classes do third-person by default, and I can't remember from my evoker but I think they did to. the engineer and marksman are first-person, but you can still do third-person view from that as well.

I get what you were trying to illustrate with the example, but hellgate's kind of wonky no matter how you're trying to define its viewpoint.

Yes, this kind of discussion is made harder by the fact that some videogame designers simply refuse to stick to doing things we already have names for. Those are the good videogame designers.

Those are the good videogame designers.I suggest actually PLAYING hellgate london before making that claim :p

I meant in principle.

I meant in principle.yes, yes, technicalities...

Hmmmmm... this 2D vs Discussion thread has been magically turned into a 1st Person, 2nd Person and 3rd Person thread:)

Hmmmmm... this 2D vs Discussion thread has been magically turned into a 1st Person, 2nd Person and 3rd Person thread:)
What's that, in the thread... is it a bird? No... it's a Plane! No! It's... Captain Obvious to the Rescue!

What about coming back to the subject of this thread and leave this pointless arguing ?

* repeats *

And this discussion is pointless. Seriously, who cares about the meaning of "first person game" and "third person game" ?

Oh, who cares about anything?


If you want to discuss the relative merits of 2D and 3D worms, there's about a million threads about it you can dig up.