Gaming semantics

[Thrik]

I said that's what I'd personally call it. You know, keeping in line with this whole semantics thing. Naturally, 'first-person shooter' is the most appropriate descriptor -- as I said earlier.

Half-Life 2 is an excellent example of a game that's entirely on rails. Throughout pretty much the whole game you're unable to deviate from the intended course; granted, you're not literally held into place like you are in Time Crisis, but it's not far off. It is a completely linear game.

Incidentally, 'on-rails' is a term that was used by the gaming press and players to describe Half-Life 2 both in conversation and reviews when it came out. There's another one for us to all argue about!

[Nachimir]

That's it's being debated shows that language hasn't changed, but it may be in the process of changing.

The form it is edging towards right now is one known as "dumb", because third-person and first-person are both useful terms with precise meanings.

[Wrestlevania]

There's another one for us to all argue about!

You're on!

"On rails" traditionally means you have no meaningful control over your character in the game, just what they shoot at and when. Time Crisis and House of the Dead are the epitome of this.

I think it's unfair - and somewhat hobbling - to call games like Half-Life etc. "on rails" because that doesn't account for either the exploration or 'fuck about' factors well designed games like that typically offer the player. And, playing devil's advocate, while more straight forward shooters such as Halo 3 are much more tightly directed, channelling the player down a very specific, obvious path, the game still gives you enough freedom to deviate and break the rules somewhat.

[miffy495]

Nappi, those conversations you came up with are a horrifying window into your mind. Well done, I gotta say.

[ThunderPeel2001]

That's it's being debated shows that language hasn't changed, but it may be in the process of changing.

On the contrary (), I'd say that the fact its being debated shows that language has already changed, for what are we talking about if not a change in language?

It may not have changed so that everyone agrees on its usage, to be sure, but neither has the word "sick", which some people use to mean "good". The language has still changed, in that respect, even if people don't agree with it or like it.

The form it is edging towards right now is one known as "dumb", because third-person and first-person are both useful terms with precise meanings.

As I said though, Gears has more common (in terms of its twitch/strafe based gameplay) with FPSs than other TPSs. So in that respect I'd say the meaning has become less precise and therefore less useful. Just my opinion!

[Nappi]

To me, it seems a bit strange that a debate where most of the people still argue that language hasn't changed in that Gears of War could be called an FPS game is suddenly good enough an argument to state that language has already changed.

Possibilities of this logic are endless!

[eljay]

On the contrary (), I'd say that the fact its being debated shows that language has already changed, for what are we talking about if not a change in language?

This is absurd circular reasoning, "it's being debated so obviously my viewpoint is the correct one" ? That's a very convenient debating tool ¬ ¬

We're talking about the possibility of it, and whether it's valid, that doesn't automatically make either of those things true.

The use of the word "sick" to mean something good is one of countless examples of words being used ironically, sure the original meaning is directly in contrast with the new one but that is exactly the point. It exaggerates the descriptor to the point of being "so good it's bad". The use of FPS we are talking about isn't being used ironically it's just being used wrongly.

As I said though, Gears has more common (in terms of its twitch/strafe based gameplay) with FPSs than other TPSs. So in that respect I'd say the meaning has become less precise and therefore less useful. Just my opinion!

Wait wait, what you are saying here says that because FPS is being applied to Gears of War the term is now less precise and less useful....... this is exactly the reason it shouldn't be applied to GoW!

There are many types of FPS games with varying gameplay styles, but they all have two things in common:

1) a default first person perspective

2) shooting as a dominant action

Some have twitch / strafe gameplay, some are more deliberate and slow. None of them have a default third person perspective, the term FPS doesn't describe a gameplay style.

[Wrestlevania]

As I said though, Gears has more common (in terms of its twitch/strafe based gameplay) with FPSs than other TPSs. So in that respect I'd say the meaning has become less precise and therefore less useful. Just my opinion!

No, sorry: bullshit. Max Payne is far more twitch-based throughout than Gears of War is at its most frenetic. And nobody refers to that series as being FPS.

You've not only shot your argument in the foot with this, you've taken both of its legs off as well. Ergo, your argument has no legs.

[Ben]

You've not only shot your argument in the foot with this, you've taken both of its legs off as well. Ergo, your argument has no legs.

"It's over Anakin; I have the higher ground!"

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

[Wrestlevania]

As childish as it may be, I was inspired by Ben...

[Spaff]

wow look at anakin's emo makeup

i hate him so much

[JoannaDark]

ha, it's not as bad as tobey maguire in spiderman 3; an emo fringe and a bit of eyeliner seems to be the director's attempt to depict his descent into eeeevil. well, that and the dancing.

[DanJW]

Emo Parker was unintentionally hilarious. Anakin was just fucking annoying and boring.

After reading ur debatez, I haf desidid that Gears of War shall henceforth be lablled "Turd Third Person Shorter", here and in all Thumbs places.

Discussion over. TPS wins. FPS loses. Henceforth, anyone, anywhere, getting it wrong is surely a P-zombie.

[Redwall]

What about Thirst Person Shooter?

Or "Fird Person"

[n0wak]

Question: since "first-person" and "third-person" originate, for the most part, from 3D games does the terminology retroactively apply to 2D games where such a distinction was never made? Is Contra or Gunstar Heroes, then, a third person shooter?

[Nappi]

2D first person shooters are the best.

But yes, I can't see any reason why games like Contra and Metal Slug couldn't be called third person shooters.

[Wrestlevania]

Question: since "first-person" and "third-person" originate, for the most part, from 3D games does the terminology retroactively apply to 2D games where such a distinction was never made? Is Contra or Gunstar Heroes, then, a third person shooter?

Yeah, definitely.

The definition offered earlier, regarding the different "person" perspectives, holds up here perfectly. It's just that there were so few first-person games before 3D became so prolific that it wasn't necessary to make the distinction.

And don't forget the video gaming popularity increase too. So, as the audience continues to widen and diversify, the associated language needs to become richer and allow for greater specificity.

[Wrestlevania]

2D first person shooters are the best.

There are more than a couple of them out there...

[Nappi]

There are more than a couple of them out there...

What is this "Duck Hunt" thing?

One could say that in a way the third dimension is present in games like that as well, even though it isn't that graphic. While the duck only moves up and down and sideways, there is some distance between the gunner (or you) and the ducks.

Edit: perspective = dimension

[Wrestlevania]

What is this "Duck Hunt" thing?

One could say that in a way the third perspective is present in games like that as well, even though it isn't that graphic. While the duck only moves up and down and sideways, there is some distance between the gunner (or you) and the ducks.

OK, this does definitely screw with semantics - but in a more meaningful and interesting way.

Thinking about it, I was coming at this particular circumstance based on the technology used to implement the experience, not strictly the perspective being illustrated.

So, given the necessity to infer perspective and depth of field - however crudely - is there really such a thing as a true two-dimensional first-person shooter?

[Nappi]

Hmmm... Well, the player could, for example, only see what's in front of and on top of him (or in between), but couldn't see anything that was happening, however slightly, left or right to him. This would result in his horizontal angle of sight being zero, and he wouldn't see anything.

If we, however, gave in a little and decided that the angle of sight was one pixel wide instead of being infinitesimally small, the player would see the ducks or whatever as a pillar of pixels moving up and down or becoming smaller and larger (when going away from or towards the player). Furthermore, the ducks would only be visible if they moved directly according the line of sight of the player. And as the resolution would be 1 x something, I'd imagine that playing the game wouldn't very rewarding.

[Wrestlevania]

If we, however, gave in a little and decided that the angle of sight was one pixel wide instead of being infinitesimally small, the player would see the ducks or whatever as a pillar of pixels moving up and down or becoming smaller and larger (when going away from or towards the player).

...which implies perception of depth as a necessity, meaning it's technically impossible to have a 2D FPS it seems.

[Nappi]

Yes.. It is impossible if we don't allow the width being 1 pixel instead infinitesimally small.

In the example, the depth itself isn't the problem, since the two dimensions are Y and Z, or height and depth. The width is missing, though, which causes the angle of sight problem.

EDIT: Or is 2D somehow defined to always mean width and height with the third dimension always being depth?

Further EDIT: That would seem strange.

[n0wak]

BTW, just so it's mentioned, there are second person shooters.

[Wrestlevania]

EDIT: Or is 2D somehow defined to always mean width and height with the third dimension always being depth?

Further EDIT: That would seem strange.

In terms of implementing what we're trying to portray to the user, in this particular example I would say: yes, it does.