• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

Discussion Should the next 3D Zelda be first-person?

Undeniablybiased said:
1st person is not more immersive by default. Immersion isn’t about approximating reality or seeing things through the direct line of sight of the character. That’s an incredibly binary and amateurish way of looking at things.
Click to expand...
Are you responding to somebody here? Because who said that? Also you describe what you believe "immersion" is not, but fail to offer what you believe it is. Which is a pretty one-sided, and poor way of contributing to a discussion.
 
I can't even grasp the stance that first-person is not objectively worse for most types of actions besides looking around a 3D environment and maybe aiming at things. Melee combat? Platforming? Having a general sence of what's in the near and broad area around you? Conveying interaction between your character and NPCs? The idea that it inherently enhances "immersion" is such a foreign concept to me, to me it always feels like I'm no longer controlling living videogame character, rather just moving a camera around a piece of software with some unconvincing allusions to there being a character behind the camera.
 
Twohearts said:
How about a first person VR mario so jt feels like you're really doingbackflips and somersaults and you get really bad motion sickness
Click to expand...
milhouse-casually-pitching-twitch-stream-drops-14-years-v0-dhbyfenk7bbb1.jpg
 
Ripfeld89 said:
I can't even grasp the stance that first-person is not objectively worse for most types of actions besides looking around a 3D environment and maybe aiming at things. Melee combat? Platforming? Having a general sence of what's in the near and broad area around you? Conveying interaction between your character and NPCs? The idea that it inherently enhances "immersion" is such a foreign concept to me, to me it always feels like I'm no longer controlling living videogame character, rather just moving a camera around a piece of software with some unconvincing allusions to there being a character behind the camera.
Click to expand...
I believe the main reason there is such a vast gulf of opinion on the matter is that people that don't want first person perspective expect it to be the 3D Zelda games we have played and come to have an expectation of what it consists of as far as gameplay, combat, level design, puzzles, etc. Whereas I'm open to the idea because I'm envisioning everything to be approached differently from top to bottom to better suit the perspective. Enemy encounter, dungeon designs, puzzles would be executed way differently than before. I picture it being a little more slow, moodier, atmospheric, mysterious, harder to traverse, encounters more with more dread, scarier. More traveling through dark corridors holding a torch out in front of you rather than what the games have become where everybody charges in as Link without a fear in the world because he is so overpowered and can instantly heal himself full in a pause menu. Having to look closer at things for clues to solve a puzzle which would make more sense from just a realism perspective instead of just the obvious switch that needs to be hit to unlock a door.

Like I said it's all about the execution. Nintendo won't just throw this in there as an only option without some care to the game design as a whole. Also I don't think we'll be there yet with the next console to pull that off to the level they would want so we might see it as an optional thing for the next one ala RDR2 and GTA V, where it will be there more as a curiosity rather than influence the larger design of the game.
 
First person would be really bad for the mechanics they are trying to pull off in this game.

Zelda is all about manipulating the 3d space for puzzles... first person would be cramped and not good for this.

Zelda's combat also gains absolutely nothing from first person.
 
VintoWin said:
First person would be really bad for the mechanics they are trying to pull off in this game.
Click to expand...
Wait, how do you know?
VintoWin said:
Zelda is all about manipulating the 3d space for puzzles... first person would be cramped and not good for this.
Click to expand...
Have you ever played Portal? Or literally any Myst game or any other 3D first person puzzle game?
VintoWin said:
Zelda's combat also gains absolutely nothing from first person.
Click to expand...
I don't see it much losing anything though either. Just like puzzle games in first person, the perspective is no stranger to combat either. Metroid Prime uses a similar lock on mechanic. Melee versus shooting combat feels like it is being treated as way too vastly of different things in regards to videogames and people seem to be overvaluing Zelda's melee combat as something so sacred.
 
Prophet64 said:
Wait, how do you know?

Have you ever played Portal? Or literally any Myst game or any other 3D first person puzzle game?

I don't see it much losing anything though either. Just like puzzle games in first person, the perspective is no stranger to combat either. Metroid Prime uses a similar lock on mechanic. Melee versus shooting combat feels like it is being treated as way too vastly of different things in regards to videogames and people seem to be overvaluing Zelda's melee combat as something so sacred.
Click to expand...
Yeah I mean. I know what you are talking about. I have played both Portal and Portal 2.

But imagine trying to do what you do in Tears of the Kingdom in first person. Building.. etc. It would be bad lol.

Those all use tools that do things right in front of you and don't use a ton of space.

First person is super unnecessary for any action RPG/action adventure. It's pretty much only superb for shooters/multiplayer.
 
VintoWin said:
Yeah I mean. I know what you are talking about. I have played both Portal and Portal 2.

But imagine trying to do what you do in Tears of the Kingdom in first person. Building.. etc. It would be bad lol.

Those all use tools that do things right in front of you and don't use a ton of space.

First person is super unnecessary for any action RPG/action adventure. It's pretty much only superb for shooters/multiplayer.
Click to expand...
Right, that's my main point on why I think this divergence in opinion stems from (besides those who dislike first person games in general due to motion sickness or other things). They've (Nintendo and/or Aonuma) stated they won't be revisiting what Tears of the Kingdom did as far as building contraptions. That would not be condusive to a first person perspective, I agree.

I would just like something more mysterious that illicits that feeling of entering the lost woods for the first time in A Link to the Past, or going below the well into the foreboding darkness in Ocarina of Time, or peering up at grimacing moon careening towards the surface in Majora's Mask, or roaring down some rapid waters with canyon walls looming over either side of you in Twilight Princess.

Sorry, carried away. I know all of these things have been done (obviously) with the existing camera system, but that's also the problem, we've all been there. My point being, when done deliberately under the perceived constraints of first person perspective, it can provide a fresh sense of the unknown, the fearsome, the dreadful, and the excitement of an adventure.

For quite a long time Zelda (or at least since the remasters of Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess) has had one of the best camera systems for the genre. It would seem hard and somewhat crazy to dismiss it now, but if done deliberately the limited viewpoint of just ones' eyes can allow for excting moments that wouldn't be the same otherwise.

With the current system we can already to easily see what's around a corner before putting ourselves in harm's way. Even if a room is pitch dark we can swing the camera around and get a sense of the size of a room or where obstacles might be because the camera will push in closer to our character to avoid the obstructions. We already subconciously (video)"game" the current camera system. I for one welcome whatever challenges a new forced perspective would bring, and would be curious how Nintendo (rather than Retro Studios) would handle it themselves as far as gameplay mechanics and game design.
 
Last edited:
0
I'll be fine with a Zelda spinoff that's in first person that's more like Elder Scrolls where you play as neither Link or Zelda but can make your own character and explore hyrule set a version of hyrule. Each game will be based on a different hyrule.
You can be any job, including a thief.
There will be fishing.

Call it The Legend of Zelda: Prime
 
0
GenOneCam said:
True. I can't think of a single game where you build things in first-person. It would be an impossible idea to develop around.
Click to expand...
Minecraft. But I don't think, or at least for myself, those advocating for what would possibly be a first person Zelda is imagining anything like TotK's building mechanics. For me personally I want something more in line what a normal mortal person could achieve using their wits and limited resources available to them. Not Hylian-Mage-God-Mode Link. Regular "You're only the hero, because my prophetic dream told me so, otherwise, nothing special" Link.
 
0
Prophet64 said:
Are you responding to somebody here? Because who said that? Also you describe what you believe "immersion" is not, but fail to offer what you believe it is. Which is a pretty one-sided, and poor way of contributing to a discussion.
Click to expand...
That is literally the premise of the first bullet point from the opening post:

Irene said:
A first-person perspective as a function in a game is not only for convienient use of FPS controls: It's also an incredibly effective way for the player to feel more immersed and connected to the game world than a third-person perspective often does.
Click to expand...
Which, no, it isn't - good world building and writing are far more effective in that regard than any camera angle can provide. Games like Portal or Myst, which you mentioned above, or the various dungeon crawlers I mentioned on the last page, aren't great because of the camera perspective, they're great because they're well-written and/or lure the player in with a sense of adventure and mystery, none of which is lessened nor enhanced by the way the player looks at the game.

And frankly, this hypothesis sounds like the kind of batshit insane pseudoscience a tech bro would come up with to sell his VR gear.
 
on a personal level

I would really not like that

first-person makes me queasy
 
freedomseekr said:
they're great because they're well-written and/or lure the player in with a sense of adventure and mystery
Click to expand...

Yeah that's fair, a first-person perspective isn't a be-all-end-all in terms of tools to immerse the player with. There are other factors and methods as well, such as atmosphere and level design. A third-person game taking place in a living, breathing world is more immersive than a first-person test chamber.

freedomseekr said:
this hypothesis sounds like the kind of batshit insane pseudoscience a tech bro would come up with to sell his VR gear.
Click to expand...

I assure you that no one on this forum wants to be addressed as if their opinions were either 1. tech bro lingo 2. pseudosience or 3. insane.

Please stop.
 
Irene said:
I assure you that no one on this forum wants to be addressed as if their opinions were either 1. tech bro lingo 2. pseudosience or 3. insane.
Click to expand...
I apologize for my tone, but I still respectfully disagree.

My frustration with this comes from my experience that I've seen these types of opinions come from people with either disinterest in video games beyond tech or financial gains or from well-intentioned people whose ideas are then used as a crutch for something that is of lesser quality while pointing towards these opinions as immovable facts.
 
freedomseekr said:
That is literally the premise of the first bullet point from the opening post:


Which, no, it isn't - good world building and writing are far more effective in that regard than any camera angle can provide. Games like Portal or Myst, which you mentioned above, or the various dungeon crawlers I mentioned on the last page, aren't great because of the camera perspective, they're great because they're well-written and/or lure the player in with a sense of adventure and mystery, none of which is lessened nor enhanced by the way the player looks at the game.

And frankly, this hypothesis sounds like the kind of batshit insane pseudoscience a tech bro would come up with to sell his VR gear.
Click to expand...
They did not say it was the default though, they said "an incredibly effective way for the player to feel more immersed." They didn't say it was default nor that it was more important than
good world building and writing
Click to expand...
Which just feels like you making a straw man arguement. All of these thing are important to immersion in general. No one is dismissing the importance of these writing and world building in the immersion factor.
freedomseekr said:
And frankly, this hypothesis sounds like the kind of batshit insane pseudoscience a tech bro would come up with to sell his VR gear.
Click to expand...
Good lord. Is this where your straw man has gained sentience and reached its final form?

You can call it a theory if you like. More in the realm of a psychological phenomenom.
People making the argument you seem to be making act as though some paradox is it play where somehow despite having a visible buffer of seeing from outside the character (which already by just saying that feels pretty disassociative) they are controlling is actually more immersive than playing directly from the viewpoint of their eyesight, at their height, looking only where they look simultaneously, looking down and sometimes seeing their own feet only at those times. How often in your everyday life do you swing your perspective to a bird's-eye view 5 feet above your head?
 
Last edited:
I respect the opinion of everyone who prefers third person, but I can vouch for first person feeling more immersive to me personally. And I say that as someone who is utterly sick of games being soullessly manufactured as mere graphical showcases. There is precedent for this style to be magical in its own way, but sadly there are also MANY ways for it to suck. But honestly if not Zelda, I'm sure there could be a way to make an amazing first person game with the same spirit of exploration and discovery. But tbh if my endless hours of childhood wasted on a Morrowind addiction are any indication, whatever game that ends up being shouldn't bother with any kind of swordplay.
 
Prophet64 said:
I don't understand the sentiment of first person perspective not being more immersive. You can still be immersed with a third person perspective, but for games that give you both options it's cleary first person is the more immersive. Games like Red Dead Redemption 2 and GTA V and all feel more immersive in first person. Granted it feels more suited to a slower pace, and things quickly get more difficult when things get more action intensive or high velocity is involved, but those games weren't initially designed to be that way anyway. Skyrim is more designed around it and feels more immersive that way too. Resident Evil 7 is a fucking nightmare especially if you play it either on a large projection screen or VR.

It's all about the execution and the game being designed around it, but first person is simply inherently more immersive than third person. Obviously if Nintendo did this, Zelda would have a different feel and approach than any previous entries to account for the different perspective.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Because first person cameras in games are nothing like being an actual person looking through real eyes. It's a static, clunky camera fixed at approximate head height with no real emulation of peripheral vision or general proprioception.
For first person shooters it works due to the inherent mechanic simplicity of that genre, for more complex adventure games or platformers it's simply dumb af.
Once (if ever) VR matures sufficiently to actually work seamlessly and without needing stilted, limited game design to be built around it, then sure, it'll be much more immersive eventually.
 
NoodleVacuum said:
I respect the opinion of everyone who prefers third person, but I can vouch for first person feeling more immersive to me personally. And I say that as someone who is utterly sick of games being soullessly manufactured as mere graphical showcases. There is precedent for this style to be magical in its own way, but sadly there are also MANY ways for it to suck. But honestly if not Zelda, I'm sure there could be a way to make an amazing first person game with the same spirit of exploration and discovery. But tbh if my endless hours of childhood wasted on a Morrowind addiction are any indication, whatever game that ends up being shouldn't bother with any kind of swordplay.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying it’s ideal, but it’s not that I can’t envision a Zelda game ditching swords only to be built exclusively around the bow and the hookshot.
 
Irene said:
I’m not saying it’s ideal, but it’s not that I can’t envision a Zelda game ditching swords only to be built exclusively around the bow and the hookshot.
Click to expand...
Nintendo could absolutely make a banger hookshot-centric first-person Zelda game. The dungeon design would be insane.
 
Metroid Prime didn't replace Metroid, so we can think about the creative implications of a Zelda spin-off without having to pit the two against each other, in my opinion.

Honestly, I find this thread interesting because it raises a point that I think is worth thinking about: "breaking conventions" would be a good thing in the absolute, for the principle of doing it. I don't agree with that. Neither conservatism nor modernism are good things for their own sake or ideology, in my opinion. It all depends on what you put into it. I don't care if a game breaks conventions simply for the sake of doing so, I just want it to be good. And if it's good by breaking conventions, then fine.

This thread has the merit of being argued, of supporting its postulate. Whether you agree or not (I really don't at all), just saying no out of rejection is, in my humble opinion, missing the point of the discussion.

I don't think it's a good idea to impose a single definition of immersion, and neither to present what we call immersion as an absolute goal, to give my opinion here.
 
palemire said:
Absolutely not. Because first person cameras in games are nothing like being an actual person looking through real eyes.
Click to expand...
To say they are "nothing like" just feels so obnoxiously obtuse. If you said that then you would literally have to say third person camera is "even more nothing like" because it is not even trying to approximate that sort of immersion. Do you all making these arguments deliberately or pathologically not make these opposing statements because it would reveal to yourself that the crux to your argument is (to borrow your vernacular):
palemire said:
simply dumb af.
Click to expand...

palemire said:
Once (if ever) VR matures sufficiently to actually work seamlessly and without needing stilted, limited game design to be built around it, then sure, it'll be much more immersive eventually.
Click to expand...
Careful now...
freedomseekr said:
this hypothesis sounds like the kind of batshit insane pseudoscience a tech bro would come up with to sell his VR gear.
Click to expand...
 
0
I too don't want first person Zelda, I think it would be a worse experience than all the 3D Zelda games we've had. And I disagree that first person makes games more immersive, at least for me. First person games were always disorienting to me and I've struggled with motion sickness.

First person for me lacks sensual inputs that help navigate our environment, especially depth perception. In VR this is obviously not a problem, but there motion sickness is even worse for me.

If Nintendo gave the option to play in either first or third person, but designed the game for first person, I stilll would get a worse game. So all in all I'm not at all thrilled about this.
 
Prophet64 said:
People making the argument you seem to be making act as though some paradox is it play where somehow despite having a visible buffer of seeing from outside the character (which already by just saying that feels pretty disassociative) they are controlling is actually more immersive than playing directly from the viewpoint of their eyesight, at their height, looking only where they look simultaneously, looking down and sometimes seeing their own feet only at those times.
Click to expand...
Cameras aren't human eyes though, as @palemire has pointed out.

And by that logic, first-person video games would be seen as the peak of all art forms, exceeding literature, theatre, cinema, music and all other video games ever. Which they don't and that's because the presentation method (or camera, if you want to exclusively stick to video games) is a distant last to things like writing, game design, graphics and music. No one wants to read a book or watch a film that is poorly written, listen to a song that is musically reprehensible or play a game that has terrible design (or any of the above).

Even DOOM, despite being designed around a first-person view, would've not taken the world by storm had it not been for its excellent level design, the artwork by Adrian Carmack and the sheer energy it exudes. Like... would you play a DOOM game that has terrible level design, boring art and just plays like you're running in a pool of Jell-O? Of course you wouldn't - and it being in first person perspective (or third person perspective) wouldn't change that.
 
Steve said:
We already have first person Zelda.

skyrim_switch_release_date.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah I was already thinking that Skyrim is pretty close to first person Zelda. A beautiful wilderness dotted with dungeons and villages and lots of secrets and sub quests to find. Skyrim is also incredibly simple to understand as an rpg which is a big part of why it’s so successful.


I think a first person Zelda could work, but it would be so different that you’d be able to stick a different IP name on it. First person melee combat isn’t great as it kills your peripheral vision, so, like Skyrim you’d want to to redesign for a smaller number of threats and have less ‘immediately surrounded by enemies, that’s what your spin attack is for’ moments. But archery is great in first person. So the answer to first person Zelda is to have it as Zelda running around with a bow :)
 
0
Irene said:
I've been giving this some thought lately, and several points come to mind.

1. Immersion
2. Self-insertion
3. Breaking conventions
4. Remember when it was on the table?
5. If it worked for...

1. Immersion
Zelda has always been about worlds. When Miyamoto and co. made the first Zelda, one of the first steps was to draw the map, as opposed to the character art. When Mario's and Link's 3D debuts were being developed, the former started everything by having programmers work on his movement abilities, while the latter had everyone focus on the environments and their atmosphere. This focus on worlds has been persistent during the entire history of the series, as Hyrule has seen constant enrichment in terms of functionality, area design and lore over the years. A first-person perspective as a function in a game is not only for convienient use of FPS controls: It's also an incredibly effective way for the player to feel more immersed and connected to the game world than a third-person perspective often does.

2. Self-insertion
Link may have a fixed name nowadays, but he's always been a self-insert. This is your adventure, and especially in previous entries, Link was nothing more than your typical avatar to project yourself onto. A first-person perspective could work wonders for a Zelda game to enhance that feeling of this being your adventure, where there's no spunky guy to distract you from being involved in the feeling of embarking on an adventure that is truly your own.

3. Breaking conventions
Lately, breaking conventions has been on Aonuma's lips. It's what they did in preparation for BotW, to ravenous success. He even used the words when describing the idea to let Zelda have a magic-based gameplay style. While there's a fear that Aonuma saying that open-air is the future might result in a new formula that will just also grow rigid, they might still be hard at work in favour of just coming up with cool new ideas and innovations to make the series remain fresh.

4. Remember when it was on the table?
During the development of Ocarina of Time, Miyamoto actually did experiment with the idea of making the game first-person to, as mentioned, give the main stage to the true star of the game -the world of Hyrule.

5. If it worked for...
Prior to releasing Breath of the Wild, Fujibayashi and Aonuma said that they had played a lot of Skyrim, a a game that seemingly inspired BotW. Skyrim is an open-world game in first-person. One can have a strong opinion on Skyrim's combat, but if there's one company that can ensure engaging gameplay in every possible scenario, it's Nintendo.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Let's not be to abrasive (I'm a Firm NO) and just respond to your points:

1) immersion was always baffling to me.
In reality I have 170° field of fire, STEREO (3d), habe Balance, body awareness, sense of touch (feeling breeze or temperature even if I'm turning the back to something)... First person has almost nothing of that. Gaging distance for mele combat? Good luck. Having a sense of your surrounding? Nope. Actually seeing stuff in the periphery? Nope, consoles get 60°< pc gets maybe 100°. First person is like looking trough a toilet paper roll while having one eye closed.

For shooters that works, you usually are further away from enemies and aim with the center of the screen,so a narrower field of view works. Slow adventure/exploration games where there is no combat? Works since you have all the time to position yourself. Horror? Can work, since it feeds into the claustrophobia.

But immersive? I always found that to be a crap reasoning. Third person compensates for lack of 3d, balance and other senses by showing you more context. It's less claustrophobic and helps me for more immersion cause I feel less "lost" in the world.

2) breaking conventions:
They broke them. They now can explore a new set. They already found a new identity, the goal was not to be Square with FF and break them with every title.

3) when it was on the table, they decided against it cause third person worked better.

I still haven't seen first person melee combat that's good, not just acceptable.

4) Skyrim was well received cause the freedom in a Fantasy World it gave, not of it's janky combat. But let's not talk about that: does anybody value Skyrim over Botw? A handful for sure, but I am not aware of anybody.

That all is only for classic screen games. VR is another topic, and there I could see it working (well... The quest has a to small FoV, but by you loving the weapons and seeing in 3d it helps a lot).
 
I feel like this'd be too big of a departure from the mainline series but I honestly wouldn't mind some sort of spin-off in first person. Instead of taking inspiration from Skyrim, however, I'd rather see something like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. Basically the same, highly-reactive physics as BotW/TotK but in a much smaller and tighter world. First-person can be quite tricky to get right but it allows you to emphasize different aspects of the game world and how you interact with it.

On that note, I'd actually love to hear from people who straight up can't play first-person games because of motion sickness if there's any games at all that don't give them any issues.
 
I love First Person games and prefer them over the typically 3rd Person action/shooter game.

But for Zelda? No. Not a good fit.
The moveset of Link is not made for it and changing that too much might not be the best idea.
If they have good first person view ideas put those into a Metroid Prime game.
 
0
Yes, but the main way you fight is through sword beams. If you get hit once you can only attack by throwing the Master Sword at people, and you have to pick it up again afterwards
 
Irene said:
I've been giving this some thought lately
Click to expand...
I have this thought too, regularly, since hearing that they experimented with first-person Zelda games for OoT. I would love a first-person perspective myself, and often run around using the Camera rune to get a taste for it.

I like fashion. Dressing up Link in cool outfits is fun. Still, he's taking up so much screen real estate the whole time. It's not as bad as a third-person shooter - shooting in third person never feels great to me. And I understand how melee combat is easier to make fun in third person. But having a first-person perspective for exploration would be amazing.

They're kinda close already! Just allow for a Camera mode without the overlay and we're mostly there.

edit: wow the tone of this thread is miserable :/
 
Last edited:
0
Clov said:
Yes, but the main way you fight is through sword beams. If you get hit once you can only attack by throwing the Master Sword at people, and you have to pick it up again afterwards
Click to expand...
That reminds me of Titan Souls, where you only get one HP and one arrow, and need to retrieve it each time. I think it was built from a prototype at a game jam along the theme of ‘you only get one’.
 
Aether said:
Let's not be to abrasive (I'm a Firm NO) and just respond to your points:

1) immersion was always baffling to me.
In reality I have 170° field of fire, STEREO (3d), habe Balance, body awareness, sense of touch (feeling breeze or temperature even if I'm turning the back to something)... First person has almost nothing of that. Gaging distance for mele combat? Good luck. Having a sense of your surrounding? Nope. Actually seeing stuff in the periphery? Nope, consoles get 60°< pc gets maybe 100°. First person is like looking trough a toilet paper roll while having one eye closed.

For shooters that works, you usually are further away from enemies and aim with the center of the screen,so a narrower field of view works. Slow adventure/exploration games where there is no combat? Works since you have all the time to position yourself. Horror? Can work, since it feeds into the claustrophobia.

But immersive? I always found that to be a crap reasoning. Third person compensates for lack of 3d, balance and other senses by showing you more context. It's less claustrophobic and helps me for more immersion cause I feel less "lost" in the world.
Click to expand...
100% all of this
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom