Should D3 have been first person?

I'll admit it. My first ever hands-on time with any Diablo game occurred just 24 hours ago, when my inexperienced Demon Hunter took his first fumbling steps into the Diablo III beta's dark and ominous dungeons. It took just three hours before I'd hacked and slashed my way to the main storyline's satisfying conclusion, but in that short period of time my eyes were opened to an entirely new perspective on a gaming world. As a lover of first person games, the isometric camera system in Diablo III felt very unfamiliar, and I inevitably wondered why Blizzard didn't make the leap to first person like so many other developers. This led me to wonder - should Diablo III have been a first person game, and what are the pros and cons of this approach? Let's find out.

First Person Pro #1: Immersion
Ever since gamers first wandered the pixelated halls of Wolfenstein 3D, the first person perspective has been the character viewpoint of choice in today's games, as witnessed by the popularity of the perspective across genres. It's no surprise really -- if you want the player to feel as if they're actually inside the game world, you should present them with a view that matches our real world. Admittedly the first person perspective still isn't a perfect representation of our human vision system, lacking the wider field of view that our amazing eyeballs deliver. Unless you're packing a 3D monitor this view also lacks the stereoscopic vision delivered courtesy of evolution's clever decision to equip us with not one but two eyes. And yet, despite these limitations, the first person game view remains the closest to the experience we have when viewing the real world. I can only imagine how much spookier Diablo III would have been if I could have explored every nook and cranny of the New Tristram Cathedral, or to zoom in on the pulsing gut flesh of a worm-packed Grotesque.

Instead Diablo III gives us an isometric viewpoint, presenting the player with a small action figure on screen that they're supposed to identify with. Unless you're having a near death experience, this viewpoint doesn't quite gel with our real world view. You can't even move the camera around like most other third person games, so if an enemy disappears off the edge of the screen you better use those Jedi mind powers to predict where its projectiles are coming from.


More Diablo III Videos


First Person Pro #2: Challenge
One of the complaints leveled at the beta is the difficulty level - there isn't one. You can basically click your way through the entire experience whilst simultaneously blindfolded and tied up in a closet. I assumed this was due to the beta taking place in the early levels of the game, so I asked my learned Diablo-veteran co-op companion if the combat would ever get any harder. He informed me that, based on his many hours with the first two games, Diablo never gets very difficult. Now, I'm the kind of gamer who wants to be challenged by his games, where I have to learn new skills and master gameplay mechanics to see the next juicy bit of content. Sadly I'm in the minority, with most games instead focusing on delivering an accessible experience that even a sea cucumber could beat (well, if it had hands. And eyes, let's not forget the eyes). I immediately assumed this was why Diablo III was so easy, but over time began to realize that the game doesn't really have a choice; there's very little depth available when you're presented with such a narrow view of the game world. There's no way to cling to cover when under heavy fire with such simple controls, and you can't flank enemies when the screen only shows you one small window on the battlefield. It boils down to the old MMO method of combat - figure out which spells to use and magic pants to wear, and hammer the attack key during a fight. I'm not saying there's no depth at all to this system, but it felt like my playing style didn't evolve during the three hours I played; when I first began I killed enemies by standing in one place and repeatedly clicking on bad guys, occasionally running away to slurp on my tasty red Slurpee of healing. The exact same tactic worked three hours later.

"If the game used a first person view like Fallout 3 I could have approached each encounter in radically different ways."
If the game used a first person view like Fallout 3 I could have approached each encounter in radically different ways. Should I crawl past a group of Wraiths using a small ridge as cover, avoiding them entirely? Or perhaps I'd fire my crossbow into the knee of a pursuing skeleton, knocking him to the ground and giving me a precious few seconds to escape? My ranged specialties would be far more useful if I could see further than one screen away, while melee warriors could better comprehend the size of a mob they're about to charge if the same view limitation was removed. Diablo III still has room to be even more difficult despite the view, but not by a great deal, as the difference between life and death isn't very big when you're stuck with such a small view of the world

First Person Con #1: Graphical Detail
I've concluded that first person would arguably be more immersive, but would it be as attractive? I think not, and it's all about detail budgets. Game designers have a finite number of detailed objects that they can show the player at any one time; display any more and the PC or console slows to a crawl, screaming in pain under a workload that it simply can't handle. This is why first person games with large open environments tend to use lower detail objects than first person games set in smaller, enclosed environs. Compare a tree in Fallout 3 to one in Call of Duty, and you'll easily spot the difference. If Diablo III were to go first person it'd be subject to the same limitations of Fallout 3, as many of the levels in the beta would appear to be quite massive. I can only imagine how many polygons would be needed to render the cavernous interior of the Cathedral. By limiting the view to a 200 foot square snapshot of the world, the game can render fewer objects in each scene, so each object can be lavished with the intricate and meticulous detail not seen in first person games. This is why Diablo III looks so damn good; every village cottage, every pile of corpses, and every copse of trees has been perfectly hand crafted, and there's a healthy detail budget to allow it.


Horribly outdated or refreshingly unique?


First Person Con #2: Suspense
Having such a small viewpoint on the world can often be frustrating, but more often than not it's just... creepy. You never what's lurking off the edge of the screen; was that rustling of bushes a family of bunny rabbits out to get morning lunch, or is it an undead corpse dragging itself out of a hole in the ground? By not being able to manipulate the camera you can't take a look at what's up ahead, or to see if you're being followed. It's similar to Resident Evil - by taking this god-like ability out of the player's hands it makes them feel more vulnerable and uncertain about what's around them. Sure, first person games can still be spooky, but they rarely maintain that feeling of dread the entire way through the game the way Diablo III does.

First Person Con #3: It wouldn't be Diablo
As I mentioned before, yesterday's Diablo III beta dungeon crawl was my first ever encounter with Blizzard's hack and slasher. It took me three hours, but it felt like a single hour, a potent indicator of how much I was enjoying myself. There are many reasons why I had such a good time with the game, but I'd be foolish to understate the importance of the isometric perspective. It felt fresh and new to me, unlike anything I'd played in recent years. If a first person view was used instead, it would feel like yet another first person game squeezed in amongst the dozens of other first person experiences I've had this year. This tiny viewpoint initially felt limiting, but within minutes I'd become accustomed to what it could and couldn't do, and those limitations were soon forgotten. The view felt like nothing I'd played this year -- it felt like Diablo III, truly unique and new amongst so many other first person clones.

For or Against First Person?
I can't overstate how much I enjoyed the beta, and the missing time I experienced suggests that Blizzard has masterfully created a deep sense of immersion without needing an immersive camera view. That, or I was abducted by aliens mid-way through Act One. A huge part of the experience is the unique camera view, and I soon learnt to live with its quirks. I'm guessing that I'll enjoy the thirty or so hours necessary to complete the final version of the game... provided I don't get bored by a lack of challenge.

"A huge part of the experience is the unique camera view, and I soon learnt to live with its various quirks."
Yet I'd love to see what Blizzard could do with a first person view. I love the freedom that this camera system gives us to explore the virtual worlds we're inhabiting. I can only imagine what a Blizzard first person game would feel like; I'm guessing it would be astonishing given the company's eye for detail, provided it had an engine powerful to give the designers free rein. Regardless of the perspective, if the beta is any indication (and they usually are) Diablo III is going to be an amazing gaming experience, so perhaps it will mark a resurgence of isometric games?



Spy Guy says: Many games have made the jump to first person successfully, so could Blizzard have delivered a first person Diablo III and still retained the spirit and soul of the franchise? Which viewpoint would you prefer to use?

немаш интернет на село, а?

ма ние те караме да си отвориш пощата, да теглиш скрийншот на поканата, и да се убедим, че не ни лъжеш

не те карам да подкараш крайсис на компа на село

Ахам, нямам но съм в ПиСиМания
Компа за нищо не става, само за Фейсбук + Скайп и някой форумчета, дори за клипове не го бива !

тряя да измисли лъжата, нали се сещате

--

PLAYGUUUUUUUU PLAYGU GAAAAA