What camera style is optimal for exploring in games?

[rusty_shackleford]

I was reading some newsgroup posts earlier from the 90s advocating for multiple camera modes in a game(Ultima 9.) Mostly having first person in dungeons, and isometric view outside of it. It used to be a bit of a fad to have separate camera modes for different areas of a game, for example, the Realms of Arkania games use a tactical view for combat and first-person for exploration.

When I think of games with good adventuring/exploration aspects, I tend to think of third person games with a camera close to the character. Gothic 2, 3D Zelda games, and so on. Does it have a natural advantage? I suspect doing things like platforming etc., is just far more difficult in first person.

But in terms of pure dungeon exploration, first person might be superior I suppose.

[J1M]

My favorite exploration is probably what you see in SNES-style RPGs (Lufia 2, Golden Sun) and Exile 3. It's a bit like noticing a secret room in a real house, you can 'sense' that there is space for something and investigate. There's also a sense of satisfaction for uncovering the entirety of a mapped location. The fixed camera angle allows designers to play with hiding things in ways that naturally follow from that camera angle and as a player my main activity isn't panning the camera back and forth.

I love Zelda 64, but 3D Zelda is often "see texture on wall showing where bomb goes" or "find the last unlit torch". Feels almost like a tutorial. Not sure how that could be improved.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm aware of one game that not only had different camera POVs for inside/outside of dungeons, it actually had entirely different combat systems. Eye of Beholder-style real-time combat in dungeons, and Goldbox-style tactical combat outside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_ ... ternal_Sun

There are three distinct styles of gameplay: outside adventure mode, outside combat mode, and dungeon mode.[4]

In outside adventure mode, the player has an isometric view on their characters as they travel around the world map. The party is controlled as one, and each member will follow the lead character's movements. The movements of the party are in real-time. When the party encounters random battles or set combat events (such as a Beastman camp or an ambush on a bridge), the game will switch into outside combat mode.

The outside combat mode is turn-based. A PC is highlighted with a white box when it is that PC's turn. This selected character can move a short distance, attack or use a special ability. The combat system is based on an automated version of the D&D rules, so each character and enemy has hit points and an armor class rating. If the enemies are killed or flee, the party is awarded experience points and occasionally treasure. If the PCs are killed in battle, their tombstones will be displayed, and the game will end. The player can attempt to flee the battle by moving the characters away from the enemies.

The dungeon mode differs from the other modes, as it uses a first person view instead of the isometric view used in the other modes. The game switches to this mode when the party enters a cave or building. The screen displays what the party can see in the dungeon, along with a compass and textual information describing the surroundings (similar to how a D&D Dungeon Master would describe an adventure). Encounters with enemies are real-time events, moving the focus away from slow and strategic combat of the outside mode to a faster-paced style. In addition, weapons and spells can have different effects in this mode; for example, the lightning bolt spell will bounce off the dungeon walls and possibly backfire on the party. The party also needs to be cautious of traps and hidden doors while exploring the dungeons.[4]

I'm unsure if its sister game, Dungeons & Dragons: Order of the Griffon, does this.

[rusty_shackleford]

3D Zelda is just "see texture on wall showing where bomb goes". Feels almost like a tutorial. Not sure how that could be improved.

I think that might extend more from the game being designed around puzzles, no? If it was more systemic in its design then you wouldn't need to be shown cracks in a wall to know it can be blown up.

[wndrbr]

The one that gives the developers more opportunities to hide secrets.

[J1M]

3D Zelda is just "see texture on wall showing where bomb goes". Feels almost like a tutorial. Not sure how that could be improved.

I think that might extend more from the game being designed around puzzles, no? If it was more systemic in its design then you wouldn't need to be shown cracks in a wall to know it can be blown up.

I think it is more of a reaction to Zelda 1. In that game there was no indication of where a bomb or candle would work. But a lot of the game screens had secret rooms. With so many additional surfaces in a 3D environment, and a limited number of bombs you can carry, I don't think players would enjoy finding those passages without some sort of visual indicator. Whether or not the indicator is too obvious, or whether or not it should have been a different type of indicator could be debated. Though I think the visual indicators started with SNES Zelda and they were quite obvious.

[rusty_shackleford]

3D Zelda is just "see texture on wall showing where bomb goes". Feels almost like a tutorial. Not sure how that could be improved.

I think that might extend more from the game being designed around puzzles, no? If it was more systemic in its design then you wouldn't need to be shown cracks in a wall to know it can be blown up.

I think it is more of a reaction to Zelda 1. In that game there was no indication of where a bomb or candle would work. But a lot of the game screens had secret rooms. With so many additional surfaces in a 3D environment, and a limited number of bombs you can carry, I don't think players would enjoy finding those passages without some sort of visual indicator. Whether or not the indicator is too obvious, or whether or not it should have been a different type of indicator could be debated. Though I think the visual indicators started with SNES Zelda and they were quite obvious.

Have you played BotW or the sequel?
I haven't, but I'm just curious if you think it improved on it in any way. I heard it's much more systemic in design — which seems like a logical progression.

[J1M]

I think that might extend more from the game being designed around puzzles, no? If it was more systemic in its design then you wouldn't need to be shown cracks in a wall to know it can be blown up.

I think it is more of a reaction to Zelda 1. In that game there was no indication of where a bomb or candle would work. But a lot of the game screens had secret rooms. With so many additional surfaces in a 3D environment, and a limited number of bombs you can carry, I don't think players would enjoy finding those passages without some sort of visual indicator. Whether or not the indicator is too obvious, or whether or not it should have been a different type of indicator could be debated. Though I think the visual indicators started with SNES Zelda and they were quite obvious.

Have you played BotW or the sequel?
I haven't, but I'm just curious if you think it improved on it in any way. I heard it's much more systemic in design — which seems like a logical progression.

Yes, I've played both. BotW was captivating because it was one of the first "open world" genre games that I played and I genuinely enjoyed a few areas like the giant mazes (especially the one that requires your own light source) and the island where you lose all of your equipment and have to rely on system knowledge to get it back. Also have a good memory of cutting down a tree and climbing up the back of a mountain to skip a section about surviving the cold climb to a shrine.

TotK was not engaging for me. I think there was a 3 hour tutorial? And then you are expected to play in the menus a lot to make money before you get to do a dungeon? Everything felt very, very, telegraphed and I was annoyed the majority of the time I was interacting with it.

The important things to find in those games (shrines) are telegraphed by very clear markers that all look identical. Don't remember if BotW had the same flares that are visible from the horizon that TotK does.

That said, both of those games are not really traditional Zelda. They are almost embarrassed of their roots in a sense and want to be open world survival games more than anything else. In terms of genre family trees, Darksiders is closer to Zelda 64 than BotW is.

To more directly answer your question, the new Zelda games contain systems, like gravity, and gluing objects together, and wind power, train tracks, buoyancy, etc. It's pretty cool what you can put together with the pieces you have at your disposal. But at the end of the day, I still needed 200 rupees or whatever in order to buy the right shirt so I could start the fire dungeon, and no amount of systems interaction was going to absolve me of collecting food or whatever to sell for rupees (you can't even get them from killing orcs and goblins). These games have fun systems bubble-wrapped by people terrified that if they don't put all of the puzzle pieces right next to the puzzle and have two annoying characters give you hints for how to solve it before you even start that you will be unable to progress.

[TKVNC]

I was reading some newsgroup posts earlier from the 90s advocating for multiple camera modes in a game(Ultima 9.) Mostly having first person in dungeons, and isometric view outside of it. It used to be a bit of a fad to have separate camera modes for different areas of a game, for example, the Realms of Arkania games use a tactical view for combat and first-person for exploration.

When I think of games with good adventuring/exploration aspects, I tend to think of third person games with a camera close to the character. Gothic 2, 3D Zelda games, and so on. Does it have a natural advantage? I suspect doing things like platforming etc., is just far more difficult in first person.

But in terms of pure dungeon exploration, first person might be superior I suppose.

Open world, 3rd person
Dungeons and combat, 1st person

Generally speaking

[rusty_shackleford]

I suspect any birds-eye-view camera is inherently working against the idea of exploration. I made a thread about this prior and could come up with exactly one game with such a camera that has good exploration(Seven: Days Long Gone)
Maybe there's some commando-likes with verticality I'm not aware of or something

Perhaps could see something interest done with hiding things outside of field of vision

[Tangerine]

1st person, because it's close enough to objects to see fine detail. You really need to telegraph a secret switch on a wall with a third person camera.

[Demonic Fate]

Exploration I don't like: there's a near-invisible nook hidden in the far corner of a completely unremarkable gloomy corridor, if you spot it you'll find $COOL_STUFF.

Exploration I like: you enter a well-lit banquet hall decorated with numerous tapestries, portraits, and arms. One of the tapestries does not fit with the others, for a reason that you can figure out on your own if you had paid attention. Look behind the tapestry and find $COOL_STUFF.


Given that premise, I prefer the game to use whatever camera offers the best awareness (isometric or first-person with a good FOV). If squinting around and fighting against an intentionally crippled camera is part of the gameplay, I'm not interested.

[Xenich]

I prefer 1st person in games, but I am not against other views that the game is designed around. It honestly all comes down to the developers vision and how they want to approach various aspects of game play.


What I hate is 1st person games that allow 3rd person as those are just cheats to get around 1st person play.

That is not to say I don't like some 3rd person games, but they have to be designed around that view (Gothic, Risen, Divinity 2, etc...), not tacked on to appeal to 3rd person players.

The mix of tactical vs first person exploration as some of the examples mentioned, it doesn't bother me and I am fine with the approach providing the game was designed with that intent.

[rusty_shackleford]

Exploration I like: you enter a well-lit banquet hall decorated with numerous tapestries, portraits, and arms. One of the tapestries does not fit with the others, for a reason that you can figure out on your own if you had paid attention. Look behind the tapestry and find $COOL_STUFF.


Given that premise, I prefer the game to use whatever camera offers the best awareness (isometric or first-person with a good FOV). If squinting around and fighting against an intentionally crippled camera is part of the gameplay, I'm not interested.

in isometric you're probably going to just sweep your mouse over the screen unless it has highlighting(typically does now)
not certain this is an inherent issue with isometric rather than common design idioms that allow interacting with objects not near your character etc.,

[Xenich]

I suspect any birds-eye-view camera is inherently working against the idea of exploration. I made a thread about this prior and could come up with exactly one game with such a camera that has good exploration(Seven: Days Long Gone)
Maybe there's some commando-likes with verticality I'm not aware of or something

Perhaps could see something interest done with hiding things outside of field of vision

Maybe an important element of distinction is how the game play is approached? For instance, first person I would deem more "action" oriented in play in that the visual aspect of play is placed more in the hands of the "player" identifying things (not always though) while a tactical view is more of a "system" element of play where detection, identification, etc... is done via the character system (ie skills, rolls, etc...).

If you look at some of the aids that come with the role playing game utils (Fantasy Grounds), you see how the FoV, sound detection, and other encounter/finds are all done via statistical means, where the system defines what the player is able to see, not the player themselves, so visual representation in this process is not required to the level that an "action" 1st or even 3rd person system would normally provide.

I think any visual representation can work well, providing it is used within a framework that best suits its style of view.

I guess that is why I don't dislike any type of view, rather I get more annoyed at views that circumvent some concepts of play when allowed together (ie first person and 3rd person allowed as an option in the game).

[rusty_shackleford]

Exploration I like: you enter a well-lit banquet hall decorated with numerous tapestries, portraits, and arms. One of the tapestries does not fit with the others, for a reason that you can figure out on your own if you had paid attention. Look behind the tapestry and find $COOL_STUFF.


Given that premise, I prefer the game to use whatever camera offers the best awareness (isometric or first-person with a good FOV). If squinting around and fighting against an intentionally crippled camera is part of the gameplay, I'm not interested.

in isometric you're probably going to just sweep your mouse over the screen unless it has highlighting(typically does now)
not certain this is an inherent issue with isometric rather than common design idioms that allow interacting with objects not near your character etc.,

Come to think of it, console games probably did this best. The point and click nature of PC works against exploration in that specific camera style.