Talk:Third-person shooter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Elder Scrolls games are NOT Third Person Shooters[edit]

They are first person RPGs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.44.251 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Person Shooter Term[edit]

Although I agree that the use of third person shooter, or third person point of view is quite prevalent when dealing with video games today, its always bugged me since technically this is a misnomer. Any video game in which you are in direct control of a character you can see is technically second person, not third. Although you are witnessing the events on the video game from outside the first person perspective, you are still the one controlling the character, thus it is like you are issuing commands to the character, using second person pronouns. "You jump on this block", "You shoot this monster", "You move over here and open this chest". Third person perspective would be witnessing events without any direct control over what happens, like in a movie or book. Someone is telling you a story using third person pronouns like "These people did this. Then they went over here, then this happened", etc. Thus nearly every game commonly referred to as third person should technically really be second person perspective. There are really no third person shooters unless you are merely a spectator watching what others are doing, and I wouldn't call that much of a game.

Is there anyone that agrees with me? And if so should this article reflect this perspective or remain like it currently is?

Madbunny0 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about how perspective is termed in literature, not in video games. All video games are essentially 2nd person from a literary point of view. But in video games, "1st person" and "3rd person" merely refer to whether you are looking through the avatar's eyes, or can see the avatar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.33.202 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a second person camera in gaming or cinema or anything else relevant here. The literary analogy is thin. The "third person" refers to the camera, not the storytelling.Frogacuda (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is supposed to define the category. Regardless of how technically correct or incorrect the term is, the article is describing the genre, which is still "third-person shooter". Should the industry move to change this based on the same question you have brought up, there would be an article created to reflect this change. Until then, it's not our place to point out the technicalities of the term, only to define the term and games it encompasses. Gamer Junkie 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
it might be a good idea to upload an image of what a Third-person shooter looks like, a screenshot from Lost Planet would make a good example --Rageypeep (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


so what exactly is a second person camera? And where are the orignis of the terminology. 217.82.95.34 (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomb Raider is not a TPS[edit]

It's a 3D-Action-Adventure without any doubt. There's just as much (if not more) emphasize on the exploring, puzzles and jumping as on the shooting. The Action-Adventure page also mentions it as such, which makes this contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.113.33 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be broadly termed a third-person shooter, but the way it was mentioned was utterly incorrect. It did not originate the genre, and as a more modern concept, I'm not sure it's a genre that even has a clear origin. It's a modern term. I'll rewrite to reflect this.
I agree. Tomb Raider, especially the first game, is not a TPS in the strictest sense. It's more adventure and exploration oriented. I'm changing the history section to reflect some early true TPS. ScienceApe (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:V. bridies (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't see how a book on visual basic has anything to do with this article and that's the first citation made in the portion in question. The citation is, Harbour, Jonathan S., Microsoft Visual Basic game programming with DirectX (Cengage Learning, 2002), 63. It's really not relevant at all. In addition I do not believe you will find a reliable source that states that Tomb Raider is the first TPS, or even one that states that it is a TPS without another reliable source stating that it's something else. ScienceApe (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The book states explicitly that Tomb Raider is credited with popularising the genre. Furthermore you deleted references to other reliable sources, and added your own unsourced content. bridies (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I clearly stated that a book on visual basic is irrelevant to this article. It doesn't matter what it says about Tomb Raider, it's NOT a gaming source, as such it is not reliable. Furthermore, just because someone says Syphon Filter is the most popular TPS on the PS1, doesn't mean it is. We shouldn't be making statements about what is or isn't the most popular TPS based on an individual's opinion. Instead we should be talking about what games popularized the genre. Tomb Raider being a TPS is not cited anywhere. This citation, http://uk.gamespot.com/features/tombraider_hist/p4_01.html does not state the game is a TPS anywhere. It merely states it's a Third Person game. If you don't like my additions, I can remove them, but I'm removing references to Tomb Raider, and statements about how Syphon Filter being the most popular TPS on the PS1. ScienceApe (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not just "on visual basic" and it's a reliably published book on programming and game design. It doesn't need to be a "gaming source" (although in any case it is a gaming source), otherwise one could not cite for example gaming reviews by The Times. It is a print source, on programming and game design, by a reliable publisher and thus passes WP:RS. If you follow the Google Books link you will see it comes from a section on video game genres (though the link to the particular page has rotted). It explicitly states that Tomb Raider is responsible for the popularity of the third person shooter genre. The citation was added by a third editor in good standing here and verified by me. The History of Tomb Raider article comments on how the game was seen in relation to Doom and the importance of its control scheme, adventuring theme etc again in contrast to Doom; this is worthy of note as it's discussing the game in context of shooters. Finally, with regards to Syphon Filter the source states: "What we had originally implemented was a target-lock system inspired by Syphon Filter, the most popular third-person shooter on the PlayStation, and DMC, at the time the most popular third-person shooter on the PlayStation 2." If you want to try playing the 3RR card here be my guest. The policy forbids edit warring more so than an arbitrary number and since you are removing reliably sourced content with a reasonably long standing consensus and offering only spurious WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments based on original research, you are not going to make yourself look good. bridies (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your changes. I am obligated to warn you that your next revert will be in violation of the 3rr. A book on visual basic is not a reliable source on this subject. Its expertise is on programing in visual basic, not on the status or the history of videogames. As such it is not a reliable source for the topic at hand. The same goes for any other article. Statements about a videogame being the most popular in a genre are not appropriate to add to this article. I will repeat, we shouldn't be making statements about what is or isn't the most popular TPS based on an individual's opinion. Lastly, I don't appreciated your last comments about me, and I would like you to take those back right now. Personal attacks are not welcome. ScienceApe (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for third opinions at the WP:VG talk page here. bridies (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tomb Raider has shooting, and it's also in third person. Is it a pure Third Person Shooter? No. It has TPS elements, though, so you could say that "its TPS elements popularized the genre".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That really doesn't matter because it's original research anyway since we are going strictly for verifiable sources. In any case, I could argue several other games that are third person and have shooting. Sky Runner for example. ScienceApe (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, WTF? How is a reliable published print source not "strictly a verifiable source"? Please explain this one to me. It does not matter what you "could argue", per WP:OR. And you just carried out a second reversion without and edit summary, removing reliably sourced content from the article (content which has been there for some time, indicating consensus), after posting a 3RR warning on my page *roll eyes*. You've broken the references section btw. bridies (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And GamaSutra? What's wrong with that, hmm? bridies (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I already covered this. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's relevant to this article. A college text book on science is published, but if it talks about what the most popular videogame is, it's not a credible source because that's not its area of expertise. This topic is on gaming, which is distinct from programming. They are two different things, and have to be treated as such. Your second retort is faulty logic. Original research has to do with the article's content, not with discussions on what material is appropriate for the article or not. With that logic, one could claim your arguments are also original research, it's not sound logic. It doesn't matter how long material has been on an article, material can be removed at any time. Duration of its presence is not an argument for inclusion. I'm aware the reference section has some errors. I'm trying to fix them, but I'm unsure of how to do it. ScienceApe (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
GamaSutra was an individual stating his opinion that Syphon Filter is the most popular game on the Playstation. We shouldn't be making statements about what is or isn't the most popular TPS based on an individual's opinion in the history section of this article. ScienceApe (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
An individual with whom GamaSutra saw fit to publish a three page interview, about a TPS game he was developing. I could just as easily point to WP:SPS, citing him as a recognised authority. The book in question is also indisputably a gaming source, so your "not relevant" argument is nonsense. There is nothing faulty about my logic. We are discussing the article's content; you are proposing to "argue" that game XYZ contains elements ABC, without providing any evidence. If you can provide a source that says Game XYZ popularised the genre, or was the first in the genre or whatever, that can provide a counterpoint to the Tomb Raider argument. Otherwise anything you say is moot, because all you are doing is proposing a WP:OR violation. Already one editor has agreed that the content is valid, and you have no consensus, no policy, no sources at which to point. bridies (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also you have not explained why the book is not "strictly a verifiable source". bridies (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A sampling of sources which further demonstrate Tomb Raider's influence:

  • Peter Cohen, "Bring out the big guns.(The Game Room)", MacWorld, Sept 1 2003 says "The game play is thoroughly derivative of every third-person shooter that's come along in recent years. If you've played Tomb Raider, or any of a hundred other similar games, you've pretty much done everything you can do in Bloodrayne"
  • GamePro compares Contra 3D to Tomb Raider again with references to "third person shooter" and "third person action".
  • Dickey, Christopher ; Scanlan, Marc ; Lee, B. J. "Let the Games Begin.(World Cyber Games 2001)", Newsweek International, Dec 24 2001 explicitly calls Tomb Raider a "third-person shooter".
  • CVG says "Every so often I stop and think to myself, maybe we have seen all there is to see in the first/third-person shooter genre. Maybe there are no new ideas out there." then "I could go on some more about what else we've seen before, but there's not really much point. You just want to know if it's any good. Yeah, sure it's fun, but if you've played MDK 2, Tomb Raider, or even Soul Reaver, you'll probably get a distinct sense of deja vu. If anything, it shows the way the latest episode in the Lara Croft instalment should have played and does a good job of pre-empting any new moves that game would care to think up next. And, yes, the graphics may certainly be some of the best in the genre, but that's only a small distraction from the second-hand action you have to play through just to admire them."

All these sources describe third person shooter games (in all instances using that terminology exactly) and state Tomb Raider's influence. Just a little supplementary sourcing to the reliable source we already have which explicitly states that "Tomb Raider is largely responsible for the popularity of of this genre." Also note the first source used in the article, which defines the gameplay elements, uses Tomb Raider as an example (see here). bridies (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the above, I don't find either case to be particularly compelling. Though bridies does have a couple of citations, ScienceApe also has a point that the source of these citations are not in the context of the genre's history. They are, more or less, the authors merely stating their personal opinions (falling under WP:RS#Statements of opinion). I don't think either claim currently has sufficiently convincing sources to appear as an accepted fact. I think the OR should be cleared out, but the language regarding Tomb Raider be limited to "some observers claim..." or something to that effect. Just having any source isn't necessarily enough, per WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It does seems strange to me that no mainstream source has credited TR with helping to establish TPS if it was considered to do so by the gaming community, including journalists. It's not like the game was obscure. It should be easy to find mainstream sources to back up this claim if it were considered true, but that we can't find any such source seems suspicious. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is in the context of the genre's history. It contains plenty of chapters on game design, including a section on genres (from which the statement is taken). I have provided further supporting sources above. I am fine with it being toned down to "some observers claim" but it is not acceptable to remove it wholesale. Mainstream sources have commented on its influence (see above; see also the GameSpot source which has been repeatedly removed). bridies (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I also dispute that it's an "exceptional claim". As shown above its influence is well documented and zero other sources have been provided to advance any other game(s) as influential. I also fail to see how a book by an academic in the field of game design (with several books to his name) is less valid than a "mainstream" source. bridies (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the content to better comply with Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion and added several further citations where appropriate. bridies (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is completely fair to point out in this type of article that there is a split in the gaming press as to whether TR contributed to the TPS genre or not, or, alternatively, stating that "some" experts consider TR to have established the genre. It's fair to provide all sourced opinions from experts here, since clearly there doesn't seem to be one single game where this all stems from, and thus it is going to be opinionated and fractured. We should be covering that confusion in this this article. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tomb Raider Is A Third-Person Shooter, and probably the Very First one.[edit]

Tomb Raider Is an action adventure, and is very well known for its duelwelding shooting. but seriously why is there no mention of it being the first One? I am going to edit it saying it is. If anyone Has any objections or can location a source saying tomb raider 1 Isnt the Very first 1st person shooter, than change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.49.12 (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to talk about the "first" third-person shooter in any way that's useful. It's a genre classification that came into being many years after its conventions were popularized. I can name a hundred games before Tomb Raider that meed the definition just as well, but this kind of treatment isn't productive here. It isn't that kind of genre. It's a concept that exists in relation to first-person gaming and the term didn't exist until the term "first-person shooter" began to overtake competing genre identities like "doom-clone." If you can find me a single instance from mainstream gaming media referring to any game close to what we now think of as a "third-person shooter" as such before 1998, I'd be stunned. It really wasn't until around the time Half-Life came out that you really started to see concept of first-person shooters broadening and the need to distinguish third-person shooters arising.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.113.35 (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The "first" third-person shooter is too ambiguous. Instead, we should be discussing some of the early games which popularized the genre, and brought the genre to what it is today. Tomb Raider didn't do this anymore than Duke Nukem 3D with its 3rd person camera. Tomb Raider is primarily a platforming adventure game, with minor shooting elements. ScienceApe (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Origin as a genre" section[edit]

I removed some of this section, again, because the info still wasn't sourced. I understand the editor who re-added it wanted more time to find sources, which is fine, but a sandbox or word processor should be used for finding sources for unsourced material that has been challenged and removed. Some of the (sourced) information remains; I just moved it to the "history" section where it is more pertinent. Finally, I removed some info which had citations, simply because the sources did not directly support the claims. If this is contentious, discuss here. bridies (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to this discussion: User_talk:Bridies#Third-Person Shooter. "The problem with the "History" section is that it makes no effort to talk about the origins of the genre or the term itself (and concept thereof) in a way that corresponds with reality", verifiability, not truth. bridies (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong about the cites not supporting the claims. Is there a better way to cite with a quote or something to prove this? Everything is carefully worded to correspond to the information in the citations.
I'm ok with merging it with the History section, but there needs to be an effort to re-focus the history section and prune a lot of the information that isn't helpful to an encyclopedic account of the genre's history.
If it helps, I do have experience here. I wrote nearly the entire Platform game article, which was the first game genre article to reach GA status and I write about gaming history professionally, so I do know what I'm doing and I have some insight about framing and strategy with these types of articles. I ask that destructive deletions not be made on a whim because someone can't be bothered to read the cited article fully, and that some effort be put into a strategic treatment of the article in a way that's appropriate to the subject matter. Frogacuda (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you claim to write about professionally, per WP:OR. Also I have written several genre GAs and as it happens, there's plenty of unsourced material in Platform game so I don't feel it would pass a GA review. All this is irrelevant anyway, as we are talking about this article. Firstly are you talking about all the citations in general, or certain ones? Are you the anon editor that is involved in the dispute, or someone else, so I can get an idea if you're aware of the specifics? bridies (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just mention what I've done/do to say that I have good intentions and some knowledge behind me. I understand that Wiki is accountable to different standards than when I write an article for work, that wasn't really what I meant. And yes, I am the one who has been making anon edits, so no need to get me up to speed.Frogacuda (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to both sides. While we shouldn't make deletions on a whim, this article has proven extraordinarily difficult to source. It's reached a point where it's time to press forward and add verifiable information, and begin weeding out original research and theories about 3PS that are put together by fans. If the challenged information is vital to describing the genre, then no doubt it will be re-discovered as we read reliable sources such as GameSpy, Gamasutra, and other books on game design. Worse comes to worst, we never destroy information: it's there in the history. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed completely. I think challenging the information is helpful, and I expect that much of it will be rewritten and tailored to sources as we go along, but if you just delete everything and rewrite it in a way that isn't coherent or with purpose, it will lose its usefulness. I will work on building up the citations, but it will take time. Frogacuda (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to keep material while they look for citations, it should be done in a sandbox or word processor (which is easy to do). The content has been here for ages so I don't accept any "oh but you didn't give me time to fix it", particularly when it's a simple matter to copy it to userspace/MS Word. bridies (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should give it a few more days to reference all this unverified stuff. But Bridies is right. There has been a lot of time to source these statements, and they haven't been. I've tried. It looks like Bridies has tried as well. I'm all for giving it a few more days. But we're trying to get this article to WP:GA status, and there is no room for original research. There's also no harm in removing it as we start to add other information that's actually verifiable. Remember: there's nothing stopping you from re-adding any information once you've found the appropriate sources. Let's give it a few more days, and then continue our shift away from original research towards verifiable facts. Randomran (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The main issue I have is that the way in which it's being removed is destructive to the framework of the article. That's more of an issue than the removal of any specific piece/pieces of information. I hold firm that a discussion of the third-person shooter as a concept tightly linked with the emergence of the first-person shooter is very verifiable. Otherwise the article ceases to be descriptive and distinct from Run and Gun or Action-Adventure. Frogacuda (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the old framework of the article is completely unreferenced. That's sometimes going to fly out the window as we shift away from WP:OR. Again, we'll keep it around for a couple of days, but in the long run the unreferenced stuff is going to get cut. You'll always be able to add it back in when you find references. Randomran (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone able to read this? If you check this source, it has a paragraph comparing/contrasting first-person with third-person and I believe can be used as a reference in that section where it asks for a citation on the comparisons. The citation is Does Lara Croft Wear Fake Polygons? Gender and Gender-Role Subversion in Computer Adventure Games Anne-Marie Schleiner Leonardo, Vol. 34, No. 3 (2001), pp. 221-226. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I see some good comparisons there. But a lot of them are already referenced now... as far as I can tell? Randomran (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to remove the offending section again, along with the unsourced material in the "design" section. It's been several days and still not a sausage in terms of citations. Since a few of the statements in this section are "supported" by citations, here is why they're being removed:

  • "but at the time they were marketed as part of the action-adventure genre". This has no context without the rest of the statement and secondly because an inference about a game's marketing based on the primary source (here, box art) is OR imo. In any case this is basically covered in the history section ("wide-3D environments, prince of persia etc)
  • "an increasing number of third-person action games have adopted control methods similar to their first-person counterparts, where one 2D input (usually the left joystick or set of keys) is used to make the player character move, and another (the right stick or mouse) is used to aim and turn independently" the first part of this statement ("an increasing ... first person counterparts") is not in the source. The latter part is duplicative of the history section.
  • "American McGee's Alice and Max Payne [are examples of this trend]" again no context without the rest of the statement. Max Payne is covered in the history section. Alice could be mentioned in some capacity there, if warranted. It got a modest review though, so I'm not sure it is.
  • "Resident Evil 4 moved the character to the side, with the view centered on the character's aim, just as in a first-person game" "just as in a first-person game" isn't covered by the source. The rest is covered in the history section.
  • "This "over-the-shoulder" camera design was a direct influence on Gears of War" this is in the history section. bridies (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's fair. A lot of that stuff is WP:OR, or already covered somewhat in other parts of the article. That said I think two comments could be referenced eventually:
  • That third-person shooters are an effort to reach out to Japan, or are more popular in Japan...
  • That third-person shooters sometimes have challenges in terms of camera control...
Not that I have sources to back it up. But worse comes to worst, we can re-add them if and when sources find them. And if that never happens, they probably were untrue, or unimportant to begin with. Randomran (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

First TPS[edit]

I was wondering if anyone knows of an earlier TPS than 'Narco Police' (1990)? I realize this game isn't rendered using polygonal 3D graphics, but that really doesn't define the genre, right? In gameplay and viewpoint, this game is way more similar to e.g. Gears of War than a game like Tomb Raider. --Schmid (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Narco Police, but this source calls Space Harrier II a TPS. It's sort of psuedo-3D at least. bridies (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If we find some sources that label a few games pre-3D TPSs, we could mention them at the start of the history section. Randomran (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

The history does not seem to go back before about 1992. I do not have time to properly write this up at the moment ... so what about Ant Attack and Knight Lore on the Spectrum ? See http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0009483 and Ant Attack. DJ Barney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

The history section definitely needs to be expanded. But those don't look like third person shooters, they look like isometric action games. And we'd need reliable third-party sources that say what they are anyway. Randomran (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

flagging more research[edit]

I think there's something in this source that can be used. I'll get around to it later. here Randomran (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)