Chapter Four

The essence of an Interactive fiction

Point of view (POV)

Designing the camera movement and point of view is designing the spectator's eyes, showing him the best view to understand the scene and get hold of the events. Braningan says:

"We are constantly required to keep track of the ways in which our perceptions are related to the perceptions of the characters within the story. [..] what is certain about comprehension is that the perceiver must search, compare, test, discriminate, and speculate within many realms and imagined contexts." ⁽¹⁾

The way perception works in this case is analyzing the objects seen in relations to the surrounding environment. This gives the spatial pattern to the imagined space, and gives the spectator/player a good idea about his/her position in this place. The movement of the camera is essential itself. Smooth sliding might give the impression of flying or driving, when an advancing jumping view might give the illusion of walking. The essential aspect in choosing the point of view is choosing what to show the spectators.

"An apparent point of view shot, for example, may represent a view from very near the character's head, or represent what would have been seen if the character's eyes were open, or represent how a distant character imagines that he or she might be seen by another, or represent what might have been seen from that position if a character was standing there." ⁽²⁾

On point of view design in we refer to Noah Falestine's article in the siggraph conference.

" [..] But to gamers, second person narrative should have a familiar feeling. Perhaps this rings a bell: "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. You see a pointy stick here." Classic text adventures were often written in second person, implying that "you", the player were somehow participating in the adventure described. In fact, "the medium of participation" is a basic definition of interactivity. So what does that mean to the game designer who is deciding what point of view to use? In interactive entertainment, as in film, there are two varieties of POV. The first is the physical point of view: where do we put the camera? Should we use a first-person eyeball POV as in Doom and all its kin, or a removed 3rd person view seen in most strategy games and action games like Crusader? Adventure games, being the closest interactive cousins to film, and action games like Wing Commander and Super Mario 64 have begun to use film's roving and changing point of view as well, moving from first to third person and back. The increasing power of the target machines and enhanced 3D capabilities have given designers much more latitude with the physical point of view. But the second kind of POV is much more germane to the comparison with other media. Whether you're playing Duke Nukem or Wing Commander, Warcraft or Super Mario 64, you're asked to take on a persona, a kind of psychological POV. It can be subtle or overt, suggested or spelled out in 3D glory, but this second-person dominance is as pervasive in interactive titles as it is rare in literature. That's not to say that every interactive piece has to be second person. We share in common with other media a flexibility, [..] it's the nature of interactivity itself to draw the audience in, allow them to interact with an imaginary environment. Furthermore, interactive media transform the audience of passive media into a player, making choices that affect the experience. For this reason, the natural choice of POV in interactive is psychological second person. But the actual manifestation of this point of view is often ambiguous, sometimes intentionally so. Just who is the "you" of "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"? Some games show the player a protagonist that the player controls. But are "you", the player, becoming that person, controlling him, or merely making suggestions for him? " ⁽³⁾

It might be hard to contribute after Falstein's article, after his fine and accurate analysis of the importance of choosing the exact camera location. But it is in vain that choosing the point of view is one of the major choices a designer should make when designing a computer game.

The first person's point of view gives the impression of seeing through the character's eyes. The sense of unity with the character, and the ability to choose where to move according to the analysis you make upon understanding the perceived image if you see it with your own eyes is critical in making decision. One thing is missing here: the avatar is a hidden object, and the character's figure is not important anymore. So you don't know who you are in this game, or how do you look, as much as you know what you are seeing and where you're moving. Using the third person's point of view enables the player to see the events as a movie spectator, with a slight difference. Instead of watching the movie, you are inside the movie now, which is the core of new narrative. This works in the case of leading a team or controlling a character that is followed by another one. You get the chance to actually see what is happening behind you or on your sides without having to actually turn your head, and this is important in adventures game

[Time location] - [Time] - [The Genre] - [The plot] - [The quest] - [Characters] - [Point of view]

[Summary] - [Conclusion] - [Table of Contents] - [References]

(1)Braningan, Edward, Narrative comprehension and film, Routledge 1992

(2)Braningan, Edward, Same

(3) Falstein, Noah: A Point of View (1997). http://www.theinspiracy.com/ArPOV.htm