And, uh, wtf does that have to do with immersion in the gameplay? Nothing
Alright, I'm not sure how I can make this easier to understand. Here we go again:
People more easily identify with a first-person perspective than with an isometric one. This is because we experience life through a first-person perspective. Therefore, we identify more with a game's character if we play the game through a first-person perspective and thus, we are better immersed in the game's reality.
Understand? I am not saying that perspective is the only
factor in determining how immersive a game is. I'm just saying that it is
a factor. Not sure how anyone can dispute this.
Whilst it is true that camera has no bearing on a game's RPG-ness, that's not the point under discussion.
Actually, that is the point of discussion. All the FO3 haters are complaining that FO3 is an FPS and not an RPG. They come to this conclusion primarily based on the fact that the game uses a (optional) first-person perspective. I've been arguing that the camera angle is not essential to an RPG and it isn't.
Someone who loved GTA1/2 might not have liked GTA3, because...they are hugely different games from a gameplay perspective.
Hugely different? All the games revolve around stealing cars and killing people. The first two are 2D and the latter two are 3D. Does this make for different gameplay? Sure. Completely different? Not quite. You're still going around killing people and stealing cars, only from different camera angles. I certainly wouldn't say that GTA3 isn't a GTA game because it isn't a top-down and 2D. However, FO3 haters seem content to make such claims about FO3.