From Definitions to Application
The previous article in this series established a narrow but important claim: camera angle does not determine narrative person. "Person" in "first-person" describes who acts, not where the camera viewpoint is placed.
Taking this into consideration, let's apply the concept directly to video games. Doing so requires shifting perspective from what the player sees to how the player is represented within the game system.
This article proposes a player-centric model of perspective and uses it to reëxamine the three categories commonly described as first-person, second-person and third-person.
A Player-Centric Definition of Perspective
Rather than anchoring perspective to the camera, this model defines person by the relationship between the player and the acting entity in the game world.
| Person |
Defining Question |
Player Relationship |
| First |
Am I the body acting? |
Player and avatar are the same entity |
| Second |
Am I directing a represented “you”? |
Player controls a personal avatar |
| Third |
Am I commanding others? |
Player is unrepresented in the world |
This framework does not replace existing camera terminology. It runs alongside it. A game can still be described as having a first-person perspective with a third-person camera. What changes is how we describe player perspective.
First-Person Games: “I Move Here”
In first-person games, the player and the avatar collapse into a single acting subject. There is no meaningful distinction between the decision-maker and the body that carries out those decisions.
Common examples include:
Player intent is expressed directly as action:
I reload.
I lean around the corner.
I jump.
The defining feature is not the absence of a visible character model. It is the absence of narrative distance. The player does not instruct a character. The player acts.
The Misnamed Middle: Games Labeled “Third-Person”
Most action and role-playing games are grouped under the label of third-person:
Tomb Raider
The Witcher
God of War
PUBG
This category is where the traditional terminology begins to fail.
In these games, the player does not fully inhabit the avatar in the way first-person play requires. The character on screen is visible, persistent, and separate. The player does not experience the world as the body. The player directs the body.
The internal language of play reflects this relationship clearly:
You roll.
You climb.
You draw your weapon.
This is not metaphorical. It is structurally second person. The avatar represents the player, but the representation is mediated. The player and the character are not the same acting subject.
What distinguishes this middle category is not camera distance, character visibility, or animation style. It is addressability. The player addresses a personal avatar that exists as an object in the game world.
That distinction matters. A player can empathize with, customize, and narratively identify with an avatar while still relating to it as "you" rather than "I." The presence of dialogue choices, equipment management, and movement commands reinforces this relationship. The player tells the character what to do. The character then does it.
The camera makes this separation obvious, but it does not create it. Even if the camera were forced to overlap the character’s head, the underlying relationship would remain unchanged as long as the player continues to issue instructions to a represented self.
The moment a player can observe their own body as something acted upon, perspective has already shifted away from first person.
This is the core of the mislabeling. These games are neither first-person nor third-person in the narrative sense. They occupy a distinct middle ground that aligns cleanly with second-person structure.
True Third-Person Games: “They Move There”
Third-person perspective, in the narrative sense, emerges when the player is not embodied at all.
Strategy and command-based games provide clear examples:
Civilization
X-COM
Command & Conquer
StarCraft
Here, the player does not control a personal avatar. Instead, they direct multiple agents, units, or factions.
The language of play naturally changes:
They advance the unit.
They lose morale.
They capture the city.
Even when the game provides a narrative role such as ruler, commander, or overseer, that role is abstract. No single entity in the game world stands in for the player.
This aligns cleanly with third-person narration in literature. The player observes and directs, but does not inhabit.
A Shift in Perspective
Reframing game perspective around player representation reveals a gap in the familiar terminology. What has long been labeled third-person gameplay occupies a distinct middle ground that matches second-person structure far more closely than third.
This does not mean existing labels must be discarded. It does mean they should be understood as describing cameras rather than perspective.
The next article in this series steps away from digital games entirely. By examining board games and other real-world play, it becomes easier to see why camera-based definitions were always an awkward fit.
Continue to Part III: Real-World Games and Player Perspective.
