Why Physical Games Clarify the Debate
If digital games complicate questions of perspective with cameras, avatars, and simulated worlds, real‑world games strip those ambiguities away. There is no virtual camera, no rendering engine, and no ambiguity about where the player exists in relation to play.
What remains is the core relationship that person actually describes: how the player is positioned relative to action and agency.
When we apply the same player‑centric framework to physical and tabletop games, the mislabeling of digital perspectives becomes immediately obvious. The categories align cleanly without edge cases, caveats or special pleading.
First Person: Embodied Physical Play
In first‑person games, the player is the acting body. There is no representational layer.
Examples
Tag
Soccer, basketball, martial arts
Darts, bowling
Poker (as bodily participation rather than avatar play)
Perspective Structure
The player acts directly
The player’s body is the locus of agency
There is no token, piece, or proxy
The language of play is unambiguously first person:
I run.
I throw.
I bluff.
No one meaningfully describes these games as issuing commands to a representation. There is no interpretive distance between decision and action.
This is first‑person perspective in its purest form, mapping precisely onto digital first‑person games where avatar and player identity collapse into one.
Second Person: Token‑Mediated Play
Second‑person play emerges the moment a personal proxy is introduced.
Examples
Monopoly
The Game of Life
Sorry!
Most role‑playing board games
Perspective Structure
The player is personally represented
Actions are issued to a token
The token is “you,” but not identical to you
The language shifts naturally:
You move three spaces.
You pass Go.
You go to jail.
No one confuses the plastic token with the player’s physical body. No one treats the token as an unrelated entity either. It is unmistakably you, addressed directly.
This is the exact structural relationship found in traditionally labeled “third‑person” digital games:
A visible body
A controllable character
A personal avatar that can be observed, directed, and positioned
The tabletop world exposes the truth that digital cameras obscure: this is second‑person play.
Third Person: Unembodied Command
True third‑person perspective appears when the player has no personal representation at all.
Examples
Chess
Checkers
Go
Wargames with multiple units per side
Perspective Structure
No piece represents the player
All entities are equally external
The player exists entirely outside the system
The language reflects this detachment:
That piece captured the queen.
These troops were sacrificed units.
That side is losing control of the board.
Even when players identify emotionally with a side or strategy, no single piece is you. The relationship is observational and managerial rather than embodied.
This maps cleanly onto digital strategy games, god games, and simulation titles where the player’s presence is abstract, systemic, or omniscient.
Why These Categories Feel Obvious Offline
In physical games, no one argues that Monopoly is “third person” or that chess is “first person.” The distinctions feel intuitive because:
There is no camera to confuse viewpoint with identity
Tokens and the actually human self are physically distinct
Agency is visibly mediated or not
Digital games inherited linguistic categories before these distinctions were fully examined. Real‑world games demonstrate that the confusion is not conceptual, but rather it is terminological.
The Consistency Test
A useful diagnostic question emerges:
If this game were played on a table instead of a screen, what would represent the player?
Your body → First person
Your personal token → Second person
Nothing at all → Third person
This test holds across media, genres, and technologies.
Implications for Game Analysis
Understanding perspective through real‑world analogs helps clarify:
Why some games feel intimate despite external cameras
Why avatar visibility changes player psychology
Why command‑based games encourage strategic rather than empathetic thinking
Why VR intensifies embodiment without redefining perspective
Most importantly, it reinforces the fact that perspective is about player–action relationships, not visual framing.
Looking beyond
Real‑world games quietly and intuitively preserve the original linguistic meaning of person in the terms of first-, second- and third-person. When we let them inform our understanding of digital play, the long‑standing mislabeling of game perspectives becomes impossible to ignore. The camera never determined perspective; the player's relationship within the game makes that determination.
No comments:
Post a Comment