Okay, so I originally said “Yes”, but upon further thought, I’m much more enamored with the idea of not including it than I am. With only “Yes” and “No” as options, I’d say I’m closer to “No”.
Since I don’t want attacked for my opinion, however, I won’t go into much more detail as to specifically why I don’t want an optional TPV in the game.
Yeah, with this I’m trying to strip out all the variables and just pare it down to the very basics of the question(s).
I voted no.
I would like Warhorse to concentrate and focus on 1st person, using all the specific strengths of this perspective instead of trying to make the game playable and enjoyable in 3rd person as well.
I have nothing against 3rd person in general. It’s imo something that would be well suited for modding.
Vagra said that they already have used 3rd person, there is no respectable argument that you want specific strengths just for first person.
Night 1505 if you wont back up your opinion with good arguments, your vote is a little more than nothing.
I voted yes, not because i will use 3rd person, but because i HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE THAT OPTION FROM ANYONE
A lot of reasons have been brought up to incorporate 3rd person.
i am going to end it with this. There is at least 50% of people who want 3rd person. 50% of the backers for Kingdom Come want 3rd as an OPTION
If you have any arguments for 1st person only and excluding the want of 50% of our backers to have the choice of third person. Please by all means reply.
A lot of stuff is used during development without appearing in the final game. That’s normal business in this industry and neither a pro nor contra argument in itself. What you finally use in the game should depend on your vision and your specific game design alone and not about what is technically possible or what you perhaps internally used for testing and developing purposes.
The question is whether Warhorse actually want to use any specific strength of 1st person, that’s correct. I still hope so but their latest vision switch to 3rd person makes that indeed more questionable. But in that case the whole 1st person perspective makes little sense to me in the first place.
I guess I have to live with the inconsistencies of this game (based on Dan’s latest posts on the topic). But I won’t lose hope for the better… 
Alright man… so, I don’t feel as though my voting “No” equates to me “Taking that option from anyone”, since from the beginning, or at least from about mid February when I became aware of and backed this game, it has been marketed as a “Realistic, open-world, first person, RPG”. That is one of the myriad reasons I chose to vote “No”.
And another thing @andrewgilmore , my vote counts for exactly as much as your vote, whether I choose to publicly “back up my opinion with good arguments” or not. Honestly, I will not be offended, or even disappointed if optional TPV makes it into the game. As I expressly stated before,
But that doesn’t mean that just because I don’t want to participate in (or gawd forbid, start) a pointless and heated argument, and choose to keep all but my final vote to myself, that my vote doesn’t count as much as yours. And, I have just as much right to not share it as I do to shout it here on the forum!
FWIW, it’s perfectly fine for people to be content with simply voting the way they wish without having to explain why. Granted, I don’t think the addition of TPV as an option (not a requirement) really takes away from the FPV RPG that was advertised, but that’s me.
And if they add third person. You still have your first person view so your argument is invalid. The difference between yes and no is yes is open to the possibility, if 99% of people voted yes (you voting no) you would still get your precious first person view. but if 99% voted yes, the 1% because you were to stubborn and arrogant to allow to play the way they wanted to play will not get to play the way they wanted to. you get what i am saying? That is why anyone who votes no is clearly wrong. YOU QUOTED ME SAYING I VOTED YES, AND STILL NOT PLAYING THIRD PERSON. SO WHY CAN’T YOU?
Yes i completely understand and i know i was rude when i posted that answer. It’s just very irritating that people will take that option away from people because as you said “i dont think the addition of TPV as an option really takes away from the FPV RPG that was advertised…”
While I cant understand his poin either (Im really trying, but it is confuzing) we can discuss it in peace. No need to be harsh.
I understand, i apologized to the thread creator above that i understand i was rude but it was so frustrating i could not internalize my anger.
I think in general, most of the “No” camp would fall under wanting Warhorse to stick to their original vision or promise, though there may be concerns that the TPV will come at the expense of the FPV being all it can be.
I think @Hellboy has said enough to squash that fear, but I also get the impression that in spite of his track record with Mafia, some don’t trust him to do this particular thing effectively.
I vote yes for several reasons.
As Dan said; it is win–win solution and that there are just minor drawback, if any at all. They are already using TPV and it is something Warhorse game development veterans know a lot about so it shouldnt cause troubles or delay.
Also, and many wont agree with me, TPV in combat gives me more realistic feel. It is easier to guess distances ( I feel lack of depth perception in FPV) and makes you aware of your surrounding (first thing they teach you in any martial art) not just cca 60° in front of you (higher FOV cause picture deformation).
OMG i thought i was alone with this. Although i do like the first person view, i always believed 3rd person was a little more realistic because in real life you always know if someone is staring at you left and right, and you always feel someone when they are right behind you, am i right! So third person gives you a small space behind you so you can “feel” someone behind you and the third person camera is far enough where you get a clear sight of left and right of you. both things the first person camera does not give that is realistic. First person is just more cinematic.
^^ This is not insightful discussion or indicative that you are open to any sort of actual debate, so why are you asking for it? You are simply attempting to draw out an argument or give yourself an opportunity to call others “wrong” or “invalid”. You are only choosing portions of what I say to “listen” to, and are thus taking the wrong messages from them. It seems like you must create conflict, even where there is none. You voted “Yes”, I voted “No”. I don’t feel that we need to berate each other about it.
You literally just did what you are claiming me of… are you dumb or stupid? I have given a wealth of information of why CLEARLY third person OPTIONAL CHOICE is the correct way to go!
Let me ask you a question to further understand just what kind of person you are…
if you (not knowing your actual political views) do not like gay people… are you okay with them to marry? In other words. Just because you are not gay, does that mean you have the right to take away the OPTION of gay marriage from others? Simply because in the bible marriage is between a man and a woman and now that gays can marry it betrays your religion?
C’mon, man…really?
He quoted a part of my argument and then claims all i do is quote a part of his argument and reply to that small amount. Is he not doing the same thing to me?
You seem to have trouble controlling your rage, since you already apologized for being rude before. I didn’t make a new poll with the hope of clarifying opinions just to have people insult each other all over again.
Dude, quoting an argument and addressing it are not the same thing. I said that you were only addressing portions of what I said. I really could care less how much of my actual text you quote. I believe I have addressed what you were saying to me. I don’t feel that I have to quote the whole post in order to do that.
Also, I am not going to answer your question, because you have assumed a great deal about me before asking. Such as, you have assumed I am straight. You have assumed I am religious. You have assumed I believe and/or follow the bible. I am not saying any of those are true or false. I am simple accusing you of having assumed those things about me when asking your question regarding my “character”.
