Poll: What should be our next stretch goal? What about 3rd person camera?

Pledge/Kickstarter
#284

That’s fine. One of the most memorable of such scenes was seen in first Half-Life in the moment of captivity. I don’t doubt it is possible to tell a game story in first person only.

I just argue that the story would be inevitably rather an elemental one (like in Half-Life or CoD) and that you would dramatically limit your means of expression. It would be for example utterly difficult to build the suspense in first person view only. You can use sound of course but still, utterly difficult. Why? Because “montage” (which means editing) and the composition of a shot is the single most important and powerful instrument of the visual narrative.

(It would be also extremely difficult to narrate the passage of time in first person only. You have two ways to do it - some character could give the information about the time passed to your character and therefore to the player or there could be “subtitle” used. Both those ways are outdated.)

But I agree it would be interesting to play such game if made properly.

#285

No, it won’t. Cutscenes and dialogues are not in first person. So it’s not a “full” first person experience like Dark Messiah or CoD or Half Life or Metro or whatever other “full” first person game.

I mean that was clear from the beginning, no question. But now we talk about 3rd person so it’s only fair to talk about a “full” first person experience as well imho…

#286

Ah I see! Yep, definitely would be nice.

#287

I think we have to agree to disagree here. I think that montage is possible in both first person and third person perspective. You can also compose the scenery very carefully and emotionally engaging in first person, you just have another angle and a closer perspective. The emotional impact though can be even much stronger if you experience everything “first handed”. I think what you mean is that you can’t make “scenery shots” or stuff that isn’t about your own character. You’re right. A first person experience is always centered around the player character. Of course you can’t see two people talking to each other a few kilometers away or even in the next room when the door is closed. You only have the information your own character could get by himself. That changes how you have to tell a story, but it doesn’t limit storytelling in general. It’s just another flavor, a way more personal take on storytelling. It’s quite similar to literature and 1st person and 3rd person perspective there. Or do you want to tell me that 1st person in literature isn’t capable of delivering engaging and well done storytelling?

Don’t get me wrong. I love 3rd person games and I love 3rd person cinematics. But every experience should be consistent to be immersive. If the game is meant as a first person experience everything should cater to that vision. In that case I’m not only the “observer” but actually the character himself. I play and see the world through his eyes and if I do so I want to do it ALL THE TIME and not only here and there. I couldn’t think of a bigger immersion breaker actually than being forced to change from character to observer all the time. I even think that this is a fundamental flaw in the design of KCD so far.

#288

the altered sight when wearing a helmet is interesting…
Especially if there are going to be weekly arena fights you can place bets on…oh how I miss the Quest for Glory series

after thinking about it ,i imagine it to be like seen in some parts of the cable guy moviexD

#289

Yes, it is perfectly possible to do a complicated mise en scene in one single shot. Sometimes the “point of view” shot is much stronger than the “objective” perspective. (Rather interesting play of using perspectives can be found in Innaritu’s Babel). But it’s rather hard to narrate an epic and complicated story this way. Almost impossible.

Exactly. It’s rather intimate perspective.

But it does. The perspective of narration is extremely important and sometimes it’s the most important formal aspect of the work. (The Murder of Roger Ackroyd for example.)

That’s the thing. It is not similar at all. The means of expression are completely different. Words and sentences and on the other hand visual and aural sensations. You perceive them differently. They collaborate with your fantasy differently.

I suppose that’s the source of misunderstanding. I don’t consider the character I play to be me or myself to be the character. I don’t play my story, but the story of Henry, the blacksmith’s son. This topic was discussed in the “open world” thread:


You would probably remeber there were two basic views or kinds of empathy or “name it how you like things” (two faces of role playing) discussed here: either you consider the character to by kind of your alter-ego and play his story as your story or you like to live through his own particular story and you role play.

It makes sense someone would prefer the story to be narrated in first person only and to focus on the sequential or chronological narration. (You know what your character know.) But there are people who enjoy rather the film like and more complicated narration (narrative framing etc.).

I quite like both worlds but I definitely argue the “film like” narration is much more powerful because it has more formal or narrative options to choose from. And I would also argue that it’s not just the “point of view” what makes a story “immersive”. (In fact “immersion” is rather problematic aesthetical category.)

Consider the much quoted opening sequence of (crap movie) Saving Private Ryan. It won’t be more immersive or more emotional in case it would be narrated in first person pov only (i would argue it would be less emotional). But Speilberg uses POV shots abundantly here to show you the situation by the hero’s eyes.

Edit: In the end you quite persuaded me KC:D could perhaps profit from the strict point of view narration. :wink:

1 Like
#290

@tunak

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said but there is one basic issue that you forgot: Warhorse already decided to make the game a first person experience. So now the question remains WHY they decided to do so and what does mean for the game. I mean if they want to give us a “cater” experience why did they go with first person from the start? Dan’s point was to make the game more immersive and that clearly suggests to me that he thinks first person can be an immersive experience in which you take over a certain character (which still doesn’t mean that you have to fully identify with the character, you could still be someone who mostly just cares about the character).

But to me it seems like that first person experience was never really strong in Dan’s own opinion. He couldn’t decide whether he wanted to make a first person experience or a third person experience and that’s the whol dilemma here.

I mean both can be strong experiences and both can be fulfilling (and I still disagree strongly that first person limits the narrative strenght - it just limits the amount and kind of information you can present ). Point is that you should decide which one you want to deliver and you should focus on it. As a fan of 3rd person (and caring about characters) myself I would rather have full 1st person experience than a weird mixture of both worlds because that’s just the vita of a game without identity and vision (yes, it’s hard to say that but at the core, that’s what it is).

If Warhorse wanted KCD to be an epic, cinematic experience in which they can show political plots from different angles (think e.g. Witcher 2) they should have skipped 1st person from the start. 1st person is the antithesis of being the epic observer. 1st person is - as I’ve said before - about a personal experience centered around the player character. If that doesn’t fit to the narrative vision for the game maybe the whole experience should really be 3rd person.

Whatever perspective you choose you have to cater to it, you have to use it strengths and you have to know its limitations. That’s another reason why offering both 1st person and 3rd person in the same game is complete BS. Even the suggestion to enable 3rd person as “voluntary option” suggests to me that Warhorse has no interest in really using the strengths of first person storytelling (ok, 3rd person cinematic cutscenes suggested that from the very beginning, but that doesn’t make it any better, hah?). There seems to be no interest of using first person for emotional, player-character-centered storytelling and depciting the medieval world through the eye of poor blacksmith Henry. Instead IMHO first person was chosen from the beginning because Dan wasn’t so sure from the beginning how he personally sees immersion. I mean, it’s indeed a complicated matter and it’s in no way an easy decision which perspective to choose. But then again your decision should based on an overall consistent narrative and gameplay vision and I really lack the this consistency here.

Edit: If I understood you correctly your definition of “good storytelling” and the range of possiblities depends much on the definition of epicness and I agree that 3rd person perspective favors an epic outside perspective. But then again it’s questionable if epic storytelling is a general goal for storytelling and whether there isn’t a form of personal epicness coming from seeing something through your own eyes or 1st person perspective. CoD relies heavily on this interal epicness (or whatever you should call it). IThe series regularly kills the player characters off in the various games and the whole campaign is more or less a slide show of epic moments. There is a certain emotional impact behind this perspective 3rd person camera can’t achieve (no matter if you identify yourself with the player character). At the same time 1st person camera is indeed limited to give overviews and stuff and of course camera movement and angles are limited. But then again we have to remember that movies and games are not the same thing and that there are things in gaming which are different from movies and vice versa. In movies we are always the 100% observer and never the one who acts. Movies lack the interaction which defines games. So even if a movie like Saving Private Ryan offers 1st person camera views they aren’t the same as in gaming. In cutscenes (which are movies) they have of course the same purpose (this special emotional impact I’ve written about before) but games are more than that. First person isn’t limited to cutscenes, it’s part of the interactive experience. While movies have to rely on the visuals and the narrative and camera angles and drives are part of the formula in gaming the core is about interactivity which we usually call gameplay. Today’s games often have a strong focus on narrative and that’s good but that doesn’t mean that they should forget the interactive strengths of gaming while trying to be movie-like as much as possible. Interactive experiences have proven to be different from movies and while often offering a similar visual experience they also often a different emotional experience no matter if you identify with your character or cater about him.

3 Likes
#291

Therefore I came to the conclusion I agree with you and the focus of first person POV.

I agree completely. He was one of the first game designers who used film narration excessively in Mafia and he knows the strenghts and advantages of it very well.

I even agree that in some case the immersion of a game could be less strong if it would use film narration (in case first person POV is used well it is sufficient for a great game - e.g. Dishonored, Bethesda games, Half-Life and other examples we quoted) because it could perhaps disrupt the immersion of the first person POV.

But in case the film narration is excellent and the first person gameplay makes sense I won’t consider it problematic. If The Witcher was first person POV game and still used film narration (Witcher 2 rather abused it for my taste) it wouldn’t be worse or weaker experience at all. Therefore I can’t agree with this:

I prefer 1st person POV gameplay. Being it racing or shooter or RPG i dislike 3rd person focal point. Maybe the reason lies in immersion, maybe it’s the usual problematic animation and maybe it’s just me. But I don’t see the difference between 3rd and 1st person POV gameplay from the viewpoint of epic story. It’s probably because I still don’t consider subconsciously 1st person POV in games to be the equivalent of the 1st person narrator.

Excellent point. Then again I never considered KC:D to be a work of rather formalist art (on the other hand Bioshock or even Dishonored could be perhaps considered formalist because those games are built around “consistent narrative and gameplay vision”) if you understand what I mean. Will try to explain: Ken Levine is perhaps a visionary capable of narrating simple story in highly elaborate form which suits the story very well and lifts it on higher level (ore more levels) if the recipient is able to decode the artistic language of the game. He could be likened to Stanley Kubrick or David Lynch. On the other hand Dan is the narrative artist. He wants to narrate a complicated and multilayered story in some wonderful and touching way. We could liken him to Martin Scorsese or even the kitsch master Spielberg.

I don’t think it’s that simple. In fact perceiving a movie is a higly active act. (It of course depends on the seriousness of the movie.) And I suppose the “interactive” element of the games is rather overrated. The interaction probably connects different parts of the brain - therefore you use more parts of the brain but that doesn’t mean you use them more intesively.

In my opinon not. More complex discussion based on exact terms and perhaps neuropathological experiments would be necessary to prove one of our points (especially yours) here.

I suppose we explained our opinions sufficiently and therefore I renounce further discussion - don’t be offended please. You may reply of course and I will pay attention to your reply but I consider further reacting on my part unnecessary.

3 Likes
#292

Oh dear, oh dear. This is one helluva Pandora’s box to open.
So hate. Many angst. Such butthurt. Much doge disapprove.

Well, I almost feel like laughing at the absurdity of what started here again, but I don’t, seeing the tragedy of how serious (and seriously unreasonable) can people keep being about it.

Now, I admit I didn’t read the whole thread, as on my coming here it already had over 280 posts (in a day!) and I only endured some first 70 or so pieces of the exchange between whining and reasoning (true, a surprising lot of).
So pardon me if I go repeating something someone may have brough in already.

First and foremost - yes, simply go for it!

BECAUSE:

  1. If the authors have a certain specific vision and want to achieve some particular narrative effects and gameplay experience through the use of 1st person, an optional 3rd person view is not stopping them in any way from this. Being a game’s designer with necessary resources at hand (a handy game engine like Cryengine and secured financing surely helps a lot) should enable you to do what you want however you decide.
    If you have enough of the imagination, determination and invention of your own to come up with ideas to put inside. Do you naysayers think @warhorse doesn’t?

The 1st person view is supposed to play an important role in the game’s narrative and interactive aspects. But you don’t have to make it excusive to reach a goal like this.
Offer an alternative (3rd person), but give the primary 1st person view a couple of advantages to keep its importance for the gameplay at least to some degree of use by everyone.
Like:

  • the HUD features (health bar, compass, etc.) show only in the 1st person
  • the item lables, item identification / closer inspection, works only in the 1st person
  • archery (aiming) already can be effective pretty much only in the 1st person
  • certain scripted narrative sections may still get fixed 1st person view
  • certain important interactive cutscenes and dialogues may get a cinematic view, but generally the ordinary dialogue interaction with NPCs could always “zoom” to the 1st person even from the 3rd person view
  • et cetera, et cetera, et cetera …

One extra issue - peaking around the corner!
Yep, I agree, this is a valid point. Now…
Some months back I saw a video showing that the Witcher 3 has this intersting feature implemented which essentially “physically” renders a large portion of the in-game graphics only once it is in the player camera’s view range/vector. Outside of it, most graphics features “disappear”. Mainly as a performance-saving feature, if I remember correctly.

So, how about making the physical rendering of NPCs (probably rather not of the environment itself) determined by if Henry can actually see them?
If they are not in his field of view, you can go peeking around the corner for their positions in 3rd person all you want… unless you stick out Henry’s head at least a bit… you won’t see anyone in there… :wink:

Stop ranting about issues and try thinking about solutions.
(Remember Mafia? You run your mouth and I run my business, brother…)

  1. Favoring one gameplay point of view is purely a matter of gamer’s personal preference, not one single of them is universally better than the other.
  • For the very same reason the inclusion of both of them does neither hurt, nor even ruin the game as some kind of a general rule - again it all depends on the general game design choices that will go along with it.
  • For a player, only one thing really matters - if you can simply make a pick, then go ahead, do so and play it the way you like!
  • As long as the game can technically support it (it’s not an isometric 2D after all), people will find themselves a way to make the 3rd person to work anyway. The way the game’s graphics, environment and gameplay mechanics are being designed, it’s asking for it.

In what thinkable way is it a bad thing to turn a telescope into an optional (optional! OPTINAL!) binocular?
To just add a practical (as well as ignorable!) option?
Implementing a feature like this in the stock version only helps to take away possible issues that might unnecessarily arise from a fanmade mod of a varying quality.

  1. Any possible development delay caused by including this one more feature into the game is essentially a ridiculous claim to make.
    The dog companion, the tournament mode, both added on top of the basic idea of Act 1’s content, will probably delay the game more than an adjustment of a function that is already in the engine and only needs to be put in line with the general aims of the game’s design.

The very same thing can be said for essentially anything and everything the Warhorse guys are doing to make the stuff of this game above average. All their pursuit for more perfection in game mechanics, contents and graphics adds more work to be done which many other games could easily get around without and still succeed.
Adding a 3rd person view option on top of it is like pouring a bucket of water into a lake. Especially if it happens relatively early in the development (which this game still is).

No one really knows when is the game actually going to be finished to begin with.
Only one thing is certain - there most probably are going to be delays anyway.
There always are. Deal with it.

5 Likes
#293

Dismissing a lot of people who wrote here in your second sentence isn’t the best way of convincing others to take you seriously.

And since you already said that you don’t have the respect to read other people’s post before you write your own I return the favor and skip the rest of your post as well…

Nah, just joking. But maybe it would have helped if you’d read the other people’s posts. Many of your points were already tackled and also refuted or at least challenged. But I guess you’re not really interested in a real discussion, more in telling others “how it is”. Instead of adding to the discussion and referring to what already was discussed you just wanted to lecture others. At least that’s my feeling after reading your post.

1 Like
#294

Well, as this is not an academic debate (and so a full knowledge of the given matter is hardly required - what really matters here is the OP) and this thread seems expanding pretty fast, you can’t really expect everyone to be willing to read everything in there. Including your own large number of posts, sorry.

Especially with the frequent ongoing trend involved with two or more random people following one another in a dozen or more posts that are getting exponentially longer and longer in hopes to find a way to prove or disprove one particular point dozen times over, one way or the other… it tends to get a bit tedious to follow it all after a bit. Especially if you see a lack of new points or ideas getting thrown in compared to the recycled ballast.

If you have enough time or patience to do that on your free time, kudos to you sir. I’ll be just throwing in my two cents on what I saw going on in here. And if it happens to repeat some of what has been adressed previously, it may just prove it’s worth a thought as more people seem to be thinking this way.

Bringing more ideas in on fewer posts is more substantial in my book than spending a hundred posts trying to convince someone (who usually doesn’t even appear interested in getting convinced, simply for having an opposite opinion) that your viewpoint is just better.
I rather leave that to those that enjoy it.

Our ongoing braggings here are irrelevant. This forum and this discussion should be more of a think tank for the Warhorse team. But that would require less of lengthy arguing and “It ruins the game for me and it should do for you as well!” and getting to the real point (how to make stuff work) more often instead.

6 Likes
#295

Off-topic (sorry):

Even if you are not interested in reading other people posts: don’t disrespect them with arrogant or dismissive behaviour. It’s pretty low to call other people names and silently laugh about them and about what they care while stating that you didn’t even read their posts at the same time.

Just say what you want to say about the topic. State your opinion if you’re not interested in discussions. But don’t act like you knew it better than everyone else and everybody who don’t agree with you is just a “naysayer” or whatever. That’s disrespective and insulting. And in the end it proofs that you are not only interested in giving feedback directly to warhorse but also in belitteling others (and therefore in interaction with them which you formerly denied as being one of your goals).

And just for your information: you can discuss a topic without trying to convince others permanently. That’s not the core of a good discussion but changing ideas and evolving new ones and perhaps exploring new facettes of an issue you haven’t thought about yourself before. A good thread and discussion should always be about aquiring knowledge and insights and not only about sharing your own point of view.

Edit:
@Flashfire
Of course. That applies to everyone showing that behaviour.

1 Like
#296

To be fair, I think you can find just as many people who are doing the same kind of belittling of anyone who doesn’t mind the TPV being added.

It needs to stop, regardless of what someone’s opinion on the debate is. It’s just another form of elitism and stubbornness from gamers and it does nothing to help further the discussion in any way.

1 Like
#298

I just see it as we’re all here for the same reason of supporting the game. We aren’t all going to agree with everything Warhorse does, but overall the vision itself is still the same - right?

So let’s respect each other and treat each other with the proper civility, even if we see things differently. It’s really simple to do and there’s nothing gained from trying to force others to side with your POV or they’re idiots.

#300

No, I’m just speaking in general, overall. Some are way too quick to attack others or put them down simply for minor reasons. I know it’s the internet, but we as a whole can do better than that.

#301

a lot of strawmen arguments and people simply ignoring what vavra’s saying about 3rd person view from the supposedly “moderate” side that’s chastising people for being dismissive and such.

#303

Well, I want an ‘immersive and realistic’ experience over ‘cinematic’ from KCD myself.

I want to play fully from first person and will personally be turning off all in-game music as well (as I do in most first person games). I want to feel as though I am Henry, not watching a movie about Henry.

I personally believe, given the dev’s original intent for first person only/maximum immersion, that more effort could/should be made in keeping the entire game first person. Breaking out to third person ‘portrait camera’ is a ‘break’ for me. I’d rather see some more advanced systems considered; how about being able to speak to someone from a bit of a distance for e.g. without half the screen covered by a face and the other half a piece of paper?

The extra SG money could pay for someone to attempt some new, more immersive UI options, going beyond what we’ve come to accept in many games. If it proves too difficult or doesn’t work, that’s OK by me. Fallout 3/NV had that ‘locked-in’ conversation thing, then Skyrim removed the zoom and made things more realistic/natural. I wonder what Fallout 4 will bring. I’d like to see this same immersive/natural approach applied to the HUD also.

TL;DR - I prefer ‘immersion’ and ‘realism’ to ‘cinematic.’ That’s where games shine to me. Not saying there’s no place for ‘cinematic’ in games, but games allow us to go beyond that. Leave the ‘cinematic’ to the cinema for KCD and let us experience the story from a ‘living it’ not ‘watching it’ standpoint. Rather than adding ‘gamey’ features such as third person view, look at ways to further enhance the first person view (HUD, dialogue, cutscenes).

#304

How could that be? The gameplay up to this point was designed for 1st person specifically!

Here a famous quote regarding that matter:

Vision here, vision there.
At this point its only blabla anyway.
Because if you design a game to be played specifically in 1st person because of your “vision” and later on you let the players have 3rd person (and as it seems the majority at least according to the poll [which is only a tiny little fraction of the whole backers!] want to use 3rd person), your “vision” will be lost on them.
Nice job bringing your “vision” to them, the masses who ignore your “vision” willingly!

1st: Amen to that.

2nd: cinematic = bullshit
It’s just an excuse to limit the frame rate or pull some other bullshit stunts to hide your incompetence to deliver a polished product.

#305

Well, I didn’t expected this to be such a polarizing topic. But on the other hand, I am asking here, because we were also not sure if its a good idea and if there is even demand for this. So I expected that people may not be interested in it (third option) or will be against it or will say its great. But now 30% people want it, 22% are against it and the rest doesn’t seem to care :slight_smile: So no matter what we do, we will piss someone. Ooops.

I really do think, that its a win win situation - those who want to play it from 1st person view will get what they expected and those who missed this feature will get it as well. I will repeat this again:

  1. It doesn’t come at cost of something else. The first person view
    will not become less important than 3rd person. Its actually the
    opposite. The way we animate characters means, that when we animate
    something from 1st person, the same animation looks good on NPCs and
    and 3rd person as well. We dont do extra animations for the player.
    We do animations, that fit to any character in the game.
  2. Nobody will be forced to play the game from 3rd person. Quite the opposite. Some things will force 1st person - shooting, interiors, crafting minigames
  3. Its still going to be 1st person game, with 1st person view as the primary way how it should be played. Period.

To be honest, the feature was requested by many people and its not that hard and expensive to implement. So just from the economic standpoint the trade off between the time it will take us and the income it could generate seems to be very good and will allow us to improve some other stuff, which is not as much attractive to be a stretch goal.

And I will just add, that in the past I worked on several quite sophisticated 3rd person camera systems, so I am totally aware what does it mean to implement this. In our case, its much simpler, because we are not a shooter, which causes most of the problems (different viewpoint of camera and the character and weapon, problems that you cant shoot at something that you see from camera, but there is an obstacle in front of the weapon etc.). Also we will get rid of the camera in interiors, where it really is a problem and you usually need to change FOV, position of the camera and adjust the size of various objects (doors, ceilings, corridors). So if you were afraid about thase issues, it should not be a problem in our case.

31 Likes
Hardcore combat system
#306

I think the concern some of us first person ‘die-hards’ have is that I can’t really see how it’s possible for ‘no cost.’

Surely it will take dev time/money to properly implement and produce some bugs which will need to be fixed. It also means that elements which may have worked from a first person only viewpoint now need to be reconsidered from third also - Not really relevant given the time period but as an example checking the time on your watch could be handled with a 3D watch model on the player’s wrist for a fully immersive FPS view, but would require a HUD element for third person (having a real ‘physical’ map would be another e.g.). Then someone might suggest just using the HUD for both as it’s quicker and already needed for third person anyway, or maybe a zoom in from over the shoulder which whilst the better option, would require more testing and so on… And so it begins.

Then there’s clipping issues etc, which even without third person supported interiors, would probably arise in some situations and need to be looked at and fixed. Some people will no doubt start to moan about not being able to fight from third person or go inside in third person - The “If you’re going to do it, do it right” argument and then there will be more time spent seeing whether that’s possible, etc, etc…

Another less than wonderful example: Personally I play Skyrim without a crosshair at all and it works brilliantly for archery (feels more like actual skill). This kind of stuff just isn’t possible from third person and whilst I’m not saying that’s what you’d want to do here, the whole “How does it work from third person” debate or worse “That’d be cool, but it doesn’t work from third person,” will no doubt come up each time a new mechanic’s mentioned.

A final example - It’s probably not easy getting the riding mechanic to look good from first person, but it’s something I personally really like the idea of. When you then have the ‘traditional’ option of third person for such tasks I fear that there will be the temptation of “Oh well, we have the third person option now, just get the first person camera to an OK state for the riding, most will probably use third person for that anyway.”

As you say TPV might be worth it financially if it is very easy to implement and will likely entice more players (= extra money for development), but I think it could quite easily open a can of worms if not careful and possibly limit what you can do going forward - When you know you only have to consider first person in all situations, your options are much more open. If you go first and third person then everything you do will have to be tested and considered in that mode as well (where applicable) and I’d be amazed if it doesn’t eat up a reasonable amount of time and money.

2 Likes
© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz