isn’t 't difficulty to respond to individual gamw play
anyone who says they will not play or buy the game because a third person option is added is lying to themselves and everyone else
Ok I hope people read this well, but I did not donate 70$ish bucks to play a game that kinda lied to me. It says 1st person game, and a realistic game, since when in reality you can zoom out of your body and stare at your behind?
Basically this picture I made proves it all in hyperbole. It may seem a bit harsh, sorry but I feel as if the goal when it hits 2,500,000 may be 3rd person even though I have seen better suggestions for a goal and came up with some suggestions myself.
Basically I am saying if 3rd person becomes a next goal, its a pretty cheap one for the money its worth to pledge.
Can we have something in a topic thats different from 3rd person suggestion now? They ask us for suggestions and this is like the only main topic I see. Why can we not move on?
1 Like
What confuses me the most is people say on here they cannot play without 3rd person when they should have known they are donating for a game thats stuck on 1st person atm and that 3rd person is a suggestion?
“Zoom out of your body”… like they were showing in every cutscene and diloague DURING kickstarter?
This vid is before kickstarter ended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84AiE46erkk
Clearly you can see that you’ll be movin plenty from the 1st person into different views. That is feature already in game and very much shaping how the main story and side stories are gonna be told in this game. 3rd person quite fits their narrative for this game… “LOOK its says 1st person there…” - Im saying, look at every video and tell me this is strictly 1st person game in dialogues, cutscenes… no it’s not, clearly since day 1 it wasn’t designed Just to be that.
1 thing is clear, money has really nothing to do with next goal. Game is funded by investor, this is suplementary income - that is nice, but not a gamechanger (it may look good, if they can say “hey look, people are really interested” to the investors people).
Goals are pointless at this point, core features (or goals! we have now to do) need to be implemented first before anything is “next goal”. Then you can continue - if u have time that is.
You know when 3rd person mode is going to be really discussed? Game releases 1/4, 2/4 of 2016 at best. So, before release, big marketing campaign, all the articles, all videos, official story trailer - Then, it will be decided if 3rd person or not based on real customer feedback (thats not 20% of the forum members).
So, be ready to prepare your tissues to cry into. Real decisions are going to be made when there is Real feedback on the game from gaming population. Btw even this poll suggests that most people would leave choice to the developer, which is good.
I hope someone decides soon whether or not 3rd person will be implemented. Then, the forums will be at peace once again.
You are absolutely wrong. The game still will be realistic and first person. Third person would only be available outdoors and only as an option — first person would stay as main view. So it is not change whatsoever.
You already “zoom out of your body” during dialogs, at in ventory, herb picking… etc. Realistic doesnt mean simulator and also I dont think it would cross the line set already. Beside that, in melee combat you rely on your sense that gives you some surrounding awarness like peripheral vision… from that point, third person view in combat is as realistic as first person.
People pledge for the game, not stretch goals (I hope) so even if they going to add optional anything, I would mind as long as I get the game. Main reason for third person view is that;
1.They already use that in development so it wouldnt be much work
2.Its popular, many people wants it — could bring some more backers.
3.Wouldnt cost much money = more money could be spend on the game itself instead of stretch goals.
So in my opinion it is perfect goal and dont see much resons why not. Especially when this game isnt purely first person already.
*It is decided. Dan said they are not gonna implement it, at least not for now, becouse they “dont want piss of 20% of backers”. So big cg! : - )
2 Likes
lol @ the amount of people who still don’t understand what optional means
Unfortunately no, because every other day people like to repeat the most popular phrase which goes like this: "you dont have to use it!"
Thanks for reminding me. The last guy mentioned it only a few hours earlier. Man, that surely was too long ago, people would have forgotten otherwise!
Why should we listen to them, they don’t care for any other argument(s) except for their own.
Most recently these people don’t even own the game.
Same goes for 1st person. No excuses please.
If you care about the game, just buy it! 
Yeah, and there’s also an amount of people who DID NOT pledge for a
"Realistic open world Optional View Medieval RPG"!
Funny, huh? 
Or equaly popular phrases like “we did not pledge for third person view!”. So thank you for reamind as well, ha.
Wait… what? Like — are you even serious? You did not care about any arguments at first place :-DD And who are “they” anyway? You just want to generalize people who wants 3rd person view in order to demonize them… thats low. I pledge and I did and will discuss any sensibile argument.
Thats right, not buying game for either not having 3rd person view or have it optional is both equally silly (unles things like some kind of motion sickness etc).
Not funny, cause it makes no sense. You can say that about any stretch goal - like that I did not pledge for game with in-game codex…
Would be first perso still main one? Yes it definetly would (no 3rd in interiors, minigames…) and it is already present (dialogs, cutscenes…). So it could stays as first person game… sorry
3rd person view would be great. It is only an option, so nobody has to use it, if he/she doesn´t want to. So I don´t see a problem at all.
1 Like
We have come full circle, Again. this continued debate made me change my vote.
Yes. After the video update #9 (where Dan presented the decision) it was quiet in this thread.
But soon after that they (3rd p guys) came back and got stuck in a loop.
Since then they keep it rolling with the same argument over and over again and again.
I’m merely reacting when I feel like it.
Of course I then have to repeat myself too.
What was you stance before?
No.
But since you’re singing the repeating tune
let me repeat myself too, just to clear things up once more. 
3rd person -> they thought about this already and that’s why they wrote in the FAQ of the Kickstarter: No, not allowed!
codex -> wasn’t discussed through Kickstarter campaign. Also stretch goals are for things that haven’t been discussed and denied already. Because a stretch goal for something that has already been checked and done with is just silly. 
Simple version:
3rd person -> denied right during the Kickstarter campaign
codex -> no mention of codex in Kickstart campaign
I kept it simple.
Now you can see: there’s a difference!
Now please stop repeating this comparison over and over again.
Also, why do you people even type your popular phrase every time. That’s too much effort.
Just copy & paste the link of the first guy who said: “You don’t have to use it. It’s optional.”
At first I didn’t care that people have the option but I had zero intention of using it.
Third person is going to happen, if the devs don’t do it it will be one of the first mods made.
I changed my vote because I don’t want WH wasting a stretch goal on this, I could see this being bundled with some other feature but not on its own not for 500K.
this doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have options, I just think this debate has become tiresome and pointless.
I for one would like to be able to disable any form of TPV all together the dialogue scenes are very nice and cinematic but I have to re orient myself from real world to game world every time. I get distracted by the beautiful environment and stop paying attention to what im being told (should be less of an issue with voice acting implemented.)
Unrelated to this thread aside from its longevity, but can we have thread pages so we’re not scrolling down for 12 hours?
1 Like
there is the handy scroll tab in the lower right hand corner.
looks like this
click on it to unveil its secrets.
Yes, but it’s not too useful. And it’s still going to be a huge page to load regardless and could cause crashes for some users.
Just use PG UP and PG DOWN for scrolling and END for jumping right to the last comment.
Sure, but what if I were to perhaps lose power or the browser crashes or something? I can’t select the last page I was on in my history or something if I were reading through it.
And it’s still a huge page to load.
It’s not going to. Only the most immediate posts in the thread should load in the browser (at least that’s how it always worked for me, even on a limited internet connection), so if you jump straight to the end, you will only get the most recent ones. And then those that you scroll to.