Well regardless if the devs add it or not, those of us on the PC will get it. 
2 Likes
FPP is more immersive to me than TPP, but I guess it depends on the person playing. I agree that a realistic world, realistic AI, engaging story can be another immersion factor, but it does not invalidate people’s opinion on FPP being (more) immersive than TPP. TPP tends to detach you from your character while FPP puts you in character and gives you an illusion of being in game. VR tech simply brings this viewpoint to another level.
I feel like I need to clarify once again why I (and I believe many of others) are vehemently against the option of third person. It is not because I don’t like third person games. It isn’t even because I would think that first person is somehow better.
What I am opposed to is having both first person and third person view in one game, because one of the options will suffer, or the game will take lot more time to create. And I think that having unpolished third person view would harm the game lot more than not having the option at all.
Implementing good third person view is not really easy as some people here seem to think. Yes it is easy to move the camera out of the characters body and it may immediately look ok, but good third person view requires slightly different handling of control, and lots of other small things to feel right.
I am completely if someone immediately after release creates third person mod. I am even ok if the Warhorse wants to dedicate time and create third person view some time after the release. What I would not like to happen is that Warhorse releases the game with some half-assed unpolished third person view or delays the release because they want to implement third person view.
I dont think it would be so “crude” as you seems to describe. After all, they wouldnt offer that at the first place and they are using it during their testing. Though yes, 3rd person view would only for outdoors and not for minigames or archery… but I cant see how this could hurt more than lack of the option.
1 Like
But this isn’t an issue because Dan said himself that they already pretty much have a third person view for the game, that they use for testing purposes, and implementing it [fully] would NOT take away any time from the game, or from any first person view features/completeness, etc.
Be careful; you’re starting to sound reasonable and that’s frowned upon here.
2 Likes
Did I miss some resolution to this topic? Simple search only turned up old threads, and looking at FAQ page gave no satisfactory answer.
Will there be the possibility to change to 3rd person view? Can I view my character in the game?
3rd person view is very complicated topic and will be
answered in one of the updates. Also you can see yourself in dialogues,
cutscenes and in the inventory (and you can rotate yourself). We may
introduce 3rd person view but the game will not be designed to be played
this way. You may think of Elder Scrolls series in this regard. Game
with 3rd person view and game designed for 3rd person view are two
different things. The latter always differs from a game designed for 1st
person view. Hybrids are no good.
So, going to necro this thread and risk the “wailing and the nashing of the teeth” because after playing the beta for only a little while, it is not enjoyable to me to be locked into 1st person view all the freaking time while just moving around.
I also play serious combat flight simulators (Rise of Flight, IL2 Cliffs of Dover, Battle of Stalingrad etc), so know all about importance of FPV and have Track IR myself. Kingdom Come in FPV makes me ill, and I NEVER get motion sick. Might have a lot to do with the sh!tty frames per second, but I also would prefer a TPV when I simply move around. Combat may need to be FPV for game engine, but simply moving around, no it doesn’t.
Those who might respond with varying degrees of “man-up”, or whatever, should just leave the thread, now. This is NOT a MP game so having a TPV will not affect those who only want a FPV game. Give me the choice, the one who paid a tidy sum of money, of how I want to play the game.
Those who reply “Devs need to concentrate time” don’t know WTF they are talking about. Allowing the camera position to simply change regarding how to render the game is a no-brainer code insertion. It’s already implemented in so many other great games. “Hybrid games are no good” ? Really??? Come on, think about a real viable answer before you embarrass yourself more…
There is no satisfactory answer for not allowing a TPV for players that choose to use it. Keep FPV for combat, agree 100% there, just give option for TPV for moving around and while on horse back.
1 Like
DrFusselpulli Community ManagerAug '15
At the time Vavra said about 50/50 it was more unclear. More voters in
percent at “No, Don´t” (above 20%) and less on site of “Yes, Do it!” (below 30%)
You can not say really about the others, are they more yes or no?
“I am OK with 3rd person view but I’ll play 1st view” Is it a yes or a no? Same on “I don’t care, give me the choice”.
Both answers does not mean “build in 3rd view”, but something in between yes or no. Its not easy to say in total how many people really want 3rd person view.
This is simply a ridiculous response, trying to obfuscate results from what is an otherwise well-worded survey.
If somebody voted “I am OK with 3rd person view but I’ll play 1st view” OR EVEN BETTER “I don’t care, give me the choice”, it very much means let the player have the choice, put in the TPV.
1 Like
Ah shit another necro, this campaign is getting really unbalanced guys we need more bards.
Choices are good
Options are swell
Give these people TPV
or they shall RAISE hell
The undead shall walk
and naw at ye flesh
let me see thine booty
or we will not cease our protest!
2 Likes
Should change your name to McWonderBard 
4 Likes
That is kinda true. But there is difference between enabling 3rd person view and making it into reliable and functional feature.
Testing process would be radically multiplied.
I think its great as it is, in the beginning it was alittle nauseating at first but you get used to it quickly. I straight up panicked the first time I fought someone and thought that it was awesome. 
1 Like
The choices are sure good
Options are not so swell
We dont have time for TPV
So we prepare for hell
Let undead walk
and naw at ye flesh
booty is mine
and wound is still fresh
1 Like
Oh sh1t… it’s a Bard-Off!!!
3 Likes
Well shit its a good thing im trollin
your ryhmes are weak and obviously stolen
I need not TPV, my reflections in water
your avatar looks like hagrid mated with potter
now don’t get upset its not personal attack
just making observations and giving you ryhmes to jack
Now await your mumbled rebuttal
I hope this display won’t get me in trouble
1 Like
Well shit its good you are trollin
For strong words you are spewin
And still, with a face of a troll
you insult me, the godly soul
And that awful name, McWonderBeast
with a screech of an animal deceased
I pray, a good day to you, sir
and wish, you lose just little of your fur
PS:
I dont need to jack your rhymes
cuz more than art, they are crimes
1 Like
Glad you fellows are enjoying yourselves in the rhyme joust; just like a Hollywood film where a spontaneous dance-off just happens.
Again, am not requesting/advocating that the combat go third person, no-no, only to be able to move around and on horse in TPV. I shouldn’t have to suffer discomfort to get to enjoy a game I paid for.
Again, TPV is a simple matter of allowing the ‘camera’ to have a different render point of view. This is not going to be some mind-bending coding exercise, it has been done before and supported by Cryengine already. It is out there and reliable.
It seems to be a no-brainer to allow players to have the choice, and they’ve already voted/polled in favor. Seems somebody wanted to deliberately bend the results though, and I find that highly detestable.
As I said above, it is not only about coding, the TPV actually exists in some raw form.
The problem, as I see it, is making it into a presentable form, debug it so you wont see through walls, remove all glitches etc.
Finally all this would have to be tested in various points of game and places. All this would take a lot of time.
this is just partialy true. If you look at the poll.
There is 60% (27+33) who are not apposed against TPV.
But there is also 65% (32+33) who would never use TPV.
so the results are not really one sided. And therefore it was decided that TPV wont be made as the game was originally presented as 1st person action game.
It really should be looked at as this:
68% were either ‘for’ or ‘not against’ the idea of TPV
where-as only 32% were against the notion entirely.
Regardless of whether they’d use the feature or not
For me, I think the survey options were not worded as best as they could’ve been. And in my mind, TPV should still have been implemented off the back of those survey results.
I’d wager that if there was another TPV survey, with a clear Yes, No, or Give me the Option… I think we’d end up with it in the final game.
2 Likes
Aye. That is probably true.
1 Like