You don’t understand they chosen to not allow 3PS purposely. 
And its running in circles again.
In 3PS you can peek around corners or above walls without fear of being detected. Thats just cheat breaking stealth mechanics. In combat you can see whats behind you. Thats another cheat. 3PS isn’t reallistic at all.
1PS/3PS matters to game desing.
Ok, here’s another idea I’ve got.
I tried to put it into some kind of Q&A form.
Why did Warhorse create the game in 1st person specifically?
Because they wanted to!
It’s very likely that they designed the game deliberately for 1st-person only because they want you to experience the game in this way.
For example, in films, the director has a scene already in his mind before shooting it, maybe even the solutions how to achieve this vision. He has ideas how the setting has to look, which perspectives and angles have to be used, how the actors have to move and how they have to say something etc. This way he can emphasize certain aspects he deems important while he is also able to evoke a particular range of emotions in the viewer.
So, the unavailability of 3rd-person basically boils down to the fact (apart from the major redesign effort we already know of) that they don’t want the player to use 3rd-person because it can’t deliver the experience they’re striving for or have envisioned when they were starting to develop the game. Consequently they’ve chosen to take this approach out of artistic reasons.
Therefore it’s not just about “Can they do it?” (feasibility) but also about “Do they want to do it?” (intention). I think, that should also be considered in this whole thought process.
We believe that FPV allows for better immersion in the world
Just a little thought on the whole “Why no 3rd-person?” thing.
I mentioned this also in a similar thread.
What do you think of first person?
(a little bit more neatly arranged)
Backers: 35,384
pledged: £1,106,371
goal: £300,000
tier quantity price total
in £ in £
__________________________________________________
Peasant 355 3 1,065 min/4,970 max
Soldier¹ 8,653 15 129,795
Knight¹ 6,332 20 126,640
Soldier² 765 20 15,300
Baron¹ 8,048 25 201,200
Knight³ 1,817 25 45,425
Baron³ 4,945 30 148,350
Viscount¹³ 994 40 39,760
Earl° 2,100 65 136,500
Duke° 680 125 85,000
King* 242 300 72,600
Wenzel* 50 600 30,000
Emperor* 50 600 30,000
Pope* 10 1,200 12,000
Illuminatus* 2 3,000 6,000
Saint* 3 5,000 15,000
¹ digital
² physical
³ special edition
° collector's edition
* limited collector's editionExcept some people are fine with 3rd person views, stealth with skyrim in 3rd person is broken to people like me, the game is after all a video game not real life, there is some immersion in them but it’s nothing compared to what you experience in reality.
I’m not running in circles, you and others I’ve seen purposely can’t let it go and feel the urge to go “no you’re wrong I ened to feel right in what I say!”, why not, I dunno ignore my post if you feel it hurts your psyche.
At the end of the day I can see this game not being super realistic, because if it were it would have to include everything from reality and I mean everything and that’s just not possible for certain aspects of the real world and you have to accept that at the end of the day it will just be a video game, not another extension of your otherwise average life.
I’m not sure what the debate between FPV and TPV has to do with the how ultimately realistic Warhorse is able to make the game, nor what it has to do with people trying to pretend it’s a way to escape a boring life, but nice strawman argument there.
I think we know Warhorse is striving for as much realism as possible while understanding there are certain things that work and don’t work in a video game. The FPV choice is theirs, they’ve given enough reason why they prefer it, and people who still demand they reconsider are effectively spitting into the wind by now.
Yep! Someone needs to go say this to the American media now! 
You mean Skyrim where you are invisible while crouching? Skyrim has beter meele combat in FPS than its ancestors but it’s still meh. KC wants to be oposite.
It won’t be superrealistic. It will be realistic. Devs have some vision (presented in videoupdates, KS page and their website) and some people here are demanding them to change it. Vast majority of backers paid devs for making game Warhorse wants to create. Not to change it first.
It hurts my eyes…
If it hurts your eyes then kindly look the other way, it only cements my point when people just cannot let go.
Just read a confirmation about no 3rd person in the game on the kickstarter page, I strongly disagree, I think they should totally re-consider this and, if needed, note how much would be required to get such a thing in (on the kickstarter page they had a chart, where if they reached X amount we would Y feature)
you can mod it in afterwards. at the end of the day, you can’t make someone compromise their vision jsut because you cannot adapt to a different style of perspective.
when a game is third person, i play third person, when it is first person, i play first person.
i don’t get why this entitled attitude comes from. maybe from the fact that people don’t want to try new things? i feel sorry for them.
the hole point of this hole croudfunding thing is to make a game without haveing to compromise the vision so more people by it.
And take more time to build something in that they have no intention of doing, which would delay the game’s completion and release?
No thanks.
They are making a game based around the first person experience. It’s their right to stick to that vision and your right to take it or leave it.
If enough people want 3rd person and enough money is raised to make it happen, then the decision for whether or not it can be done lies with the developers. I would say we leave it to them, because in reality, those who are saying “it would compromise the game, not interested” are likely not interested in 3rd person view at all.
My suggestion to them is that 3rd person has it’s own market-base, which makes it a potential selling point if implemented and potential deal breaker if not implemented, the same would be said for a game that includes only 3rd person view and not first person view.
warhorse shall have balls and say no to 3rd person, no compromise to the original vision please!
Leaving it up to Warhorse will mean no 3rd person, so that’s fine.
And, TGIRGIS, you’re wrong about the suspicion that people who think it would compromise this game aren’t interested in 3rd person at all. I’m fine with it depending on the usage and design of a game. I just don’t think it fits the way they’re making this one at all with the focus on motion capture from a first-person perspective.
3rd person? No. No. Please don’t. Nooo. There are many other console(ish) games to satisfy the narcissists’ needs to watch “themselves” performing smooth moves and sweet kills while wearing swag clothing and armour. It ruins the immersion into the game - at least i feel it that way. Can you see yourself from behind during everyday life? Of course not. But if there really are many people demanding it - OK, let’s make it an option (like in Skyrim for example).
Oh come on man! We’re arguing for 3rd person as an OPTION not as “change this game from first to third person.” You shouldn’t be opposed to it because you yourself don’t play first person, that makes you neutral, so why oppose something that doesn’t effect you!
No no, what I mean is that you’re FINE with playing in 1st person, so, there is a risk (chance, not gauranteed) that the game will be compromised due to a shift in developer focus to something like 3rd person, but you are FINE with playing in 1st person, thus you opt to oppose third person because you have no issue playing in 1st and don’t want to risk compromising the game. I kind of phrased it wrong, it’s not that I think you could “care less” or “hate” 3rd person, it’s that you are OK with playing in 1st person, where some people can’t stand first person. In my opinion, options are more beneficially to target a broader market base, but, I understand the fear that 3rd person may compromise the game’s quality. It’s a completely legitimate point of view.
Essentially, I’m one of the people who really love 3rd person (zoomed in 3rd person though, not like that crappy DOTA style “above” view) but am not such a big fan of 1st person, I really don’t know why or how to explain it, I love immersion, but for some reason I just don’t feel as engaged in 1st person as I do with 3rd person (I know it’s weird). So, with that said, imagine if this game was being made purely in 3rd person, and I came onto a thread that asked for first person and said “Nah, don’t really want 1st person because it might compromise the game.” I’m saying that because in reality, the lack of 1st person is not important to me, so I don’t want to risk the game’s quality for something that doesn’t matter to me anyways like first person.
Now in reality I would never oppose a 3rd person game adding 1st person as an option, even though it really doesn’t impact me, but that’s because I believe that the key to success is a focus on options.
As has been pointed out multiple times, this is precisely what the argument centres around. The combat system is being designed around the first person. 3rd person mechanics would mean rebuilding from scratch.
Rebuilding from scratch? I’m under the impression that it would be a ton of work, and sure some things may need to be re-scripted, but it wouldn’t be quite as daunting as a full “from scratch” rebuild.
Atleast that’s the impression I’m under, if it is rebuilding from scratch, then I would see the controversy, however, the developers would be hard pressed to prove that it would require a full “from scratch” rebuild
a ton of work the devs want to devote to something that will enhance crucial aspects of the game rather than providing an option just to please certain people who may want to get used to playing from a 1st person perspective.