3rd person continuation

Gameplay
#82

Doesn’t matter… 3rd person allows cheating and isn’t as immersive as 1st person. Warhorse said they want KC: D to be immersive.

You really need to realize, that game camera does matter for game design! Not only stealth mechanics where it has biggest influence…

Game was announced as FPS… everyone who supported project on Kickstarter supported FPS. I just don’t understand why are you trying to force 3rd person in it. What do you think Bioware/EA would do if small group of people started whining that they want Dragon Age to have 1st person option. Or any fps to have 3rd person.

#83

And one more thing… Its like demanding 360° camera rotation with Divinity Original Sin.
Fact that game went trougth kickstarter doesn’t mean that anybody can demand any changes in game!

#84

Really, I understand the camera is important, but it’s not a “scratch” rebuild. Also, I don’t really care about Bioware/EA, I’m talking to the Warhorse team, and I’m a potential customer, so let’s not delude ourselves into thinking there’s something wrong with potential customers wanting something.

To be blunt, I think it’s rather sick that you’re attempting to demonize customers making requests and suggestions that they would really like to see, as the third person market is a large segment on it’s own, and will likely increase their funding and product sales. Whether or not it was funded on kickstarter has nothing to do with whether or not we make suggestions. I, and other like-minded customers will suggest what we would like to see, and the decision of whether or not to agree or disagree with the suggestion is up to the Warhorse Team, not you.

Second, as for cheating, I don’t really think there’s anything cheating about that, I’m NOT talking about this kind of third person:

I’m talking about this kind of 3rd person:

The Reason this isn’t cheating is because the FOV in traditional first-person games is rather more of a “tunnel vision” perspective without the standard “awareness” levels that humans realistically have, similarly, the ease of “left-right-up-down” looking while moving and attacking is different from the ease of a neck-turn in real life. For this reason, a zoomed in 3rd person perspective does not provide advantages that you would not have in real life save for a slight advantage in “behind-the-back” sight, but only when the enemy is super close to you (as it’s a zoomed in perspective)

2 Likes
#85

Take a look the posts from the guys trying to demonize those who want 3rd person, there is no possible way people are spewing that kind of nonsense just because they “understand our concern, but are just looking out for the warhorse team”

They don’t care about 3rd person because they are happy with 1st person, those of us who can’t really get into 3rd person are essentially told to “fuck off.” No, I’m not wrong here, these people are in no way impacted by the optional 3rd person, so let’s not kid ourselves here.

2 Likes
#86

The impact comes if it takes production time away from their vision of the game and causes it to be delayed. Sorry, but I’m not interested in that being an outcome of this just because some people want Warhorse to add in something they’re not interested in doing.

#87

I would agree, but lets get serious here, there is no such thing as options as common as 3rd person taking away a team’s focus from something else, IF the funding comes in for it, because it would likely require a few more people to be hired to help with the conversion. What we’re asking for isn’t outrageous.

And, we can’t really say it’s a few or alot of people at the moment, this thread is known as a “voluntary response” sample, meaning those of us who comment on it likely have a vested interest in or against the suggestion. The guys at warhorse would have to do some kind of analysis to determine what the market for it is. Again, it’s up to them, but I will not stand for people demeaning customers who make suggestions that in no way impact their experience (not talking to you Flashfire, you’re fine, its Matthew1J that’s got me so fired up right now.)

1 Like
#88

Ah these hilarious people. No pledge from them, but they loudly demand all kinds of silly stuff as 3rd person view, katanas, medieval sim city …

4 Likes
#89

You know, some of us didnt find out about this game till after the kickstarter, right?

You also know that the pledge site JUST started working, right?

You know people have the right to make suggestions without donating, right?

2 Likes
#90

And people also have rigth to criticize them… and argument against them.

#91

As a realistic medieval game they should stick to First person. After all you don’t see yourself from afar either.

#92

And neither you wear a monitor rim in front of you.

1 Like
#93

Definetly. But not based on their pledge. I don’t see any reason to even mention it.

2 Likes
#94

Argue against their suggestion, not against them. I’m tired of hearing crap about the kickstarter, pledging, or about “whiney customers” or anything that refers to the group of people suggesting it.

Argue the topic of third person, NOT against the people who want third person.

But for the record, just to set this straight, I’m waiting to see if they will add a physical collector’s edition to the pledge site before I pledge, since I don’t wanna go for the digital viscount only to have them add a physical copy afterwards.

See my thread here: Physical Collector's Edition

2 Likes
#95

Just a note for all those who are talking about how warhorse wants us to experience the game, lets get serious here, it’s likely going to be modded in when the game is released, this is not a question about them changing the game experience or anything, it’s not like we’re asking them to change the time period, setting, or anything of that nature, all we’re asking for is camera options.

1 Like
#96

Yes. If you can’t debate the point itself and express criticisms that way, don’t get involved. As soon as people start insulting others for their POVs it goes to crap.

1 Like
#97

Just stop trolling. Don’t bother. There will be no 3rd person view as was stated long time ago.

If you really want it so hard, wait for mods, but don’t force it to the vanilla game for all of us, thanks.

1 Like
#98

they want to create full body awareness, to do that, they need a lot of time and resources going into first person mode and not any other perspective modes. anything else takes time away from it and can result in lower quality full body awareness. i don’t understand why this is so hard to understand.

3rd person mod will come out after mod tools are done. thanks.

#99

I wrote it somewhere in the forum already once, but I think it bears repeating.

First: properly implementing third person perspective is much harder than it seems that most of the people imagine. You can’t just reuse the code for first person. Within combat it requires different timings and different controls feel natural. I think it is better to properly polish the game with one specific point of view than try for switching. This was intended and presented from start as first person game adding third person view would affect combat and quest design. It also can have impact on world design (what works for first person doesn’t work for third person and vice versa). Yes you can have both. Skyrim is prime example of that, both first person and third person there have issues that could be IMHO avoided if they concentrated only on one point of view. There are number of compromises in design and implementation to allow the switching to work.

Second: From what I seen there are only two objective reasons for wanting third person (“I want it” doesn’t count as objective reason). Vanity (I want to see how my character looks) easily solved either by mirrors or some screenshot like option. And more importantly some people suffer simulation sickness in first person mode. To be honest the simulation sickness is not inherent to first person mode it is just that third person mode has usually more options in preventing it (mostly steady camera while character moves). I have seen third person games that made me sick. The simulation sickness is more not enough testing and bad design issue than first person issue. There is enough research done on this subject that it is relatively easy to adopt measures that prevent people from getting sick (FOV slider, option to turn of view bobbing…)

1 Like
Camera Options and Possibilities, Not asking for much
#100

I would add a peripheral vision reason. Third person perspective is somehow better at this. For some people the tunnel vision is as disturbing as flying camera behind the character for others.

#101

That fits under the simulation sickness. And can be solved by intelligently implemented FOV (FOV - field of view)

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz