Very true. It is a matter of personal taste.
But the key thing is: first person perspective is not “more realistic.” For each dimension by which one can objectively suggest that a FPP is a “more accurate” representation of human perception and action, one can point out where the limitations of current technology undermine the accuracy/realism of FPP, and also where the TPP fills in these gaps.
For example: FOV would need to be more in the ballpark of 160 to 180 and with perhaps the peripheral 50 degrees largely unresolved until the camera is shifted to those spots. While this would “technically” be a more accurate aka “realistic” way to represent human perception on a flat screen it would also fail at this task terribly because the user was looking at a screen, not a VR wraparound goggle. The effect of trying to render that many pixels on even the widest wide screens and with that much blur around the edges would like best be called “Nausea Simulator 2019.”
This is just one factor in why the idea that a FPP “is more realistic” is nonsensical, but I don’t want to belabor it.
Suffice to say: there is no empirical or logical basis to argue that an FPP “is more realistic” a perspective in a traditional format action game than any other format. While there is plenty of objective basis to note that a third person perspective IS LESS realistic and an isometric arguably even MORE UNREALISTIC, this technical acknowledgement that “no one sees from a perspective behind themselves or far behind and above themselves as if they were a disembodied spirit . . .” does not however mean that, a FPP or even an Isometric perspective cannot be the “better choice” when it comes to evoking realism in the art of a video game.
It is all representations, and they always involve abstractions, simplifications, over-generalizations, inaccuracies, and downright falsehoods in order to achieve “realism.” The game strives for more realism than most and I have to say it is “successful,” but one should not confuse that with the conclusion that KCD is the “eptiome” of realism or achieves 99.9% realism fidelity. That is literally impossible.
Realism is only good in moderation, though the extent to which “moderate” is depends.
War in the Pacific Admiral’s Edition, arguably one of the “most realistic” simulations ever made. The game represents the entire pacific theater of WWII and includes instances for literally EVERY SINGLE WARSHIP and significant merchant marine vessel . . . every single air unit . . . every single ground unit of battalion size or larger (and many of smaller size too). The way combat works, the way one can literally play the war out day-by-day with a turn system that makes good sense given the scale at which the game plays (basically a morning, and an evening phase for each day). Supply, morale, training, casualties, bombing, dog fights, hell! it even matters what altitude you tell your air groups to patrol at! The P-39 aircobra for example (if memory serves) does quite well at higher altitudes, but sucks below about 20,000 feet?
The level of detail and effort to “achieve realism” in the game is mind-boggling.
Nonetheless, the game is not “realistic” and arguably isn’t very realistic at all. Why?
Because the actual bureacratic, logistical and distributive mechanics that determine “how decisions are made and how grand strategy get transformed into trigger pulls and foot steps in the field” is completely farcical.
The player is in the role of FDR or Hirohito, i.e., the commander in chief of the nation, and there is nothing unrealistic about that. However, if we were to accurately represent, that is to say REALISTICALLY represent the experience of FDR or Hirohito in their administration of their nations grand strategy in the pacific war, what would it actually look like?
Well, you could probably achieve it with the art work and animations for ONE ROOM, lets say the Oval office for FDR. After going home and resting, you’d arrive at the office (First person perspective only, and with those nausea inducing visual parameters I described above). You’d make your way in your wheelchair/walker to your desk and sit down at the crack of dawn with your telephone and letter opener and crack into the war. Most of what the player would deal with would be letters, with the occasional map or photograph, and less frequently a dialogue interaction with one or more NPCs. Every action you’d take would also be in those same forms: either written letters or verbal orders to NPCs. Then you’d go to bed, and you might NEVER know what the actual effect of any given order or directive you gave was. In some cases, things like that were not deciphered from the post-war intell for decades! Hell, people are still to this day debating how/why the Battle of Midway was won by the Yanks.
All this to say: striving too hard for “realism” is a fools errand. It is impossible to achieve, and if one becomes too blinkered by the goal, and in particular if one falls prey to one of the fallacies like “First Person Perspective is ‘more realistic’” one stands to actual produce something that is LESS IMMERSIVE and thus less realistic.
ADDIT: Ah actually my memory of the P-39 was REVERSED! It performs pretty well against other early war fighters at lower altitudes, but its lack of a super-charger made it very ineffective at HIGHER altitudes