It’s too small due to your high resolution… 
But yes… 
Really? You can’t click on it to enlarge?
btw: I lowered the resolution. Was way higher before (Downsampling). 
Here you can see what has been changed:
Did you read that? The console version came 2 years later!
And they got nothing better to do than to censor it.
"All other splatter-effects, like the chopping off arms and legs or the cutting of the Goblins in halves, were removed."
Well damn!
Looks like that was a waste of 3 dollars. If I can’t chop goblins in half, then I say “No thank you, sir!”
I will pick up a copy on Steam and revel in Goblinostronomy!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!
Ahem, sorry…
[quote=“Cerberus, post:52, topic:9924”]
Really? You can’t click on it to enlarge?[/quote]
Ahem, yes. Haven’t tried that tbh… 
The Steam verison I bought a few days ago is uncensored, even the German version.
For that “total 1st person” suggestion up there… it sounds somewhat extreme, don’t you think? (I know, probably not, but anyway…) 
If the game was in full 1st person, it would for example kill about half of the purpose for wich the complex layered system of dressing customization was created. Of course, in part it has its purely practical side wich helps you combine your very own idea of armor combination, but just like with any other game it also serves the visual purpose of customizing your character for many people who are playing it. And why else would you do that then, if you actually can’t see the character in the game other than in a small preview window in the inventory and through a very limited 1st person downside view? That’s one pretty flushed away character customization option.
That’s why, contrary to weapons, the clothes/armor of the main char in Dark Messiah had so little space in the game. That game was really tailored for the 1st person (and it’s a great one, one of my favourites as well), but doing the same for KCD would seriously limit the options this game has.
The 1st person gameplay/3rd person storytelling compromise doesn’t hurt a game in any way. It actually (if done well) can offer a perfect balance of the best from both worlds (movie-like narrative + actuall-being-there-like gaming experience). I also played games like Deus Ex 1 or Human Revolution a couple of times and it never even occured to me that this could be inferior to a full 1st person. Just another approach that works just as well (if not better really, but that’s already pretty subjective, I suppose).
You mentioned you had a chance to try Oculus Rift, which is probably what makes you so enthusiastic about it (well, definitely good for you!), but how many people would seriously be playing KCD with a fancy piece of hardware like this anyway? My guess is there would be definitely more people playing it on any of those two consoles alone than those who use even Oculus Rift on top of all that on all platforms combined.
[quote=“PhanTom_CZ, post:55, topic:9924”]it would […] kill about half of the purpose for wich the complex layered system of dressing customization was created.
[/quote]
No, the purpose was to save work and time because Warhorse is such a small team.
Customizing your character’s clothes in the same way is just an side effect.
Don’t get me wrong: personally I think 3rd person is better suited for an RPG like that (for the various reasons you listed). But this is a first person game by choice and so why not making the best out of it? Either you take 3rd person with its strenghts and weaknesses or you take 1st person with its strenghts and weaknesses. A mix up is just a bad compromise imo, not knowing what you really want to achieve.
I don’t have a problem with armor I cannot see all the time. It’s not really important to me. The four layers of clothing is there for evey NPC as well and not only for the main character if I understand the system correctly. And of course you could just watch down to see your body and armour. First person cutscenes don’t limit the options of the game, it just prevents you from seeing yourself (your character) apart from the inventory screen. But as I said, you have to make sacrificies: what do you want with your game? What’s your primary goal? Immersion? Or fancy eye-candy stuff? And it seems that you don’t think that first person cutscenes can’t be done well. I tend to disagree here. Of course they can be done well, they just serve another purpose. They try to enhance your experience as “being” the character, as living through his eyes. Third person cutscenes try in fact to be more like a movie.
And I still think that 3rd person cutscenes are a bad idea and I delivered good reasons for it while you people just say something like “I played Deus Ex. I liked the game.” Maybe you should consider that first person cutscenes in Deus Ex would have even been better? I mean Deus Ex was a great game but tbh, not for its cutscenes but for its gameplay and i’s choice and consequence systems and stuff.
You somehow forgot to quote the phrase “half of”, which I didn’t write just by a chance. Although I get it. A “third of” might have been more appropriate.
If that “fancy eye-candy stuff” was as unimportant as you make it sound, we would be still playing mostly just text-based games like the original Wasteland today. Do you think that Brian Fargo is developing Wasteland 2 in a full graphical in-game environment only because it’s trendy right now? People have eyes and they just like to watch stuff.
Maybe I overlooked it because I’m tired. Going to bed now. Later!
btw: quote fixed
Just as a sidenote, while Dark Messiah was nice and had visible body, if we are to be precise, then FEAR already had visible body a year before Dark Messiah. I played both.
I mentioned Crysis because KCD runs on its engine, and in Crysis not only was the body visible, but hands actually picked up items, which I do not think was the case in Dark Messiah (though I might be mistaken, do not really remember anymore).
Yeah, it wasn’t the only game that featured that.
The new Thief is good at using the hands ingame like real hands. Sadly, the rest of the game more or less seem to suck.
Please don’t try to belittle my arguments by exaggeration. That’s not a good discussion style… 
It didn’t say that the whole game should look bad. Not at all. I said that it should stay consistent. I titled 3rd person cutscenes as “eye-candy” in this context since these cutscenes are used to make the game more movie-like, to offer something for the eye to watch from a fancy movie perspective (how we’re used to watch movies) instead of trying to stay in perspective to uphold immersion and believability. A first person cutscenes can be damn good-looking as well of course. It’s not a question of graphical quality, it’s a question of game design.
Well, sorry, but you belittling the role of all that “eye candy” is just as much unfair.
Modern virtual games as a medium have generally a great deal in common with film and literature (kinda like a third side of a triangle). Criticising the use of filmmaking methods is essentially a nonsense. Like criticising a deep and elaborate setting and story with long and “boring” branching dialogues where you could make a simple and straightforward shootthemallup! FPS action. Which would also be more down-to-the-core of gaming.
It’s all a question of game design…
I guess I didn’t make my point clear enough so let me try to put it this way: I don’t think cutscenes are bad in general and I do appreciate the methods of filmmaking in games. But imo the styles of these methods have to fit to the overall vision and goals of the game. So why using 3rd person cutscenes in a first person game? A game which you as a developer decided in the first place to be first person since you wanted the game as immersive as possible. As Dan said himself, if you want to achieve a story-driven game centered around a certain predefined character you would more profit from a 3rd person view which is in fact a perspective we know a lot better from movies. So the whole game is designed around the two buzzwords realism and immersion. Every minute of gameplay is created with the vision immersion > watchability. So why should you chose to break that basic vision of your game by using a different perspective in cutscenes which necessarily breaks immersion to some extend? It just makes no sense. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t use some kind of “eye-candy” stuff or cutscenes. In fact you could do exactly the same thing just in first person perspective. Of course - and that’s the real challenge here and maybe also the real reason why Warhorse seems to with 3rd person cutscenes - decent first person cutscenes are hard to make, especially when movement (of your own character) is involved and your sight has to be directed. It affords a lot of thinking and clever (cutscene) design to make engaging and cool first person cutscenes but they are not impossible, not at all. 3rd person cutscenes may be the much easier version but they imo also take away from the very basic goals of this game. In life, you just usually just cannot kill two bird with one stone. In the end you could still lack the skill, money or time (which is indeed very likely) to achieve everything you wanted but it’s at least worth to try or even to think about…
I’ve lost track of who is debating what here, but I cannot throw my hand in with those who want all 1st person.
I agree that it would be awesome, novel, and achieve maximum immersion, but I’m not sure I want that at the cost of the extra stuff you see as the player, that Henry would not be able to see from his perspective.
A first person cutcutscene comes with that unfortunate consequence. If Henry is trying to avoid being impaled by an incoming spear, how will he also see the moment he dodges and it hits his comrade in arms? With a third person view, we get to see both.
Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of any such cutscene in the actual game
1 Like
Well, if you ask me you should ask yourself that question before you make a first person game. For me it’s some lazy design, some cheap opt-out to bring in 3rd person through the back door. There are numerous first person games which didn’t have 3rd person cutscenes as I wrote above. It’s by no means a “new” or “radical” feature. It’s even the most obvious solution.
3rd person and 1st person are two very different things on a very basic level. From a design point of view imho they cannot combined in a fitting and meaningful way since they follow two very different design principles: being the character and watching the character. Imagine a book (although it’s not completely the same there) in which the perspective changes between first person and third person from time to time. Doesn’t sound that good, does it? In a consistent first person story you cannot leave the character and his body. You sense what he senses.
That’s one of the main reason why I think 3rd person is a better fit for an RPG than first person (while first person is a good choice for a linear action game for example): you have way more freedom with 3rd person since you only watch the main character without being him. That way you can even show areas far away from your character, like for example an event at a different time or place. It’s all possible since you’re just watching an interactive movie (yeah, that’s indeed true even at that stage) and the same rules to movies also apply here. First person instead is something that doesn’t exist in movies. It’s exclusive to games (and books). With VR the strenghts of this perspective are as high as never before but they come with some costs like a restrictive array of methods and styles you could use when aiming for a consitent and really immersive experience (which is the key goal in first person games anyway).
Combining 1st person and 3rd person seems to me like a game searching for its identity, sorry. It’s a game which wants too much and therefore loses its basic design vision. Many game with this “problem” have been done, no question, and even some of them are great. But they still suffer from this issue and as games get more and more realistic and first person gets more and more immersive (think VR again) the issue gets even more urging. It’s easy to call Deus Ex a good game despite its mix of perspectives since the game wasn’t very immersive in first person in the first place. The tech was just too clumsy and not realistic enough. But time changes and so does tech and some old design problems which seemed minor 10 years ago can become important today…
And there’s the Mafia II sale through Steam. 75% off until tomorrow morning.
lol mafia 2 was probably reason dan left. it was watered down, constricted, and casualized for the mainstream.
when studio does that, developer with vision will jump ship!
You have no idea why Dan left. Don’t be so negative all the time, it’s getting annoying…
Mafia II was a quality action game. Being more accessible isn’t a bad thing by nature by the way.
Still, I wanted to give both of the games a try and with the recommendation I grab the PC version of Mafia II since it’s not hindered by the poor port PS3 got, I was just waiting for a good sale.