You seem to have trouble controlling your rage, since you already apologized for being rude before. I didn’t make a new poll with the hope of clarifying opinions just to have people insult each other all over again.
1 Like
Dude, quoting an argument and addressing it are not the same thing. I said that you were only addressing portions of what I said. I really could care less how much of my actual text you quote. I believe I have addressed what you were saying to me. I don’t feel that I have to quote the whole post in order to do that.
Also, I am not going to answer your question, because you have assumed a great deal about me before asking. Such as, you have assumed I am straight. You have assumed I am religious. You have assumed I believe and/or follow the bible. I am not saying any of those are true or false. I am simple accusing you of having assumed those things about me when asking your question regarding my “character”.
1 Like
He is mad that i left out the part where is vote is equal to my vote. which is obviously true. He is using the argument that i am leaving out parts of his argument when the only piece of argument i left out was his argument that his vote is equal to mine.
@Night1505 i apologize for that statement. But you have not replied to the multiple reasoning that i have posted.
To make it easier for you to reply to each argument that i have made that you left out from your response. To make things fair for both of us they are listed below.
-
By voting no you take away the option of someone else from playing the way they want. By voting yes you are still allowed to play first person in your single player game, and people are allowed to play third person in there single player game. What is your response to this?
-
People get motion sick in first person view. What is your response to people who have motion sickness?
-
There is at least 50% of people who want 3rd person. 50% of backers(people who paid money) only ask that it is made an option for their own single player experience that does not affect anyone else playing their single player game. What is your response to this?
my response to this is that i voted yes even though i am going to be playing the majority of this game in first person. So in the very rare chance that Hellboy decides to use this thread as the voting system for yes and no to third person. And your vote was the difference between yes and no, and because you decided to vote no instead of yes. You wont be bothered with it. But if you voted yes. You STILL would not have been bothered by it. What is your argument to support no still?
Again. I apologize for the rudeness and only “listening” to parts of your argument. But looking at your replies i feel as if you only “listened” to some of mine. So if you would be kind enough to answer mine. I would appreciate it very much.
I literally said in between the words that i do not actual know your political views. it was purely figuratively.
I edited this post to add “know” and “your” after actual
I’d rather leave politics/religion out of this whole thing anyway, because whether or not a game has a TPV is not even remotely on the same level of gay marriage.
i understand i just felt like if i reworded it to be a more known political debate going on, that he would be able to connect that with the debate between FPV and TPV. Both are very similar figuratively speaking.
OMFG dude… *sigh… if you insist…
-
It is not already in the game. Months ago, @warhorse was almost sure they were not even going to put it in the game. My vote of “No” simply indicates I would prefer they stick to their original strategy. I never once argued why I would prefer this. Others have mentioned reasons such as “more work”, “more money”, “less focus”, “original vision” (I’m paraphrasing for speed), but I have not argued for or against any of these. I simply stated my preference, not reasons for. I don’t think the poll requires I do so and I certainly don’t feel that I must answer to you either.
-
People who have motion sickness when playing FPV games should not play FPV games. Also, people who are afraid of heights should not climb trees, people who get seasick shouldn’t sail, and people who are allergic to dogs shouldn’t own them. If @warhorse wants to address people who do have motion sickness while playing FPV games, then that is good. I respect them more as a company for knowing their audience and addressing the issue. Do I suffer from motion sickness when viewing things from FPV? No. Thus, my sympathies for those that do are not enough to influence my vote. And you have no right or place to say that they should.
-
Just because I’m not in the majority does not take away my right to voice my opinion or vote the way I choose. I do not change my vote simply because I’m faced with overwhelming opposition. I might if I were presented with compelling evidence, however so far you have failed to present me with any.
-
Even if that highly unlikely situation were the case, why is the one vote my vote as opposed to anyone else’s vote? You have chosen me to represent the entire population of “No” voters… not me. I represent exactly one person, and one vote.
Now, you have two options. You can once again have trouble “internalizing your frustration” simply because what you believe to be compelling evidence has failed to sway me, and you can insult and question me some more, or you can accept the fact that I can vote how I so choose, and have any reasons I choose for doing so. I’m sorry that your arguments have failed to make me change my vote. I’d also like to point out that at no point have I indicated that I wish you to change yours. I’m not sure why you chose to set your cross hairs on me to begin with, save that I expressly mentioned that I did not want to state my opinion, for fear of being attacked. But there you have it.
Simple Poll but someone must start the discussion again.
Really these persons don’t know how to use a forum!
Why you all can’t life with the coice! God damn!
one Poll/Thread/discuisson was not enough!
I’m sorry man. I really didn’t mean to get sucked into that. 
@andrewgilmore
So you claim yourself to be a libertarian?
But the only option you want to give people is “Yes”.
Seems more like the mindset of a dictator!
Free will my ass!
And if someone doesn’t want to state one’s reason(s) you can’t force them to, especially in a simple poll like this.
Libertarian?
More like Gestapo!
Except for the people that don’t want that stuff, right?
Of course, we aren’t allowed to express our opinion.
Here, just another example of this absolutistic Gestapo mentality:
That’s why you should read the description of something before you buy it.
This game was set out to be 1st person only!
Because this will corrupt the artistic vision (proclaimed on Kickstarter and for a long time after that).
If your artistic vision is driven by greed¹ then you’re doing it wrong.
And another thing is people suggested prioritizing the improvement of core and other features first.
So additional raised funds should be used for that.
Also there’s a notion to scrap specific stretch goals altogether because to keep adding and adding stuff all the time can even make things worse (feature creep).
€dit:
¹Just to be clear.
In this case I don’t think it’s greed but to bow to the masses and compromise your artistic vision for a few extra bucks is not worth it.
There are many financially successful 1st person only games out there.
The Half-Life series, Portal, BioShock, Doom, F.E.A.R., Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Halo etc …
Even Crysis sold good and made a profit on PC alone!
(but that wasn’t enough for greedy Crytek so they accused PC gamers of piracy and focused on consoles. At this point the series and their money started to go downhill. Served them right. That’s what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you! I bought the fucking Collector’s Editon for almost 70€!)
Also, as mentioned by @LordCrash, people didn’t stop pledging significant amounts of money previously without any stretch goal in sight.
Wanna play with wording? LOL. So where is the word only, you Einstein…
After reading the originla tread and this I inevitably came to the conclusion that it is not vanting TPV just for sake of not wanting it. I found that pretty selfish and malicious.
Things like “I pledged for first person” (and that picture!) - that irrelevant. This game will be still FPV mainly.
Artistic vision - same as in previous case. That vision is still happening. There just may be an option.
Not mention reasosn like people having FPV shouldnt play FPV…
Ahh…
It wont cost fortune and it wont cause delay. Most importanty however, it is ment as option for God sake! Alternative if you will.
Option - thats all what it is about. Option and trust that Dan wont be implementing something that will harm his game.
So far, it seems that some people just want others to play in the way they found the only correct way and thats sad.
3 Likes
No, that’s the core of game design. You always limit posibilities to create a specific experience. Nobody complains that you can’t play Assassin’s Creed in first person. Nobody complains that you can’t play Half Life in third person. People just accept games for what they are and for what experience they devs want to provide with their games. There is a certain point in game development and design at which you (should) have to accept that you can’t and shouldn’t cater to everybody and every taste and that by limiting your game and design you strengthen its vision and uniqueness. There is also a certain principle in game design that you shouldn’t do things half-assed. Either you treat features as full additions to the game or you better cut them. Half-assed features not only threaten to delay development they also threaten to take down the overall quality of the game itself. Game devs should consider which features they really want to include and which experience they want to offer and then they should concentrate on the core features and make them as perfect as possible before even thinking about “secondary” features.
I also think that it’s probably way too early in development to even talk about the topic. So far we weren’t able to test combat for ourselves in the alpha. As far as I know sword combat is the only form of combat implemented so far (no axes, no shields, no polearms, no maces, no knives). Other core features like sneaking, stealing, “playing as a bard” and so on are also not implemented. Stuff like dialogues is just bare-bone so far.
I would really advice Warhorse to implement these basic features first and make them as perfect as possible in 1st person (there are already a lot of possible problems ahead with this one…) Then - in a few months - they could still think about the possiblity of enabling 3rd person and giving it the “full” treatment instead of offering a half-assed mode as simple fan catering.
And one thing about trust: I think Warhorse is capable of delivering a great game. But they are just humans and game development is among the most insecure and most complicated businesses and industries you could think of. Many things can go wrong, even for seasoned developers who know their stuff. Many problems can arise, problems you didn’t even think of at the time of speaking. It’s easy to make promises and to announce new features but it’s a lot harder to make a great game in which all these features make up a fulfilling and fun experience. Just bear that in mind and respect that I don’t give much about trust here. I think the “trust argument” is faulty in itself.
On a side not: Please stop talk about other people, that’s just bad discussion style and doesn’t strengthen anything you’ve said. Talk about the topic and state your arguments and let other people make their own mind which arguments are stronger and what they should think for themselves. Thanks.
there is no half assed third person. it’s just a vanity cam.
edit: meant to reply to lordcrash
my only goal was to change your vote so it was fair for everyone. I do not know if you understood this but i stated earlier that i will be playing the single player in first person. I chose yes because i feel that if Warhorse is making it an option, and so many people want it simply as an option, that i might as well allow it as an option, as to make sure that everyone who has already backed up this game, can enjoy this game. (i think we both can agree that not everyone reads everything the game provides, and i am pretty sure there is some sorry blokes that paid because they though third person would be an option (because Mount and Blade, Chivalry, and War of the Roses all had third person). Warhorse has stated that they have much more experience in third person view, they also said that during development they use third person while programming so the switch to just make it an option is relatively quick, and simple to them. But you have addressed my questions with good arguments and i respect that. so i am done bitchin’. Peace out dawg.
I know what you mean but is this the case? Developers allways gives player more options, unless it is strictly coridor game. Nobody ask for TPV in Half-life or AC, thats true… but those games were developed differently and they developers choose to not to aks - gamers dint have that chance and thus nobody asked.
Similary I can ask that since all goals so far have to be implemented one way or another, why this is the problem suddenly?
I agree there is that point, but at the same time i have to add — this is not castle building or multiplayer. Aggain, naturally all stretch goals has to be implemented somehow and it is allways some extra work.
And no, secondary features doesnt have to be perfect. It is good if they work - even if TPV should only work outside and while riding a horse it would not take down the overall quality.
Yes, it seems to a bit early to me as well exactly becouse we dont know how fight and horse riding feels. Though we saw it repeately in vidoupdates and it should gives the idea how it will works.
They will make all features perfect for st person view first - it has the priority after all. This wont change whenever there will be TPV or not.
They are humans yes, obviously. But so we are! And at the end of hte day, I trust much more to them, then to anyone here, including myself. By trust I didn ment I exclude the possibility that anyhing can go wrong. Yes, it can… I really realize that, but I dont think it is right to be constantly scared.
On that side note: Sorry, but I had to. Really. I didnt mean to streghten my arguments, just to express my opinion and I also think that it is valid part of the discussion - after all, it gives others reflection and oportunity to correct me if they want. Silence is worse.
Yes i am a libertarian because this is a question i asked someone earlier and i will state this clearly
THIS IS FIGURATIVE AND NOT AN ACTUAL ASSUMPTION OF YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS YOUR SEXUAL VIEWS.
In the bible. Marriage is between a man and a woman. the majority of europe and america is Christian. So when they saw the artistic vision of the bible it said “only man and woman” “man shall not lie with another man as he does a woman” Gay marriage is a very controversial topic. People are trying to fight for the OPTION for gay people to marry, which if passed does not effect anyone at all, except give gays the right to marry. If gays are not allow to marry. The gay population is hurt. And still it does not effect people who dont want gay marriage. What you claim is the artistic vision is the reason why you want it FPV. Republicans claim the bible (written thousands of years ago) is the artistic vision they want to keep. My question is. If you are straight. and the option to allow gays the right to vote came to you. and remainder… IF gays do marry it does not effect you AT ALL. Would you vote “yes” for gay marriage. Or “No” i do not want gay’s to marry?
Once you have addressed the question above. I will happily argue about the other ridiculous arguments you claimed after.
In that case it’s basically just a console hack in CryEngine. That’s exactly what an half-assed feature imo is. 
@andrewgilmore
Please cut the off-topic religious stuff and stuff like gay marriage. That adds nothing to the discussion. In case you have to discuss something privately with @cerberus please do so via PM.
yea its the last time i use it. i am not trying to offend i am using it figuratively. Like this is not real politics. If he votes yes or no it is not like the world stops moving and everyone goes :“omg did he just do that” “yea i think he did. he did, he answered the question” “dam he has balls”
Or maybe it’s like a restaurant originally saying, “We will only sell hamburgers but they’ll be great!” then deciding they might offer hot dogs later on. The hot dogs might not be as good as the hamburgers, but some people prefer the option to buy hot dogs instead while others may prefer the hamburgers but don’t mind others with an additional choice, or they may decide they’ll stick with hamburgers but try hot dogs once in a while, or they may feel that since the place originally offered hamburgers only they’re against hot dogs at all because they might lower the quality of everything else.
Not every comparison has to be tied to religion and politics. Better yet, people don’t need a comparison every time in order to understand the scenarios being discussed.
Of course, this comparison breaks down when you consider hot dogs and hamburgers aren’t made from the same stuff.