I’m sorry you are used to just for super mario cart, but there is obviously more people who are not ok with it and want promised first person rpg as was intended from the beginning. But anyway having the third person view as a stretch goal is the biggest bummer.
I will play with 1st person. If there 3th person it is ok for me and maybe I will use it sometimes to look at the outfit of my character, but I do not need it.
I must have missed the memo that they’re scrapping FPV entirely or making it subpar just to add a TPV option in certain cases.
My thoughts exactly. 400 000$ for a 3rd person view makes no sense, they should use that money to make the game even more immersive and realistic.
6 Likes
like your idea of expanding the assortiment of armor and weapons better than this 3rd person camera proposal that indeed makes little sense…
Also i’m dying to play a game where I can play a decent bard,since i’m a musician in real.
Music is the real magic after all
2 Likes
I still think we don’t need any more specific stretch goals.
In the last week people pledge more than $36.000 alone without adding to a specific stretch goal. Why did they do so? Because they wanted to support Warhorse in making this game as good as possible and because they want to be part of open and “early access” development.
Imho it would be enough if Warhorse just told everybody that every additional buck goes directly into making the game better in every possible aspect.
Every possible addition to the game from now on should be based on Warhorse’s internal decision whether it profits the game and its vision. Of course they can ask us for feedback, that’s cool. But no need to make stretch goals that possibly make it to the game (or not), especially if it’s something of which the devs aren’t even convinced themselves…
7 Likes
I would be ecstatic to see a 3rd person view option!
1 Like
After what Dan wrote, that they already use 3rd (and we saw that in video) in some cases, do you think that it will cost 400k? Dont twist facts please.
It won’t cost $400k+ to do, even if it does end up the next stretch goal. Besides, the overall cost of the game is much more than just what we’ve all helped raise. An extra $100k or so might sound like a lot, but with the cost what it is I don’t see that making a huge difference. Another $500k does add up, though.
Point is, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to look at each stretch goal as “It costs exactly this much to add blah.”
2 Likes
I agree with LordCrash…Perhaps its better if they scrap specific stretch goals from this point on…
and focus more on making the game better in every aspect…
Its better to focus on content for sure.
A 3rd person camera will be modded in anyway
And having it as a stretch goal now is a missed opportunity to make this an even better game imo.
1 Like
How can you not understand that if this is a stretch goal which will cost so little that there would be more left to make the game more immersive and improve core features?!
Should they add something that would actually cost 400k? Would that improve the core features? NO! Why? Because all the money goes into the new fancy feature (little exaggeration here but I hope this will enlighten some ppl).
C’mon it’s not rocket science…
7 Likes
i don’t think third person is vital. I would rather have early gunpowder weapons implemented.
Yeah. And that’s exactly the reason why we don’t need more stretch goals.
I totally agree. That would be the best option indeed, if that would be an option.
1 Like
We all know 3rd person view won’t cost 400 000$, you obviously didn’t get the point I was trying to make.
We all know 3rd person view won’t cost 400 000$ and I wasn’t saying that they should add something that costs 400 000$, you obviously didn’t get the point I was trying to make.
This is the point I was trying to make, why lose some development time and money on a 3rd person view option when they could be working on the core features, making them better, etc. There are a bunch of things that are way more important than 3rd person view(something that wasn’t even supposed to be in the game).
Alright, then I misunderstood. Sorry for that, I do agree with you there.
Then the argument should be:
Do we need new stretchgoals in the first place? Or wouldn’t it be better to have none, but add features when warhorse sees them fitting in and beneficial for the game.
But as it looks at the moment there will be more coming, so I would think having easy ones would be better. That was what I intended to point out.
No worries mate. Actually, I should be the one apologizing 'cuz I just read my post again and now I understand why you didn’t get it. hehe It was super late when I wrote that, sorry. 
Agreed. Honestly, I think they shouldn’t add new stretch goals well at least not until the core features are good and ready then if they wanna add new stuff that they think will make the game better well I say go for it as long as they don’t push back the release date to 2020. hehe
1 Like
I love the idea of first person, and it would be cool but at the same time it would take away from so much such as a restricted field of view because of a helmet or something like that. So, I would not mind, but that is just my opinion.