Poll: What should be our next stretch goal? What about 3rd person camera?


#298

I just see it as we’re all here for the same reason of supporting the game. We aren’t all going to agree with everything Warhorse does, but overall the vision itself is still the same - right?

So let’s respect each other and treat each other with the proper civility, even if we see things differently. It’s really simple to do and there’s nothing gained from trying to force others to side with your POV or they’re idiots.


#300

No, I’m just speaking in general, overall. Some are way too quick to attack others or put them down simply for minor reasons. I know it’s the internet, but we as a whole can do better than that.


#301

a lot of strawmen arguments and people simply ignoring what vavra’s saying about 3rd person view from the supposedly “moderate” side that’s chastising people for being dismissive and such.


#303

Well, I want an ‘immersive and realistic’ experience over ‘cinematic’ from KCD myself.

I want to play fully from first person and will personally be turning off all in-game music as well (as I do in most first person games). I want to feel as though I am Henry, not watching a movie about Henry.

I personally believe, given the dev’s original intent for first person only/maximum immersion, that more effort could/should be made in keeping the entire game first person. Breaking out to third person ‘portrait camera’ is a ‘break’ for me. I’d rather see some more advanced systems considered; how about being able to speak to someone from a bit of a distance for e.g. without half the screen covered by a face and the other half a piece of paper?

The extra SG money could pay for someone to attempt some new, more immersive UI options, going beyond what we’ve come to accept in many games. If it proves too difficult or doesn’t work, that’s OK by me. Fallout 3/NV had that ‘locked-in’ conversation thing, then Skyrim removed the zoom and made things more realistic/natural. I wonder what Fallout 4 will bring. I’d like to see this same immersive/natural approach applied to the HUD also.

TL;DR - I prefer ‘immersion’ and ‘realism’ to ‘cinematic.’ That’s where games shine to me. Not saying there’s no place for ‘cinematic’ in games, but games allow us to go beyond that. Leave the ‘cinematic’ to the cinema for KCD and let us experience the story from a ‘living it’ not ‘watching it’ standpoint. Rather than adding ‘gamey’ features such as third person view, look at ways to further enhance the first person view (HUD, dialogue, cutscenes).


#304

How could that be? The gameplay up to this point was designed for 1st person specifically!

Here a famous quote regarding that matter:


Vision here, vision there.
At this point its only blabla anyway.
Because if you design a game to be played specifically in 1st person because of your “vision” and later on you let the players have 3rd person (and as it seems the majority at least according to the poll [which is only a tiny little fraction of the whole backers!] want to use 3rd person), your “vision” will be lost on them.
Nice job bringing your “vision” to them, the masses who ignore your “vision willingly!


1st: Amen to that.

2nd: cinematic = bullshit
It’s just an excuse to limit the frame rate or pull some other bullshit stunts to hide your incompetence to deliver a polished product.


#305

Well, I didn’t expected this to be such a polarizing topic. But on the other hand, I am asking here, because we were also not sure if its a good idea and if there is even demand for this. So I expected that people may not be interested in it (third option) or will be against it or will say its great. But now 30% people want it, 22% are against it and the rest doesn’t seem to care :slight_smile: So no matter what we do, we will piss someone. Ooops.

I really do think, that its a win win situation - those who want to play it from 1st person view will get what they expected and those who missed this feature will get it as well. I will repeat this again:

  1. It doesn’t come at cost of something else. The first person view
    will not become less important than 3rd person. Its actually the
    opposite. The way we animate characters means, that when we animate
    something from 1st person, the same animation looks good on NPCs and
    and 3rd person as well. We dont do extra animations for the player.
    We do animations, that fit to any character in the game.
  2. Nobody will be forced to play the game from 3rd person. Quite the opposite. Some things will force 1st person - shooting, interiors, crafting minigames
  3. Its still going to be 1st person game, with 1st person view as the primary way how it should be played. Period.

To be honest, the feature was requested by many people and its not that hard and expensive to implement. So just from the economic standpoint the trade off between the time it will take us and the income it could generate seems to be very good and will allow us to improve some other stuff, which is not as much attractive to be a stretch goal.

And I will just add, that in the past I worked on several quite sophisticated 3rd person camera systems, so I am totally aware what does it mean to implement this. In our case, its much simpler, because we are not a shooter, which causes most of the problems (different viewpoint of camera and the character and weapon, problems that you cant shoot at something that you see from camera, but there is an obstacle in front of the weapon etc.). Also we will get rid of the camera in interiors, where it really is a problem and you usually need to change FOV, position of the camera and adjust the size of various objects (doors, ceilings, corridors). So if you were afraid about thase issues, it should not be a problem in our case.


Hardcore combat system
#306

I think the concern some of us first person ‘die-hards’ have is that I can’t really see how it’s possible for ‘no cost.’

Surely it will take dev time/money to properly implement and produce some bugs which will need to be fixed. It also means that elements which may have worked from a first person only viewpoint now need to be reconsidered from third also - Not really relevant given the time period but as an example checking the time on your watch could be handled with a 3D watch model on the player’s wrist for a fully immersive FPS view, but would require a HUD element for third person (having a real ‘physical’ map would be another e.g.). Then someone might suggest just using the HUD for both as it’s quicker and already needed for third person anyway, or maybe a zoom in from over the shoulder which whilst the better option, would require more testing and so on… And so it begins.

Then there’s clipping issues etc, which even without third person supported interiors, would probably arise in some situations and need to be looked at and fixed. Some people will no doubt start to moan about not being able to fight from third person or go inside in third person - The “If you’re going to do it, do it right” argument and then there will be more time spent seeing whether that’s possible, etc, etc…

Another less than wonderful example: Personally I play Skyrim without a crosshair at all and it works brilliantly for archery (feels more like actual skill). This kind of stuff just isn’t possible from third person and whilst I’m not saying that’s what you’d want to do here, the whole “How does it work from third person” debate or worse “That’d be cool, but it doesn’t work from third person,” will no doubt come up each time a new mechanic’s mentioned.

A final example - It’s probably not easy getting the riding mechanic to look good from first person, but it’s something I personally really like the idea of. When you then have the ‘traditional’ option of third person for such tasks I fear that there will be the temptation of “Oh well, we have the third person option now, just get the first person camera to an OK state for the riding, most will probably use third person for that anyway.”

As you say TPV might be worth it financially if it is very easy to implement and will likely entice more players (= extra money for development), but I think it could quite easily open a can of worms if not careful and possibly limit what you can do going forward - When you know you only have to consider first person in all situations, your options are much more open. If you go first and third person then everything you do will have to be tested and considered in that mode as well (where applicable) and I’d be amazed if it doesn’t eat up a reasonable amount of time and money.


#307

I wonder what they are doing for the Bard class or if they have dropped that? Because all we have seen is just combat, hmm…? What do you think?


#308

That’s what I thought and I think therefore this stretch goal is a very good one. But, I think the “problem” is that you seem to have the feeling that there has to be an attractive stretch goal in the first place. I mean of course improving core mechanics and stuff isn’t something new and fancy but it’s still important and the results can be as amazing as adding something new.

There were quite some posts where: we don’t need stretch goals and new stuff was the general tone. We wanted you having more resources for the core stuff. While adding 3rd person as you mentioned would actually help achieving this, I’m wondering if there couldn’t be an option to have a “improve core”-stretch goal:

  • whenever you have the feeling that there is a need of more time for core mechanics
  • when new stuff could be too much because of current work load

#309

I think this is a marketing issue. I don’t know the kickstarter statistics enough to answer the question if having a goal is better than not having a goal after the last one is reached strictly in terms of getting more backers over time.
But I think if you want to have an additional goal it should promise something new to have an effect. Using there something like “improve core” sounds simply like “do more work” which is not necessarily something new or not already expected. :wink:

(that’s independent from the discussion if TPV is a good choice or not)


#310

Yeah, you opened that Pandora’s box. The world will never be the same again. :stuck_out_tongue:


#311

if they follow this:

for their implementation strategy most of your concerns should be addressed and the time/gain for the needed work should be reasonable. In the end it depends on whether both perspectives should be handled on on equal terms or if the TPV should be just an addendum with a clear secondary role, which seems to be the idea behind the proposal.

just let us not fall into the internet trap of immediately expecting the worst possible implementation for a concept. :slight_smile:


#312

Options mean more playstyles and certainly doesn’t affect anyone’s given playestyle. If you wish to use only first person view, then do so. I like having some options and enjoy being able to see more than my shoes at times :smile:

Bonus: I would bet it attracts a larger fan base.


#313

Dan, it sounds like you’re very keen on the idea at this point, so if you want it that much I think you should just go ahead and do it. It’s your game, after all. There’ll always be some people who can’t bear the idea of a third-person mode, even if it’s totally optional - but as you say, whatever you decide is going to anger someone at this point. So you might as well follow your heart.

That said, people like LordCrash and RGS have made some good points about the potential effects on gameplay (for instance, would stealth gameplay be simplified by the ability to look round corners?), and addressing those points would probably go a long way towards reassuring the naysayers. There’s also the issue, which I raised in another thread, of how long you go on adding new features before saying “enough is enough, time to lock things down”. I remember the Kickstarter updates where you mentioned having concerns about overstretching yourselves, and I don’t want that to happen again.


#314

The “tiny little fraction of the whole backers” part didn’t seem to cause a stir when @Hellboy polled people on how they should handle being able to kill anyone vs. limiting it and most of the ones who answered preferred no restrictions. Just saying.

If they’re going to poll people, we can’t pick and choose how much validity we give it when the results don’t fit our own personal preferences.


#315

I agree with the sentiment that this was supposed to be “realistic”, so the notion of First-Person only is fine with me. However, we are a vain people and having a Third-Person option would make for taking better screenshots to share with people.

I’m pretty sure I’d never use it for battle or the like, but it’d be a lot easier to admire that new armor I bought/earned/gifted in Third-Person.


#316

Nice try going for the sub sub point mentioned in the bracket of a bracket. It’s just a side information.
Why don’t you actually say something about the main concern I raised?
Of course you don’t say something to that because pulling a strawman is more fun, right?


#317

I already made my points elsewhere in this long thread, if you care to search my name and read them. Of anyone here, you’ve been acting the least reasonable when it comes to handling the possibility of TPV being part of the game.

Part of the point is you’re upset that this is even a potential thing, and you’re upset more people who have taken the poll are in favor of it than not. Now you’re trying to dismiss it by playing the “it’s not even a majority of backers!” card, but I think it’s safe to say you’d have been just fine with the poll if the majority who answered said “no” to a TPV.

If you’re so offended by Dan and the rest adding an optional TPV that won’t really impact your ability to play the game the way you like, feel free to demand your money back for ruining what you thought you were pledging for, even if you’ll still be able to play it all in FPV.


#318

It’s simply.
The question was: 3rd person, yes or no?
My answer: No!

So having a spine, sticking to one’s view on things and don’t bow to the wishes of an allegedly majority is considered “unreasonable”, I see!


Because then they would have been actually sticking to their words.


#319

All the practical points of this choice do really sound very reasonable, at least to people willing to listen to reason.
The only real problem here is that a lot of the opposition is (as always) getting way too emotinal about it and sees a bigger threat in this than it actually is.
Or some others of them are even utterly disinterested in seeing any alternative features (even rather minor ones) that they would not have any use for and so no one else should be able to use them either… which is only selfish and hypocritical, imo.
(Btw… it may not be nice and polite to put it this way, but if someone wants to prevent someone else from having a choice only because he personally dislikes it, that is neither…)

If the 1st person gameplay experience remains primary and majority of the gameplay stays focused on that (with 3rd person remainig only a limited “necessary evil” side option), than there doesn’t really seem to be any objective problem.

The only valid counter-arguments anyone can use here are the around-the-corner issue and release delays. The first can surely be dealt with game-wise and the other doesn’t really matter, as any and all possible development delays are very unpredictable and the general game development itself will very probably produce more and longer delays on its own.
The Star Citizen development has already shown more than enough (to those of us who follow it) how pointless it is to optimistically count with particular release dates while not really being able to meet them, because delays just happen, everytime.

Anyway, I think that @Freix made a very good point in his initial post to maybe send this out as a new major update to possibly bring in more people to the poll. Lots of claims are going around about “majorities” and “masses” and what side they are supposed to be on, but the poll is what really does tell us something. And only some 400 people voted so far.
That’s a lot, but not really too much in a community of 40 thousand.
The more we bring in, the better picture we get.