At first i would change (sometimes) between 1stP and 3rdP, cause i want to look at myself wearing nothing 
A example: In DayZ (love it) it is important to switch to find all available items. Very often itâs hard to discover all items on a camouflage underground.
But know what? For a REAL realistic game you just need 1stP!
This just came into my mind. Somehow I like the idea of the graphical representation of the helmetâs visor. Now, the ability to switch to 3rd person would completely buttf*ck the so-praised realism of the game in terms that you would not have a worse space perception around you than without a helmet.
I voted for the âlive and let liveâ option, but now that I think about it as an idea, IF there will be difficulty settings, then on harder difficulties do not let people use the 3rd person view at least in armored combat with closed helmet.
You know, on one hand, I just nod that âyeah, this wonât be a problem, you can dumb down even for example Il-2 Sturmovik, and the more options the more backers / buyers, which is good for everyoneâ; but on the other hand, I would love to see to put emphasis on realism rather than giving everyone a piece of his/her cookie. With this logic, why donât we implement a switch for dragons? And mages? That would be optional tooâŠ! Of course, you donât have to remind me to the difference between a camera mode and goddamn dragon, but then tell me: where is the line, where is the border not to step through?
I would like this game to be one where if I have to fight with just two opponents at the same time, I start praying - not because of I love brutal difficulty (in fact, I do not), but because thatâs the reality, thatâs the truth. Drones flying at your back with a camera are not at the time.
I still think that âSure, do whatever you think it will do good for your gameâ, but the more hack&slash kids this community will get, the more the fine historical topics will sink down in this forum, the more important the crosshair and less important the color of the carrots become, the more annoyed and maybe a bit disappointed I will get.
In the contents and themes of the gameâs story and setting probably?
Because that is the fundamental thing which very much defines the game with respect to the general wide audience. And thatâs what really built the image of this game. Specific choices about the game mechanics used are a matter that concerns only more specific subgroups of customers (dedicated gamers).
Way more people would be interested in âwhat is the game aboutâ first and âhow do you play that thingâ only after thatâŠ
Anyway, the idea of having some two game modes/regimes with one dedicated hardcore and one with a fixed 1stP doesnât sound too bad either. Provided that 3rdP actually became a feature in the first place (which still isnât too sure).
It looks like storyparts and dialogs are in 3rdP;more like a movie
"thats a logical move" I thought to myself earlier today,since perhaps people like to have that more like a movieâŠAnd perhaps they want to make clear,and reflect on the player how Henry can change based on the player choices made during the course of the game
As you probably all know well by now I have mixed feelings about the matter,yet voted âlive and let liveâ too.
I think the strong points of 1stP and 3rdP must be taken into consideration when applying each where they fit best
Like 3rd for large tactical battles and story points
Yet I think keeping normal combat 1stP might be a good move now iâve seen it.
And then out of combat people would be able to switch freely between 1stP and 3rdP
They mentioned some parts will be locked in in 1stP,I wonder if that would disturb a lot of people or not
if it would be locked combat 1stP,but out of combat either 1stP or 3rdP(still each mode could have special stuff like 1stP obeserve/Inspect mode,âŠ,âŠ)
I can understand both sides a bit
Leaving combat aside for a second I think it also very much depends on the story they want to tell and how they want to use 1st person. Actually a âfullâ 1st person game requires a personal story centered around the main-character imo, showing the world through his eyes. If they want to present a political story with differnt points of views or with an anonymous observer/God perspective (e.g. in cutscenes) there isnât much reason to go 1st person in the first place. This story approach would just beg for 3rd person (like Witcher or Mass Effect for example). I never understood Warhorseâs â1st person camera while playing, 3rd person/cinematic camera in cutscenes and dialogues and stuffâ approach. For me thatâs just inconsistent game design. But then again, if Warhorse use the specific strenghts of 1st person neither for storytelling nor for gameplay/combat there is indeed no reason to not include 3rd person into the game. In that case it would basically be a 3rd person game with a 1st person âspectator cam for medieval touristsââŠ
Is there a way to add our own choice in the poll besides 3rd person view or not? I mean with almost half a million more you would be more then welcome to use that resource for something worth it, like into the development of the oculus rift or a similar device.
Another possibility which is scalable, by working with more developers is the extension of the story or side quests by a lot.
Iâm getting the feeling the next strech goal is more: âwhat can we offer to make something with the least effort and still get a bunch of moneyâ I mean itâs about 20% more of your total funding money and adding a third person view is not what Kingdom Come Deliverance was about until now. It was about a immersive game where the story is told by your view as it is in the real world!
If they want to tell a story not through Heryâs eyes,but a story where Henry plays a roll in based on the choices you makeâŠits important how the world impacts him overtime and 3rdP is indeed a better option I think
(but thats perhaps why the 3rdP for storypoints/dialog isnât misplaced)
Also an important thing to note is that they want a realistic open world besides the story.(the story will even wait for you if you just choose a direction to explore)
I think the strong points of 1stP might do a better job at immersing you in this realistic open world
Yet I could understand that someone would want to switch 3rdP to take screenshots of the character,âŠ
Also will there be a pause button for combat?so perhaps if you pause combat youâd be able to take screenshots in 3rdP?
Or if you encounter a certain amount of enemies they game could suggest to go in tactical 3rdP mode
Immersion is only reached if your design is consistent. The core idea of 1st person is to see the world through the eyes of a specific character - all the time. You basically become this character (based on how much youâre personally able to identify yourself with the character). I know that for some people itâs hard to play first person games (me sometimes included) but thatâs nothing bad. I also donât like horror movies so I just donât watch them. We all have preferences and tastes and the 1st person experience in games is a special and specific gaming experience you may like or not. Nevertheless there are design principles to follow to deliver on the promises and strengths of the perspective. For example changing between 1st person in gameplay and 3rd person in dialgoues and cutscenes is imo a criticial immersion breaker. Itâs actually sacrificing immersion and consistent game design for a few cinematic moments. There is a reason why all the good first person games (mostly shooters) are first person ALL THE TIME. Itâs not because these developers hate cinematic moments but because they understood that you have to maintain the camera for immersion and consistent storytelling.
So no, I donât think first person is more immersive in general, it depends much how it is used and what you prefer as a player. The basic issue is that 3rd person and 1st person games are different in terms of gameplay but especially in terms of narrative and HOW you immersive yourself into a game. 3rd person is much more about caring about your player character and guiding him/her through the world. Games like Mass Effect and Witcher are not only personal stories about the player character but also games about a greater plot for which 3rd person as a kind of âobserver mode for the external spectatorâ are perfectly suited. Games like Half Life, Metro, CoD or Dark Messiah of Might and Magic instead are about the personal experiences of the player character and what he/she perceives the gaming world through his/her eyes. If you want to tell a âgrand storyâ you have to tell it in a way here that the player character can grasp it without forcing the player to âleave his/her bodyâ.
But itâs imo wrong to think that only 3rd person games can be epic. Itâs just another form of epicness you can achieve with either perspective. 3rd person games are more about epic events on the greater scale while 1st person games are more about personal and closer epic moments (I think CoD has proven more than enough that âepicâ or âcinematicâ isnât exclusive to 3rd person).
I think the problem here might be that Warhorse didnât have a strong narrative vision for their game from the start and they based their decision for 1st person not on overall narrative design or gameplay design but on some personal beliefs what âgood immersionâ should be (be vs care again). Then later they decided that they also want to tell a grand story for the external spectator which doesnât fit to 1st person but they couldnât bring themselves to give up 1st person for it. Thatâs just my personal speculation, could of course be wrong, but then again I would like to hear the real reasons for these early basic design decisions which imo doesnât fit and are just plain inconsistent.
I believe there can be a marriage between the 2 and still have a consistent game design.
Think your horror movies exampleâŠ
In a matter of life and death you see how the character is in panic in 1stP to build a certain tension
(in 1stP danger can come from any angle and they want the viewer to experience this fear,as 1stP has the power to immerse the viewer in the momentâŠ1stP is indeed used to make the player/viewer see through the eyes of the character)
Then the next shot you see is the characters chest being pierced by a butcher knife in a 3rdP
(immediately you understand what is going on/how the situation and other characters impact the main character, and that is key when it comes to 3rdP)
I donât agree that using both would be an immersion breaker,on the contrary I think.
I think when applied in the right gameplay momentsâŠyou can become the character(seeing the immersive(/traumatic/exciting,âŠ)moments through his eyes in 1stP
and witness the impact of the story/world on him 3rdp visually)
Using both allows them to both tell a great story where Henry has a place in
yet at the same time 1stP allows for a deeper personal connection
understanding him on an emotional level.
Perhaps its time that games stop treating 1stP and 3rdP as different genres
And instead start using both as tools to create an epic experience
I donât think itâs that easy to compare movies and games. In movies you are the spectator by default. The only thing that changes are camera angles. But you can never leave your role, even when watching through a personâs eyes in a 1st person perspective.
Games are interactive experiences which offer a different emotional connection to the player character. Thatâs either caring, being or a mix of both (like Iâve explained before).
I think we have to disagree here. To me that is inconsistent design and an immersion breaker by defintion. That may work for some people who can easily switch between caring and being or already apply both levels to their character anyway. For everyone else itâs much more difficult (you have to think outside the box here, your own experience with games is not enough!).
They are not different genres but different takes on a gaming experience. For some people it might work to connect them but you canât say that it strengthens immersion. Tools are indeed the right word, but not for creating immersion but for combining elements that usually donât work together well and diminish immersion. Immersion is created by consistency, thatâs really a fact. Game designers who value immersion do literally everything to create that consistent experience (by narrative, visuals, audio, art design and so on). You can of course say that itâs possible to combine 3rd person and 1st person. Warhorse actually really plans to do so. But not to increase immersion (because this is basically impossible) but to be able to combine a grand epic story with a 1st person medieval tourist spectator mode. Thatâs some kind of experience and it may have its points, but immersion is definitely not one of them, also that was claimed by @hellboy from the very beginning.
I know one is the spectator by default in moviesâŠand that games are interactive experiences.
Also I think just because you have a role,doesnât mean you should always be in controle
Its unrealistic;sometimes we canât prevent things from happening
Iâm sick of being the hero that is always right on time to save the day by coincidence in RPGsâŠ
The interactive game experinece has to be a mix of both caring and being in a realistic fashion.
The âconsistencyâ you think is required,I would see as the usual and monotonous game design,I thinkâŠ
Games have been really going to hell lately in my opinion
Pretty graphics and all but lame content,boring same-old story,âŠ
I keep my hopes up for this one though as it seems promising
To end with Warhose plans to "combine a grand epic 3rdP story with 1stP medieval tourist spectator mode"
I surely hope its more than thatâŠI hope we get to see parts Henryâs emotional experiences through his eyes.
I do believe 1stP and 3rdP can be combined to suck the player into the story and to create a closer emotional bond to the character
(how do you actually quote on this forum?)
@Tipsy Just Select (âhighlightâ) the text you would like to quote, and an option will appear to âQuote Replyâ. If you click it, the tags will be written for you in your reply.
Hope this helps. 
What about the ability to start the game amongst the Pagans instead?
I think the game works really well as a first person only game as it makes it fully immersive and more realistic. I would love to see diversity of arms with stuff like halberds, pikes, warhammers all those other cool but slightly underrated weapons making an accurate appearance in this game.
Well, after a few days of pondering Iâve finally voted - No third person option.
It was a toss-up between that and the âIâll play in first person, but live and let liveâ option, but the more I thought about it I really canât see how this can be implemented without negatively affecting the first person elements.
Adding third person view is opening a can of worms IMO; there are so many extra considerations which have to be made and I think that the first person mode will almost certainly end up suffering as a result in the long run.
Iâve listed my concerns previously in this thread and can think of more which I could add to those, but donât want to bloat this post.
Dayz and Arma is has multiplayer version. But in this Game KCD its not problem with 3 person!
GTA 5 FPV seems to have gained high praise.
Agreed with your last thoughts. I think it should definitely switch to first person when conversing or fighting. But it is always nice to be able to see your badass character walking around town or riding a horse.
How exactly it would affect 1st person in any way?
I donât have time to write a monster reply right now, so please read what Iâve written previously (in this thread).
Here are a few quick points though:
Two separate systems - Everything will need to be considered from both view points from now on. Itâs no longer good enough to just work well from first person. A quick example: sword fighting from first person without a HUD would be a possibility as itâs much easier to see the direction of the enemyâs blade. Archery also needs no HUD from first person. Maybe Warhorse wouldnât want to go HUD-less, but if they did want to, gameplay-wise, they have the option to do so when only considering the first person viewpoint. Again, if the game were only third person, a HUD-less health system of blood on the character or via animations can be used; this wouldnât work for first person however, so either you need to do twice the amount of work or come up with a compromise solution which is often less ideal than the camera specific one and takes more time out of the design and testing budgets. These are just a couple of HUD only example, the same applies to all elements of the game.
Balancing combat and stealth - In third person you can see behind you, giving an unrealistic degree of situational awareness. Regardless as to whether you prefer this or not, itâs very different to what you see from first person. This will change how difficult the combat is and again means it has to be balanced for two separate systems, or a compromise reached for both. From TPV, you can âlookâ around corners (cheating with the camera), whereas first person requires a proper lean system and completely changes the feel of the stealth mechanics.
Camera specific options - Iâd like to see helmets obscure the view in first person and sounds become muffled and exaggerated. This isnât just more immersive, but has large gameplay implications; youâve better protected, but have far less situational awareness. Imagine wearing a full suit of armour in a rainstorm, the reduced visibility through the visor and the loud sounds of the raindrops on the helmet. Pop into TPV and itâs a totally different experience. Having a third person option mucks this up (both restricted view and sound effects) and again means two separate systems which both need testing. This isnât just visual and aural, but affects gameplay as well. (EDIT: Another example, akin to that of the helmet visibility, would be blocking with a large shield obscuring your view from first person, but not at all from third)
Fall back option - Some things are hard to get right from first person, such as horse riding. With a third person view available as an option there will be the temptation to skim over difficult areas and fall back to the third person âdefaultâ riding view as is done in many games. I donât want to see this. I donât want more external cameras for my racing game, I want an improved first person system.
Collision and camera clipping - There will be issues with collision; as Dan mentioned interiors can be a problem and are often made over-sized for third person games. He said that first person might be forced on in interiors as a solution, but then you have an awkward system which allows TPV in combat in some places, but not in others etc. Some people will moan about this and dev time will no doubt be spent seeing how hard it would be to implement. Iâd rather that time was spent on other things.
Again with the clipping issues - Regardless of whether TPV is denied for interiors, there will be some issues in exterior locations too. This will again eat into dev time, either through more coding or artists having to setup specific camera collision meshes.
Better experience from a single viewpoint - You can make a better, âpurerâ experience when youâre tailoring it to just one viewpoint IMO. All the things mentioned above can dramatically change the way the game feels and is played, but by having to make both views work you muddy the water and exclude the possibility of certain gameplay elements which would only work from one viewpoint.
There are other reasons too, but Iâm too busy right now to go on. Already written too much as is - So much for a âquickâ reply! :).
