Where did I say anything about ingame-codex? Or what do you mean by that regarding my posting?
And sure it takes resources as anything else but my point is that that those resources could be used otherwise in a better way than for a perspective which wasn´t planned before at all.
We both don´t know how much work it would be but I´m still pretty sure that it´s not done by just setting an additional camera 
You didnt say anything about the codex, I just reminding that it is also a thing we had had no idea about when the game was kickstarted.
Welll - thats matter of opinion. To me, it is a perfect goal as I cant imagine anything better (guessing the work time and resources).
It will not probably, but as I showed in video above, it doesnt look like incredible amount of work. And also: [quote=“Hellboy, post:33, topic:20355”]
We use 3rd person for testing combat and animations anyway, so while it would need some polish, its not crazy amount of extra work,
[/quote]
I already saw this video. I thougt that this combat scenes were in third person just for showing, because the developers do things in third person to overview the animations of both characters. It’s not really third person, because you don’t see the players character from the back, you can’t control your actions like this. This is more like a camera or another person watching the combat.
Of course it is possible and I hope they will implement first person und third person combat well, if they plan to do so.
Your right, it is just for showing but look at the monitor at 6:12 - 6:15 he is actually playing in 3rd person view.
I stated above I prefer FPS only, but that’s my opinion. Could provide many arguments why I think 3ps sucks, but I don’t think this would be necessary either because it would raise hate among console (casual) gamers or because everyone has already made up their preferences. My post probably won’t change a thing.
It is good for him that @Wenceslaus continues to produce arguments for 3rd person camera, but I don’t feel it is necessary because of the same reason I don’t make arguments for 1st person camera…
It is more than obvious that in the end @warhorse will do what THEY decide, so continuing this debate here feels just like an empty speech.
Yes. **
**. If you want to play in first person, than play that way. If you like 3rd person than play that way. I don’t understand people that are so against other people playing the way they want to. Just because it is in the game doesn’t mean that you have to play that way, but someone that does ,can. More OPTIONS means more people playing the game, means more money for the developer to develop a better game.
But why you join the debate at the first place then?
Empty speech would be some unresonable fight perhaps but in my opinion, meaningfull discussion is allways good — even if you dont change anything :- )
Yes, they will do what they decide and i think thats good (no matter the voting result).
I agree more options is better. You can play how you wish.
I personally do not want third person i think first person is the way to go. third person is just not immerse,
Glad to see it’s not just me noticing that this same argument keeps going round in circles…
People need to calm down. If you don’t like the proposed TPV feature, then you don’t need to make use of it.
I just think that WH giving us the gamers the ability to choose is really empowering (And as Dan said, with little to no compromise or additional effort). So if you want to take a cheeky look at your armour and grab a screen shot then switch into 3PV. But for immersion and main gameplay / combat; stick with FPV… it’s all pretty straightforward really. 
I don’t think that many in the ‘No’ camp are against the idea of TPV in order to stop others playing the way they want. What is feared however is that introducing TPV will have many negative knock-on effects for FPV and that’s what some of us are worried about (as opposed to selfishly depriving others of their preferred viewpoint).
If it really can be done with zero impact to FPV, that’s great. No probs here. I just can’t see that being the case (or at the very least am worried about where this mode will lead in terms of future design decisions).
Read some of my previous posts if you want more info as to my personal concerns.
I´ll never get why people consider console gamers as casual gamers - you could play on PC and also be a total casual gamer … :rolleyes:
I played Skyrim in 1st person… hated the 3rd person view (in battles)… I just always checked my new shiny armor or weapon… looky looky and then back to business… and slashing the hordes in 1st person! 
But I liked the 3rd person view for random walks through the map! Switching to 1st person when sh*t got serious. So my personal (not warhorse’s) opinion… Why not… it won’t influence my game experience… it just adds the looky looky feature I loved so much! 
Because damn I look so hot in those new leather shoes!
Read all of them. The dev already said that it would be easy to implement and would not effect the FPV. Always remember just because you like one thing others may not. It is called compromise. I would play in both modes, depending on the situation. I think these devs can handle it. Just like the post with GTA 5. That piece is someone’s perspective, others hate it. In the grid racing series they did in game collection of how many people actually used 1st person and found it was few so they did away with the in dash cam all together. Its all what it best for the community as a whole and not what’s best for me. If the devs say they can do it, I trust them.
There definitely does seem to be an issue with some having a lack of trust that Warhorse can do an effective TPV without it compromising or negatively impacting the primary FPV. I’m honestly not sure where this fear is coming from, but I don’t know what percentage of people backed this game simply because of what it’s aiming for compared to how many of them were already familiar with Dan & Friends’ work.
Ultimately they know best what they can and can’t do in the timeframes they’ve given us, and no matter what people’s positions are on FPV vs. TPV, console vs. PC, hardcore vs. casual, a TPV option will broaden the scope of gamers who would give this game a try. That’s good for Warhorse and it’s good for us, as more people buying and playing Act I makes it more likely Acts II and III will eventually be released.
Personally, I’d like every reasonable thing done to increase the probability we get all of what Warhorse wants to create for us. Even if a TPV does delay Act I slightly, it’s important not to lose sight of the overall goal with this game and the following acts. At this point I have no reason to believe Warhorse can’t deliver on what they’re working toward.
I’m not saying that the ‘devs can’t handle it’ in regards to implementing TPV well. What I am saying is that in my opinion TPV does increase the possibility of weakening or limiting what’s possible from FPV (through the points I mentioned). Plus as also mentioned previously I think it makes things difficult going forward and adding new mechanics which would only work from one perspective. Maybe Warhorse have no intention of adding any of the FPV specific elements I suggested - That’s up to them and it’s their game of course, but this is the sort of stuff I personally would like to see and the inclusion of a TPV makes these things harder to justify.
I don’t personally want to hop to TPV when riding a horse, as is standard in most games or any of the other usual FPV/TPV camera switching areas (crafting, melee combat etc). I do occasionally pop in to TPV in Skyrim in the same way that Tobi does - But that’s not what I personally want from KCD. I’m hoping for an experience which takes itself more seriously than that and tries to do things a little differently.
I thought that KCD was placing more emphasis on realism and immersion and for me Warhorse’s original intent of FPV only really backed up that belief. Watching the devs play the game, hopping back and forth from FPV to TPV would feel much more ‘gamey’ to me. Sure, I don’t have to do this myself, but it would feel like the vision for the game (or what I believed it to be) had changed a little - Less away from realism and more towards every other game.
It’s not like I hate TPV either; it feels like the right fit for games such as Mafia, The Witcher (third one is looking great) and Max Payne. It’s just that I expected KCD was going to really push the boundaries regarding FPV and Dan’s original statements and continued resilience against any inclusion of TPV supported that assumption. He might have changed his mind about allowing TPV, but I’m not sure that I have - To me FPV is the most realistic and immersive viewpoint (I know everyone’s got their own ideas about this, but that’s mine) and I don’t want to see this compromised.
It’s their game at the end of the day and they should and will do just what they want IMO ;). My perfect vision for the game isn’t going to align exactly with Warhorse’s (I’d rather not have TPV for dialogue and cutscenes, and am strongly opposed to the large HUD in the alpha for instance), but have offered my opinion nonetheless - Hopefully it’s of some interest.
I’m not adamantly against the inclusion of TPV (though I can understand why you might think so ;)), but it does concern me a fair bit which is why I voted ‘no,’ rather than ‘live and let live.’ Maybe that seems a little selfish to some, but we were asked for our personal opinions and that’s what they’re getting. For me a fully ‘maxxed out,’ ‘locked-in’ FPV would provide a better game experience than a ‘compromise’ solution where the inclusion of TPV could stand to limit what’s doable from FPV (maybe it will, maybe it won’t , but personally it’s not a risk I’d want to take). Adding a TPV option might make more commercial sense for them (might not of course…), but that’s their call. Whatever they do, I think it’s been quite an interesting debate for the most part ;).
You are just repeating everything you have already said in all of the other posts you have made on this subject. I told you that I already read ALL of the posts. If you can play the whole game in FPV the way the Devs planned, not the way you think their game should play out, than who cares if they add TPV for someone that likes TPV. The Devs never said in the op that you ever had to switch to TPV. So if you NEVER have to use TPV and can play the whole game in FPV what’s the difference. Once again if the Devs say that they already have it for testing and it will not take any extra time to deploy , (because it is already in there) and you can play through the whole game in FPV, Who cares. This is not a multiplayer game. It is an individual experience for each gamer to embark on. You are never going to convince me that it is a bad idea to add it in. Different strokes for different folks. Personally I like to have the option. Maybe I will play the whole game in FPV, than play it again in TPV.
Yeah - I am repeating myself I guess, so will leave it alone after this post :). I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind about it either.
I suppose what I’m trying to get over is that I’m voting against it not to deny others to be able to play the way they want in a ‘you’re wrong’ kind of way (as you say, I would never have to use it myself) but due to the other complications or rather ‘limitations’ which I personally believe it may well bring to the table (plus having it in for ‘testing’ doesn’t equal ‘fully functional TPV’ - It will affect other elements of the game IMO, such as gameplay, HUD, extra testing, bugs etc. + require extra time and resources which I’d personally rather see allocated elsewhere).
I imagine that they’ll go for it in the end and don’t have a massive issue with that in theory, I just hope that full consideration is given to what adding it will mean in the long term.
I think its great for people who want it however maybe it should be done as a paid DLC upgrade later on in the games full release as those of us who have pledged did so on the grounds of realism, we knew what we wanted and what we were getting into if it was a £5 DLC later on then the current funds could be used to make the game better without adding an unnecessary additional feature. Or the next pledge should be for Free DLC later on as the game is already packed with features and items, and maybe when the full game is released we might notice that we are missing a feature/item/aspect or story that may not be clear right now. It also gives you guys time to get the current game absolutely perfect without wasting time/resources on adding more and more stuff
It seems that I have to comment as nobody brought up the main point why I am opposed to third person point of view.
I am afraid that addition of 3rd person POV may harm the game. People that would be reasonably happy with only 1st person POV will complain that 3rd person perspective is not good enough. I have seen it in the reviews of Skyrim which is part of traditionally first person perspective and the 3rd person was arguably developed and planned more than it seems that the plans for 3rd person in KC:D would be if this comes to fruition. I afraid that without taking any effort from polishing the 1st person or extending release the 3rd person perspective won’t be good enough.
I would happily play the 1st person while having an option for 3rd person that I completely ignore (and may be crap for what I care), but I am afraid that it may bring down the ratings (and sales) of the game. People in general mind less not having an option that having the option that is less than perfect, less than what they imagined it to be.
Possible solution is not call the third person view “third person view” but something like “cinematic mode”. This will set slightly different expectations.
