TB would agree… 
Yeah! Do it! 3rd person view is a dream come true!66 votes
No way! This will ruin the uniqueness of the game!59 votes
I am OK with that, but I will play it in 1st person anyway.85 votes
I dont care. Give me a choice and I will decide what I prefer more.21 votes
i just grabbed the results a few seconds ago. you’re right, Yes and No’s are very close. however, the over 100 votes of “i’m okay with it” or “i don’t care” are most definitely not adamant NO’s. i guess what i was doing was putting those more or less in the same group as Yes, though i understand that’s not accurate. but i certainly can’t include those in the same group as “Oh hell no, it will ruin the game.” and so the minority, if we were to split this into two groups, is the No way! group. by 3 to 1. I’m just saying that there are those who don’t care or don’t see how it would ruin the experience if the option is there.
i’m with you dude, honestly, i want to play 1st person and i don’t want that experience ruined. but i also have faith in Dan and WH, and since he’s come out and stated there’s no way 1PV will suffer because of this, i believe it. i’ve seen what they’ve done so far, it’s great and i’m excited for more. And remember, all of this is contingent on them actually reaching the stretch goal. and if there are better ideas that can be done more easily, then we should start some threads and get those to be pinned. if you know of any/have one going please point us there. i just see some of the others that have been suggested (building own house, sheering sheep, making babies/kids) require a tremendous amount of art/animation/whole new game systems to actually be viable for Act 1. but i would love to see all of those features in and if they find a way, awesome!!
8 Likes
and right, it’s totally a small sample size but that’s what polls are for and it’s all we really have to go with right now.
well yes, it’s a valid point. Doesn’t affect most players on a 24" monitor though. But it’s nice they added it to please players who have a bigger monitor since it’s not hard to add anyways. Oh damn this reminds of another topic 
me neither but as they will add more stretch goals anyways we probably shouldn’t burn them at a stake when suggesting something they found to be easy to add…
4 Likes
It is a goal. They have to do something anyway so I dont think it is spreading thin, especially when they said that they already use 3rd camera.
You are right, this is something to solve (I wonder what Viktor Bocan thinks about it) and on this matter;
Couldnt be 3rd camera simply automaticly considered as easier difficulty?
Also the advantage depends on what kind of 3rd camera it will be. Over shoulder? Behind the back?.. ie how far from character will be the camera placed.
Right now, we dotn know how the fighting works - so it is hard to guess or came up with something. I personaly believe that Warhorse know what they are doing.
Archery - I have no idea how this could work in 3rd.
1 Like
So I had to read this whole thread in order to make my choice, which finally ended up being “No”, but not for the same reason as most of the rest of you.
I agree with @Cerberus’s goal, but not his reasons. I pledged on KS (not as much as he did, but enough that I had to give up other games/DLC to get KC: D). I don’t feel betrayed or lied to, simply because all @warhorse is doing is trying to make their idea and final product better! Saying “No!” then, and changing their minds now, only means that they are open to the possibility that they are not all knowing when it comes to what makes an enjoyable and immersive game. They are not going back on their word, they are admitting they don’t know everything. Will you fault them for that @Cerberus?
@LordCrash makes very fine arguments against implementing it, without seeming personally offended or accusatory. I agree 100% that it puts the development at risk of being negatively affected. Though Dan (@hellboy)assures us the amount of work is not enough to jeopardize the deadline, I still agree that making sure both views work inevitably means a different outcome than not worrying about one at all. @LordCrash said it well:
But he really hit on my personal reason for voting “No” on this even before that when he said,
^^This… ^^^THIS RIGHT HERE!!!
As a stretch goal, this is a farce. This is not the sort of thing we want promised in order to entice us to tell our friends to back this game.
“Dude, remember that game I told you about that you weren’t at all interested in even when I told you they were adding an illustrated codex? Well hold on to your shit because they just announced… ***OPTIONAL THIRD PERSON VIEW!!***”
“OMG shut up, where do I pledge?”
If @warhorse thinks they were wrong to deny us an option to float the camera, fine. Will I use it in the game? No.
As a stretch goal though? No thank you!
We should have a pinned poll for the cherry-picked choices from the other “What should be the next goal” threads. There are some really good ideas there, and @warhorse should be able to sift though and find what’s doable, wanted, and entertaining.
8 Likes
Balancing is the core of each and every combat system together with its basic functionalities. It’s what makes a combat system fun, engaging and rewarding. That doesn’t only apply to multiplayer games, big mistake. Think for example Dark Souls: the whole game is based on the idea of balancing and “fair difficulty”. And now just think how Dark Souls would be in first person. It probably would be pretty much unplayable because you miss the perspective you need to avoid blows and stuff.
But I can give you a simple example: think of a situation in which you fight two human opponents, one melee fighter directly in front of you and an archer a few meters away to the left.
-
3rd person: you always have both opponents in your sight. You can always avoid the arrows from the archer by either dodging them or blocking them with your shield. At the same time you have a really hard time to target specific body parts of the melee fighter because his model is simply too small on the screen and it’s really hard to hit the right spot. So the archer is no problem at all but the melee fighter kills you all the time.
-
1st person. Most of the time you only see the melee fighter directly in front of you. Due to your restricted sight you aren’t able to see the archer as well all the time. So you have to decide whether you want to have a look for the archer or the melee fighter and there is a high risk that each time you turn your back on one the other will kill you. But in your direct fight against the melee fighter you can target his weak spots quite easily so he isn’t that hard to kill. The archer instead: well, he’ll probably kill you.
What would you do in the given situation? In 3rd person you can’t do much. You just have to hope that you can kill the melee fighter by rather coincidence while defending constantly against the archer. But you have no real way to tackle the melee fighter in a good way because the combat system is made to work perfectly in first person with a near combat perspective. In 1st person you would probably run away, trying to bring something between you and the archer to give you time to kill off the melee fighter before you can deal with the archer. Since the melee combat system is “made for 1st person” it wouldn’t be a too big hassle.
So what does that mean fo the game? You could of course say: who cares, just choose which way you want to die. But imo it’s not that easy, especially not if you want to design a game that is fun for everyone who plays it in every given situation. That’s the basic idea of balancing and “combat encounter design” in classic videogame design philosophy. The game designer has two options: either he just acknowledges that his system is kind of lacking in 3rd person, but seriously: no good video game designer wants to be one of his game’s systems being lacking compared to another system. In that case the respective system would usually just be cut. The other option would be to change the melee combat design to make it working in 3rd person as well (aka “watering/dumbing it down”). The basic idea of that approach is that you cut everything that is a specific strength of combat in 1st person mode because it would not work as good in 3rd person mode. (Side note: that’s probably one of the reasons why combat in Skyrim is downright mediocre in every possible aspect…) That way you can maintain a combat system that works equally well in both perspectives. But at the same time you have a less specific system, a system that is build on maintream appeal and mediocrity instead of being build on specific strengths of using a certain perspective.
You could apply the same principles to other parts of game design as well, not only on melee combat. The idea stays the same.
Of course there is the possiblity that Warhorse never intended to use specific strengths of the first person view (in combat and elsewhere) and their one and only reason to use 1st person so far was the immersion aspect. In that case it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal to include 3rd person as well. But at the same time it would be very sad as well imo. I had really high hopes for the combat system in KCD and it being first person with a realistic touch and vision was part of the appeal…
2 Likes
the melee fighter
he’s shooting his own guy in the back
1 Like
Haha, yeah, for example. Another test for Warhorse’s AI… 
Thanks for the in depth explanation, actually I wasn’t thinking that far. It’s true, If designed the same way, you would have an advantage in playing 1st person designed combat situations in 3rd person. But I don’t think it would ruin the game if you let it be the way it was… Sure, it’s easier, but if you decide you want to do it it’s your decision… I’m thinking about DayZ at the moment. Completely different in any regard but yea it’s ruining everything in 3rd person and still they let you do it even though it’s PVP and totally unfair. I think the impact on a medieval single player rpg would be minor…
1 Like
I liked that in Painkiller.
When the demons accidentally hit one of their own, they got angry at each other fought each other.
@Dr3adN0ughT
Yeah. But you see, one perspective might have to suffer for the benefit of the other one.
A bit off-topic, sorry:
Well, as I’ve said before: why not making a stretch goal for stuff that could be completely out-sourced? That way it would be a “real” stretch-goal with all the money used for something nice without delaying the game itself.
My best shot would be a CGI intro or several CGI cutscenes (think Witcher 2/3 or Dead Island) that could be made by a contractor.
I honestly think that if Warhorse think that 3rd person is benefitial to the game they should just add it. No need to make a stretch goal for something like that.
Well yes, that’s true… But I think it would be 3rd person as it would be easier while leaving everything else as it was before. When implemented realistic you have a certain combat situation no matter what view you use. Also I don’t know if you ever played around with the CryEngine (it’s free to do so): It’s already in there. I don’t think they would add different combat scenarios, just enable the 3rd person which is there AND of course they would have to polish some things up for it to actually still look alright.
1 Like
Of course it’s easy to enable 3rd person (that’s another reason why they could just leave it to modders) but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have an impact on gameplay.
I absolutely agree with @LordCrash, in everything he wrote. Couldn’t have said it better. I also like @Night1505’s point about the stretch goals. If you want to include 3rd person in the game, do so, but not as a stretch goal, that seems very strange. Having 3rd person just for screenshots and admiring your armor would be cool though (pause mode or something like that).
Sure, but then they would have to think about a different stretch goal ^^ That again would probably have more impact on development than this minor thing.
Edit: Totally dodged the impact argument, sorry:
The impact on gameplay would just be that you would find it easier overlooking the combat scenario in 3rd person if you choose to do so, but that’s you decision. If your concern is that they would water it down to both views, then I would agree that it is bad. Very bad. But I totally trust in @warhorse that they wouldn’t do such a thing.
There’s already a console command for toggling the HUD (see the console command thread).
There are a lot of people who like having the option to include their character in their screenshots (for obvious reasons like control of movement, placement etc…). Having the option of a 3rd person camera would be invaluable to avid ‘screen-archers’ such as myself.
I dont think that 3rd person camera means that you would be allways able to block or dodge an arrow. Your vision is still somehow limited (as is your speed).
Ive learned to do so in Die by the Sword, lol! How anyone could have problems with that in modern game. Seriously, I dont think that this will be an issue.
Try War of Roses, it is medieval combat all about targeting specific parts (open visor for example) in 3rd camera. Being shot by an archer, even though you know about him, is pretty common.
My point is, that Im really not that convicted that this situation would be that different in both.
1 Like
What I meant was to separate the camera from the main character and fly somewhere else to take a screenshot from a point which your character can’t reach. For example, in The Evil Within you even can stop time and fly around with the camera during a cutscene because they are rendered in real time. Or during normal gameplay, I just put my character in a corner somewhere, detach the camera from him and fly around the place to make some nice screenshots without him in the picture. So I think a free camera would be even better than just circling around you character.
well that’s not a feature of CryEngine at the moment so it would have to be implemented completely from scratch, which is worse than an optional 3rd person view…
3 Likes