PDA

View Full Version : I want a 3rd person camera in Deus EX: HR SEQUEL!!



Heavenly_King
16th Mar 2012, 21:48
If in the sequels Eidos adds an optional full (always) 3rd person view in the game, and not only while taking cover, I think it would be really amazing for many more players out there

I am just saying that it should be optional. Obviously the focus of the game development in the sequel will be towards FPS, but if the developers can add a 3rd person camera, I and many gamers out there would be very grateful..... really.

Lots of people prefer 1st person view, I know that; and also I know the fact that previous Deus Ex games have only been in first person; but if Eidos adds this (3rd person) as an option it will capture the attention of many more gamers, thus getting better sales worthier of their hard work.

I am not saying at all that they should sacrifice the integrity of the game in order to get more money (COD); I am just saying that if they add this option to an already magnificent game it would be beneficial for them and for the gamers. They get more money, and we get more sequels of a terrific franchise.

Make it optional, just like in other RPGs (like the Elder Scrolls), if some people prefers to play in first person view let them do it, but if other prefer to play in a 3rd person view, you should let them too.

The fact that this game is an "stealth RPG" in 1st person view, almost made me and a lot of more gamers not to buy the game. The game is fantastic but if you want to have more buyers like the ones who play METAL GEAR (like me) or even Splinter Cell; you should implement a 3rd person mode. But optional, so the players can have a choice. 3rd person view gives you better awareness of your surroundings, which is useful in stealth games. ;)

This game is EPIC, with awesome story and great gameplay, and I think that if you add this mode it can top or even surpass the Metal Gear Solid franchise. I know the MGS is not an RPG, but talking about stealth games, it is one of the best games ever.

If Eidos makes a sequel without the optional 3rd person camera I will still buy it, but I think that by doing that, Eidos/SE would waste a one of a kind opportunity (more userbase, more potential sales, and more sequels for the fans xD), by doing so.

I hope the developers read this :wave:

PS: why the name of the thread does not change in the threads listing?? Mods can fix this?? I will very very grateful if done, because the original title was misleading.

68_pie
16th Mar 2012, 22:03
*grabs popcorn*

TrickyVein
16th Mar 2012, 22:27
It would actually make the 3rd person cover system much less jarring to use and the takedowns more fluid. But...

All of this has happened before and will happen again. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=115406&highlight=copypasta)

OMGITSJASON
17th Mar 2012, 01:25
If you do that you might as well make every FPS a third person game. Besides I would think it would be kinda weird to see the protagonist's face and back while your doing all of those conversations in-game.

Pinky_Powers
17th Mar 2012, 01:52
Knowing the "size" of your character helps a lot when trying to sneak, because there may be some times you think you are out of enemy sight, like behind a box or a pipe, but it results that half of your body is out of cover, and you didn't realize it because all you saw in front of you was a box and nothing else.

Nope, that doesn't actually happen in-game. You see, the enemy AI can't actually see your body at all... they don't have eyes; they're programs. They can only react to what the devs program them to react to. This is why they never see you unless there's real line-of sight. If you can't see them, they can't see you. Any allusion to them spotting your shoulder or a leg and then reacting to it is a lie or a misunderstanding of the circumstance.

I enjoy third-person games. Mass Effect is one of my personal favorites. But Deus Ex should be first-person, it is immeasurably better that way.

Think about, in third-person you would miss so many of the smaller details in the game, like the post-it notes giving away passwords or all those notes on Adam's mirror. Little photos and all the hidden loot scattered about. They could all still be there, but you wouldn't be able to really see them. Too much of the environment would be too easily overlooked... and it all looks so beautiful in first-person. :)

Zoet
17th Mar 2012, 02:59
...Think about, in third-person you would miss so many of the smaller details in the game, like the post-it notes giving away passwords or all those notes on Adam's mirror. Little photos and all the hidden loot scattered about. They could all still be there, but you wouldn't be able to really see them. Too much of the environment would be too easily overlooked... and it all looks so beautiful in first-person. :)

Yeah, that was a problem with LA Noire for me. You couldn't really investigate the environments naturally like you can with a first person game. I actually liked the third-person elements to DX:HR, as they allowed you to have a sense of how Adam moves (and looks), which I think helps with re-enforcing his character.

Pinky_Powers
17th Mar 2012, 03:49
Yeah, that was a problem with LA Noire for me. You couldn't really investigate the environments naturally like you can with a first person game. I actually liked the third-person elements to DX:HR, as they allowed you to have a sense of how Adam moves (and looks), which I think helps with re-enforcing his character.

Yes, sparingly, and for brief moments third-person didn't hurt the experience... for me, at least. Yet so much would have been lost if the whole thing was done through that perspective.

iamrob7
17th Mar 2012, 14:18
Please god no, the 3rd person elements in the game worked out beautifully, but only in balance to the first person elements. If future iterations of this game became 3rd person only, I would probably cry, like literally break down and weep like a little girl. It would not be a pretty sight.

Romeo
17th Mar 2012, 17:39
Please god no, the 3rd person elements in the game worked out beautifully, but only in balance to the first person elements. If future iterations of this game became 3rd person only, I would probably cry, like literally break down and weep like a little girl. It would not be a pretty sight.
I disagree with this, so very much. I don't want any third-person in the next one... Is it so much to ask for Deus Ex 4 to follow the examples of Crysis, Call of Duty and Battlefield?

HERESY
20th Mar 2012, 20:03
Third person is the way to go.

SDF121
21st Mar 2012, 00:32
I disagree with this, so very much. I don't want any third-person in the next one... Is it so much to ask for Deus Ex 4 to follow the examples of Crysis, Call of Duty and Battlefield?

Agreed. Third person cover/take down mechanics are dated. Although I don't mind the use of a third person perspective in some shooters, it just seems out of place for an immersive sim that takes itself seriously like Deus Ex.

Ali007
21st Mar 2012, 06:37
I think that would be so bad if we do that look the feeling of the game is in the 1person

KenTWOu
21st Mar 2012, 10:19
Yeah, that was a problem with LA Noire for me. You couldn't really investigate the environments naturally like you can with a first person game.
Yeah, I have the same feeling about this. Third person view and lack of back walking (played on PC with mouse and keyboard) ruin investigation process for me. Because I dance around evidences in circles while finding them.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 01:25
What's out of place for an immersive sim is knocked out bodies laying in the streets after many hours have passed. What's out of place for an immersive sim is the ability to look through boxes and objects without augments. Moving people with a phantom limb? Out of place. Lifting up objects with a phantom limb? Out of place. Opening doors with a phantom limb? Out of place.

Romeo
23rd Mar 2012, 04:20
What's out of place for an immersive sim is knocked out bodies laying in the streets after many hours have passed. What's out of place for an immersive sim is the ability to look through boxes and objects without augments. Moving people with a phantom limb? Out of place. Lifting up objects with a phantom limb? Out of place. Opening doors with a phantom limb? Out of place.
Sure, those are straight up limitations. They didn't have time (or desire) to code in the extra animations required to have Jensen pick things up properly, or open the door properly, or peek around the items he's holding. Something like third-person is an intentional design choice, which is actually less acceptable in my books.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 04:27
Sure, those are straight up limitations. They didn't have time (or desire) to code in the extra animations required to have Jensen pick things up properly, or open the door properly, or peek around the items he's holding. Something like third-person is an intentional design choice, which is actually less acceptable in my books.

The things you just listed are design choices so you can't say they didn't have time or desire to code in this or that.

What we're talking about here is immersion. People who constantly complain about the third person perspective say it ruins immersion. However, when it is pointed out that there are a lot of more important immersion breaking elements that should be adressed I hear crickets.

Provide it as an option or stick with 3rd person.

ZakKa89
23rd Mar 2012, 15:29
Deus Ex has to stay at least MOSTLY firstperson. Stop it with these silly suggestions.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 17:07
Deus Ex has to stay at least MOSTLY firstperson. Stop it with these silly suggestions.

It isn't a silly suggestion and the game does not have to stay first person. Why are you people so opposed to a 3rd person option?

Pinky_Powers
23rd Mar 2012, 18:41
It isn't a silly suggestion and the game does not have to stay first person. Why are you people so opposed to a 3rd person option?

I already covered this in my post, and it had nothing to do with immersion-breaking. It would seriously weaken the gameplay.

Tverdyj
23rd Mar 2012, 19:05
Yeah, that was a problem with LA Noire for me. You couldn't really investigate the environments naturally like you can with a first person game. I actually liked the third-person elements to DX:HR, as they allowed you to have a sense of how Adam moves (and looks), which I think helps with re-enforcing his character.


I also enjoyed the 3rd person bits in DXHR.











in fact, I enjoyed the fact that they were 100% optional (convo cutscenes aside) so much, that the only times I used them were for Takedowns and Icarus.

oh, and wall-punch.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 20:16
I already covered this in my post, and it had nothing to do with immersion-breaking. It would seriously weaken the gameplay.

No, your post doesn't cover much of anything and is based on your opinion and preference for first person.



Nope, that doesn't actually happen in-game. You see, the enemy AI can't actually see your body at all... they don't have eyes; they're programs. They can only react to what the devs program them to react to. This is why they never see you unless there's real line-of sight. If you can't see them, they can't see you. Any allusion to them spotting your shoulder or a leg and then reacting to it is a lie or a misunderstanding of the circumstance.

Why were Kojima and Konami able to pull off MGS?


I enjoy third-person games. Mass Effect is one of my personal favorites. But Deus Ex should be first-person, it is immeasurably better that way.

And you're making this claim, which is your opinion and preference, based on what? Have you played a third person DX game? No, I didn't think so.


Think about, in third-person you would miss so many of the smaller details in the game, like the post-it notes giving away passwords or all those notes on Adam's mirror.

No you wouldn't. All you have to do is pan the camera in at certain points, just enough for you to see what you're supposed to see and then zoom back out. Again, how were Kojima and Konami able to pull it off?



Little photos and all the hidden loot scattered about. They could all still be there, but you wouldn't be able to really see them.

See above when I speak of panning in and out.



Too much of the environment would be too easily overlooked... and it all looks so beautiful in first-person.

You sound like a first person fan boy. Please refer to MGS.

Zerim
23rd Mar 2012, 20:32
In terms of viewpoints, I prefer games that let you choose between 1st and 3rd person view, like ArmA, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Bethesda games.

Both have their positives and negatives.

In third person, you get much better kinesthetic awareness- the location of your body in space, relative to your surroundings, than first person.

But first person is more immersive and natural. It's how we normally see the world. If a video game is about taking the player, and putting him directly in his character's shoes, 1st person works better as your eyes are directly the character's eyes. Instead of watching Adam Jensen walk through Detroit, you ARE Adam Jensen, walking through Detroit.

In situations that call for stealth, or melee combat, 3rd person is better as you get a way better sense of your surroundings and your location relative to everything else. Think Batman Arkham City or Metal Gear Solid.

For everything else, 1st person works better. Viewing your surroundings naturally, aiming, and just overall immersion. Think STALKER, Half-Life, System Shock, and obviously Deus Ex. Oh, and Amnesia.

Shoot, Amnesia actually is a really good example. Think of it this way; when you're walking around in those dark hallways in Amnesia, if you could press a button and have the view switch to 3rd person, wouldn't that be WAY less scary? Because it would no longer feel like YOU, directly YOURSELF, were walking around in there, but your character. Granted, games like Silent Hill 2 also showed us that 3rd person can still be scary as HELL, but think of Silent Hill in first person then. I feel like it would be much, much more effective.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 20:45
In terms of viewpoints, I prefer games that let you choose between 1st and 3rd person view, like ArmA, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Bethesda games.

Both have their positives and negatives.

In third person, you get much better kinesthetic awareness- the location of your body in space, relative to your surroundings, than first person.

But first person is more immersive and natural. It's how we normally see the world. If a video game is about taking the player, and putting him directly in his character's shoes, 1st person works better as your eyes are directly the character's eyes. Instead of watching Adam Jensen walk through Detroit, you ARE Adam Jensen, walking through Detroit.

In situations that call for stealth, or melee combat, 3rd person is better as you get a way better sense of your surroundings and your location relative to everything else. Think Batman Arkham City or Metal Gear Solid.

For everything else, 1st person works better. Viewing your surroundings naturally, aiming, and just overall immersion. Think STALKER, Half-Life, System Shock, and obviously Deus Ex. Oh, and Amnesia.

Shoot, Amnesia actually is a really good example. Think of it this way; when you're walking around in those dark hallways in Amnesia, if you could press a button and have the view switch to 3rd person, wouldn't that be WAY less scary? Because it would no longer feel like YOU, directly YOURSELF, were walking around in there, but your character. Granted, games like Silent Hill 2 also showed us that 3rd person can still be scary as HELL, but think of Silent Hill in first person then. I feel like it would be much, much more effective.

Technically, all video games, (with the exception of games where no character exists), are role-playing games and placing you in the position of the on screen character/avatar. You play Madden? You're in the role of the QB, receiver, coach, etc. You play God of War? You're in the role of Kratos. You play Star Fox? You're Fox McCloud. You're in those characters shoes and you don't need first person to pull it off. As I've stated in other threads, if you're going to put me in the characters body, and go for "immersion" you need to stay consistent, but there is NO FIRST PERSON GAME that keeps a steady level of consistency. Again, why are we able to see through boxes without augments? Why are we opening doors with phantom limbs?

In regards to the second bold, you can't say for everything else this is better or that is better. What we're dealing with here is an industry that is reluctant to take a step forward when it comes to innovation and how the gamer identifies with the character/avatar and how the gamer perceives the character/avatar. You and I have two eyes, yet there is no way the two of us will see things the same way because our perception, field of vision, etc is different. So in reality, first person is simply a one size fits all CRUTCH, not the final solution as some are making it appear to be.

Jerion
23rd Mar 2012, 21:59
Technically, all video games, (with the exception of games where no character exists), are role-playing games and placing you in the position of the on screen character/avatar. You play Madden? You're in the role of the QB, receiver, coach, etc. You play God of War? You're in the role of Kratos. You play Star Fox? You're Fox McCloud. You're in those characters shoes and you don't need first person to pull it off. As I've stated in other threads, if you're going to put me in the characters body, and go for "immersion" you need to stay consistent, but there is NO FIRST PERSON GAME that keeps a steady level of consistency. Again, why are we able to see through boxes without augments? Why are we opening doors with phantom limbs?

In regards to the second bold, you can't say for everything else this is better or that is better. What we're dealing with here is an industry that is reluctant to take a step forward when it comes to innovation and how the gamer identifies with the character/avatar and how the gamer perceives the character/avatar. You and I have two eyes, yet there is no way the two of us will see things the same way because our perception, field of vision, etc is different. So in reality, first person is simply a one size fits all CRUTCH, not the final solution as some are making it appear to be.

In response to a couple points:

-Field of View (I'm not quite sure what you mean by "perception") is not determined by the camera's relation to the character's "body". It is most often designed based on the distance from the player's eyes to the display. It is often easily variable (see: Battlefield 3, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Alan Wake PC) to suit the player's taste. Third person does not necessarily expand the FoV, it simply moves the camera back so more area is visible in the same view. A closer camera position (such as with FPP), combined with a larger FoV, achieves the same result. FoV is not controlled by perspective. A fixed FoV setting is indeed a "one size fits all" solution (not ideal, agreed) but because it is independent of these camera positions it is irrelevant to the discussion.


-"Phantom Limbs" is a design choice typically restricted by time and available resources, both of which are uncomfortably finite when developing a title with a budget. Priorities have to be chosen and sacrifices made. I do not know why the choice was made to do that with the original DX, but with DX:HR it was simply something that had to be cut to keep the schedule on track. Animations need to be created regardless of the camera perspective; Phantom Limbs do not exist in Mirror's Edge or Batman: Arkham Asylum; again this is something independent of the camera. What does change is how noticeable the lack or presence of said animations may be; they are a more prominent part of the scene when looking "through the eyes" of the character, so it could be said that they are more important to providing consistency in FPP than TPP. However this is largely an area of personal preference.

68_pie
23rd Mar 2012, 22:23
Technically, all video games, (with the exception of games where no character exists), are role-playing games and placing you in the position of the on screen character/avatar.

No. Not even close. Playing a role in a game and playing a role playing game are not the same.


You're in those characters shoes and you don't need first person to pull it off.

You don't necessarily need FPP but it is often the right choice.


As I've stated in other threads, if you're going to put me in the characters body, and go for "immersion" you need to stay consistent,

Yes. DXHR would have been better if it had been all in FPP.


but there is NO FIRST PERSON GAME that keeps a steady level of consistency.

A sweeping statement that needs some more detail. What exactly do you mean by consistency? Your previous comment suggested that you meant of perspective but it seems almost as though you are talking about realism.


Again, why are we able to see through boxes without augments? Why are we opening doors with phantom limbs?

Because gameplay trumps immersion. There was a game (can't remember the name) where you had to do everything manually. After the 50th time bending down and reaching out your arm to pick up ammunition it can become tedious. You have to find the right balance.


In regards to the second bold, you can't say for everything else this is better or that is better.

Yet it seems like that's what you are trying to do.


So in reality, first person is simply a one size fits all CRUTCH, not the final solution as some are making it appear to be.

FPP is better for many games DX included. You keep bringing up MGS as an example of a TPP stealth game yet no mention of how perfect a FPP stealth game Thief was? I also feel like you are misinterpreting Pinky's points. What are you hoping to achieve by calling him a FP fanboy? All you seem to be doing is talking about how FPP is outdated and how TPP is perfect. It seems a little hypocritical to be calling other people fanboys.


As for my own opinion on the matter, I would like DX to be designed for FPP. Trying to balance the gameplay for both perspectives would be a huge challenge. TPP makes stealth rather too easy I find. And yes I do find that I miss things in game when playing in TPP. T:DS is a good example of this - I had more fun, a greater challenge, was more immersed and discovered more when playing in FPP as opposed to when playing TPP. There are other games where I have enjoyed TPP (Alpha Protocol/Max Payne) but I don't feel it is right for DX. If that makes me a FP fanboy then so be it and there's nothing more I can do for you, HERESY.

Romeo
23rd Mar 2012, 22:28
No, your post doesn't cover much of anything and is based on your opinion and preference for first person.




Why were Kojima and Konami able to pull off MGS?



And you're making this claim, which is your opinion and preference, based on what? Have you played a third person DX game? No, I didn't think so.



No you wouldn't. All you have to do is pan the camera in at certain points, just enough for you to see what you're supposed to see and then zoom back out. Again, how were Kojima and Konami able to pull it off?




See above when I speak of panning in and out.




You sound like a first person fan boy. Please refer to MGS.
Alright, well let's take this from the top:

His post did cover his points, so I'd back off. You're coming across as dismissive.

Metal Gear Solid is great, but nowhere near as interactive as Deus Ex. It's also always been designed as a third-person series.

Does he need to play a third-person Deus Ex game? Deus Ex has always been a first-person shooter, there's absolutely no reason to screw with that and make a third person one. Building on that point, if you were here in the months (And years, in Pinky's case) leading up to DX:HR, there were a multitude of points as to why third-person would ruin major elements of the game - most notably the "extra information" it gives you. Stealth in first-person involves risk: Do you pop out from behind the ledge to look and locate enemies? Doing so could get you caught though. In third person, you just peek around the corner - totally invisible. Same goes for combat. Your enemies could be flanking you, but you don't know until you pop your head out and look, rendering you vulnerable. In third person, you just hide behind your cover until you notice your opponent pop out, then shoot him. The fact that he hasn't played a third-person Deus Ex game is irrelevent, he's probably played a third-person shooter and thus knows what they're like. And like most people, wouldn't want that infringing on the more demanding first-person shooter Deus Ex should be.

Again, because the environments are far less detailed. Consider how small a post-it note is. They're already tiny even with the added "closeness" of first-person. In third-person, they're going to be entirely unreadable. Third-person also tends to be more difficult to use to accurately look at items, as any Elder Scrolls player will attest to.

And you sound like a third-person fan boy. What you want is fine in other games. Why does Deus Ex need to go third-person? There's already other games for that if that's your thing - play them for that fix. Let Deus Ex be what it's supposed to be: First-person. I can't see it improving the series in any way, and in fact ruining it in several key areas as posted above.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Mar 2012, 22:55
No, your post doesn't cover much of anything and is based on your opinion and preference for first person.




Why were Kojima and Konami able to pull off MGS?



And you're making this claim, which is your opinion and preference, based on what? Have you played a third person DX game? No, I didn't think so.



No you wouldn't. All you have to do is pan the camera in at certain points, just enough for you to see what you're supposed to see and then zoom back out. Again, how were Kojima and Konami able to pull it off?




See above when I speak of panning in and out.




You sound like a first person fan boy. Please refer to MGS.

Everything you just said is a workaround to make third-person less awkward and more like first-person. "Less awkward" is not really a selling point. :D

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 00:25
No, your post doesn't cover much of anything and is based on your opinion and preference for first person.




Why were Kojima and Konami able to pull off MGS?



And you're making this claim, which is your opinion and preference, based on what? Have you played a third person DX game? No, I didn't think so.



No you wouldn't. All you have to do is pan the camera in at certain points, just enough for you to see what you're supposed to see and then zoom back out. Again, how were Kojima and Konami able to pull it off?




See above when I speak of panning in and out.




You sound like a first person fan boy. Please refer to MGS.

you seem to be missing the point spectacularly. the way you propose it, with a TPP game, the game would helpfully zoom in and tell you "THIS IS A POST-IT NOTE. RIGHT HERE, YOU SHOULD READ IT!"

the beauty of leaving a post-it note in fpp is that it actually is subtle--it's there, but you can easily overlook it, and then run the risk of failing to hack the terminal.

your proposed solution eliminates player agency, and it feels far less "consistent" then when it's done in FPP.

ZakKa89
24th Mar 2012, 01:09
Heresy maybe read the countless of threads about this. This has been discussed to death and if you are really that interested why most of are opposed to third person I suggest you read the other threads. No need for us to explain it over and over again.

shortly though just for you:

- First Person is more immersive
- First person has better gameplay: stealth is better and harder, shooting is better in first person and exploring in general.
- In first person you can see your guns and items up close, reloading and everything. That looks damn cool.

and if you want to bring mgs in the mix: totally different game. It's a stealth/action game where the latest installment had not so good stealth gameplay and felt more actiony to me. Also the first person camera in mgs4 is awesome.

TrickyVein
24th Mar 2012, 02:10
I was having a conversation with someone the other day who is schizophrenic. Earlier he had asked me as I was passing by, "Hey, wanna see something cool? Look at this." He turned around and pointed to a picture of a brain on his shirt. "That's my brain. Pretty cool, huh?" The lab where he volunteers himself as a test subject gave it to him after putting him through an MRI.

As he went on to explain to me, he sees the world from three (3!) perspectives at any time. In 1st person, where he is actually controlling his movements and speaking out loud, sensing the world around him and the like. But he also inhabits a '2nd person' where he is telling himself "You don't know that" or "...yes, but how can you be sure?" He described the world as being made up of variables. We assume some of these variables to exist even if we can't see them. A tree, for instance, we say is a tree because it has some observable characteristics like the color and texture of its bark, its shape, the way it sways in the wind, we we gather to mean that it is a tree. But there are also 'hidden' variables like the width of the tree's rings, were you to cut it down and expose them, or the underground root system which are there, *that we assume to be there* but we can't see. There are also any number of other hidden variables that are part of the tree which may lead us to conclude that it is in fact a cardboard cutout of a tree. So in '3rd person' he is also - and here he gestured with his hands like holding the sides of his head and moving them behind himself - watching it all happen; watching himself speaking to himself in 2nd person as he lives his life in 1st person. When he loses his 3rd person perspective he gets scared and doesn't know which variables he should have to pay attention to in order to determine what's real or not. That's when he has a breakdown.

So what I'm saying is that 1st person perspective is not any more 'immersive' than 3rd person because of some quality that we can say is there. That is a value judgement and has to be recognized as such. For discussions such as these, 'better' is not a useful descriptor unless you mean to examine the game as a whole to say which perspective is better for the game, and not 'better' just because 1st person > 3rd person.

Having played DX:HR, I feel like it should have been exclusively 3rd person. (I play both 1st person and 3rd person games and like them both.) The cover mechanics/acrobatics and the takedowns as well as ladder climbing would *all* be much less jarring if we could just. stay. in. 3rd. person. The devs loved them, obviously and put a great deal of effort into creating and stylizing them, so why shouldn't they have just realized that the game they were making was actually a 3rd person game and gone with it?

Pinky_Powers
24th Mar 2012, 02:30
Did someone hack your account TrickyVein?

PS. That was an awesome story about the schizophrenic.

OMGITSJASON
24th Mar 2012, 03:45
I love Deus Ex HR but lay off MGS4. Name me another game that you can play dead in lol.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 03:54
In response to a couple points:

-Field of View (I'm not quite sure what you mean by "perception") is not determined by the camera's relation to the character's "body". It is most often designed based on the distance from the player's eyes to the display.

When I say perception think about things like depth, what is reaching the eye (light), motion parallax and how we interpret what we see.


It is often easily variable (see: Battlefield 3, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Alan Wake PC) to suit the player's taste.

And we all have different tastes. Again, one size fits all.


Third person does not necessarily expand the FoV, it simply moves the camera back so more area is visible in the same view. A closer camera position (such as with FPP), combined with a larger FoV, achieves the same result. FoV is not controlled by perspective.

Did I say FOV was controlled by perspective? Did I say a closer camera position combined with a larger FOV wouldn't provide the same result? What I AM saying is the first person perspective is no more "immersive" than the third person perspective.



A fixed FoV setting is indeed a "one size fits all" solution (not ideal, agreed) but because it is independent of these camera positions it is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, it is totally relevant to the discussion. The OP wants a 3rd person camera, many people are protesting for something that is actually a one size fits all solution. Why are you claiming it is irrelevant?



-"Phantom Limbs" is a design choice typically restricted by time and available resources, both of which are uncomfortably finite when developing a title with a budget.

And you worked on the game? You were right there modeling and rigging? Maybe you were a project manager and knew what the budget and time constraints were? See, you can't have it both ways. You people can't go on and on about camera view being an "immersion breaker" while accepting phantom limbs. And mind you, this phantom limb stuff has been going on for years.



Priorities have to be chosen and sacrifices made....However this is largely an area of personal preference.

It is all personal preference so give the gamers the OPTION of having third or first person.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 04:13
No. Not even close. Playing a role in a game and playing a role playing game are not the same.

No matter how you slice it it's the same thing. "You are Kratos, you are the God of War!"

Are you really Kratos or playing the role of a fictional character?


You don't necessarily need FPP but it is often the right choice.

Opinion.


Yes. DXHR would have been better if it had been all in FPP.

Opinion.


A sweeping statement that needs some more detail.

You would know.


What exactly do you mean by consistency? Your previous comment suggested that you meant of perspective but it seems almost as though you are talking about realism.

Consistency as it relates to "immersion." You can call it "realism" if you like, but if you're going to talk about immersion, you have to consider all the points I'm bringing up. I understand we are dealing with fictional worlds and characters, but if you're going to go with a certain design choice, regenerating health for example, make sure it ties in to what would be acceptable or "real" in that world. For example, I can see if regen health was tied into the story, "You regenerate health because you have nano machines in your body." That would make sense, but to simply sit still and recover energy? LOL.

Again, NO FIRST PERSON GAME is consistent when it comes to this. Phantom limb, seeing through objects and running around with your gun drawn like an idiot 24/7. However, I like the fact that HR allowed us to holster. That was one of the selling points for me.


Because gameplay trumps immersion. There was a game (can't remember the name) where you had to do everything manually. After the 50th time bending down and reaching out your arm to pick up ammunition it can become tedious. You have to find the right balance.

Some would say gameplay is immersion, vice versa, the main objective or that you can't have one without the other.


Yet it seems like that's what you are trying to do.

I'm saying give us the option. That's what I've been saying for a long time now yet people are saying we don't need the option.


FPP is better for many games DX included. You keep bringing up MGS as an example of a TPP stealth game yet no mention of how perfect a FPP stealth game Thief was?

Why would I mention Thief when I didn't play it? I played the original DX after members here suggested it and I deleted it from my HD.


I also feel like you are misinterpreting Pinky's points. What are you hoping to achieve by calling him a FP fanboy?

Actually, I didn't call him anything. I said he sounded like a fanboy. I base this on reading his posts and how he insists that the option should not be granted to users.


All you seem to be doing is talking about how FPP is outdated and how TPP is perfect. It seems a little hypocritical to be calling other people fanboys.

No, YOU'RE misinterpreting my points. It's not that FPP is outdated, it's that people are doing the same thing over and over no one is being innovative with it. First person view hasn't changed the way we play games or how games are designed. However, third person has done such a thing. We need the option for 3rd person and it's something I've been saying for a long time now. However, people such as yourself are against even having the option.


As for my own opinion on the matter, I would like DX to be designed for FPP. Trying to balance the gameplay for both perspectives would be a huge challenge. TPP makes stealth rather too easy I find. And yes I do find that I miss things in game when playing in TPP. T:DS is a good example of this - I had more fun, a greater challenge, was more immersed and discovered more when playing in FPP as opposed to when playing TPP. There are other games where I have enjoyed TPP (Alpha Protocol/Max Payne) but I don't feel it is right for DX. If that makes me a FP fanboy then so be it and there's nothing more I can do for you, HERESY.

Skyrim.

TrickyVein
24th Mar 2012, 04:26
Did someone hack your account TrickyVein?

LOL I just wasn't very sarcastic, now was I? That's very funny, Pinky :D

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 04:31
Alright, well let's take this from the top:

His post did cover his points, so I'd back off. You're coming across as dismissive.

No, IMHO he didn't cover his points. Back off? He posted his opinions and preference, I can dismiss them as much as I want. So I have to accept any and everything he says as fact? Are you serious? I can't dismiss his opinions and preference?


Metal Gear Solid is great, but nowhere near as interactive as Deus Ex. It's also always been designed as a third-person series.

And YOUR point? I know exactly why I mentioned the series, why are you telling me that it is nowhere as interactive and what it was designed as? Also, the nowhere near as interactive as DX is your opinion. The MGS series will have you disconnecting your controller and plugging it into another port. It will have you looking on the back of the case or inside the manual to find a hidden frequency to be used to call someone. So again, what you're claiming is a matter of opinion.


Does he need to play a third-person Deus Ex game? Deus Ex has always been a first-person shooter, there's absolutely no reason to screw with that and make a third person one.

See, this right here is the problem. I've said it before and I'll say it again but you people are afraid of advancement and want to hold on to DX. Mario was a 2D game. Metroid was a 2D game. Both have ADVANCED and used the camera in INNOVATIVE ways. However, we can't say the same for DX and the majority of first person games. So what if it's always been this or that? Get with the times, focus on innovation and allow it to dictate what gameplay mechanics you'll implement. Don't just stick to a certain camera because you want the "spirit" of that. The spirit of a game is not found in the camera type. Keep that in mind.


Building on that point, if you were here in the months (And years, in Pinky's case) leading up to DX:HR, there were a multitude of points as to why third-person would ruin major elements of the game - most notably the "extra information" it gives you. Stealth in first-person involves risk: Do you pop out from behind the ledge to look and locate enemies? Doing so could get you caught though. In third person, you just peek around the corner - totally invisible. Same goes for combat. Your enemies could be flanking you, but you don't know until you pop your head out and look, rendering you vulnerable. In third person, you just hide behind your cover until you notice your opponent pop out, then shoot him. The fact that he hasn't played a third-person Deus Ex game is irrelevent, he's probably played a third-person shooter and thus knows what they're like. And like most people, wouldn't want that infringing on the more demanding first-person shooter Deus Ex should be.

All of this can be rectified by level design.

Stealth in first person involves risk? Is there any first person game that allows you to control how much you peak out? The fact that he hasn't played a third person DX game renders his opinion null & void. You can't compare and contrast something that doesn't exist.


Again, because the environments are far less detailed. Consider how small a post-it note is. They're already tiny even with the added "closeness" of first-person. In third-person, they're going to be entirely unreadable. Third-person also tends to be more difficult to use to accurately look at items, as any Elder Scrolls player will attest to.

No, they are not going to be unreadable. Pick the thing up, a new screen pops up, you read whatever you need to read, problem solved.


And you sound like a third-person fan boy. What you want is fine in other games. Why does Deus Ex need to go third-person?

Give us the option. People such as yourself are clinging and too rigid to even accept the fact that an option would be best.



There's already other games for that if that's your thing - play them for that fix. Let Deus Ex be what it's supposed to be: First-person.

Supposed to be? Did you ever ask the creators why first person was chosen? Maybe it had to do with budget or technology? To say it is "supposed" to be first person is jumping the gun.


I can't see it improving the series in any way, and in fact ruining it in several key areas as posted above.

You're entitled to your opinion. I can see many ways in which it can improve the series and others have posted some of them.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 04:39
you seem to be missing the point spectacularly. the way you propose it, with a TPP game, the game would helpfully zoom in and tell you "THIS IS A POST-IT NOTE. RIGHT HERE, YOU SHOULD READ IT!"

No not at all. Have you played Mass Effect 3? Right when you're about to start the mission the camera zooms in from being way behind Shep to being right up close. Have you played Darksiders? When war locks on to an enemy it goes into a letterbox style visual. The game does not need to zoom in when you see objects on the ground. The objects simply need to be large enough for you to see them. Think about the collectables in Gears or the items in Dead Space. In fact, Dead Space is a great example. Want another example? LA NOIRE. Third person, so many clues and things you can overlook and it's supposed to be that way.


the beauty of leaving a post-it note in fpp is that it actually is subtle--it's there, but you can easily overlook it, and then run the risk of failing to hack the terminal.

See above.


your proposed solution eliminates player agency, and it feels far less "consistent" then when it's done in FPP.

You've misinterpeted the solution. Hopefully after reading the last couple of posts you "get it."

Romeo
24th Mar 2012, 04:50
Both LA Noire and Dead Space are kind've odd examples... LA Noire is noted specifically for being a little frustrating to deal with - and it's always a third-person control issue. And Dead Space has nowhere near the same level of interaction. Sure, the levels may have broad, sweeping details, but nothing on the level where in-depth attention-to-detail is required. In Deus Ex, you may notice a tiny little drawer hidden behind something, and have to position yourself juuuust right to interact with it. In Dead Space, nothing like that ever takes place.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 05:10
Both LA Noire and Dead Space are kind've odd examples... LA Noire is noted specifically for being a little frustrating to deal with - and it's always a third-person control issue. And Dead Space has nowhere near the same level of interaction. Sure, the levels may have broad, sweeping details, but nothing on the level where in-depth attention-to-detail is required. In Deus Ex, you may notice a tiny little drawer hidden behind something, and have to position yourself juuuust right to interact with it. In Dead Space, nothing like that ever takes place.

First, they were cited because they are third person games and you don't need to zoom all the way in like one reader thought I implied.

LA Noires third person control issue has to do with that, CONTROL. The same can be said for Mass Effect. You can bring Shepard up to an option and he'll run around in circles sometimes. This is a control issue, not a camera issue. In LA Noire there are a ton of clues that you can miss if you aren't paying attention. The same can be said for Dead Space. In neither game is there a need to zoom in like the other poster suggested and that posted misonstrued what I suggested.

Depth attention to detail? You don't have to position yourself just right in Deus Ex Human Revolution to interact with certain objects and if you do, you must really consider if it's something that has to do with detection or if it really is a design choice. Also, common sense plays a big role in all of this. There is an ally, maybe if I go in the ally I'll find a hidden path or useful item? Maybe if I pick up that crate I'll find something? Oh yeah, ammo and money under crates. You gotta love "immersion."

ZakKa89
24th Mar 2012, 16:10
This guy sure loves him some third person

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 18:28
This guy sure loves him some third person

sure ly he doesn't want to make us play something we don't like simply because he loves it?

surely there must be a better reason than that, 3rd person being the "wave of the future", and all?

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 22:13
sure ly he doesn't want to make us play something we don't like simply because he loves it?

surely there must be a better reason than that, 3rd person being the "wave of the future", and all?

We need the OPTION. What yourself and others are saying is that we shouldn't even be given the option.


This guy sure loves him some third person

Totally. It beats playing games where your character is running around with a gun drawn 24/7.

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 22:27
We need the OPTION. What yourself and others are saying is that we shouldn't even be given the option.



Totally. It beats playing games where your character is running around with a gun drawn 24/7.

if you can give me 100% guarantee in writing that re-making DX4 in 3rd person will not, in any way, shape or form, detract from the resources being put into first-person, then i'm all for more options.

however, as past experiences have taught us, once we go down this route of "compromise for the sake of accessibility", we don't end up anywhere good (see: Health regen, chesthighwallitis-inspired level design, "cinematic" game-play, contextual prompts, highlighting, objective markers, etc.)

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 22:57
if you can give me 100% guarantee in writing that re-making DX4 in 3rd person will not, in any way, shape or form, detract from the resources being put into first-person, then i'm all for more options.

I can do no such thing as I am not familiar with their development cycle. However, what I am familiar with is the fact that first person perspective in the industry has not evolved. We can chart the evolution of 3rd person and how it has changed gaming but we can't say the same for first person. It's pretty much the same excuse that has been provided for years now.

Did the third person elements in HR detract from the resources being put into first-person?


however, as past experiences have taught us, once we go down this route of "compromise for the sake of accessibility", we don't end up anywhere good (see: Health regen, chesthighwallitis-inspired level design, "cinematic" game-play, contextual prompts, highlighting, objective markers, etc.)

None of these have anything to do with third person as third person is not a compromise for the sake of accessibility.

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 23:15
I can do no such thing as I am not familiar with their development cycle. However, what I am familiar with is the fact that first person perspective in the industry has not evolved. We can chart the evolution of 3rd person and how it has changed gaming but we can't say the same for first person. It's pretty much the same excuse that has been provided for years now.

Did the third person elements in HR detract from the resources being put into first-person?



None of these have anything to do with third person as third person is not a compromise for the sake of accessibility.

to the underlined: Red Orchestra 2. youtube it.

seriously, I couldn't care less about massive online shooters, but that cover system is great.

see also, see Far Cry 3 videos (more first-person cover), Dark Messiah of Might and Magic for great first-person melee combat.

just because it doesn't appear in every single game, doesn't mean there has been no innovation in the genre.

Can someone please find this man an EM quote about how 3rd person cover would make DXHR more accessible? I don't have time atm.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 23:34
to the underlined: Red Orchestra 2. youtube it.

seriously, I couldn't care less about massive online shooters, but that cover system is great.

While I agree that the cover system looks good, if the majority of first person shooters don't adopt it, it proves what I'm saying. Again, we can map the evolution of 3rd person perspective and how it has changed gaming but first person has remained the same for years.


see also, see Far Cry 3 videos (more first-person cover), Dark Messiah of Might and Magic for great first-person melee combat.

See above.


just because it doesn't appear in every single game, doesn't mean there has been no innovation in the genre.

The first person camera has not been used in an innovative way since Wolfstein. Again, we can't say the same for 3rd person as it has evolved. Compare Win Back, and the other game that influenced gears, it was a army type shooter I can't remember the game, and RE4 and you'll see the genre has changed. New mechanics, new this, new that. First person? Same methods, same excuse.



Can someone please find this man an EM quote about how 3rd person cover would make DXHR more accessible? I don't have time atm.

Let's say it did make it more accessible, let's go with that. NONE of what you listed has anything to do with third person.

ZakKa89
25th Mar 2012, 00:04
The first person camera has not been used in an innovative way since Wolfstein

What?! Go play Mirror's Edge, or any of the other games people talk about here. You respond with this after somebody just told you about the cover system in RO2.

But anyway, we are comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about third person games like RE4 which are completey different types of games. You really can't find any examples of a deus ex type game that's third person except for perhaps that spy game that bombed miserably (alpha protocol).

People like you don't understand that we don't oplay deus ex as a shooter. We play it as an immersive sim. We walk around, explore, eavesdrop on conversations, fool around. For that we want the best immersion and sense of the environment and first person view gives us that.

Another non-gameplay point but still important: The designers made great looking weapons, and they should be admired up close in a first person view.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 00:13
What?! Go play Mirror's Edge, or any of the other games people talk about here. You respond with this after somebody just told you about the cover system in RO2.

Until companies utilize the features in Mirrors Edge or RO2, or better yet, evolve like third person games have, you'll be left with phantom limbs, seeing through boxes, running around with your gun drawn 24/7 and other things.



But anyway, we are comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about third person games like RE4 which are completey different types of games. You really can't find any examples of a deus ex type game that's third person except for perhaps that spy game that bombed miserably.

METAL GEAR SOLID 4.

EDITED DUE TO YOU EDITING YOUR POST:


People like you don't understand that we don't oplay deus ex as a shooter. We play it as an immersive sim. We walk around, explore, eavesdrop on conversations, fool around. For that we want the best immersion and sense of the environment and first person view gives us that.

It is impossible for you and anyone else to talk about immersion while ignoring phantom limbs, seeing through boxes and money and other items hidden under crates, vents and other obscure places. You can't talk about immersion while ignoring the fact that you can open a door yet you never see your hand. You can't talk about immersion when most of these so-called "immersive sims" have you running around with a weapon drawn throughout the entire campaign (this does not apply to DX but DOES apply to the average FPS or FPA/A.)


Another non-gameplay point but still important: The designers made great looking weapons, and they should be admired up close in a first person view.

ROFL. In most first person games all you are is a dot in the middle of the screen and a weapon to the right of it.

You can look at a weapon, up close, with 3rd person. It all depends on how close you want to zoom in when the character goes into firing mode.

Tverdyj
25th Mar 2012, 00:35
Until companies utilize the features in Mirrors Edge or RO2, or better yet, evolve like third person games have, you'll be left with phantom limbs, seeing through boxes, running around with your gun drawn 24/7 and other things.




METAL GEAR SOLID 4.

EDITED DUE TO YOU EDITING YOUR POST:



It is impossible for you and anyone else to talk about immersion while ignoring phantom limbs, seeing through boxes and money and other items hidden under crates, vents and other obscure places. You can't talk about immersion while ignoring the fact that you can open a door yet you never see your hand. You can't talk about immersion when most of these so-called "immersive sims" have you running around with a weapon drawn throughout the entire campaign (this does not apply to DX but DOES apply to the average FPS or FPA/A.)



ROFL. In most first person games all you are is a dot in the middle of the screen and a weapon to the right of it.

You can look at a weapon, up close, with 3rd person. It all depends on how close you want to zoom in when the character goes into firing mode.

again, DX x 3, Thief x 3, Bloodlines, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. x 3, System Shock x 2. there is an option to holster in Bioshock, I'm pretty sure you don't need to have guns out in Fallout 3 all the time, nor Far Cry. Dishonoured will have a holster option....

HERESY, not all FPSs are immersive sims, and those that are, usually offer moments of non-violence, and not just in cut-scenes.

EDIT: oh, and yes, Alpha Protocol. simply amazing game, imo. and when firing, it'd often switch into nearly FPS perspective, if you didn't use the chest-high cover system....

Zerim
25th Mar 2012, 00:36
Heresy, pretty much every complaint you have about first person view is totally a non-issue in the first person view that was done in ArmA II.

You can see your entire body, you can move your head and look at your gun or your character as much as you want, there are no phantom limbs, you can't see through anything, there is no object highlighting or any other effects of the sort, you cannot open doors without reaching out and touching them with your hand, you do not have to walk around with your gun drawn, you can actually lower it AND holster it, whichever floats your boat, and-

Wait, is that all? Jesus Christ Denton, I do believe that's all!

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 00:49
again, DX x 3, Thief x 3, Bloodlines, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. x 3, System Shock x 2. there is an option to holster in Bioshock, I'm pretty sure you don't need to have guns out in Fallout 3 all the time, nor Far Cry. Dishonoured will have a holster option....

What button is used to holster your weapon in Bioshock (ps3 or 360?)


HERESY, not all FPSs are immersive sims, and those that are, usually offer moments of non-violence, and not just in cut-scenes.

I understand this completely. Partially because the genre doesn't exist, but I get where you're coming from.


EDIT: oh, and yes, Alpha Protocol. simply amazing game, imo. and when firing, it'd often switch into nearly FPS perspective, if you didn't use the chest-high cover system....

METAL GEAR SOLID: GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 00:53
Heresy, pretty much every complaint you have about first person view is totally a non-issue in the first person view that was done in ArmA II.

You can see your entire body, you can move your head and look at your gun or your character as much as you want, there are no phantom limbs, you can't see through anything, there is no object highlighting or any other effects of the sort, you cannot open doors without reaching out and touching them with your hand, you do not have to walk around with your gun drawn, you can actually lower it AND holster it, whichever floats your boat, and-

Wait, is that all? Jesus Christ Denton, I do believe that's all!

So is having all of this too much to ask? No, give players the option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaLn6ry4R4

See, if I want to play in third person, like this guy did for a bit, let me do that. Don't impede on my gaming and make the claim that this is meant to be this or that is meant to be that.

Tverdyj
25th Mar 2012, 00:56
What button is used to holster your weapon in Bioshock (ps3 or 360?)



I understand this completely. Partially because the genre doesn't exist, but I get where you're coming from.



METAL GEAR SOLID: GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS.

I have obsolutely no clue, never owned a console.
EDIT: could be the reason games nowadays are lacking a holster button, is because there isn't enough buttons on the controller? (see ME3 with the "sprint"/"cover" on the space bar)

EDIT the second: untill MGS is console-exclusive, I can't say anything about it, having never owned a console. your examples are lost on me.

Romeo
25th Mar 2012, 03:43
So is having all of this too much to ask? No, give players the option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaLn6ry4R4

See, if I want to play in third person, like this guy did for a bit, let me do that. Don't impede on my gaming and make the claim that this is meant to be this or that is meant to be that.
I don't think "the option" is as easy as you think it is. Quite a lot has to be redone to be third person, including map control. As third-person allows the player to "cheat" by looking around a corner they logistically wouldn't be able to normally, the maps either need to become intentionally cluttered to hide that (Which dampens gameplay considerably) otherwise you're leaving the player with a "use this view to win" option.

Also touching on your "evolution" theory of perspectives: 3rd person STILL hasn't gotten past the very basic "extra information" problem it's had since its inception (See: Gears of War, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid). How do you call that evolution? Sure, many third person games have evolved "hug to" cover, but that's kind of irrelevent when the core view is already broken from a realism perspective. Besides that being about the only "evolution" I've seen from 3rd person, it's kind've irrelevent too. Most games have cover systems - even Call of Duty. It's called using the environment.

68_pie
25th Mar 2012, 09:43
While I agree that the cover system looks good, if the majority of first person shooters don't adopt it, it proves what I'm saying.

How does it prove that?


Again, we can map the evolution of 3rd person perspective and how it has changed gaming but first person has remained the same for years.

Please do so cos I'm :scratch:



It is impossible for you and anyone else to talk about immersion while ignoring phantom limbs, seeing through boxes and money and other items hidden under crates, vents and other obscure places. You can't talk about immersion while ignoring the fact that you can open a door yet you never see your hand.

Immersion =/= Realism


You can't talk about immersion when most of these so-called "immersive sims" have you running around with a weapon drawn throughout the entire campaign (this does not apply to DX but DOES apply to the average FPS or FPA/A.)

FPS =/= Immersive Sim


third person is not a compromise for the sake of accessibility.

It makes stealth easier.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 18:19
I don't think "the option" is as easy as you think it is. Quite a lot has to be redone to be third person, including map control.

So? Go ahead and do it or give the community the tools to do it. You ever play Boderlands? It's a first person game, and yes the models were there because it is a MP gam yet the PC community was able to mod the game and make it third person (it looks and controls good btw.) With HR, you already have a lot of work done for the third person (cover, cinematics, etc.)


As third-person allows the player to "cheat" by looking around a corner they logistically wouldn't be able to normally, the maps either need to become intentionally cluttered to hide that (Which dampens gameplay considerably) otherwise you're leaving the player with a "use this view to win" option.

And first person allows you to do what exactly? Cheat by looking through items? And, as previously stated, the first person perspective is a one size fits all. You can curb the so-called cheating by better map design.


Also touching on your "evolution" theory of perspectives: 3rd person STILL hasn't gotten past the very basic "extra information" problem it's had since its inception (See: Gears of War, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid). How do you call that evolution?

Go ahead and give me an example of "extra information" and I'll answer it.


Sure, many third person games have evolved "hug to" cover, but that's kind of irrelevent when the core view is already broken from a realism perspective.

Again, first person is not offering a perspective rooted in realism because it is one size fits all--it's already broken. In addition to this, and I'll say it again, first person has not evolved to the point where it is innovative and the innovation is being copied by other developers. With third person at least you can say the cover has advanced. However, not much has advanced in FP that changes the way FP games are designed/developed and played by gamers, and if it has, it hasn't done much good for the genre.


Besides that being about the only "evolution" I've seen from 3rd person, it's kind've irrelevent too. Most games have cover systems - even Call of Duty. It's called using the environment.

Using the environment in what way? Simply ducking behind a tree? Simply ducking behind a wall? The way you use the environment in first person games needs to be done away with. It isn't innovative at all and doesn't "immerse" anyone.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 18:21
How does it prove that?



Please do so cos I'm :scratch:




Immersion =/= Realism



FPS =/= Immersive Sim



It makes stealth easier.

This post does not deserve an in depth response as you're typing about things I've already covered.

Tverdyj
25th Mar 2012, 18:38
Heresy, you are nitpicking. not all games we've listed have see-though boxes.
actually scratch, that, MOST of the games we've listed don't have see-through boxes, :D

the extra-information problem is the fact that when in 3rd person, in cover, the screen shows things the PC should not be able to see--such as enemies walking down the hall, when you are glued to the wall perpendicular to said hallway, and should have no line of sight or any way of seeing what's going on there.

the above reason is why stealth becomes so easy in third person games--the player is giuven additional feedback on positioning of enemies, that allows him to avoid their line of sight.

oh, and just btw, throwing around the brand of MGS has the same effect on us as us givig you examples such as ARMA does on you--it's not a "mainstream" game either, it's not being emulated by every single game out there, so that makes it as much an outlier as examples we've been giving you for FPS.

please tell me, is there a functional difference between cover system in ME3 and the first Gears of War? (which is often seen as the "trend-starter" for chesthighwallitis)

edit: oh and wrt to mod tools... yeah, here we're on the same page. but potential DLC money means we get them less and less frequently.....

TrickyVein
25th Mar 2012, 18:48
*Interjecting myself*

Having played both GoW and ME, there is no difference between the cover systems of either. The PC remains under cover by default without having to press or hold any buttons. To fire, the PC presses an 'aim' button and holds until release to fall back under cover. Both games allow you to jump in some way from one kind of cover to another as well as vault over chest-high walls. I'm not sure how this basic setup could be altered. Unless you think forcing a switch between 1st and 3rd person is an advancement for cover systems?

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 20:10
Heresy, you are nitpicking. not all games we've listed have see-though boxes.
actually scratch, that, MOST of the games we've listed don't have see-through boxes, :D

And which first person games would those be?

As for your nitpicking comment, this board is censoring me, so I'm not even going to address it.


the extra-information problem is the fact that when in 3rd person, in cover, the screen shows things the PC should not be able to see--such as enemies walking down the hall, when you are glued to the wall perpendicular to said hallway, and should have no line of sight or any way of seeing what's going on there.

You should have let him answered, but like I said in either this thread or another, this can be rectified by level design. It also goes back into perception which is different from FOV, which I've already addressed.


the above reason is why stealth becomes so easy in third person games--the player is giuven additional feedback on positioning of enemies, that allows him to avoid their line of sight.

See above.


oh, and just btw, throwing around the brand of MGS has the same effect on us as us givig you examples such as ARMA does on you--it's not a "mainstream" game either, it's not being emulated by every single game out there, so that makes it as much an outlier as examples we've been giving you for FPS.

Jargon. ARMA gives you the OPTION of third or first person which is what others and I are arguing. However, MGS is being emulated or has been emulated. See, the difference between me and you guys is I'm more open to change. You guys want DX with better graphics. No improvements in any of the pillars, the EXACT same thing with better graphics.


please tell me, is there a functional difference between cover system in ME3 and the first Gears of War? (which is often seen as the "trend-starter" for chesthighwallitis)

No. There is no functional difference as the cover simply provides you with cover and allow you to regenerate health or whatever you need to do. However, it is light years beyond the cover systems used by early third person games.

Tverdyj
26th Mar 2012, 00:15
And which first person games would those be?



hmm, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, CHronicles of Riddick, System Shock 2, Bioshock.....haven't played ARMA, would someone else chime in? Is there se-thorugh cover in Battlefield or CoD?



As for your nitpicking comment, this board is censoring me, so I'm not even going to address it.


You should have let him answered, but like I said in either this thread or another, this can be rectified by level design. It also goes back into perception which is different from FOV, which I've already addressed.

except, have we seen any improvement in this level design? the prevalence 3rd person games ridden with chesthighwallitis suggests we haven't




See above.



Jargon. ARMA gives you the OPTION of third or first person which is what others and I are arguing. However, MGS is being emulated or has been emulated. See, the difference between me and you guys is I'm more open to change. You guys want DX with better graphics. No improvements in any of the pillars, the EXACT same thing with better graphics.

oh, now we're getting into true copypasta turf. First off, "the pillars" you speak of are the conception of EM--Warren Specter did not speak of the "pillars of DX gameplay".

secondly, we don't object to things that build on the existing game--I'm fairly sure overwhelming majority of fans of the original admit that hacking and conversation battles were both improvements on the existing gameplay mechanics. That being said, we'd rather see melee a la Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, or Chronicles of Riddick, or Mirror's edge--that would be an improvement, and added complexity, rather then the simplification of a 1-button takedown.

likewise, with stealth, we'd prefer a more complex stealth system, a la Thief, taking advantage of sound propagation and shadows, rather then a system relying on Line of Sight alone, and adding an "always on-cheatmode" in the radar.




No. There is no functional difference as the cover simply provides you with cover and allow you to regenerate health or whatever you need to do. However, it is light years beyond the cover systems used by early third person games.

And how is this any different from the progressive examples we listed? (ARMA, FarCry3, Red Orchestra 2, Crysis 2)?
lol, you make it sound like it's the gamers holding back the development of 1st person cover. When it's the devs and publishers who are content to use existing mechanics as long as they sell--which is also the reason why we are seeing so many third-person cover shooters, with level design centered around chest high walls, and health regen. Lol, from what I can see, third-person games innovation has peaked with GoW, and now they are stagnating, the same way you claim First-person games are stagnating. The difference being, we've shown you examples, (though not yet mainstream--though I'm pretty sure both Crysis 2 and Far Cry 3 are targetting a rather "mainstream" audience) of further developments.
Where's the revolutionary new breakthrough in third-person game design?

HERESY
26th Mar 2012, 02:44
hmm, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, CHronicles of Riddick, System Shock 2, Bioshock.....haven't played ARMA, would someone else chime in? Is there se-thorugh cover in Battlefield or CoD?

I don't play COD or BF. I can't comment. I stopped playing Bioshock so I could play ME3 and Halo Wars and I picked up Riddick and put that down. I don't remember if those games had them or not, but I do know you're basically a dot on the screen and a weapon/hand(s).


except, have we seen any improvement in this level design? the prevalence 3rd person games ridden with chesthighwallitis suggests we haven't


The industry is getting there. I think Binary Domain's cover system is pretty good, and while the 3rd person level design isn't perfect (due to things mentioned by others and myself) it (third person) has taken a step forward. However, we can't say the same for first person. The first person genre has had enough time to evolve but it hasn't.


oh, now we're getting into true copypasta turf. First off, "the pillars" you speak of are the conception of EM--Warren Specter did not speak of the "pillars of DX gameplay".

It doesn't matter who spoke of them. At the end of the day they are core concepts. So I guess if Specter gave them some imaginary name like "IMMERSIVE SIM" or "IMMERSIVE PILLARS" it would be ok right? Incredible. Who named what means absolutely NOTHING.


secondly, we don't object to things that build on the existing game--I'm fairly sure overwhelming majority of fans of the original admit that hacking and conversation battles were both improvements on the existing gameplay mechanics. That being said, we'd rather see melee a la Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, or Chronicles of Riddick, or Mirror's edge--that would be an improvement, and added complexity, rather then the simplification of a 1-button takedown.


I agree with the fact that there should have been no one button takedowns. I also believe Eidos should not have cut to a black screen when doing it. However, if people are going to say "they shouldn't do third person because it takes up resources blah blah blah" then they should understand that having melee like the games you listed are going to take up resources as well, so understand that compromise and trade offs may be required.


likewise, with stealth, we'd prefer a more complex stealth system, a la Thief, taking advantage of sound propagation and shadows, rather then a system relying on Line of Sight alone, and adding an "always on-cheatmode" in the radar.


In past threads I asked for the option to turn the hud and map off, I was never for them. However, what you guys are asking for (sound propagation and shadows) requires that you reevaluate your demands for "immersive" gameplay and what you've grown to accept/condone and sweep under the rug. If you're going to shout for shadows and sound, in an attempt to provide some sort of realism, increase immerison or enhance gameplay, you must look at everything I'm talking about. No more phantom limbs, no more running around with your weapon drawn 24/7, no more magically seeing through boxes, no more surprise items under boxes, none of the madness. CREATE A REAL WORLD (within the context of the IP and based on it) or GO HOME.


And how is this any different from the progressive examples we listed? (ARMA, FarCry3, Red Orchestra 2, Crysis 2)?

Take Crysis 2 off your list.


lol, you make it sound like it's the gamers holding back the development of 1st person cover. When it's the devs and publishers who are content to use existing mechanics as long as they sell--which is also the reason why we are seeing so many third-person cover shooters, with level design centered around chest high walls, and health regen.

It's the gamers (mostly pc gamers) and the developers. However, what you're starting to realize is that you are getting the same cookie cutter madness over and over. In fact, it's almost like how EA has been doing Madden over the years but at least we can chart progress. With FP games, starting with Wolfenstein, there has been little progress.

And we don't need all these third person shooters with chest high walls and health regen. What we need, and I've been saying this for pages now, is INNOVATION. INNOVATION needs to drive the game development. Not first person, not third person, none of that. INNOVATION. If not, you'll have the same game just repackaged and resold. Again, why is it that companies are using the same damn red arrow to let you know where an enemy is or damage is coming from? Why is it that companies are using the same reticule? Why aren't companies making mini games with the reticule (like how Epic did with the reloading) or using the reticule in a new and interesting way?


Lol, from what I can see, third-person games innovation has peaked with GoW, and now they are stagnating, the same way you claim First-person games are stagnating.

The only difference is first person has been stagnating since 1992. 20 years later and you're still getting the same game(s), lol. But when you take a look at Metroid, Mario and other popular games, you see that INNOVATION took them to new heights. When you look at RE and compare it to RE4 you see growth. Do you see that type of growth with FP titles? If so which ones?


The difference being, we've shown you examples, (though not yet mainstream--though I'm pretty sure both Crysis 2 and Far Cry 3 are targetting a rather "mainstream" audience) of further developments.

Again, take Crysis 2 off your list. I can't speak on Far Cry as I haven't played it. Crysis 2 I have played so I can comment on that. You're a dot and a weapon on the right of the screen. Aside from the bugs and questionable gameplay elements I like the game. However, you're still a dot and a weapon.


Where's the revolutionary new breakthrough in third-person game design?


It's probably on the horizon. It will probably be something that is done in a different genre or done in a different type of third person game (like God of War for example), but things are changing. You look at Winback, RE 4, Kill Switch and several other third person games and you can see that it only took around 10 years to figure out how to do things. We can't say the same for first person. We have what is known as "disruptive innovation" (a real term not something made up like that immersive stuff you all were preaching about) and the third person genre has experienced this. However, we can't say the same for first person. It is a one size fits all CRUTCH.

Ashpolt
26th Mar 2012, 03:18
The only difference is first person has been stagnating since 1992. 20 years later and you're still getting the same game(s), lol. But when you take a look at Metroid, Mario and other popular games, you see that INNOVATION took them to new heights. When you look at RE and compare it to RE4 you see growth. Do you see that type of growth with FP titles? If so which ones?

This is a staggeringly ignorant comment, especially given that you mention Metroid in there. You know Metroid's biggest innovation? Going first person for the Prime series. And - hey! - it did first person in a way very different to anything else on the market before or since. Because not all first person games are the same, or even necessarily similar.

First person is no more or less stagnant than third person. To say that a first person game from 1992 (presumably you're referring to Wolfenstein 3D) plays the same as a first person game today just shows quite how little you know about the perspective.

And that's all it is: a perspective, not a genre. First person games aren't limited to first person shooters. Don't judge the entire perspective on AAA-titles such as Call of Duty and Battlefield. If you can't tell the difference between, say, Doom and Dear Esther then there really is no hope for you. They're both in first person, but incredibly different experiences. The fact that you're claiming that all first person games are basically the same on a Deus Ex forum is hilarious.

But then again, you're also the guy who's denying the very existence of immersive sims at the concept level, so I'm not sure entirely how seriously I should take anything you say.

Anyway, I have no desire to get into a long, drawn out debate with you on this topic as - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - you're clearly about 500 miles from having the slightest clue what you're talking about, so now I've said my piece, I'm out of this thread.

HERESY
26th Mar 2012, 04:04
This is a staggeringly ignorant comment,

You're entitled to your opinion.


especially given that you mention Metroid in there. You know Metroid's biggest innovation? Going first person for the Prime series.

Wrong. Metroids biggest innovation was exploration and how these things were accomplished. Metroid didn't need first person to survive as Metroid could have easily been a third person game. What Metroid needed to remain "Metroid" was the exploration. And guess what? This type of exploration has led to many games with a similar style.



And - hey! - it did first person in a way very different to anything else on the market before or since. Because not all first person games are the same, or even necessarily similar.

Wrong. First person games (with the exception of maybe 2 and a half that have been mentioned) are essentially the same thing, or at least your character is. You're a dot on the screen (or reticule) and a weapon or fist on the right side of it.


First person is no more or less stagnant than third person. To say that a first person game from 1992 (presumably you're referring to Wolfenstein 3D) plays the same as a first person game today just shows quite how little you know about the perspective.

With the exception of better graphics and new tech under the hood, you're still getting the same game. Gun and a dot.


And that's all it is: a perspective, not a genre.


Hmmmmm...yet I'm seeing "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER" on the back of my first person shooters. Yes, I know it is a perspective, you don't see me arguing against that, but what happens within the game defines what genre it is. First Person (perspective) Shooter (genre.)


First person games aren't limited to first person shooters.

Hmmmm...the fact that I think I mentioned...hmmmmm...SKYRIM (if not in this thread in the other), should be enough proof that I've NEVER stated or implied that first person games are limited to first person shooters. The fact that I've stated FIRST PERSON ACTION and FIRST PERSON ADVENTURE (if not in this thread in the other thread) should solidify this fact. So if you didn't see me type it, or don't see me implying it, don't waste your time assuming or trying to explain it.


Don't judge the entire perspective on AAA-titles such as Call of Duty and Battlefield.

I'm not. I'm basing it on 20 years of the same thing.


If you can't tell the difference between, say, Doom and Dear Esther then there really is no hope for you. They're both in first person, but incredibly different experiences. The fact that you're claiming that all first person games are basically the same on a Deus Ex forum is hilarious.

How have Doom or Dear Esther used the first person perspective in an innovative way? See, I can give you an example of a third person game using it's perspective in an innovative way. I can give you an example of a third person game using the controller in an innovative way, there is nothing innovative about Doom or Dear Esthers use of the perspective. Read for context. Read critically.

Dot. Weapon. You even take a game like Skyrim, and put it in first person, and what are you?


But then again, you're also the guy who's denying the very existence of immersive sims at the concept level, so I'm not sure entirely how seriously I should take anything you say.

No, I'm not denying them at the "concept level." I'm denying them at the tangible level.

In regards to taking what I say as serious or not, you are entitled to do what you want. This is why you have freedom of choice. In fact, I would prefer that you don't speak to me and don't type to me. It's one less person I have to reply to.


Anyway, I have no desire to get into a long, drawn out debate with you on this topic as - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - you're clearly about 500 miles from having the slightest clue what you're talking about, so now I've said my piece, I'm out of this thread.

I'm 500 miles away from having the slightest clue as to what I'm talking about yet several people in this thread and the other thread are starting to see that I do know what I'm talking about and that they aren't reading correctly.

See ya kid, kick rocks, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I mean that in the nicest possible way. :)

Romeo
26th Mar 2012, 07:18
So? Go ahead and do it or give the community the tools to do it. You ever play Boderlands? It's a first person game, and yes the models were there because it is a MP gam yet the PC community was able to mod the game and make it third person (it looks and controls good btw.) With HR, you already have a lot of work done for the third person (cover, cinematics, etc.)



And first person allows you to do what exactly? Cheat by looking through items? And, as previously stated, the first person perspective is a one size fits all. You can curb the so-called cheating by better map design.



Go ahead and give me an example of "extra information" and I'll answer it.



Again, first person is not offering a perspective rooted in realism because it is one size fits all--it's already broken. In addition to this, and I'll say it again, first person has not evolved to the point where it is innovative and the innovation is being copied by other developers. With third person at least you can say the cover has advanced. However, not much has advanced in FP that changes the way FP games are designed/developed and played by gamers, and if it has, it hasn't done much good for the genre.



Using the environment in what way? Simply ducking behind a tree? Simply ducking behind a wall? The way you use the environment in first person games needs to be done away with. It isn't innovative at all and doesn't "immerse" anyone.
Fine then, I agree with you - give the community the tools to do that. But, like Borderlands, don't detract from devellopment time. Do the core game first-person, as it's always been.

Cheat by looking through items? You're talking about one example, in one game. As opposed to third-person, which allows you to see past your cover, in every example, and around corners in most games.

...You literally just quoted and responded to a point about it. In third-person, I get extra information at all times. In combat, I can see that an enemy is hopping out of cover to try and rush my position, all without exposing myself and rendering myself vulnerable. When sneaking, I don't need to actually go and look past that corner and risk possibly being seen - I can just go in to "cover" and know that there's a guard there currently looking that way. Hell, even in the more specific circumstances in Deus Ex I found irritating "bonus information" from third-person events. More than once when using the Icarus Landing System I saw a guard in behind my position and thus knew to either hit the "stun" mode, or just turn around immediately after landing.

Compared with third-person, first-person is infinitely more realistic. Tell me, when you walk down the street, do you look through your eyes? Or do watch yourself walking from behind? When you play paintball, do you know that your opponent has popped their head out of cover because you can see past it at all times? Or do you need to raise your head and look through your eyes? When you drive, do you see the steering wheel? Or your entire car? Now, you speak of innovation. I haven't seen innovation in third-person really since the first Gears of War. It did something unique (Somewhat, I recognize other games prior have had cover systems) and rather than have the rest of the industry innovate with it, they were content to simply copy it as an example. Hardly innovative. With first-person we've had Crysis introduce a first-person cover system, multiple games do away with a HUD completely, had a few games use contextual actions without breaking immersion, etc. If you want to talk innovative gameplay, in the last few years we've had Crysis, Battlefield: Bad Company, Portal and Minecraft. What has third-person had?

Use the environment in a way that's realistic. I don't know if you've ever done paintball, or some sort of combat stand-in, but you don't do these big, over-the-top animations when using cover in real life. Know what you do? You see something to hide behind, and you duck down behind it. In many ways I consider Battlefield 3 much more "realistic" in that sense than I would Gears of War with it's waist-high cover everywhere.

SDF121
26th Mar 2012, 15:56
To add to Romeo's remarks, I can readily think of several examples from last years batch of first person shooters that demonstrated several new improvements to the first person experience that would be most welcome in any immersive sim today.

Human Revolution was an amazing game, yet there were a still a few lingering design choices which would repeatedly separate the player from the experience. For example, the frequent use of bound third person mechanics was rather unfortunate because it would repeatedly destroy any sense of immersion that the player may have developed while continually reminding the player that they were controlling a character in a game.

There were several games last year which demonstrated that first person cover systems and first person take downs work not only work but that they can appeal to a larger audience. For a first person cover system, I would recommend looking into the first person cover system used in Red Orchestra 2 as well as Crysis 2. It's also worth noting that Medal of Honor: Airborne had already featured a first person cover system as early as 2007.

With respect to a first person melee mechanic, Battlefield 3 did this exceptionally well. In addition to first person take downs, Battlefield 3 provided the player with the option to use their knife in a more traditional fashion by allowing the player to equip their knife as a proper melee weapon. With their knife equipped, the player could then use it to either swipe at an opponent or engage in an automatic take down. Although the recent reboot of Syndicate had no proper melee weapon, it did feature first person take downs. These mechanics were great and helped these games to feel more visceral and exciting without setting up any artificial barriers between the player and the experience.

Another feature from Battlefield 3 worth noting was the whole vaulting mechanic and the full rendering of one's body. If you looked down, you would see your feet. If you vaulted over an object, you would watch your hand be placed on the object before seeing your legs swing over it. I'm assuming that DICE developed several of these ideas after making 2007's Mirror's Edge, which brought forth several notable innovations to first person games, with its parkour inspired gameplay and its first person take down system.

All of these mechanics would have been most welcome to see in Human Revolution as it would have helped Human Revolution in becoming a game that would advance the immersive sim as a genre. Despite this, Human Revolution was still able to advance the immersive sim despite taking a few steps back along the way.

Heavenly_King
1st Apr 2012, 01:17
I am just saying that it should be optional. Obviously the focus of the game development will be towards FPS, but if the developers can add a 3rd person camera, I and many gamers out there would be very grateful really.

I know that lots of people prefer 1st person view; and also know the fact that previous Deus Ex games have only been in first person; but if Eidos adds this (3rd person) as an option it will capture the attention of many more gamers, thus getting better sales, worthy of their hard work.

I am not saying at all that they should sacrifice the integrity of the game in order to get more money (COD); I am just saying that if they add this option to an already magnificent game it would be beneficial for them and for the gamers. They get more money, and we get more sequels of a terrific franchise.

I have read all the comments recently, and I didn't mean to have just a 3rd person view, and the fault is mine because the title was a little misleading, that is why I have change it. It would be very pathetic of me, to ask the developers to throw away what the fanbase of the franchise love so much, in order to please new players that never played previous games (me and many others).

Romeo
1st Apr 2012, 01:25
I am just saying that it should be optional. Obviously the focus of the game development will be towards FPS, but if the developers can add a 3rd person camera, I and many gamers out there would be very grateful really.

I know that lots of people prefer 1st person view; and also know the fact that previous Deus Ex games have only been in first person; but if Eidos adds this (3rd person) as an option it will capture the attention of many more gamers, thus getting better sales, worthy of their hard work.

I am not saying at all that they should sacrifice the integrity of the game in order to get more money (COD); I am just saying that if they add this option to an already magnificent game it would be beneficial for them and for the gamers. They get more money, and we get more sequels of a terrific franchise.

I have read all the comments recently, and I didn't mean to have just a 3rd person view, and the fault is mine because the title was a little misleading, that is why I have change it. It would be very pathetic of me, to ask the developers to throw away what the fanbase of the franchise love so much, in order to please new players that never played previous games (me and many others).
I'm not sure it will gather that many more sales... Look at the most successful games on the market, the Call of Duty series, and you'll notice they've made absolutely ZERO concessions for the third-person market (in singleplayer; I recognize there's one particular mode for third-person in some of the games).

That being said, if the game could be designed to accomidate third-person, then by all means, go for it, but I don't want to see assets and time taken from first-person to account for it. The focus should be first-person. If they've got that nailed perfectly and have time to spare, then great, go for third-person.

Ashpolt
1st Apr 2012, 04:49
That being said, if the game could be designed to accomidate third-person, then by all means, go for it, but I don't want to see assets and time taken from first-person to account for it. The focus should be first-person. If they've got that nailed perfectly and have time to spare, then great, go for third-person.

...And just to add on to this, they haven't even got first person perfect in DXHR (no lean keys, certain augs force you into third person, etc etc etc.) There's a good amount of work still to be done on solidifying the first person experience before they even think about developing a full third person mode.

Though that said, given that EM seem to care more about being cinematic (cool moves!) than immersive, I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented full third before fixing first. :(

Romeo
1st Apr 2012, 06:56
...And just to add on to this, they haven't even got first person perfect in DXHR (no lean keys, certain augs force you into third person, etc etc etc.) There's a good amount of work still to be done on solidifying the first person experience before they even think about developing a full third person mode.

Though that said, given that EM seem to care more about being cinematic (cool moves!) than immersive, I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented full third before fixing first. :(
I really want to say "No. That's just dumb, they'd never do that." But a part of me thinks that's true. It's easier for them to just go straight to third-person to shove in the features they want (Cinematic moves, cover, etc) than it is for them to do a proper first-person experience with them.

Ashpolt
1st Apr 2012, 15:42
I really want to say "No. That's just dumb, they'd never do that." But a part of me thinks that's true. It's easier for them to just go straight to third-person to shove in the features they want (Cinematic moves, cover, etc) than it is for them to do a proper first-person experience with them.

And at that point they lose my sale, absolutely no doubt about it.

Romeo
1st Apr 2012, 19:30
And at that point they lose my sale, absolutely no doubt about it.
Aye, the both of us.

Tverdyj
2nd Apr 2012, 00:27
At that point, it's time for marketing to actually do something, and come up with a name for a new IP.

Ashpolt
2nd Apr 2012, 00:59
At that point, it's time for marketing to actually do something, and come up with a name for a new IP.

A new IP? In 2012? Not from an Indie team?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh....oh...I thought you were serious there for a second! Heh.....a new IP. Man, what a hoot!

(Note: Yeah, I know there are a few new IPs this year - Dishonored and Dragon's Dogma, for instance - but you get the point.)

Tverdyj
2nd Apr 2012, 02:56
a man can dream though, right?

Ashpolt
2nd Apr 2012, 03:09
a man can dream though, right?

Aye. 'Tis a glorious dream, lad.

Romeo
3rd Apr 2012, 18:28
This is going to sound horrid, but within reason, I quite like sequels. With Diablo III, it's a different game than Diablo II, but I still know about the series to know what to expect. Same goes for Crysis, Forza, Command and Conquer (We'll pretend the fourth installment was a practical joke), Red Alert, Dragon Age, Mass Effect and more. They may be similar to their previous installments, but that isn't necessarily a problem. With the price of games being so damn high, it's nice not to have to gamble so severely on a plethora of new IPs.

Ashpolt
3rd Apr 2012, 19:02
This is going to sound horrid, but within reason, I quite like sequels. With Diablo III, it's a different game than Diablo II, but I still know about the series to know what to expect. Same goes for Crysis, Forza, Command and Conquer (We'll pretend the fourth installment was a practical joke), Red Alert, Dragon Age, Mass Effect and more. They may be similar to their previous installments, but that isn't necessarily a problem. With the price of games being so damn high, it's nice not to have to gamble so severely on a plethora of new IPs.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I enjoy sequels as well at times, so long as they're proper sequels. What I don't like is when developers decide they want to make a game (invariably an FPS) and decide to pretend it's a sequel to a completely unrelated old title - XCOM, Syndicate, etc etc. Obviously it's not always quite such a drastic departure as those title, but you get the point I'm making.

Also, as you say, I like sequels within reason. But I also like new ideas, and when 95% of the market is made up of sequels, something's wrong.

Romeo
3rd Apr 2012, 20:45
I don't know, even the saturation of sequels makes sense to me. I don't want to be inundated with 8374564 different universes and lores to keep track of. Especially concerning quite a new of the "new" IPs are telling stories similar enough to existing franchises that it can be difficult to differentiate between them all after a while. That's not to say I don't want to see new universes - I thoroughly liked Kingdoms of Amular's world. I'd just rather know more about a few universes, than the same about more of them.

Of course, one also runs the risk of trampling over their own lore (Halo: Reach, Skyrim) when sequels are handled inappropriately too, which is equally as infuriating, if not more. lol

lastpawn
6th Apr 2012, 08:41
Nope, that doesn't actually happen in-game. You see, the enemy AI can't actually see your body at all... they don't have eyes; they're programs. They can only react to what the devs program them to react to. This is why they never see you unless there's real line-of sight. If you can't see them, they can't see you. Any allusion to them spotting your shoulder or a leg and then reacting to it is a lie or a misunderstanding of the circumstance.

I enjoy third-person games. Mass Effect is one of my personal favorites. But Deus Ex should be first-person, it is immeasurably better that way.

Think about, in third-person you would miss so many of the smaller details in the game, like the post-it notes giving away passwords or all those notes on Adam's mirror. Little photos and all the hidden loot scattered about. They could all still be there, but you wouldn't be able to really see them. Too much of the environment would be too easily overlooked... and it all looks so beautiful in first-person. :)

Everything this person said, I support. I think the developers did a good job with 3rd person perspective in HR. That said, Deus Ex is a game about details, and details are best appreciated in first person.

Sarnius
28th Apr 2012, 22:33
Guys,

if this is optional then I don't see the harm.

ZakKa89
28th Apr 2012, 22:40
Guys,

if this is optional then I don't see the harm.

It's been discussed to death why it would still harm even if it's optional. Read the tread or countless of other threads.

Pinky_Powers
29th Apr 2012, 01:03
Guys,

if this is optional then I don't see the harm.

Because any fool dumb enough to play the game in third-person would get a pretty shoddy experience, and that doesn't serve anybody.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 01:54
Guys,

if this is optional then I don't see the harm.

These people want DX:HD. They want everything exactly like the original except they want updated graphics. Any other attempts to broaden the franchise in hopes to appealing to a larger audience or enhancing the gameplay experience is met with fervor and some of the most illogical rantings and excuses made in the history of the net.

And if I had called a person a fool for wanting a first person experience or implied it, I'd be getting PM's telling me I just got hit with another 10 points. So let me be clear, I'm not saying the people complaining and wanting Eidos to restrict your options are fools. I'm saying their rantings, archaic desires and pigeon hole tactics are illogical.

Tverdyj
29th Apr 2012, 02:13
yawn.

continue to ignore us saying "we like what they did with combat and the conversation game"
Continue to ignore us saying "we generally liked the improved gunplay"
Continue to ignore us saying "we liked the weapon mods, there should be more of those"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about we get hand-to-hand like "Chronicles of Riddick" or "Mirror's edge"?
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, lets get better melee, like in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic!"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about better physics?"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about we use make a better first-person cover, like Red Orchestra?"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about more body awareness?"


.....




you know, if you keep making strawmen like that, it's easy to see your point. too bad it doesn't match what we're actually saying.
Hell, if we could get all of the above with 2000-level graphics, i'd buy the game in a heartbeat.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 02:18
yawn.

continue to ignore us saying "we like what they did with combat and the conversation game"
Continue to ignore us saying "we generally liked the improved gunplay"
Continue to ignore us saying "we liked the weapon mods, there should be more of those"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about we get hand-to-hand like "Chronicles of Riddick" or "Mirror's edge"?
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, lets get better melee, like in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic!"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about better physics?"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about we use make a better first-person cover, like Red Orchestra?"
Continue to ignore us saying "hey, how about more body awareness?"


.....




you know, if you keep making strawmen like that, it's easy to see your point. too bad it doesn't match what we're actually saying.
Hell, if we could get all of the above with 2000-level graphics, i'd buy the game in a heartbeat.

No strawman. None of the people saying third person should not be utilized are citing the things you just listed as valid reasons for not providing the option. People are saying, "It is first person, meant to be first person and anything else breaks immersion" which is highly illogical. And then they try to keep things going by referencing a genre that, for the most part, does not even exist!

Again, the OPTION of having a third person game does NOT break the gameplay experience. It is simply a design choice and to assume that the option will dampen my experience is folly.

Now lets go back to fallacies since that is what you're saying I'm providing. Again, no strawman. However, what we DO have is an Appeal to Tradition from people who do not want others to have the third person option and say DX must remain in FP.

Tverdyj
29th Apr 2012, 02:36
no, that is not the argument being made. Immersive sim discussion aside, the argument against third-person is 2-fold

1) it makes stealth too easy, because it minimises risks and consequences (before we get into this: yes, I did think the radar was a horrible idea that made it too easy as well, even though I never used the cover system)

now, the answer to this argument is "don't want it, don't use it, just give us a choice". Which is a dressed by the second argument:

2) designing the game around first AND third person, ESPECIALLY if you want both stealth approaches to be viable is an additional challenge from the design perspective. It's difficult to argue that if you set out to make third and first person-style of gameplay equally valid in all circumstances, you will require additional time and resources. IN AAA development, resources are very finite, and developers are often pressured by publishers to be cost-effective. To this end, things like 3-rd person (especially in stealth games) are far more popular (esp. on consoles), therefore there is bound to be pressure from marketing-types to focus on third-person, in order to attract more sales.
Thus, a decision to include third person becomes highly likely to affect the development in such a way, where decisions are made favouring third person AT THE EXPENSE of first-person.

which is something the fans of the game are reasonably against. the experience in the industry is showing us that once you start making compromises in favour of mass appeal, it quickly becomes a losing battle. therefore, on the issue of First-person over 3rd person, you will ALWAYS get a militant response.

Add to this the fact that this had been discussed to death and back more times than anyone could count (if you were to use the search function and read the numerous older threads about it), and yes, you'll see why people aren't bothering to spend a long time expressing their position on the matter.


in other words: people who are militantly against third person, believe that any inclusion of 3rd person as a "choice" is the first step towards the franchise being converted to third-person, because "that's what sells". given the way the industry works, I fully agree that this is a legitimate concern.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 03:02
no, that is not the argument being made. Immersive sim discussion aside, the argument against third-person is 2-fold 1) it makes stealth too easy, because it minimises risks and consequences (before we get into this: yes, I did think the radar was a horrible idea that made it too easy as well, even though I never used the cover system)

I've already covered this in several threads now. METAL GEAR SOLID. (Btw, before the game was released I said the hud and radar should be done away with or that we should be given the option to turn it on or off.)


now, the answer to this argument is "don't want it, don't use it, just give us a choice". Which is a dressed by the second argument:

No, the answer is METAL GEAR SOLID will be known as the BEST stealth series ever created. Guess what? It is a third person game. I'll even list TENCHU as stealth done in a somewhat decent fashion, but great way lead the readers on, friend.


2) designing the game around first AND third person, ESPECIALLY if you want both stealth approaches to be viable is an additional challenge from the design perspective. It's difficult to argue that if you set out to make third and first person-style of gameplay equally valid in all circumstances, you will require additional time and resources. IN AAA development, resources are very finite, and developers are often pressured by publishers to be cost-effective. To this end, things like 3-rd person (especially in stealth games) are far more popular (esp. on consoles), therefore there is bound to be pressure from marketing-types to focus on third-person, in order to attract more sales. Thus, a decision to include third person becomes highly likely to affect the development in such a way, where decisions are made favouring third person AT THE EXPENSE of first-person.

This is false. Why is there no little to no third person at all in the most popular FPS? In fact, you will see that companies are jumping ship and hoping on the "my game needs to be first person" bandwagon. Look at the rumors of Dead Space 3 being first person and the canned Mass Effect FPS. How do you know that the with DX that the inclusion of third person will detract from the gameplay of the first person experience? Are you a member of their team? Did you look at their monthly budgets? Did you work in their rigging farms or consult them in any fashion? What are you basing your claim on? All I see are assumptions and guess what, the fact third person was implemented to a degree, there were no issues of funding (at least not publicly stated so we'll assume there wasn't), the fact the game sold over two million copies, multiple awards, did not require major patches or experience serious gameplay breaking glitches (I'm talking consoles can't speak for the pc) shows that third person has NOT taken away from the first person experience.


which is something the fans of the game are reasonably against. the experience in the industry is showing us that once you start making compromises in favour of mass appeal, it quickly becomes a losing battle. therefore, on the issue of First-person over 3rd person, you will ALWAYS get a militant response.

Companies should make compromises based on increasing the bottom line, ROI and pleasing the customers who are loyal.


Add to this the fact that this had been discussed to death and back more times than anyone could count (if you were to use the search function and read the numerous older threads about it), and yes, you'll see why people aren't bothering to spend a long time expressing their position on the matter.

I'm not worried about it. Many of the people know my take on the subject. I'm not going to use the search function to read anything as the same people screaming for no option are going to site the same half-baked reasons.

And a disclaimer, I'm not saying the people are hald-baked.


in other words: people who are militantly against third person, believe that any inclusion of 3rd person as a "choice" is the first step towards the franchise being converted to third-person, because "that's what sells". given the way the industry works, I fully agree that this is a legitimate concern.

No. You use YOUR search function and you'll see that I had to go up against at least five people in one thread who said that it should remain first person because that is what the game always was and always will be. That first person is what Spector always wanted and many other illogical rantings.

And disclaimer, I'm not saying the people are illogical but that there rantings are. I have to make myself very clear now because people have started to take my words out of context and jump all over me for their lack of reading.

m G h m u o s
29th Apr 2012, 03:05
*shrug* Just have options alongside the difficult settings. Options.

"Give me DX:HR" - optional 3rd person, maybe explained with a passive drone aug or something.
"Give me DX" - same cover system, just in first person, or leaning or whatever.

A person playing with third person camera will find it easier, but who gives a damn about what another person is doing lol, they paid for it. As long as there is a option then I don't see the problem. The only issue is its implementation.

In my honest opinion, third person would be nice to see your character if there was some customization and stuff, but it'd obviously have to be like MGS where you toggle between third person and first person because.. how would you pick up some of the tiny items or read some of the stuff on little post-its? We all know its the details that can really make an environment awesome, DXHR definately did that right and well.

But modelling stuff in third person and having it set in first person (for the bodily awareness thing) just seems uneconomic in terms of plain work efforts/game design.


These people want DX:HD. They want everything exactly like the original except they want updated graphics. Any other attempts to broaden the franchise in hopes to appealing to a larger audience or enhancing the gameplay experience is met with fervor and some of the most illogical rantings and excuses made in the history of the net.
Btw thats just a straight up generalisation. There are stubborn people everywhere and everyone has something to be stubborn about. Some fans just want to capture the feeling they got from DX but ultimately that will never ever happen (nostalgia = a ho), so the best they have is the features they can hold onto of the game to preserve its structure of what they can only assume gave them the feeling DX did.

EDIT: I'd consider FPS the genre that 'sells'. Seriously lol, Syndicate and XCOM being rebooting as FPS are surely an indicator of that. Third person is all about dumbing the game down and making it more accessible/easier. But even with DXHR, I've seen comments on youtubes and stuff where people are complaining the game is too damn hard and they shouldn't be basing the skill requirement on hard core gamers because it screws over everyone else lol.

Tverdyj
29th Apr 2012, 03:12
Heresy, at no point am I trying to say that the decision Eidos will decide to make will in any way depend on financial considerations based on a group of hardcore fans. that's unrealistic and irrational.

however, just becasue something is rational, doesn't mean people have to like it. In this case, as we've discussed before, there is a segment of people who consider DX and certain elements of its design to be a benchmark in game industry's history. Their personal opinion about the development of DX franchise, no matter how irrational and how irrelevant, is going to be vocal. It's something both sides need to accept.

and, once again, I've never owned a console, haven't played MGS, so I can't comment on that. seems we have reached an impasse.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 03:14
*shrug* Just have options alongside the difficult settings. Options.

"Give me DX:HR" - optional 3rd person, maybe explained with a passive drone aug or something.
"Give me DX" - same cover system, just in first person, or leaning or whatever.

No. This is too much like right.


A person playing with third person camera will find it easier, but who gives a damn about what another person is doing lol, they paid for it. As long as there is a option then I don't see the problem. The only issue is its implementation.


For me, it isn't even a matter of being easier. I just like seeing my character and feel the majority of first person games are poorly done.


In my honest opinion, third person would be nice to see your character if there was some customization and stuff, but it'd obviously have to be like MGS where you toggle between third person and first person because.. how would you pick up some of the tiny items or read some of the stuff on little post-its? We all know its the details that can really make an environment awesome, DXHR definately did that right and well.

I already addressed the concern in this thread or another thread. I'm not sure, but so many of my posts have been edited or deleted by mods that you probably won't be able to find it.


But modelling stuff in third person and having it set in first person (for the bodily awareness thing) just seems uneconomic in terms of plain work efforts/game design.

If you're using your engine to develop cutscenes, and you want to show the character, you're going to have to model him/her. In fact, it's as simple as this: If you're going to show your character you have to model them. If the character does not have a unique movement style, you can take the animations of another character, a foot soldier for example, and utilize those for your lead character. The problem is the CAMERA, how draw distance may be impacted, hit detection and other things that relate to how we percieve and process images.


Btw thats just a straight up generalisation. There are stubborn people everywhere and everyone has something to be stubborn about. Some fans just want to capture the feeling they got from DX but ultimately that will never ever happen (nostalgia = a ho), so the best they have is the features they can hold onto of the game to preserve its structure of what they can only assume gave them the feeling DX did.

My statements are based on what I've read on these boards and what was directed to me. I need to find a really good quote by one member that sums up the no third person crowd for what they truly are. I know I quoted him, so let me see if I can find it.

Tverdyj
29th Apr 2012, 03:28
while you're looking for those quotes, keep in mind we're not all drones, and we're not the cult of Spector either.

if I had guarantees that first-person experience won't suffer from implementation of third, I wouldn't mind it.

As it is, with HR, we've got "why put in lean keys if you're supposed to use 3rd person cover?", so i'm wary.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 03:39
while you're looking for those quotes, keep in mind we're not all drones, and we're not the cult of Spector either.

Those are your words, not mine but that is exactly how I feel. Remember, you typed it, if I typed it I would be getting slammed right now, so it's better to come from you than I. Yes, that is how I feel when I read some of the comments. It's like Spector can do no wrong, and I see a majority bashing the minority with no logical reason as to why they are doing it.


if I had guarantees that first-person experience won't suffer from implementation of third, I wouldn't mind it.

As it is, with HR, we've got "why put in lean keys if you're supposed to use 3rd person cover?", so i'm wary.

Nothing in life is guranteed except for death.


Also I found the quote:


'Abuse'?!
What is Deus Ex?
A game with three basic styles of play: Shooting, Sneaking and Subverting. The same core principles that Deus Ex: Human Revolution had. Deus Ex had conversations. Deus Ex: HR had an even more robust conversation system with persuasion elements added. Deus Ex had hacking, Deus Ex: HR turned hacking into actual strategic gameplay!

Pissing and moaning about third person is irrelevant, because whether the game was in first-person, third-person or sixth-person... the core design philosophy is the same! First-person is not a CORE DESIGN ELEMENT! When Warren Spector and Ion Storm Austin sat down to brainstorm about Deus Ex, they didn't say "Okay, now we'll make a first-person game, first and foremost!" If they had, then conversations in DX never would have shifted to third-person! They would have cut off their nose to spite their face (like you seem to want Eidos Montréal to do). Critics and gamers alike are acknowledging this game's quality. You are not just a minority, you're an extremely-small, extremely marginal minority that's so pissed off that EM dared to alter a single blade of grass that you can't see the beautiful meadow they've sown instead.

I'm sorry, but with that single post, that guy cleaned the clocks of every "It must remain first person you will be denied an option" advocate in the world.

Tverdyj
29th Apr 2012, 04:01
meh, can't speak for everyone. I like Spector's ideas. I've read the DX post-mortem, and he had ideas about taking gaming where I want to see it. I use the term "immersive sim" because it encapsulates those ideas. it's a convenient label. it's not about first-person--though I do prefer those types of games, since they handle better with M+KB, usually. but a lot of the games I often refer to in these discussions we've been having can be summed up with those ideas.

does this make him infallible? hell, no. Just look at IW. can't say much about Epic Mickey, but that didn't thrill me either, from what I've seen/heard. but then again, I doubt I was the target audience. The man's not ideal, but he had some solid ideas. these days I see Arkane designers as the closest we have to following that. I'll wait and see how Dishonored turns out.

Re: the guarantees: naturally. but, since it's my right an all, i'm going to be cautiously pessimistic untill proven otherwise.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 04:18
meh, can't speak for everyone. I like Spector's ideas. I've read the DX post-mortem, and he had ideas about taking gaming where I want to see it. I use the term "immersive sim" because it encapsulates those ideas. it's a convenient label. it's not about first-person--though I do prefer those types of games, since they handle better with M+KB, usually. but a lot of the games I often refer to in these discussions we've been having can be summed up with those ideas.

I'm not saying he isn't innovative. He is innovative in his area of expertise. However, you cannot deny the fact that many people on these forums hold Spector in such a high regard that they come off as what you describe as drones and cults.


does this make him infallible? hell, no. Just look at IW. can't say much about Epic Mickey, but that didn't thrill me either, from what I've seen/heard. but then again, I doubt I was the target audience. The man's not ideal, but he had some solid ideas. these days I see Arkane designers as the closest we have to following that. I'll wait and see how Dishonored turns out.

I'll stick to the smaller companies but because of DX:HR, I have my eyes set on Dishonored. However, the game is published by Bethesda so I'm reluctant to fork over my money.


Re: the guarantees: naturally. but, since it's my right an all, i'm going to be cautiously pessimistic untill proven otherwise.

Be pessimistic but at times you have to be realistic and know that this company has the IP's integrity in mind. The IP's integrity is NOT found in the camera perspective. It is found in the story and gameplay elements.

And now another quote from another member.


I'd like to add to that thought by saying that the first person camera in games are a very dumbed down version of human vision. On a regular widescreen you will probably have about 75 degrees field of vision. In reality you will have about 210 degrees field of vision. So unless you have 3 screens you will not come close to to the real human visual awareness.

And this is something I've addressed time and time again yet I only hear crickets. FP is one size fits all and it needs to be revamped.

m G h m u o s
29th Apr 2012, 04:23
No. This is too much like right.
Sorry but what did you mean by that O.o

badhabitz
29th Apr 2012, 04:37
After what 4 years (??) this debate is still raging... I blame the dang consoles! Third person cover mechanic is HORRIBLE design choice. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. We were right 6 years ago and we are still right. Arghhh too much to be said (probably already said 1000 times) Rainbow6 Vegas mixing first and third person perspectives is where it all went downhill... oh the de ja vu... health regen... ahhh screw this i am out...

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 04:38
Sorry but what did you mean by that O.o

It means you're correct, that doing it that way is correct or that it is common sense.

You hang around old Americans? Have any old American family members? If so you may have heard this before.


After what 4 years (??) this debate is still raging... I blame the dang consoles! Third person cover mechanic is HORRIBLE design choice. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. We were right 6 years ago and we are still right. Arghhh too much to be said (probably already said 1000 times) Rainbow6 Vegas mixing first and third person perspectives is where it all went downhill... oh the de ja vu... health regen... ahhh screw this i am out...

Highly illogical ranting and raving...

badhabitz
29th Apr 2012, 04:50
Nothing illogical about a clear majority prefering certain mechanics over others. If you were on this forum 4 years ago it was clear to see. There is no doubt that consoles games have had an impact on the development of PC games this is undeniable.

EDIT- After IW people were complaining about mainly the universal-ammo and simplified skills/biomod and inventory system. At no time was anyone EVER asking for 3rd person or health regen...

Tverdyj
29th Apr 2012, 05:04
...yup

this discussion has officially been COPYPASTA-ed

Romeo
29th Apr 2012, 05:29
Nothing illogical about a clear majority prefering certain mechanics over others. If you were on this forum 4 years ago it was clear to see. There is no doubt that consoles games have had an impact on the development of PC games this is undeniable.

EDIT- After IW people were complaining about mainly the universal-ammo and simplified skills/biomod and inventory system. At no time was anyone EVER asking for 3rd person or health regen...
While not wishing to trudge up old debates - especially where they don't belong - I find it ridiculous that you blame consoles for something the PC is doing just as often. Hell, some of the biggest "console-ized" games (Call of Duty, Halo, Bad Company), are exclusively first-person. Don't pretend like PC players are somehow completely blameless in all this.

HERESY
29th Apr 2012, 05:42
Nothing illogical about a clear majority prefering certain mechanics over others. If you were on this forum 4 years ago it was clear to see. There is no doubt that consoles games have had an impact on the development of PC games this is undeniable.

EDIT- After IW people were complaining about mainly the universal-ammo and simplified skills/biomod and inventory system. At no time was anyone EVER asking for 3rd person or health regen...

The first person perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. You're still a dot on the screen, a gun to the lower right of the screen and it's a one sized fits all perspective. Yes, console games have had an impact on PC games. This is not deniable which is why no one is denying it. In addition to this, PC games have had an impact on the way console games are developed. You can look at any RTS game on a console or look at games that were developed on PC and later ported to consoles.

Concerning third person or health gen, health regen is a design choice that is not exclusive to consoles or third person games, lol. What exactly is your point by mentioning it? I'm not for health regen unless it ties into the lore of the game and makes logical sense. It makes sense to say, "You can regenerate health because the nano machines in your body do X". I can buy that argument. However, I do not buy the "be a bullet sponge, duck into cover and magically heal" ala Gears of War.

So I don't need health regen, I'm a gamer that is used to picking up health/med packs or one hit deaths. Don't blame consoles for these things. Blame the gamers for having weak skills and demanding easier games.

m G h m u o s
29th Apr 2012, 06:05
It means you're correct, that doing it that way is correct or that it is common sense.

You hang around old Americans? Have any old American family members? If so you may have heard this before.
Ohh okay, nah I haven't heard of that expression. I thought it was a typo or something.

"right? maybe.. tight? Tight? Is 'Tight' some game I've never heard of that is infamous for having so many options it broke itself?"

Personally I remain adamant that some kind of third person camera could totally work in the form of an aug.

badhabitz
29th Apr 2012, 06:54
While not wishing to trudge up old debates - especially where they don't belong - I find it ridiculous that you blame consoles for something the PC is doing just as often. Hell, some of the biggest "console-ized" games (Call of Duty, Halo, Bad Company), are exclusively first-person. Don't pretend like PC players are somehow completely blameless in all this.

I am not against consoles or console players I have had plenty in my time just it is sad to see once great PC exclusive titles be relegated to sub standard console ports. Well it is the age of profit. Consoles and their games produce more revenue for publishers/developers hence it is in their interests to create games for consoles.

The problem is games these days are designed for XBOX and PS3 FIRST and then ported to PC later. The last few years this has become more and more the norm. Multi-platform games are limited to what the XBOX and PS3 can achieve. It is the cold hard truth... plain and simple PC games are suffering because of this.

Deus Ex IW, AVP2010 to name just 2, would have been very different games had they been PC only. Look at the horrible clunky controls of AVP... the game was a step back from AVP2 (Even AVP1) apart from the the visual enhancements. I wont list them here but this is the case with so many games lately. Looking back I can't help but feel all the fuss on these forums was justified. The main concerns at the time are my main issues with the game now.

Health regen has a place in games but not all. Certainly not for reasons that we were given. "We don't want the player backtracking looking for medkits" (But it is ok to backtrack to look for magic candy bars that enable your arms to work) 2008 was Rainbow6 Vegas, Gears of War & Mass Effect... third person cover and health regen were in at the time.

Anyone ever play ARMA II ? It is a milsim, very immersive with huge maps, an ingame editor allowing you to create almost any type of scenario you can imagine. Now, it allows for both a first person and third person perspective HOWEVER you will find many clan servers and serious coop servers disable third person for added REALISM and IMMERSION. There is SO much more tension with 3rd person disabled... It is almost like playing 2 differennt games. Walking on foot, driving cars and flying planes is made that much more difficult and exciting when you can't see your surroundings in third person (Like you could not IN REAL LIFE) ARMA2 allows you to turn your head and look independently of your body and weapon, I would like to see more of this in future fps games. This is also a very nice feature especially when used with TRACKIR or FACETRACKNOIR that I am sure a lot of serious flight sim fans will be familiar with.

Sure I love some third person shooters, I have played plenty of Gears of War and Mass Effect but some games need to be just one or the other.. and Deus Ex needs to be first person only if you ask me.

Romeo
29th Apr 2012, 17:39
Oh, you misinterpret me - I completely agree with your gameplay demands. I loathe both the perspective-switching and the health regen - I just wanted to point out that those aren't a fault of one group, but gamers as a whole.

I hope Deus Ex 4 can either remain entirely first-person, or have an option for third-person events for those that want them. And that health system needs to be tossed entirely. Partial regen all the way, or even medkit. Anything but the same thing the market has already saturated beyond the point of frustration.

[FGS]Shadowrunner
30th Apr 2012, 14:23
Isn't that what made Deus Ex so brilliant in 2000, that it was "real"? First person is important. I'd like to see energy devoted to make this as good as possible. I don't need arcade style watching my Tekken fighter...

DX4 - Well if it's about Unatco, I want there to be a maintenance man that doesn't like Gunther.

m G h m u o s
30th Apr 2012, 19:08
Isn't that what made Deus Ex so brilliant in 2000, that it was "real"? First person is important. I'd like to see energy devoted to make this as good as possible. I don't need arcade style watching my Tekken fighter...

I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

HERESY
30th Apr 2012, 20:18
I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

Let's talk about the bold because you seem to be one that "gets it."

Concerning the first bold, you're correct. Our field of vision when playing a video game is nowhere near our field of vision in real life. Also, you can't forget the magical see through boxes thing, items being hid in the most odd places, moving people with phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs, etc. First person is a one sized fits all standard. Nothing more and nothing less.

Concerning the second bold, you are correct the convos are in third person which renders the "They'll have to animate for third person and it will take too much time" argument completely null & void.

The spirit of the game is not found in the camera. It doesn't matter if it's third person, first person or tenth person. But you seem to get it and I wish other people would as well. Kudos to you.

Tverdyj
30th Apr 2012, 20:39
I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

or, significantly more important, that note that says "password is xxxxxxxxx " in one of the Sarif offices, on a desk next to a computer.

ETA:

Let's talk about the bold because you seem to be one that "gets it."

Concerning the first bold, you're correct. Our field of vision when playing a video game is nowhere near our field of vision in real life. Also, you can't forget the magical see through boxes thing, items being hid in the most odd places, moving people with phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs, etc. First person is a one sized fits all standard. Nothing more and nothing less.

Concerning the second bold, you are correct the convos are in third person which renders the "They'll have to animate for third person and it will take too much time" argument completely null & void.

The spirit of the game is not found in the camera. It doesn't matter if it's third person, first person or tenth person. But you seem to get it and I wish other people would as well. Kudos to you.

I am getting real tired of you continuously saying this.
ARMA, Mirror's Edge, Red Orchestra- recent examples of innovation in First-Person Games.
you cannot claim that because "mainstream" publishers don't adopt something, "the genre hasn't moved since Wolvenstein". there are innovations. If you look for them.

Romeo
30th Apr 2012, 20:52
I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).
I just wanted to interject. I agree that there have been incredibly immersive third-person games, but they are realistic in a polar opposite manner than first-person is: In first person, the character's actions are my actions. I am that character. In third-person, I'm more of a puppet-master. I'm controlling that character. Example: In Crysis, you always feel like "What would I do in this circumstance?" when entering a situation. In Mass Effect, you always feel like "What should Shepard do in this circumstance?"

There is nothing inherently wrong with either, but people are entirely justified in saying they want it to remain a first-person game; It is a different experience. There's already a few third-person shooter/RPG games, Deus Ex needn't change itself to become one too.

Now, as to your conversation, yes, it did go third-person for conversations (Not always, mind you). And I was AOK with that. Because once again, that goes back to the "What should JC do here?" kind of immersion. What I don't want is that same effect bleeding in to the combat situations.

Regardless, this is all ignoring the most patently obvious issue with the whole argument: There is absolutely no need to make Deus Ex third-person. It has always been first-person, and judging by community reaction to the cover system and takedowns, has always been appreciated more as a first-person experience only. Why can't we simply enjoy Deus Ex for what it is, rather than focus on completely re-writing every its every detail?

m G h m u o s
30th Apr 2012, 21:28
I just wanted to interject. I agree that there have been incredibly immersive third-person games, but they are realistic in a polar opposite manner than first-person is: In first person, the character's actions are my actions. I am that character. In third-person, I'm more of a puppet-master. I'm controlling that character. Example: In Crysis, you always feel like "What would I do in this circumstance?" when entering a situation. In Mass Effect, you always feel like "What should Shepard do in this circumstance?"
Really? I think its much more blurred than that. You think because of story there'd be distinction but I don't think there is, you're saying "What would I do in that situation?" and "What would <the character> do in that situation?" but to me, these questions generally just merged into one in your mind, completely regardless of whether its in first person or not. Unless its some major plot element / character-character interaction. Ultimately the sense of being a character or being a puppeteer is a personal one.

You aren't your character. It's an illusion and its easily broken with lack of control (ie why can't I pick this up, why can't I just shoot this guy moments). I think people just tag that onto the first person perspective for.. I dunno whatever reason. But I just find this argument annoying because I really hated the whole 'I AM Gordon Freeman' stuff people would say in fandom of HL/2, because of all the control I have and its a seamless first person experience.

Sure. Except they put Gordon Freemans face on the cover of the game.


Regardless, this is all ignoring the most patently obvious issue with the whole argument: There is absolutely no need to make Deus Ex third-person. It has always been first-person, and judging by community reaction to the cover system and takedowns, has always been appreciated more as a first-person experience only. Why can't we simply enjoy Deus Ex for what it is, rather than focus on completely re-writing every its every detail?
But yeah. Ultimately FPS is a genre and changing that would upset some people. But I think its an exaggeration to say they want to re-write everything and the details. I think a third person camera is a perfectly fine gameplay mechanic that could be used in DX, in some unusual or interesting ways.

You probably seen my naggings about a TPC aug, but how about a segment in the game where your augmented vision is outright disabled and you have to hack into an active link up to the CCTV all over an area to gather your bearings. Thats technically third person and thats the kinda stuff I don't want to be knocked just because people don't know the sound of the phrase 'third person camera' c:

But realistically speaking, with its implementation in DXHR, I really won't be at all surprised for it to make a return in the next installment.

Ashpolt
30th Apr 2012, 21:55
I am getting real tired of you continuously saying this.
ARMA, Mirror's Edge, Red Orchestra- recent examples of innovation in First-Person Games.
you cannot claim that because "mainstream" publishers don't adopt something, "the genre hasn't moved since Wolvenstein". there are innovations. If you look for them.

Very true. Especially given that his actual claim was this:


The first person perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. You're still a dot on the screen, a gun to the lower right of the screen and it's a one sized fits all perspective.

...and in Wolfenstein 3D your gun was actually in the bottom-center of the screen, not at the lower right. There's evolution for you! :lol:

Also, "you're a dot on the screen"? No, that's a crosshair, that's not me. I don't think he understands first person at all.

[EDIT] Also, Wolfenstein 3D didn't have a crosshair. Does that mean I was playing as nobody in that game?

[EDIT 2] Pic related, it's Gordon Freeman from Half Life 2.

http://www.amphibian.myzen.co.uk/eyrie/thumbnails/crosshairs2.gif

AlexOfSpades
30th Apr 2012, 22:32
Freeman gained quite a bit of weight since the Black Mesa incident.

Heresy, now i know why you got crucified here. You reap what you sow, really.

Romeo
30th Apr 2012, 22:44
Really? I think its much more blurred than that. You think because of story there'd be distinction but I don't think there is, you're saying "What would I do in that situation?" and "What would <the character> do in that situation?" but to me, these questions generally just merged into one in your mind, completely regardless of whether its in first person or not. Unless its some major plot element / character-character interaction. Ultimately the sense of being a character or being a puppeteer is a personal one.

You aren't your character. It's an illusion and its easily broken with lack of control (ie why can't I pick this up, why can't I just shoot this guy moments). I think people just tag that onto the first person perspective for.. I dunno whatever reason. But I just find this argument annoying because I really hated the whole 'I AM Gordon Freeman' stuff people would say in fandom of HL/2, because of all the control I have and its a seamless first person experience.

Sure. Except they put Gordon Freemans face on the cover of the game.


But yeah. Ultimately FPS is a genre and changing that would upset some people. But I think its an exaggeration to say they want to re-write everything and the details. I think a third person camera is a perfectly fine gameplay mechanic that could be used in DX, in some unusual or interesting ways.

You probably seen my naggings about a TPC aug, but how about a segment in the game where your augmented vision is outright disabled and you have to hack into an active link up to the CCTV all over an area to gather your bearings. Thats technically third person and thats the kinda stuff I don't want to be knocked just because people don't know the sound of the phrase 'third person camera' c:

But realistically speaking, with its implementation in DXHR, I really won't be at all surprised for it to make a return in the next installment.
I have no issue with optional third person things, nor do I have an issue where third-person makes sense (Hacking in to a camera, conversations). My only issue is either replacing first-person, or expecting the devs to create an entire perspective for a few people.

HERESY
30th Apr 2012, 23:14
Very true. Especially given that his actual claim was this:



...and in Wolfenstein 3D your gun was actually in the bottom-center of the screen, not at the lower right. There's evolution for you! :lol:

Also, "you're a dot on the screen"? No, that's a crosshair, that's not me. I don't think he understands first person at all.

[EDIT] Also, Wolfenstein 3D didn't have a crosshair. Does that mean I was playing as nobody in that game?

[EDIT 2] Pic related, it's Gordon Freeman from Half Life 2.

http://www.amphibian.myzen.co.uk/eyrie/thumbnails/crosshairs2.gif


Dot, crosshair or reticule. Who cares? Not all games use the same thing. However, the point remains the same. You're a dot, crosshair or reticule with a gun to the lower right. If the game does not have the option to holster, you run around looking like an idiot the entire time you play it. Run into a NPC? Gun drawn. Short cutscene? Gun drawn. It's comical really.

And the dot, crosshair or reticule is NOT the perspective, LOL! Again, FPP has NOT evolved since Wolfenstein.




or, significantly more important, that note that says "password is xxxxxxxxx " in one of the Sarif offices, on a desk next to a computer.

ETA:


I am getting real tired of you continuously saying this.

You don't have to read it. You can put me on ignore if the site offers an ignore feature, but I'm telling you the truth. You and others keep talking about "we won't see the items" or other hidden things, but this has been addressed several times in this forum and in the Theif forums.



ARMA, Mirror's Edge, Red Orchestra- recent examples of innovation in First-Person Games.
you cannot claim that because "mainstream" publishers don't adopt something, "the genre hasn't moved since Wolvenstein". there are innovations. If you look for them.

The perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. Again, we can look at Third Person and see it has evolved. From Winback and Full Spectrum to RE4 to Gears and the present day 3rd person shooters, it has evolved. I'm sorry, but we can't say the same for the games you listed. Have they set ANY trends that companies are attempting to emulate and do in their games? If so what are they?

Tverdyj
30th Apr 2012, 23:31
btw, not all games have the reticule. See FarCry 2

Mirror's Edge: ARMA: offer body awareness - you see feet+ hands. (and you don't have to have a gun all the time! A feature that existed in FPS games since at least No One Lives Forever, if not earlier!)

Red Orchestra introduced a new system of first-Person cover. We are seeing something fairly similar in Far Cry 3 demos shown so far.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone here, untill you manage to define what exactly do you mean by "perspective": you start off by saying that Perspective is unrealistic and hasn't changed since Wolvenstein. You then bring up gameplay mechanics like transparent boxes, and imperfect dragging animations.
What is it that you mean, by the "perspective not evolving?" and how would you suggest it evolve?

TrickyVein
1st May 2012, 00:21
Games in first person have made use of better technology to simulate all kinds of neat things. Saying the genre hasn't 'evolved' is just semantics. HERESY, stop being obtuse. 3rd person is 3rd person just as 1st person is 1st person. Perspective is not subject to degrees of separation. Are you actually trying to say that 1st person can't 'evolve' into 1.1st person, but 3rd person can 'evolve' into 3.25rd person? Both perspectives make use of HDR, DoF, motion-blur, post-processing, and other imagespace modifiers.

What are you trying to say? If you're making a value judgement that you like 3rd person games better than 1st person ", fine. Don't be illogical.

HERESY
1st May 2012, 03:01
btw, not all games have the reticule. See FarCry 2

Mirror's Edge: ARMA: offer body awareness - you see feet+ hands. (and you don't have to have a gun all the time! A feature that existed in FPS games since at least No One Lives Forever, if not earlier!)

Red Orchestra introduced a new system of first-Person cover. We are seeing something fairly similar in Far Cry 3 demos shown so far.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone here, untill you manage to define what exactly do you mean by "perspective": you start off by saying that Perspective is unrealistic and hasn't changed since Wolvenstein. You then bring up gameplay mechanics like transparent boxes, and imperfect dragging animations.
What is it that you mean, by the "perspective not evolving?" and how would you suggest it evolve?

You aren't reading, friend. Listen, I'll explain this again but I hate having to explain it over and over again, so I want you to read this reply and tell me what you think I'm saying before you critique, agree or disagree with what I'm saying. This way I'll know we're on the same page when it comes to you comprehending my point.

In regards to shooters, the third person perspective has evolved. It has gone from Winback to Full Spectrum Warrior to RE4. From RE4 the third perspective has evolved into Gears, Mass Effect, etc. Now if you look at third person action games, you'll also see a difference between the third person action games of old compared to the new ones. The perspective has evolved. Yes, some of this has to do with the advent of new tech, but they still utilized the tools to change the perspective and enhance the game.

The first person perspective has NOT changed. It is a one size fits all crutch designed to simulate what a person see's but it is limited. There is NO WAY the first person perspective can cover the human range of vision or accurately represent it. You and I see things in different ways. You and the member who I'm replying to in the second half of this post see and process what you see in different ways. The first person perspective simply says "this is what it is and this is what you can see" and again, this is limited. The perspective has NOT evolved. One size fits all.

Having phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs and seeing through boxes IS NOT perspective. It is a design choice. However, it is wrong to argue that anything outside of the first person perspective is immersion breaking, and say first person is REALISM, when other things that contribute to immersion are subpar. What I'm saying is there are MANY more things that are "immersion breaking" yet people aren't up in arms about it because most likely, no one has brought it to their attention. No one has said, "Hey, you guys don't find that odd?"

So when I say first person games have not evolved since Wolfenstein, I'm referring to what you see and how you process it. Again, I've explained this before, maybe in this thread or another, but it's most likely gone since I'm heavily censored and moderated on these forums (don't worry I'll be leaving soon anyway.) I'm not talking about the dot on the screen, the reticule, the gun to the lower right, holstering or any of the gameplay mechanics. I'm not talking about seeing someones feet. Concerning a new cover system, I tell you what. Place your back against a wall and peak around the corner. What do you see?



Games in first person have made use of better technology to simulate all kinds of neat things. Saying the genre hasn't 'evolved' is just semantics.

The perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein.


HERESY, stop being obtuse. 3rd person is 3rd person just as 1st person is 1st person. Perspective is not subject to degrees of separation. Are you actually trying to say that 1st person can't 'evolve' into 1.1st person, but 3rd person can 'evolve' into 3.25rd person? Both perspectives make use of HDR, DoF, motion-blur, post-processing, and other imagespace modifiers.

See above. I'm not saying first person doesn't use motion blur, modifiers, post-processing, etc. I've explained what I'm talking about and suggest that you tell me what you think I'm saying. Doing this will allow me to clarify for you and not create an instance of where my posts are being taken out of context and I have to make four or five explaining what you should have caught in the first.



What are you trying to say? If you're making a value judgement that you like 3rd person games better than 1st person ", fine. Don't be illogical.

I've explained it several times before (was deleted by mods) and I'm explaining it again. The perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. No matter what rendering engine/farm you use, no matter how great your draw distance, no matter what flavor of the month processes you use, no matter what programs your models were made or rigged in none of it is exclusive to first or third person. So it isn't about the tools that you listed but about the creators of first person games giving you a one size fits all crutch and you want to know who has fallen for it hook line and sinker every time?

PC Gamers.

Romeo
1st May 2012, 03:07
I don't think you have a point to make. The only thing you've pointed to that third-person has done differently than first-person is draw distance. The thing about first-person is you CAN'T change the draw distance in first-person. To do so would be utterly ridiculous. First-person is already at the right draw distance: Eye level.

Ashpolt
1st May 2012, 03:08
Dot, crosshair or reticule. Who cares? Not all games use the same thing. However, the point remains the same. You're a dot, crosshair or reticule with a gun to the lower right. If the game does not have the option to holster, you run around looking like an idiot the entire time you play it. Run into a NPC? Gun drawn. Short cutscene? Gun drawn. It's comical really.

And the dot, crosshair or reticule is NOT the perspective, LOL! Again, FPP has NOT evolved since Wolfenstein.

Again, you are not the dot, crosshair or reticule. The dot, crosshair or reticule does not represent you in any sense, it represents where you're aiming, nothing more.

As for the "can't holster your weapons" example: that's the same for third person games. Where's the option to holster your guns in Gears of War? Just Cause? Resident Evil? Yes, I cherry-picked particular examples, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Yes, yes, you're going to say "I'm talking about the perspective rather than the game mechanics!" etc etc, but here's an idea for you - first person got it right early on and doesn't need to evolve. Other than adding in the ability to aim vertically as well as horizontally (not present in early shooters like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, though you seem to not really know much about those games, as you still insist the weapon was on the bottom right in Wolf 3D) and full body rendering (which, again, some FPP games have used but it added little to the experience while being a slight drain on resources) first person hasn't needed to evolve because frankly it doesn't have anywhere to evolve to. The perspective itself does what it needs to perfectly.

Third person, on the other hand, used to be plagued by clunky camera systems and poor aiming (you used Winback as an example - yeah, exactly) and so it's needed to evolve just to fix its own inherent shortcomings. It's only in the past 5 years or so that it's come close to catching up to the utility and intuitiveness that first person has had since Quake...in 1996.

HERESY
1st May 2012, 03:22
Again, you are not the dot, crosshair or reticule. The dot, crosshair or reticule does not represent you in any sense, it represents where you're aiming, nothing more.

Again, you aren't reading. At the end of the day you are that dot. That is your finest point of vision. It is supposed to be your center of vision. Not where you're aiming, although that is what it is used for, but it's purpose is your center of vision.


As for the "can't holster your weapons" example: that's the same for third person games. Where's the option to holster your guns in Gears of War? Just Cause? Resident Evil? Yes, I cherry-picked particular examples, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Read the reply I just made as I lay it out for you. These things are design choices.



Yes, yes, you're going to say "I'm talking about the perspective rather than the game mechanics!" etc etc, but here's an idea for you - first person got it right early on and doesn't need to evolve.

No, actually it didn't. With AR just right around the corner, companies that develop first person games are going to have to change the way they make games. First person hasn't gotten ANYTHING right when it doesn't even represent HALF of a humans field of vision.


Other than adding in the ability to aim vertically as well as horizontally (not present in early shooters like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, though you seem to not really know much about those games, as you still insist the weapon was on the bottom right in Wolf 3D) and full body rendering (which, again, some FPP games have used but it added little to the experience while being a slight drain on resources) first person hasn't needed to evolve because frankly it doesn't have anywhere to evolve to. The perspective itself does what it needs to perfectly.


It doesn't matter if the gun in Wolfenstein was at the top of the screen, in the middle, outside of the screen inside my house, wherever. The point is, you are more than a weapon. You are more than a dot, reticule, etc. You are more then the same damn red arrow in just about EVERY shooter that tells you you're taking damage from an enemy in a specific direction. And to claim that first person perspective does not need to evolve is funny. Study AR and the new panoramic tech hitting the scene and then come back and tell me that.

Again, you aren't even getting 50% of what a human see's with first person.


Third person, on the other hand, used to be plagued by clunky camera systems and poor aiming (you used Winback as an example - yeah, exactly) and so it's needed to evolve just to fix its own inherent shortcomings.

Thats the point! It EVOLVED! It went from something very clunky to something that works and is copied. You don't see that with first person. Like I told the other guy, put your back against a wall and look around the corner. What do you see?


It's only in the past 5 years or so that it's come close to catching up to the utility and intuitiveness that first person has had since Quake...in 1996.

LMAO! Sure.


I don't think you have a point to make. The only thing you've pointed to that third-person has done differently than first-person is draw distance. The thing about first-person is you CAN'T change the draw distance in first-person. To do so would be utterly ridiculous. First-person is already at the right draw distance: Eye level.

You don't know what draw distance means and it is changed in first person mods all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_distance

Ashpolt
1st May 2012, 03:42
Again, you aren't reading. At the end of the day you are that dot.

Really?


You are more than a dot, reticule, etc.


Read the reply I just made as I lay it out for you. These things are design choices.

Very true. And yet you mentioned them initially as flaws of FPP.


No, actually it didn't. With AR just right around the corner, companies that develop first person games are going to have to change the way they make games. First person hasn't gotten ANYTHING right when it doesn't even represent HALF of a humans field of vision.

That's a design choice. FPP games can, if they choose to, have a 360 degree FOV. That they don't choose to is not an inherent problem with the perspective.


It doesn't matter if the gun in Wolfenstein was at the top of the screen, in the middle, outside of the screen inside my house, wherever.

It doesn't matter to the point overall, no - but it matters in the sense that I'm bringing it up, which is that your repeated incorrect claims show you know next very little about the history of the perspective.


The point is, you are more than a weapon. You are more than a dot, reticule, etc. You are more then the same damn red arrow in just about EVERY shooter that tells you you're taking damage from an enemy in a specific direction. And to claim that first person perspective does not need to evolve is funny. Study AR and the new panoramic tech hitting the scene and then come back and tell me that.

Who's to say that FPP won't evolve to adapt to that new tech? The point is, it hasn't needed to evolve significantly to work perfectly on the tech currently available. When we're all wearing VR helmets or hanging out in the Holodeck, first person games will doubtlessly work differently than they do now. But we don't have that tech now, and so we don't need the evolution now.

Also, funnily enough, such tech will kill off third person.


Thats the point! It EVOLVED! It went from something very clunky to something that works and is copied. You don't see that with first person.

Your entire point is that first person perspective is the same in all games. Then you say it's not copied?

First person didn't start particularly clunky, and so didn't need to evolve past the clunkiness. You're claiming a strength as a weakness - and for third person, claiming former weakness as current strength.

Anyway, I have no interest in further fisking with you, as you're either heavily deluded or an oddly devoted troll. Either way, this is going round in circles as you're not taking in anything that anyone is saying to you, regardless of how many people say it or in how many different ways. I'm sure others will carry on feeding you though, so have fun with them.

HERESY
1st May 2012, 04:12
Really?
Very true. And yet you mentioned them initially as flaws of FPP.

There is no contradiction in the statement. Nice job at cherry picking. Take the entire quote in context.

Here is the rest of it for you:


That is your finest point of vision. It is supposed to be your center of vision. Not where you're aiming, although that is what it is used for, but it's purpose is your center of vision.

That is what you left out and what you don't comprehend.


Very true. And yet you mentioned them initially as flaws of FPP.

You aren't reading. They are flaws when it comes to people talking about IMMERSION. The flaw is not exclusive to FPP, but the 3rd person games don't make it as blatent.


That's a design choice. FPP games can, if they choose to, have a 360 degree FOV. That they don't choose to is not an inherent problem with the perspective.

LOL! So according to you it's a design choice? No, with the advent of the widescreen format it's become more reasonable in the way it looks. We've had DECADES pass yet the perspective is still LIMITED and you attribute this to design choice?


It doesn't matter to the point overall, no - but it matters in the sense that I'm bringing it up, which is that your repeated incorrect claims show you know next very little about the history of the perspective.

I know about the perspective, I don't care about those games to know all the small details. YOU don't know about the perspective. And you're the guy who saud the dot is where you're aiming and didn't even know it is your center of vision, so YOU'RE the one who doesn't know about perspective. Again, how is the perspective right when it doesn't even account for 50% of a humans FOV?


Who's to say that FPP won't evolve to adapt to that new tech? The point is, it hasn't needed to evolve significantly to work perfectly on the tech currently available.

Again, it does not even come close to a humans field of vision. It is a one size fits all crutch. And yes, the need to evolve has come. Again, with new tech right around the corner, developers are going to have to change the way they do FPP and they are going to have to make it a part of the gameplay element and not just camera.


When we're all wearing VR helmets or hanging out in the Holodeck, first person games will doubtlessly work differently than they do now. But we don't have that tech now, and so we don't need the evolution now.

AR is right around the corner. People are thinking that it will be the year 3877 or some far off crap. It's right around the corner. In order to stay ahead of the curve you have to plan for what is ahead. This is business 101. You just don't say "Hey, the tech isn't there so we'll wait." No, you start making the take yourself and put money into R&D or you hire consultants who know the market, know innovation and can keep you at least 10 years ahead of the game with disruptive technology.


Also, funnily enough, such tech will kill off third person.

It should! But the third person developers have a leg up because they've been forced to adapt. Do you understand now?


Your entire point is that first person perspective is the same in all games. Then you say it's not copied?

It's not copied in the sense that third person games are. No one is saying, "Hey, we want our first person perspective to be like like doom and not like Borderlands." However, people are saying, "We want our third person camera to be like Metal Gear Solid Guns of Patriots or RE4 and not like Ninja Gaiden 3." You see the difference?


First person didn't start particularly clunky, and so didn't need to evolve past the clunkiness. You're claiming a strength as a weakness - and for third person, claiming former weakness as current strength.

It's not just a matter of clunkiness. The perspective has not evolved to where it is truly utilized as an innovative gameplay mechanic. How are companies using the perspective to change the market? Again, we've seen how the third person perspective has evolved to change the market and contribute to innovation, where is first person perspectives contribution? And don't say it is done perfectly because it isn't. It is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect.


Anyway, I have no interest in further fisking with you, as you're either heavily deluded or an oddly devoted troll. Either way, this is going round in circles as you're not taking in anything that anyone is saying to you, regardless of how many people say it or in how many different ways. I'm sure others will carry on feeding you though, so have fun with them.

You and others are using terms and tech out of context and yet I'm the troll? I'm telling people to tell me what they think I'm saying so I can clarify for them yet I'm a troll? And heavily deluded? Again, this is coming from a person who doesn't even want gamers to have the OPTION of third person in the next DX game and who believes that it must remain first person because that is what Spector intended. All this yet I'm delusional...

Good day sir. Put me on ignore and go about your way.

TrickyVein
1st May 2012, 04:36
HERESY, I've read through your posts. They're all tautologous. The difference between 1st and 3rd person perspective is, by definition, greater freedom in attaching the camera to the game world in 3rd person than in first. Of course this gives you a greater number of ways to look at yourself in 3rd person view. To argue that this is somehow a 'flaw' of 1st person view, or that because you can move the 3rd person camera from point x to point x + dx, that this represents an 'evolution' of 3rd person view is quite frankly, bizarre.

Romeo
1st May 2012, 04:46
You don't know what draw distance means and it is changed in first person mods all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_distance
You're right, I used the wrong term. Now, feel free to address the point. Assuming you can rebut it, that is.

AlexOfSpades
1st May 2012, 15:40
HERESY, I've read through your posts. They're all tautologous. The difference between 1st and 3rd person perspective is, by definition, greater freedom in attaching the camera to the game world in 3rd person than in first. Of course this gives you a greater number of ways to look at yourself in 3rd person view. To argue that this is somehow a 'flaw' of 1st person view, or that because you can move the 3rd person camera from point x to point x + dx, that this represents an 'evolution' of 3rd person view is quite frankly, bizarre.

Agreed. Now lets all stop feeding him, shall we?

There's no such thing as TPS > FPS or the opposite. Some games are more fit for certain camera styles. Deus Ex sacrifices field of view for the sake of immersion - that's what the game always aimed to be (the first ones, that is). You cant have certain levels of immersion without first person, that's evident.

If Deus Ex added a fully third person camera, this would change dramatically certain things:

1) Corridors and rooms would have to be much bigger to avoid camera clipping
2) Objects that can be interacted with would have to be bigger or glow in order for the player to notice (Since the camera is more far, its harder to notice a key as big as your finger, so it has to be huge - and shiny). Thief 1 has very small objects but they can all be easily spotted since its a first person camera. In Deadly Shadows, when they added a third person, they were forced to add glowing effects to the objects in order for you to notice the loot.

These two differences would result in an unrealistic environment (oversized places and glowing objects), forcing the game to be more casual and less immersive - which is exactly the opposite of what Deus Ex aimed for. I would vote against a fully first person Elder Scrolls - they were always both - it would be against the tradition. Same for Deus Ex. The franchise gathered fans due to its style and changing it may bring new fans but offend the oldschool fanbase. Pleasing the fanbase is a sure shot - attempting to gather new fans is a risky gamble.

Now, as i said, lets stop feeding him.

m G h m u o s
1st May 2012, 17:27
1) Corridors and rooms would have to be much bigger to avoid camera clipping
2) Objects that can be interacted with would have to be bigger or glow in order for the player to notice (Since the camera is more far, its harder to notice a key as big as your finger, so it has to be huge - and shiny). Thief 1 has very small objects but they can all be easily spotted since its a first person camera. In Deadly Shadows, when they added a third person, they were forced to add glowing effects to the objects in order for you to notice the loot.

Hmm..

1) That point really assumes they don't put any effort into the TPC lol. It could really restrictive even. Maybe you can't look round corners with it unless you peak around? I don't have any outstanding memory of the third person camera in DXHR glitching out on me madly.
2) Though I don't think an exclusively third person DX is even a possibility, I guess if they did do this, some smaller objects (like credits, etc) may be made larger. But DX/DXHR already has a highlighting system, so I think with some tweaking to how it worked could easily make even small objects clear.

But your ultimately your last point is valid and any such major (and more importantly, inflexible) changes to the DX formula is bound to upset the old school fanbase, but with it being worked into DXHR, that fanbases expectations is already mixed.

Romeo
1st May 2012, 18:11
Hmm..

1) That point really assumes they don't put any effort into the TPC lol. It could really restrictive even. Maybe you can't look round corners with it unless you peak around? I don't have any outstanding memory of the third person camera in DXHR glitching out on me madly.
2) Though I don't think an exclusively third person DX is even a possibility, I guess if they did do this, some smaller objects (like credits, etc) may be made larger. But DX/DXHR already has a highlighting system, so I think with some tweaking to how it worked could easily make even small objects clear.

But your ultimately your last point is valid and any such major (and more importantly, inflexible) changes to the DX formula is bound to upset the old school fanbase, but with it being worked into DXHR, that fanbases expectations is already mixed.
In sufficiently small areas (Vents, tight/low walkways, etc) third-person actions are disabled (For example, you can't takedown a guard from a vent without popping out of the vent). In smallish areas, third-person actions can cause oddities such as clipping, or having the perspective go behind something. Those would need to be tidied up.

The bigger issue though, is that those "moments" the perspective can only be in a few areas, and it's only one small moment. In total third-person, the perspective can be damn near anywhere, all the time. Thus while the chances of you getting oddities during a third-person event are relatively low normally, in complete third-person they'd be almost assured without massive adjustment to level design.

m G h m u o s
1st May 2012, 18:42
The bigger issue though, is that those "moments" the perspective can only be in a few areas, and it's only one small moment. In total third-person, the perspective can be damn near anywhere, all the time. Thus while the chances of you getting oddities during a third-person event are relatively low normally, in complete third-person they'd be almost assured without massive adjustment to level design.
Sorry, you lost me here :O Are you talking about.. scripted events and points of interest? This actually comes to level design and the use of lighting to direct a persons attention. For example in the prologue/tutorial, it took me ages to notice the door to the first combat area (with those 2 guards coming down the stairs) just because it wasn't really lit and it just blended into the wall for me. Though I watched some lps out of curiousity and other people didn't have as much of a problem, so I guess I'm just dumb lol

But I'm starting to find all this 3rd person talk is dulling my mind XD; At most, I think it'd be cover to have an optional camera for conversations, cover and takedowns, to suit fans of DX, HR and preference.

Romeo
1st May 2012, 21:38
Sorry, you lost me here :O Are you talking about.. scripted events and points of interest? This actually comes to level design and the use of lighting to direct a persons attention. For example in the prologue/tutorial, it took me ages to notice the door to the first combat area (with those 2 guards coming down the stairs) just because it wasn't really lit and it just blended into the wall for me. Though I watched some lps out of curiousity and other people didn't have as much of a problem, so I guess I'm just dumb lol

But I'm starting to find all this 3rd person talk is dulling my mind XD; At most, I think it'd be cover to have an optional camera for conversations, cover and takedowns, to suit fans of DX, HR and preference.
What I mean is that Deus Ex: Human Revolution, is a first-person game, that has occasional moments of third-person (Takedowns, Icarus, etc). Thus, the level design can still be left fairly cramped if needed, because the chances of the camera screwing up during one of those moments of third-person, are fairly low. In an entirely third-person situation though, of course we are third-person all the time. We are constantly adjusting the perspective as well, to allow the player to look in various directions (Camera moves left to allow the player to look right, for example). As a result, the chances of the camera screwing up are made substantially higher, and the level needs to be adjusted to prevent that from happening, which typically means open environments.

You aren't dumb, it's hard to broadcast ideas via the internet. No tone or inflection, no "back and forth" during a misunderstanding. Hopefully I cleared my point up a bit better.

OMGITSJASON
1st May 2012, 23:38
Nah, HR had the third person cover thing. It was done ok and was enough for me. If I want third person I'll play Metal Gear Solid.

HERESY
2nd May 2012, 23:32
You're right, I used the wrong term. Now, feel free to address the point. Assuming you can rebut it, that is.

Feel free to address what point? What are you attempting to convey here?


HERESY, I've read through your posts. They're all tautologous.

If so it's because I keep having to repeat myself and it's not my fault that I keep having to repeat myself.


The difference between 1st and 3rd person perspective is, by definition, greater freedom in attaching the camera to the game world in 3rd person than in first.

Sure, ok. Yeah, right. Got it...


Of course this gives you a greater number of ways to look at yourself in 3rd person view. To argue that this is somehow a 'flaw' of 1st person view, or that because you can move the 3rd person camera from point x to point x + dx, that this represents an 'evolution' of 3rd person view is quite frankly, bizarre.

You clearly don't understand the argument being presented.


Agreed. Now lets all stop feeding him, shall we?

Feeding who? Me?


There's no such thing as TPS > FPS or the opposite.

Tell that to the first person crowd.


Some games are more fit for certain camera styles. Deus Ex sacrifices field of view for the sake of immersion - that's what the game always aimed to be (the first ones, that is). You cant have certain levels of immersion without first person, that's evident.

LMAO!!!!!!!! We've already gone over this several times now. Spector and his team did not sit down and say, "We're going to make a first person game for the sake of immersion.


If Deus Ex added a fully third person camera, this would change dramatically certain things:

1) Corridors and rooms would have to be much bigger to avoid camera clipping


The rooms would NOT have to be bigger. You can compensate by decreasing the size of the avatar/character. Look at the Armored Core series if you want proof. Also, in what context are you using camera clipping?


2) Objects that can be interacted with would have to be bigger or glow in order for the player to notice (Since the camera is more far, its harder to notice a key as big as your finger, so it has to be huge - and shiny). Thief 1 has very small objects but they can all be easily spotted since its a first person camera. In Deadly Shadows, when they added a third person, they were forced to add glowing effects to the objects in order for you to notice the loot.

Wrong again. LA NOIRE (a third person game.) Let's move on now.


These two differences would result in an unrealistic environment (oversized places and glowing objects), forcing the game to be more casual and less immersive - which is exactly the opposite of what Deus Ex aimed for.

Please refer to LA NOIRE and ARMORED CORE (specifically Armored Core V.)


I would vote against a fully first person Elder Scrolls - they were always both - it would be against the tradition. Same for Deus Ex. The franchise gathered fans due to its style and changing it may bring new fans but offend the oldschool fanbase. Pleasing the fanbase is a sure shot - attempting to gather new fans is a risky gamble.

Now, as i said, lets stop feeding him.

Again, the guy I quoted earlier had it right about the "It must be first person only" fans. Here's his quote just in case you missed it:


'Abuse'?!
What is Deus Ex?
A game with three basic styles of play: Shooting, Sneaking and Subverting. The same core principles that Deus Ex: Human Revolution had. Deus Ex had conversations. Deus Ex: HR had an even more robust conversation system with persuasion elements added. Deus Ex had hacking, Deus Ex: HR turned hacking into actual strategic gameplay!

Pissing and moaning about third person is irrelevant, because whether the game was in first-person, third-person or sixth-person... the core design philosophy is the same! First-person is not a CORE DESIGN ELEMENT! When Warren Spector and Ion Storm Austin sat down to brainstorm about Deus Ex, they didn't say "Okay, now we'll make a first-person game, first and foremost!" If they had, then conversations in DX never would have shifted to third-person! They would have cut off their nose to spite their face (like you seem to want Eidos Montréal to do). Critics and gamers alike are acknowledging this game's quality. You are not just a minority, you're an extremely-small, extremely marginal minority that's so pissed off that EM dared to alter a single blade of grass that you can't see the beautiful meadow they've sown instead.

That guy gets it.

"What makes a game immersive or otherwise is not the viewpoint, of course; it’s the situations, external characters, and tasks that get you involved." -- Brandon Sheffield - editor-in-chief of Game Developer magazine.

And he reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy gets it.

Tverdyj
3rd May 2012, 01:31
he may get this, but then he goes back to the same "you don't want any changes at all" argument, which makes me cringe.

As for the general debate, I've stated my position.
Since you are increasingly using the "evolutoin of 3rd person console games, none of which I am familiar with, I feel out of my depth to continue any meaningful discussion.
I am unsure of where exactly you want 1st person to move "forward". If you could provide any actual suggestions, it may make your argument easier to understand.

As it is, I retain my cautious pessimism wrt inclusion of third person at the possible expense of first person (see: no lean keys in HR), but i'm amenable to an option for 3rd person, if it doesn't require any compromise in level design.

AlexOfSpades
3rd May 2012, 12:56
Heresy,

So Warren Spector didnt make the game immersive on purpose. Screw him then. Whoa, that felt good, gonna say it again. Screw Warren Spector!

Gunz: The Duel is an online shooter who is riddled with ridiculous bugs. The community now only plays using these exploits (the most popular one known as K-Styling, where one dashes and attacks a wall in order to continuosly "walljump") to the point that any new player will get crushed if they dont know how to do the moves. The actual fanbase now loves the game exactly because of the exploits, which led to an extremely fast-paced and hardcore gameplay (Since everyone uses it).

Was it intentional, bro? Did the Gunz devs sat down and said "Lets add some crappy bugs bro!"? Hell no.

Spector wanted an immersive game? No? I dont care, bro.

Because that's what it turned out to be. Like Gunz, the glitchy moves were not intentional but curiously they're what kept such a large fanbase. Now they're working on a Gunz 2, and they removed the glitchy moves. Fanbase is not amused and obviously will not give a single **** for it.

They just lost pretty much their entire fanbase when they decided to remove the "K-Styling". Get what i mean now?

Speaking of which, you never got what i meant. Curiously, you grabbed my post and carefully nitpicked every single sentence but you forgot to reply to the most important part. Figures. Here bro, lemme help you so you dont have to scroll:



The franchise gathered fans due to its style and changing it may bring new fans but offend the oldschool fanbase. Pleasing the fanbase is a sure shot - attempting to gather new fans is a risky gamble.

This, man. Spector sitting down or Spector standing up, Deus Ex 1 is an immersive game, ask any forum veteran, any fan. And the third person will ruin it. Oh whoa stay put kid, no need to grab your magazines and quote your unknown bros no one cares about! That's right. Immersion indeed happens thanks to a plethora of factors (environment realism, animations and view bob, sounds)... but if you make it a third person game, you wont be fully immersed. You'll be focused in the game. Immersion is when you're fully in contact with your character, man. Have you ever played Thief? You'll know what i'm talking about. If the camera was positioned a few meters away from Garrett, how could you feel like you're him?

Unless Garrett has eaten some of those shiny shrooms and gotten a "out-of-body experience" o.O

Now i'm going to repeat myself:

Deus Ex 4 being FULLY THIRD PERSON will not happen. With the changes on DXHR, i witnessed forum members saying they would never buy the game due to its ridiculous changes and would never visit the forums again. It actually happened. They never came back. Honestly, "i pity da fools" because DXHR is a great game as it is and they're losing it, but with such delicate changes they already lost market (while gambling for new audience) what do you think it would happen with a fully TPS game?

Most veterans (not only in the forums, but everywhere) would go insane, troll the forums and facebook pages and never buy the game again. Sure, you and your "heretic' friends would buy it. Sure, some Assassin Creed players would buy it too thinking it may be cool.

But is it worth it?

Is it worth it changing a core feature of the series - yes it is, it was like this in every DX game so far so its a tradition now - anyways is it worth changing it just to gather an unknown number of new fans?

Its a risky gamble. They could do this by, uh, maybe using another IP? If Legacy of Kain was fully FPS it would suck, seriously. So use it to attract the TPS fans. But dont ruin something everyone likes. Hey, this thread itself is a proof that you're wrong. Look at how many people came here to discuss with you. If it was a good idea you'd have a fattier percentage of veterans agreeing with you. Each disagreement here represents a potential loss of market.

Conclusion: Risky move, bad idea. I disagree. I may be wrong, but i dont care. Deal with it.




Now lets move on to something else that is also VERY IMPORTANT....

Remember one of these days where you came like "nah bro i hate these forums dude i always get crucified man". Yeah yeah. Wonder why bro?

Look at what you're doing. Look at your latest posts, man. Every thread i saw you posting, you were carefully dissecating every post, nitpicking, whining and replying harshly at every single sentence (with a bit o' arrogance too). You're practically bouncing between threads asking for a rethorical fight.

No wonder why people crucify you. No one likes someone who behaves like that. Mods probably are staring at you right now in a waiting game - just waitin' for you to oopsie trip on a ToU rule just to fire the .50 caliber ban-round.

Be nicer, man. Be cool, we have a cool community here, everyone's nice eventhough they have different opinions and tastes. No need to divide every post into a million sentences. Dude how long does that take anyway?

Here grab a beer bro (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9TA_W1sRBVw/T01ZBLHfwvI/AAAAAAAACEw/85UPYUezDJw/s1600/beer_toast-912.jpg) and chill! :cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd May 2012, 14:10
Mods probably are staring at you right now in a waiting game - just waitin' for you to oopsie trip on a ToU rule just to fire the .50 caliber ban-round.

Not really.. we don't view one member more favourably than another... all we do is make sure that everyone here is respecting the rules. :)

Speaking of the rules. One is not supposed to "memberate"... it's up to others in what style they choose to post (dissecting, quoting etc), so long as they don't break the ToU, then it's allowed. One can choose not to respond to these types of posts... that's the best way to go; and if you think someone is rude, then use the report button.

On that note, let's return to discussing the topic in hand... not each other. :thumb:

Nice beer!!! :D

HERESY
3rd May 2012, 16:58
Heresy,

So Warren Spector didnt make the game immersive on purpose. Screw him then. Whoa, that felt good, gonna say it again. Screw Warren Spector!

See, once again you people aren't reading. I didn't say Spector didn't make the game immersive on purpose. What I said was "Spector and his team did not sit down and say, "We're going to make a first person game for the sake of immersion." Do you see the bold? They didn't say we're going to make a FIRST PERSON game for the sake of immersion. Please, before you respond again make sure you read what I've said because your post is just one of several examples where I keep having to repeat myself simply because people aren't reading.


Gunz: The Duel is an online shooter who is riddled with ridiculous bugs. The community now only plays using these exploits (the most popular one known as K-Styling, where one dashes and attacks a wall in order to continuosly "walljump") to the point that any new player will get crushed if they dont know how to do the moves. The actual fanbase now loves the game exactly because of the exploits, which led to an extremely fast-paced and hardcore gameplay (Since everyone uses it).


Was it intentional, bro? Did the Gunz devs sat down and said "Lets add some crappy bugs bro!"? Hell no.

This is an example of emergent gameplay and because my comments pertaining to emergent gameplay were deleted by a mod, I'm not going to address it.


Spector wanted an immersive game? No? I dont care, bro.

Because that's what it turned out to be. Like Gunz, the glitchy moves were not intentional but curiously they're what kept such a large fanbase. Now they're working on a Gunz 2, and they removed the glitchy moves. Fanbase is not amused and obviously will not give a single **** for it.

What point are you attempting to convey by mentioning Gunz? What point are you attempting to make period because your thoughts/words come across as highly convoluted, so can you direct me to a specific statement or paragraph that will sum up your premise? This will help the flow of the conversation, thanks.



They just lost pretty much their entire fanbase when they decided to remove the "K-Styling". Get what i mean now?

See above.


Speaking of which, you never got what i meant. Curiously, you grabbed my post and carefully nitpicked every single sentence but you forgot to reply to the most important part. Figures. Here bro, lemme help you so you dont have to scroll:

I didn't address it because I've gone over it several times now. I'm not going to keep on going over the same points because members refuse to read and coupled with the facts that the mods deleted half of it, I'm really not going to go over it.


What I like about your post is that you didn't even address the fact that your 1 & 2 points were addressed and found to be without merit. :)


This, man. Spector sitting down or Spector standing up, Deus Ex 1 is an immersive game, ask any forum veteran, any fan. And the third person will ruin it.


Oh whoa stay put kid, no need to grab your magazines and quote your unknown bros no one cares about! That's right. Immersion indeed happens thanks to a plethora of factors (environment realism, animations and view bob, sounds)... but if you make it a third person game, you wont be fully immersed. You'll be focused in the game. Immersion is when you're fully in contact with your character, man. Have you ever played Thief? You'll know what i'm talking about. If the camera was positioned a few meters away from Garrett, how could you feel like you're him?

Now if I had typed "kid" I'd be looking at a 10 point infraction. Quote my unknown bros? The first guy I quoted is a member of this board. The second guy was an editor in chief of a magazine at the time of his statement. You can google his name if you like.

So no, first person is no way more immersive than third person. I'm not arguing that point which is why it's easy to show the holes and gaps in the "logic" utilized by the "It must remain first person" crowd. You want immersion? Focus on other things besides a limited camera that doesn't even come close to a humans FOV.



Deus Ex 4 being FULLY THIRD PERSON will not happen. With the changes on DXHR, i witnessed forum members saying they would never buy the game due to its ridiculous changes and would never visit the forums again. It actually happened. They never came back. Honestly, "i pity da fools" because DXHR is a great game as it is and they're losing it, but with such delicate changes they already lost market (while gambling for new audience) what do you think it would happen with a fully TPS game?

So? The game still sold over 2 million copies. Now my question to you is how many sales did it cost them and can it truly be attributed to a change in perspective? Have you done any polls? No. Any market research? No. So what you're saying lacks merit, let us move on now.


Most veterans (not only in the forums, but everywhere) would go insane, troll the forums and facebook pages and never buy the game again. Sure, you and your "heretic' friends would buy it. Sure, some Assassin Creed players would buy it too thinking it may be cool.

I'm pretty sure a lot of MASS EFFECT players, and even GEARS and MGS players would jump on the game. And the first games in each of those series have sold more than the ENTIRE DX series COMBINED, so that should make you wonder...


But is it worth it?

Is it worth it changing a core feature of the series - yes it is, it was like this in every DX game so far so its a tradition now - anyways is it worth changing it just to gather an unknown number of new fans?

It isn't a core "feature" it is a design choice. There is a difference.


Its a risky gamble. They could do this by, uh, maybe using another IP? If Legacy of Kain was fully FPS it would suck, seriously. So use it to attract the TPS fans. But dont ruin something everyone likes. Hey, this thread itself is a proof that you're wrong. Look at how many people came here to discuss with you. If it was a good idea you'd have a fattier percentage of veterans agreeing with you. Each disagreement here represents a potential loss of market.

First, you don't even understand the argument. Give us the OPTION is what people here are saying. The OPTION. You have people here saying we do not NEED the option and that the OPTION will take away from the game. So all this talk about being entirely in third person is meaningless from you because it is clear you've yet to read the thread.


Conclusion: Risky move, bad idea. I disagree. I may be wrong, but i dont care. Deal with it.

So why are you replying to me again?


Now lets move on to something else that is also VERY IMPORTANT....

Remember one of these days where you came like "nah bro i hate these forums dude i always get crucified man". Yeah yeah. Wonder why bro?

Look at what you're doing. Look at your latest posts, man. Every thread i saw you posting, you were carefully dissecating every post, nitpicking, whining and replying harshly at every single sentence (with a bit o' arrogance too). You're practically bouncing between threads asking for a rethorical fight.

No wonder why people crucify you. No one likes someone who behaves like that. Mods probably are staring at you right now in a waiting game - just waitin' for you to oopsie trip on a ToU rule just to fire the .50 caliber ban-round.

Be nicer, man. Be cool, we have a cool community here, everyone's nice eventhough they have different opinions and tastes. No need to divide every post into a million sentences. Dude how long does that take anyway?

Here grab a beer bro (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9TA_W1sRBVw/T01ZBLHfwvI/AAAAAAAACEw/85UPYUezDJw/s1600/beer_toast-912.jpg) and chill! :cool:

The mod just checked you and put you in your place so I don't need to address this, lol. :)

AlexOfSpades
3rd May 2012, 17:42
The mod just checked you and put you in your place so I don't need to address this, lol. :)

Probably the same mod who put your posts with your shiny arguments in their places, right?

If you wanna act arrogantly, then its up to you. Just dont come whining that you get crucified 'kay? Just wanted to give you advice. Now as i said, i dont care. If you really think that Gears of War and Mass Effect players will quit those communities to play Deus Ex just because the camera changed, pfft, all right. I dont care.

I know that you like being infamous and polemic, so i wont feed you anymore. This is the last time i'll adress anything to you.

Lets see if Eidos will hear you or not... (;

SDF121
3rd May 2012, 20:25
See, once again you people aren't reading. I didn't say Spector didn't make the game immersive on purpose. What I said was "Spector and his team did not sit down and say, "We're going to make a first person game for the sake of immersion." Do you see the bold? They didn't say we're going to make a FIRST PERSON game for the sake of immersion.

Yes, but this seems to ignore the idea that if your initial goal is to make an "immersive simulation" then the game ought to be in first person to help facilitate the players perceived sense of immersion. Although they may not have sat down and explicitly said that they were going to make a first person game, the use of a first person perspective is implied when they set out to advance the "immersive simulation" as a genre.



Spector: "I first thought about a game like DX back in 1995, when I was still an Executive Producer at Origin, which was owned by EA. I was a huge believer in the "immersive simulation" game style, exemplified by games like Ultima Underworld, and I wanted to push the limits of that sort of game further."


Harvey Smith in response to a question asking if a first person perspective is necessary for immersion?


Harvey Smith: Definitely not. I just finished RDR and found it highly immersive.

It might sound obvious now, but my eyes were first opened up to immersion not as a graphical or camera thing but as a design thing by Rob Fermier of Looking Glass, in a GDC talk. Before that, I guess I understood it intuitively, as a fan of the Ultimas. But Fermier articulately broke down immersion into three components: completeness (the player can do what he expects to be able to do), integrity (the illusion is never broken, the player is not jarred out of the game) and investment (the player cares about what happens).

I think first-person-perspective games with realistic spatial representations take this a step further, adding a familiar visual component; players immersed in first-person perspective games often physically dodge projectiles or lean in their seats when attempting to see around the corner.

So first-person is just a preference. Games of the same style as STALKER, Bioshock or Far Cry 2 are more…I love them as much as or maybe more than the best pop music in my life or favorite novels.


Smith: The immersive values–not in the general “engagement” sense, but in the “you are there” sense–continue to appeal to some developers; Mirror’s Edge, Bioshock, Fallout, Far Cry 2. Even if the first Mirror’s Edge was otherwise flawed, it did amazing things with first-person movement. Even if Far Cry 2 was really frustrating at times, and even if some of the narrative dynamics didn’t pay off, it was one of the most fascinating shooters ever made.

Emil Pagiliarulo in response to whether or not he would agree that Bioshock and Fallout 3 are two games from the current generation of games that are most obviously in the shadow of Deus Ex.



Emil Pagiliarulo: I would. Certainly the types of games I was into. And for me, they represent the soul of Looking Glass Studios. What that means to me is these immersive first-person games which try to do more than just offer an RPG experience or do more than just offering an FPS experience. Again it’s that illusive buzzword “emergent”… which does mean something to some people, and is something to strive for. It’s a genre-busting sort of thing where you want to wrap the player in an experience – and first person is generally the best way to do that. To me, that’s what that represents.



Emil Pagiliarulo: It’s the feeling of do I control that avatar on screen, or am I that avatar? And for me, the first-person is always about being that avatar. And it comes with its own unique set of challenges. When you’re that close to an environment the simple act of pulling a camera in closely means you have to look at your visual fidelity, because it’s going to have to be so much better. Play a great 3rd person game… and if it gives you the ability to zoom in the camera, do that and then look at the environment and see if it looks as good zoomed in as it does zoomed out. Pretty much 9/10 times the answer will be no. But when you’re making a first-person game with the camera zoomed in and everything in your face you’re trying for the level of visual fidelity which convinces you that you’re in this world. And for me, that’s what it’s all about. It’s like… you don’t need all these 3D glasses for virtual reality! Virtual Reality is that sense of being involved in a world, and first-person is what does that for me.



source(s):

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/162842/pc-zone-votes-deus-ex-the-best-pc-game-ever/?site=pcz
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/07/09/dark-futures-part-4-raphael-harvey-arkane/#more-33406
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/06/30/dark-futures-part-2-emil-pagliarulo/#more-32947

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd May 2012, 20:46
The mod just checked you and put you in your place so I don't need to address this, lol. :)

For goodness sake.
My post offers some friendly advice, it's not to put anyone in their place; as you put it. :hmm:

AlexOfSpades was correct to suggest that you should try to post in a friendlier manner and not come across so aggressive. I don't know if you realise it... but it's time to start if you don't.

HERESY
3rd May 2012, 23:25
For goodness sake.
My post offers some friendly advice, it's not to put anyone in their place; as you put it. :hmm:

AlexOfSpades was correct to suggest that you should try to post in a friendlier manner and not come across so aggressive. I don't know if you realise it... but it's time to start if you don't.

I'm not worried about AlexOfSpades or whatever his name is. Like I told you before, I'm on my way out the door anyway because this place is too cramped for my style, people take things waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context , refuse to read and some of the "mod gods" around here are the George Zimmermans of the internet. Life is aggressive, it's a dog eat dog world out there, so if I'm coming across as aggressive, it's probably because people have been viewing the world with rose colored lenses for too long or it could be the bandwagon thing going on.

And your post made it so I didn't even need to respond to the last portion of his post. So yeah, thanks for making my job that much easier. I owe you one. ;)


Yes, but this seems to ignore the idea that if your initial goal is to make an "immersive simulation" then the game ought to be in first person to help facilitate the players perceived sense of immersion. Although they may not have sat down and explicitly said that they were going to make a first person game, the use of a first person perspective is implied when they set out to advance the "immersive simulation" as a genre.

Once again, the game does NOT have to be in first person to create a sense of immersion. What you people are doing, and I don't mean to be rude here because it seems like everything I say is always taken out of context or someone is getting "offended", but what you people are doing is parroting something you heard from ages ago. Also, I'd bet the majority of the "It must remain first person crowd" are PC gamers, so I can see the bias a mile away. Why don't you do this, take the name of the editor of the magazine I quote, google his name and read the entire article. From there, expand your readings and see what other developers are saying. The first person perspective is not "implied" in anything. You don't automatically assume something is going to be in first person, third person, 999th person or whatever. There are TOO many variables that come in to play and things change over time. Art style, rendering engine, how audio will impact the game, etc.


Spector: "I first thought about a game like DX back in 1995, when I was still an Executive Producer at Origin, which was owned by EA. I was a huge believer in the "immersive simulation" game style, exemplified by games like Ultima Underworld, and I wanted to push the limits of that sort of game further."

And in nowhere in that statement does he define the made up genre of "immersive simulation" as being first person or exclusively first person. In fact, if we were to look at the "immersive sim" link someone posted in this thread or another thread (which I addressed and was probably deleted) you'll see several third person games were listed. Knowing this to be true, what is the above supposed to prove or what am I supposed to learn from it? Help me out here.


Harvey Smith in response to a question asking if a first person perspective is necessary for immersion?

OK, let's look at how Mr. Smith answered. Let's look at the very first sentence of his response:


Definitely not.

So according to Mr. Smith, first person is NOT necessary for immersion, which is something I've been saying when we debate this topic, yet YOU ALL are saying it IS necessary for immersion, lol!!!!!!!!

Now if you look at what you quoted, there is also another thing that you failed to highlight that is highly important.


But Fermier articulately broke down immersion into three components: completeness (the player can do what he expects to be able to do), integrity (the illusion is never broken, the player is not jarred out of the game) and investment (the player cares about what happens).

Do you see camera listed in there? NO! This ties DIRECTLY into what I quoted earlier from the magazine editor. The situations, external characters and tasks that you partake in create the immersion. If you're going to look at "integrity" and say it is broken when you go to third person and it isn't in first person you're obviously not reading it from a critical perspective. You can have a first person game lose the illusion by having the wrong cutscene at the wrong time, by having a set piece that is in the wrong place and throws off the pace or by having the character doing something that is not consistent with that character and the world the character occupies.

Then you highlight this:


I think first-person-perspective games with realistic spatial representations take this a step further, adding a familiar visual component; players immersed in first-person perspective games often physically dodge projectiles or lean in their seats when attempting to see around the corner.

The problem with this is first person games do not offer realistic spatial representations. Again, they don't even cover 50% of a humans FOV. Now answer this, have you ever watched someone play a racing game? If not, watch them play and you will see the exact same thing when someone is playing a racing game. They lean one way when they are steering and move real quickly when attempting to dodge a vehicle, poll or object that will cause a crash. And guess what perspective most of these games are? Third. Hell, some of them don't even offer a first perspective camera!

So that argument doesn't hold up, friend.


Smith: The immersive values–not in the general “engagement” sense, but in the “you are there” sense–continue to appeal to some developers; Mirror’s Edge, Bioshock, Fallout, Far Cry 2. Even if the first Mirror’s Edge was otherwise flawed, it did amazing things with first-person movement. Even if Far Cry 2 was really frustrating at times, and even if some of the narrative dynamics didn’t pay off, it was one of the most fascinating shooters ever made.

I'm not sure what you are trying to establish by posting and bolding that. What exactly are you attempting to convey here? Explain it so I can see where you're coming from and provide you with a response.

Lets address the next guy:


Emil Pagiliarulo: I would. Certainly the types of games I was into. And for me, they represent the soul of Looking Glass Studios. What that means to me is these immersive first-person games which try to do more than just offer an RPG experience or do more than just offering an FPS experience. Again it’s that illusive buzzword “emergent”… which does mean something to some people, and is something to strive for. It’s a genre-busting sort of thing where you want to wrap the player in an experience – and first person is generally the best way to do that. To me, that’s what that represents.

So you're quoting a guy who is talking about the made up genre. Ok, that’s good. Now consider the fact that Mr. Smith said first person isn't required for immersion. How can we say first person is better or third person is better when there are plenty of games that do exactly what he says and they are in first person?


It’s the feeling of do I control that avatar on screen, or am I that avatar? And for me, the first-person is always about being that avatar. And it comes with its own unique set of challenges. When you’re that close to an environment the simple act of pulling a camera in closely means you have to look at your visual fidelity, because it’s going to have to be so much better. Play a great 3rd person game… and if it gives you the ability to zoom in the camera, do that and then look at the environment and see if it looks as good zoomed in as it does zoomed out. Pretty much 9/10 times the answer will be no.

Uncharted 1-3, ME 1-3, Gears 1-3, Vanquish, Dead Space 1-2, RDR and LA NOIRE. They all look good when you zoom in. So are we really going to take his 9/10 as literal or a figure of speech? Now walk up close to an item in a first person game and zoom in on it. Watch out...jaggies and other artifacts.


But when you’re making a first-person game with the camera zoomed in and everything in your face you’re trying for the level of visual fidelity which convinces you that you’re in this world. And for me, that’s what it’s all about. It’s like… you don’t need all these 3D glasses for virtual reality! Virtual Reality is that sense of being involved in a world, and first-person is what does that for me.

And it is all thrown away when you're seeing through boxes, can't judge your jumping distance when it comes to platforming sections, picking up things with phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs, have a map or hud on screen and see the same damn red damage indicator. These things, and more, convince me that I'm NOT in that world. They convince me that I'm playing a video game and that I'm holding a controller in my hand. I am not that character. I am not Jensen, I'm not the chick from Borderlands, I'm not Prophet or Alcatraz. I'm controlling them, I'm not them. If I press left they move left. I press right they move right. I press the button to fire and they fire.


Probably the same mod who put your posts with your shiny arguments in their places, right?

No, she's a half way decent mod and that is all I will say about her.


If you wanna act arrogantly, then its up to you. Just dont come whining that you get crucified 'kay? Just wanted to give you advice. Now as i said, i dont care. If you really think that Gears of War and Mass Effect players will quit those communities to play Deus Ex just because the camera changed, pfft, all right. I dont care.

You can keep your "advice" because it isn't in good faith. The other members have started to point out that I've been discriminated against. I'm not going to use crucify because I got dinged for it, so those are your words not mine.

I didn't say anything about quitting Gears or ME. You need to start reading what is posted because it seems that you've failed to remember what you've posted.


I know that you like being infamous and polemic, so i wont feed you anymore. This is the last time i'll adress anything to you.

You aren't feeding me anything. What you're doing is hopping on the "Lets get Heresy" bandwagon and posting a lot of things that are incorrect or highly convoluted. You then try to pass things off by implying I'm trolling and this gives you a way out so you don't have to be held accountable for the statements you made that were refuted. Thanks for bottle-spinning!



Lets see if Eidos will hear you or not... (;

Before HR, I never played first person games and have explained why. I'd prefer a third person option but I'm not going to not play the game because it isn't in third person or because they didn't give me the option. So if they do, great. If they don't, great. Too bad the first person only crowds aren't as civilized as I am. I mean seriously, according to you, if the game switches they'll troll the boards, boycott, post on twitter, etc. IMHO, that is very irrational behavior from grown men....very irrational.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th May 2012, 00:18
...I'm on my way out the door anyway because this place is too cramped for my style...

Life is aggressive, it's a dog eat dog world out there, so if I'm coming across as aggressive, it's probably because people have been viewing the world with rose colored lenses for too long or it could be the bandwagon thing going on.

... I owe you one. ;)

Just because you are planning to leave doesn't make you exempt from the rules during the interim period.

Yes, life can be aggressive, but it's passive too... and then there is the centre; the balance between the two. The balance is there for all to see, irrespective of whether one wears rose-coloured glasses or not.
So please lighten up and be more friendly... and if you really can't, then you may as well act upon your own advice and walk out the door. No point cramping your style any longer than you have to.

Don't worry, you owe me nothing. Omar advice is gladly offered and totally free of charge. :)

HERESY
4th May 2012, 01:11
Just because you are planning to leave doesn't make you exempt from the rules during the interim period.

It's not about being exempt from the rules. We've gone over this before. It's about the "Hey let's moderate Heresy this way but not moderate these other guys." I can't get a fair shake around here. The people here (mods) have bent the rules to suit their agenda, so it's to the point where my hands are tied and I can't even climb the ladder because the pool has been tainted. Forced name change yet others get to keep theirs. People get to call me names yet if I return fire I get dinged. A guy asks me to even stop using "crucify" because he felt it was offensive. A guy says I'm out of my mind, yet when I say someone lacks cognitive prowess (and show it) the person who I wasn't even talking about/to reports it. Again, this jump on Heresy bandwagon needs to stop.


Yes, life can be aggressive, but it's passive too... and then there is the centre; the balance between the two. The balance is there for all to see, irrespective of whether one wears rose-coloured glasses or not.

And there is no balance when it comes to the moderation around here, at least not when I'm involved. I spit on the sidewalk and I'm given infractions. Then I'm told, "and the admins already discussed it" so where is the balance?


So please lighten up and be more friendly... and if you really can't, then you may as well act upon your own advice and walk out the door. No point cramping your style any longer than you have to.

I am being friendly. I keep the door to discussion open by asking members to tell me what they think I'm saying so I can help them better understand. I tell readers to elaborate a bit more or tell them to explain their thoughts when I'm having trouble. Yes, I want to tell a couple of members what I reeeeeeeeally think about them, but this isn't the place for it, so I keep biting my tongue. However, one thing you won't see me doing is taking a persons words out of context or replying without reading. I constantly have to do this with the members of this forum. Out of all the forums I go to it is this one, THIS ONE, that makes it a habit of doing it.

And I am on the way out. I'm just waiting on something and then *POOF*.


Don't worry, you owe me nothing. Omar advice is gladly offered and totally free of charge. :)

I didn't play the other DX games. I caught on to the series way to late, tried too pick up DX and put it down.

BTW, You haven't voiced your opinion on the camera. Do you feel as if people who want third person perspective should be given the option?

SDF121
4th May 2012, 02:01
The point that Harvey, and others around here, are making is that there are degrees of immersion. While a first person perspective is certainly not necessary for immersion, it is certainly necessary for an 'immersive simulation' (Spector's term, not mine). This is because the use of a first person perspective will only serve to further enhance the players sense of immersion. An immersive simulation will always be in first person because it presents the least amount of barriers which separate the player from the game.

Perhaps the focus of this discussion should be more about simulation than immersion. For it is for the sake of simulation, as well as immersion, that a first person perspective is favored because it offers the closest representation to the perspective from which we ourselves experience the world. Although the field of vision, among other things, may be deficient to some degree... the use of a first person perspective still offers the highest degree of simulation, and immersion, with the least amount of artificial barriers.

Of course there are the oddities of phantom limbs and seeing through crates but these are all aspects that can be improved upon.


I can readily think of several examples from last years batch of first person shooters that demonstrated several new improvements to the first person experience that would be most welcome in any immersive sim today.

Human Revolution was an amazing game, yet there were a still a few lingering design choices which would repeatedly separate the player from the experience. For example, the frequent use of bound third person mechanics was rather unfortunate because it would repeatedly destroy any sense of immersion that the player may have developed while continually reminding the player that they were controlling a character in a game.

There were several games last year which demonstrated that first person cover systems and first person take downs work not only work but that they can appeal to a larger audience. For a first person cover system, I would recommend looking into the first person cover system used in Red Orchestra 2 as well as Crysis 2. It's also worth noting that Medal of Honor: Airborne had already featured a first person cover system as early as 2007.

With respect to a first person melee mechanic, Battlefield 3 did this exceptionally well. In addition to first person take downs, Battlefield 3 provided the player with the option to use their knife in a more traditional fashion by allowing the player to equip their knife as a proper melee weapon. With their knife equipped, the player could then use it to either swipe at an opponent or engage in an automatic take down. Although the recent reboot of Syndicate had no proper melee weapon, it did feature first person take downs. These mechanics were great and helped these games to feel more visceral and exciting without setting up any artificial barriers between the player and the experience.

Another feature from Battlefield 3 worth noting was the whole vaulting mechanic and the full rendering of one's body. If you looked down, you would see your feet. If you vaulted over an object, you would watch your hand be placed on the object before seeing your legs swing over it. I'm assuming that DICE developed several of these ideas after making 2007's Mirror's Edge, which brought forth several notable innovations to first person games, with its parkour inspired gameplay and its first person take down system.

All of these mechanics would have been most welcome to see in Human Revolution as it would have helped Human Revolution in becoming a game that would advance the immersive sim as a genre. Despite this, Human Revolution was still able to advance the immersive sim despite taking a few steps back along the way.

With regard to transparent crates, the only solution that readily comes to mind is to stop making them transparent and for the crates to be held diagonally so that your view will only be relatively obscured. On another note, I see no reason why developers have to continue using phantom limbs. Again, I would like to direct your attention to both Mirror's Edge and Battlefield 3 which completely renders your character model so that when you look down, you see your body. When climbing objects or opening doors, you see your hands and limbs interact with the obstacles/doors. Now that I think about it, one could also look at how games like METRO 2033 utilized a first person perspective. Also, did anyone else notice that in Human Revolution, whenever you were participating in a serious discussion with an NPC that you were confined to a first person perspective? I found that to be interesting and it certainly made me ponder about the use of varying perspectives for conversations.

On a somewhat related note, I too discovered Deus Ex and the Looking Glass library of games rather late. While I started out as a console gamer myself, it was not until the early 2000's that I really got into pc gaming where I was immediately drawn to 'mil sim' games like Operation Flashpoint and America's Army. It wasn't until 2010 that I discovered System Shock and System Shock 2 which-despite their age- blew me away.

It was upon reading up on the games developers that I was introduced the term 'immersive simulation' which was coined by Spector to describe his overall design philosophy for games like System Shock, Thief, and Deus Ex. Needless to say, I eventually got around to trying out both Thief and Deus Ex and found myself even more impressed by these titles. Furthermore, having just played both of the original System Shock games, I could see a kind of logical progression from one title to the next.

Perhaps it is your general distaste for first person games coupled with the fact that you never really gave these earlier titles a chance that has led to your many disagreements with the other members of this forum. You seem to reject any references to Deus Ex as an 'immersive simulation' because you think that such talk is simply nonsense when it really isn't. For those of us who have played a number of 'immersive simulations' in the spirit of the Looking Glass lineage, the term 'immersive simulation' has a distinct meaning for us that describes a particular philosophy of game design.

HERESY
4th May 2012, 05:15
The point that Harvey, and others around here, are making is that there are degrees of immersion. While a first person perspective is certainly not necessary for immersion, it is certainly necessary for an 'immersive simulation' (Spector's term, not mine).

No it isn't. Now do you have any links to articles or interviews where Spector mentioned the made up genre and said first person was a necessity for "immersive simulation?" If not what made you come to the conclusion?


This is because the use of a first person perspective will only serve to further enhance the players sense of immersion. An immersive simulation will always be in first person because it presents the least amount of barriers which separate the player from the game.

See above.


Perhaps the focus of this discussion should be more about simulation than immersion. For it is for the sake of simulation, as well as immersion, that a first person perspective is favored because it offers the closest representation to the perspective from which we ourselves experience the world. Although the field of vision, among other things, may be deficient to some degree... the use of a first person perspective still offers the highest degree of simulation, and immersion, with the least amount of artificial barriers.

Are you lumping the two together or keeping them seperate? If we are strictly talking about immersion and not "simulation" (which you've yet to define anyway), this is not true across the board as many people find immersion in 3rd person games. In fact, many people would say that the first person perspective offers more barriers. Finally, I'd say the majority of the first person crowd are PC gamers, so this does nothing but show a bit of bias. It's bias because they are used to the perspective and have come to love it while shunning anything that doesn't fit the mold.



Of course there are the oddities of phantom limbs and seeing through crates but these are all aspects that can be improved upon.

How long does it take to improve on it? A decade?



With regard to transparent crates, the only solution that readily comes to mind is to stop making them transparent and for the crates to be held diagonally so that your view will only be relatively obscured.

Tap a button and get a quick peek over the top of the crate or on the side of it.


On another note, I see no reason why developers have to continue using phantom limbs. Again, I would like to direct your attention to both Mirror's Edge and Battlefield 3 which completely renders your character model so that when you look down, you see your body. When climbing objects or opening doors, you see your hands and limbs interact with the obstacles/doors. Now that I think about it, one could also look at how games like METRO 2033 utilized a first person perspective. Also, did anyone else notice that in Human Revolution, whenever you were participating in a serious discussion with an NPC that you were confined to a first person perspective? I found that to be interesting and it certainly made me ponder about the use of varying perspectives for conversations.

Here's the deal. If you're going to sell me on an "immersive sim" (and yes it's a made up genre but I'm using it for the sake of argument) you better get as close to real life as possible. I want to hear my own footsteps, I don't want to see a gun on the screen 24/7, I don't want to see the same red damage arrow, I don't want see through items, I want to be able to put my back against the wall and lean out (instead of looking forward most of the time), I want room acoustics to be different, I want something that is as close to real as possible yet fun at the same time. So what this may boil down to really is a matter of expectations and standards. I expect more. You guys are content with what you get. Thats what I'm really starting to see here.


On a somewhat related note, I too discovered Deus Ex and the Looking Glass library of games rather late. While I started out as a console gamer myself, it was not until the early 2000's that I really got into pc gaming where I was immediately drawn to 'mil sim' games like Operation Flashpoint and America's Army. It wasn't until 2010 that I discovered System Shock and System Shock 2 which-despite their age- blew me away.

I'd be very shocked if any of the first person only guys weren't PC gamers. Anyway, I'm never picking up DX again. I'll pick up HR again after I finish Bioshock and Split/Second, but no DX.


It was upon reading up on the games developers that I was introduced the term 'immersive simulation' which was coined by Spector to describe his overall design philosophy for games like System Shock, Thief, and Deus Ex. Needless to say, I eventually got around to trying out both Thief and Deus Ex and found myself even more impressed by these titles. Furthermore, having just played both of the original System Shock games, I could see a kind of logical progression from one title to the next.

Spector made up something and his legions of fans ran with it and decided to say "this is an immersive sim" and "that is an immersive sim." Elder Scrolls are immersive sims? They are RPG's with a certain type of world design. Riddick is a FPS. Bioshock is an RPG.Adveture and FPS hybrid. Tell me something, do the companies advertise their games as "immersive sims?" I don't see that listed on the back of my copy of HR, Bioshock or Bioshock 2. Why is this missing?

BTW, I'd the say the term was made up so Spector wouldn't come off as some Dungeons & Dragons nerd. I think he totally wanted to sperate himself from the rpg crowd so he came up with a cool buzzword/catch phrase and it stuck.


Perhaps it is your general distaste for first person games coupled with the fact that you never really gave these earlier titles a chance that has led to your many disagreements with the other members of this forum. You seem to reject any references to Deus Ex as an 'immersive simulation' because you think that such talk is simply nonsense when it really isn't. For those of us who have played a number of 'immersive simulations' in the spirit of the Looking Glass lineage, the term 'immersive simulation' has a distinct meaning for us that describes a particular philosophy of game design.

See above. So tell me, without the first person stuff, what is this philosophy of game design that you speak of?'

Hey wait a minute! Weren't you the guy I said I was never replying to again?

No more responses from me, man.

SDF121
4th May 2012, 06:23
No it isn't. Now do you have any links to articles or interviews where Spector mentioned the made up genre and said first person was a necessity for "immersive simulation?" If not what made you come to the conclusion?

Read the following articles/interviews

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3114/postmortem_ion_storms_deus_ex.php
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/dark-futures/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/Ten-Years-of-Deus-Ex/

Warren Spector was once asked if had any questions for Eidos Montreal with regard to Deus Ex: Human Revolution to which he replied,
“I’m curious why they decided to introduce a third person mode, because I would not have made that call”
http://www.totalpcgaming.com/latest-pc-news/deus-ex-designer-warren-spector-unhappy-with-deus-ex-3/


Hey wait a minute! Weren't you the guy I said I was never replying to again?

No more responses from me, man.

Do what you will.

m G h m u o s
5th May 2012, 08:52
Hey HERESY lol I finally saw some footage of that suppression mechanic in GR:FS. Its a nice touch. I also loved the EMP grenades/devices that disable the players HUD, thats awesome. I've been waiting for a game to do that. Sorry in reference to the other thread though, I was thinking the camo system made things so easy and thought it'd be cool if you had to tag a specific enemy to become invisible to him, ie you can only become invisible to one person at a time. But then again the camo isn't necessarily 'invisibility' so really I was just projecting some thoughts of DX there :P

AnonX
15th Jul 2012, 23:33
Elder Scroll games have 3rd person in them, and it doesn't break the immersion.

I'd have loved to wander the streets of Detroit in 3rd person, seeing Jensen walking with his awesome jacket.

Shralla
16th Jul 2012, 06:55
Elder Scroll games have 3rd person in them, and it doesn't break the immersion.

Ahahahahaha

Pinky_Powers
16th Jul 2012, 09:12
Yep... this thread still makes me weep blood.

SDF121
16th Jul 2012, 17:06
I posted these articles over on the Dishonored forums where members who have never played an 'immersive sim' are asking for the inclusion of a third person perspective... perhaps these articles may also be of use for those who do not fully understand the Looking Glass concept of what game mechanics facilitate immersion.


Warren Spector's Post Mortem on Deus Ex
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3114/postmortem_ion_storms_deus_ex.php?print=1



Arkane Studio's Manifesto on Game Design
http://ttlg.com/shownews.asp?id=902



Dark Futures: Where Now? For the Immersive Sim
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/dark-futures/



Ten Years of Deus Ex
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/ten-years-of-deus-ex/



Here is another article with regard to Arkane Studio's that also delves into Harvey Smith's previous work on games like Thief, System Shock, and Deus Ex.
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/6/27/3115822/arkane-dishonored-bethesda-origin-crossing-deus-ex-arx-fatalis



I would also recommend checking out Warren Spector's series of lectures from his Master Class in Game Development that he taught at the University of Texas. You might notice that one of these lectures involves an interview/discussion with Harvey Smith who also worked on Deus Ex and is working on the soon to be released Dishonored.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC4AF467F9391D767&amp;feature=plcp

68_pie
16th Jul 2012, 18:10
There is a lot of derp in that forum and I can only see it increasing as the game gets closer to launch - it's probably not helped by the fact that it is hosted by Bethesda and is probably attracting fanboys of recent Beth games.

JCpies
16th Jul 2012, 18:16
That OrangeBionic sounded pretty convinced people had to switch to third person to fight in Skyrim...


ROFL.

Ashpolt
16th Jul 2012, 18:39
People are asking for third person in Dishonored? I want to cry.

JCpies
16th Jul 2012, 19:01
People are asking for third person in Dishonored? I want to cry.

Forgive them Ashpolt, they know not what they do.

SDF121
16th Jul 2012, 20:18
There is only a minority of members asking for a third person perspective in the Dishonored forums but I can't help but cringe whenever I read their reasons for wanting such a perspective coupled with their example of Splinter Cell as the perfect stealth game.

Your Inner Cancer
19th Jul 2012, 06:07
+1 for an in-game option to change views in the Deus Ex series. There is no excuse not to have this option except "We're too lazy and we don't want your money." Yep, I decided not to buy Human Revolution today because of a lack of camera control.

Lets face it, these arguments against 3rd person are repetitive and groundless:

1. To avoid 'camera clipping' in third most games automatically adjust the distance of the camera when the environment is cramped - let me worry about any problems that can't be solved by this.
2. Similarly, let me decide when I will need first person to find small objects or search a cleared room. I'll draw a comparison to the Bethesda games here simply because they serve as a good example. I prefer to fight in third and hold my discussions as well as search for loot in first much of the time playing them. For long, ranged shots I'll go to first, but I find movement in first person a pain. This is my personal preference. Why deny me that? This brings me to my next point.
3. No one said anything about removing first person, and if they did that's about as vain and selfish as saying the game should be first only. You don't have to change views just because you can. Some of you need to learn the meaning of the word "optional".
4. Immersion - for you first is like seeing through the character's eyes. For me it feels clunky and unnatural. Third person allows me to see enemies who get too close much as my peripheral vision and 'sixth sense' allows me to sense them in real life. What is wrong with both of us being satisfied?

Let everyone enjoy the experience the way they prefer to play. Simple. Before anyone goes calling me a Bethesda fan I happen to love the Hitman series for what it has accomplished in terms of control that Deus Ex hasn't.

JCpies
19th Jul 2012, 09:01
lol.

68_pie
19th Jul 2012, 11:24
ugh

Solid_1723
19th Jul 2012, 12:30
+1 for the fitting username though.

QUANAH
30th Jul 2012, 12:53
LOVE this thread, GIVE US 3RD PERSON as an option.

If I want to look at something through my cyborg eyes I will.

Also don't give us a ready made character. Don't do it. Just don't.


+1 for an in-game option to change views in the Deus Ex series. There is no excuse not to have this option except "We're too lazy and we don't want your money." Yep, I decided not to buy Human Revolution today because of a lack of camera control.

Lets face it, these arguments against 3rd person are repetitive and groundless:

1. To avoid 'camera clipping' in third most games automatically adjust the distance of the camera when the environment is cramped - let me worry about any problems that can't be solved by this.
2. Similarly, let me decide when I will need first person to find small objects or search a cleared room. I'll draw a comparison to the Bethesda games here simply because they serve as a good example. I prefer to fight in third and hold my discussions as well as search for loot in first much of the time playing them. For long, ranged shots I'll go to first, but I find movement in first person a pain. This is my personal preference. Why deny me that? This brings me to my next point.
3. No one said anything about removing first person, and if they did that's about as vain and selfish as saying the game should be first only. You don't have to change views just because you can. Some of you need to learn the meaning of the word "optional".
4. Immersion - for you first is like seeing through the character's eyes. For me it feels clunky and unnatural. Third person allows me to see enemies who get too close much as my peripheral vision and 'sixth sense' allows me to sense them in real life. What is wrong with both of us being satisfied?

Let everyone enjoy the experience the way they prefer to play. Simple. Before anyone goes calling me a Bethesda fan I happen to love the Hitman series for what it has accomplished in terms of control that Deus Ex hasn't.

QFT

Deus Ex is actually the first FPS game I've ever bought and liked. Mainly because Cyberpunk.

I honestly want the option of both at my disposal, this is the reason why FALLOUT is superior and no game has come close to the immersion I get from Fallout.

68_pie
30th Jul 2012, 13:33
QFT

Deus Ex is actually the first FPS game I've ever bought and liked. Mainly because Cyberpunk.

I honestly want the option of both at my disposal, this is the reason why FALLOUT is superior and no game has come close to the immersion I get from Fallout.

Let me guess, you're talking about Fallout 3 :mad2:

QUANAH
30th Jul 2012, 13:46
Let me guess, you're talking about Fallout 3 :mad2:

Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 1, 2, and tactics, and FALLOUT 3 as well. Greatest franchise in video game history.

Get mad.

Also, as an ex-marine. 1st person is NOTHING like shooting guns IRL.

All these people that love 1st person are annoying. They think video game controls teach them the right way to shoot a gun or rifle.

3rd person, or I won't buy the game until it's 20 dollars just like I did with this game.

I'm here to only better the franchise because of my passion for Cyberpunk.

If you really want to get into it, this isn't cyberpunk, it's cybercop.

Pretty lame choices for a pseudo-"rpg."

68_pie
30th Jul 2012, 14:17
Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 1, 2, and tactics, and FALLOUT 3 as well. Greatest franchise in video game history.

Get mad.

Why would I be mad? At least you didn't get suckered into playing POS like me :lmao: I'm just confused why you are comparing them to DX(HR). Also kind of excited since youu seem to be the first person in history to like Failout 3 and the other games.


Also, as an ex-marine. 1st person is NOTHING like shooting guns IRL.

No **** Sherlock.


All these people that love 1st person are annoying. They think video game controls teach them the right way to shoot a gun or rifle.

Lolwut. When has anyone on here ever said that.


3rd person, or I won't buy the game until it's 20 dollars just like I did with this game.

I'll never understand people like you. Apparently you missed the Steam sale - $20 dollars seems a lot :rasp:


I'm here to only better the franchise because of my passion for Cyberpunk.

Cool beans but the franchise doesn't really need your help.


If you really want to get into it, this isn't cyberpunk, it's cybercop.

oic...oh wait, completely irrelevant.


Pretty lame choices for a pseudo-"rpg."

Immersive-sim. There is plenty of C&C, especially in the first DX.

QUANAH
30th Jul 2012, 14:46
Cool beans but the franchise doesn't really need your help.

Immersive-sim. There is plenty of C&C, especially in the first DX.

Nowhere on the packaging does it say immersive sim. It clearly states that it is an RPG, with not that much choice. Fact.

The franchise needs help, it needs fans who love the game but are critical. Not yes fans.

I also saw on cyberpunk review and forums that Deus Ex developers looked to them for ideas and such.

So any ideas they get for free from me is probably most likely warranted.

I can post whatever I want, it's not like you can stop me now can you.

You're ideas probably suck anyways, explains why you like being forced down paths in life.

Also, about the FPS fans that think they are training for IRL combat. I meant that for all their fans in general. All the c.o.d. and battlefield sheep.

Zerim
30th Jul 2012, 18:31
I can post whatever I want, it's not like you can stop me now can you.

You're ideas probably suck anyways, explains why you like being forced down paths in life.

Oh how I miss HERESY now.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jul 2012, 19:37
QUANAH, please check your PM box.
One post had to be deleted, may I remind everyone to play nice and be mindful of the ToU.

68_pie
30th Jul 2012, 22:05
Oh how I miss HERESY now.

I miss CodEllite ;)

Pinky_Powers
31st Jul 2012, 03:30
QUANAH, please check your PM box.
One post had to be deleted, may I remind everyone to play nice and be mindful of the ToU.

I bet it's been a while since you've had to do that. :)

JCpies
31st Jul 2012, 08:30
I bet it's been a while since you've had to do that. :)

No.




:(

Pinky_Powers
31st Jul 2012, 11:01
No.




:(

I meant to someone other than you - obviously!

;)

Romeo
3rd Aug 2012, 00:43
I'm going to reply to both your quotes here, because the irrational part of my brain is convinced you might actually learn something or make for a reasonable debate.

Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 1, 2, and tactics, and FALLOUT 3 as well. Greatest franchise in video game history.

Get mad.

Also, as an ex-marine. 1st person is NOTHING like shooting guns IRL.

All these people that love 1st person are annoying. They think video game controls teach them the right way to shoot a gun or rifle.

3rd person, or I won't buy the game until it's 20 dollars just like I did with this game.

I'm here to only better the franchise because of my passion for Cyberpunk.

If you really want to get into it, this isn't cyberpunk, it's cybercop.

Pretty lame choices for a pseudo-"rpg."
Your opinion.

Right, because third-person games are spot-on in terms of realism. Except the part where they aren't. And by their nature, first-person IS more realistic than third-person when it comes to firearms. I don't know about you, but when I fire at anything, I tend to use the good 'ole ironsights. To replicate that in a videogame means going to first-person. Or not including it, which is even more unrealistic.

Hilariously, I would say it isn't entirely inaccurate. My younger brother went to the range with me about a year back, and was fairly quick with most concepts. His reasoning why? "I played alot of videogames." Despite that, however, you do seem to be ignoring two major points: One, no one in here said that, and two, that still doesn't provide any argument for a third-person game.

Whew, thank goodness DX:HR didn't sell millions and is desperate to nab another few bucks... Oh wait (http://www.gamesradar.com/deus-ex-human-revolution-tops-square-enix-sales-218m-copies-moved/).

To better the franchise? Again, you seem to have a bad habit of assuming everyone shares your opinion. They don't. While including a third-person option for people wouldn't detract from the game, the overwhelming majority of players would prefer they focus their time on more content and improving the existing franchise, rather than adding a time-consuming - and frankly useless, for the majority of us - feature.

Cyberpunk is a stylistic reference, you understand this, right? Like steampunk...

And are you seriously arguing that character creation is needed for an RPG? Have you even played The Witcher? Or Torchlight? Or Fate? Or literally any Japenese RPG? That is perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on these forums in MONTHS.

Nowhere on the packaging does it say immersive sim. It clearly states that it is an RPG, with not that much choice. Fact.

The franchise needs help, it needs fans who love the game but are critical. Not yes fans.

I also saw on cyberpunk review and forums that Deus Ex developers looked to them for ideas and such.

So any ideas they get for free from me is probably most likely warranted.

I can post whatever I want, it's not like you can stop me now can you.

You're ideas probably suck anyways, explains why you like being forced down paths in life.

Also, about the FPS fans that think they are training for IRL combat. I meant that for all their fans in general. All the c.o.d. and battlefield sheep.
Um, beyond the aforementioned issue with your RPG statement, the "packaging" doesn't actually say "RPG" ANYWHERE (I have it in my hands at this very moment). The closest you can come is "role play", and it isn't listed as a genre, just as a feature in the game. So, you know, that point's blatently false. NEXT.

Before you come in here and label people "yes fans", perhaps read... Oh, I don't know, ANY GOD DAMN THREAD ON THIS SITE. The fans here have ripped apart and berated most aspects of the game, from pre-launch to post-launch. They are most certainly not "yes fans". This is also ignoring the very obvious fact that that when Eidos sets out to make a first-person game, three people saying "Eh, needs third-person" is going to be met with little more than laughter from the devs.

Not actually sure what you're trying to say there, so I'll just skip this line.

Any ideas they got from you? Are you for real right now? Yes, Eidos, after researching the market, formulating their ideas and paying hundreds of thousands for manpower to lead devellopers and designers, finally settled down and thought "Yes, this one person of the hundreds of millions of people on the internet, has some ideas we could've never thought of on our own. Copy them."

Well, you can't post whatever you like, if you've taken even a casual glance at the ToU. But, you know, why let the truth get in the way of an awesome post?

"You're ideas suck"? So many things wrong with that... First of all, it'd be "your". It's possessive, not personal. What you said translates to "you are ideas suck". Secondly, you don't know what his ideas are, so frankly, that's a retarded conclusion to come to without any evidence what-so-ever. Lastly, at least he didn't come to a franchise which has ALWAYS been first-person, and demand third-person. Now THAT idea would've sucked.

And no, Call of Duty has never been a "training simulator" for players, that's just an asanine statement. For one, 99.99999% of the populations realize you don't respawn in real-life, shotguns don't stop being lethal at twenty feet, your bullet-wounds don't miraculously heal in seconds, you can't snap a weapon to shoulder and accurately fire in less than a second, your half-empty clips don't suddenly level themselves off to full when you reload, etc... People play them for the enjoyment. Very simple concept.

AlexOfSpades
3rd Aug 2012, 03:24
He's kinda right. Shooting in first person games is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than shooting in real life.

Shooting in THIRD PERSON games, oh boy thats immersive. Romeo dont you understand? He's an ex-marine, obviously he knows the score - he knows that when you go to a shooting range you have out-of-body experiences. Didnt you know that?

No, but really, Quanah gave up on the forums already, said we were "boring" and went back crying to FO:NV forums.

what a shame

Jerion
3rd Aug 2012, 03:37
He left already? I never asked for this. Nice gesture though.


I bet it's been a while since you've had to do that. :)

You'd think so, but Vik here has been finding ways to keep busy.

Those poor souls.

:D :rasp:

Pinky_Powers
3rd Aug 2012, 04:55
Well done Romeo. You've used reason and logic to destroy someone's irrational position. The internet is strengthened by your efforts, and we are all of us brought into a state of glory - if only briefly.

:flowers:

Romeo
4th Aug 2012, 19:37
He's kinda right. Shooting in first person games is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than shooting in real life.

Shooting in THIRD PERSON games, oh boy thats immersive. Romeo dont you understand? He's an ex-marine, obviously he knows the score - he knows that when you go to a shooting range you have out-of-body experiences. Didnt you know that?

No, but really, Quanah gave up on the forums already, said we were "boring" and went back crying to FO:NV forums.

what a shame
That does explain why the fellow tripping on acid was SO GOOD last time I went to the range. That guy was hitting targets that weren't even his, he was that good.

Well done Romeo. You've used reason and logic to destroy someone's irrational position. The internet is strengthened by your efforts, and we are all of us brought into a state of glory - if only briefly.

:flowers:
And from this day forth, the Internet lived in peace, happily ever after.

Also I got, like, all the females. Because I'm narrating this story, and I like that ending.

sonicsidewinder
4th Aug 2012, 19:58
That feel when people say they like/play 'Fallout'.

And they mean Fallout 3.

Heh, they muss think the game is called Fallout Cubed or something and is the original game. New Vegas was such a rip off by Obsidian.

AlexOfSpades
4th Aug 2012, 20:16
I'm such a hipster when talking about the Fallout franchise.

My favorite ones are 1 and 3. I dont really see why Fallout 2 is better. And New Vegas is boring in my opinion.

sonicsidewinder
4th Aug 2012, 20:51
I'm such a hipster when talking about the Fallout franchise.

My favorite ones are 1 and 3. I dont really see why Fallout 2 is better. And New Vegas is boring in my opinion.

Tbh, i felt F2 was too...wacky? Good game, but it felt daft in places.

Talking Deathclaws wut?

Never finished New Vegas, but i wanna!

JCpies
4th Aug 2012, 21:03
I was killed by a rat when I played Fallout 1.

Tabitha
28th Aug 2012, 14:56
The third person/third person perspective is a real hotbed of thorns! I totally agree with the OP that this game would be better in third person......for me anyway. I usually steer well clear of FPP games because I cannot stand the way they move, look and feel. The way your character (you) seems about 2ft tall - either that or he has a gun poking out of his stomach. The way the character jumps like a big girl's blouse (little bunny hops) and you have no spatial awareness. I know it's about 'immersion' but I also know I am just playing a pointless game to pass time in my pointless life and unless I climb into my telly, full immersion is not really a viable option. That is until they bring out total immersion body sets where you strap yourself into a chair, plug yourself in Matrix style and are 'in' the game (release date 13/11/3035). For now I will have to make do with sitting on my sofa with a sticky joypad in my hand (it's sticky because I like to eat Maltesers when playing).

Basically for me FP view kills my gaming pig. I played Fallout 3 - Bugs of the Apocalypse and incredibly, the third person camera was so bad I had to switch to first! He seemed super tiny and had floaty feet and was all skew-whiff and appeared to walk on cushions of air. This was my first FPP gaming experience and I didn't get 'immersed' in the game nearly as much as I did when playing ME2 or Uncharted or Red Dead or Assassin's Creed. For those of you who think First Person Perspectives are the best thing since the invention of thumbs, then enjoy your gaming experience as much as you can and have as much fun as possible, but at least try and remember that people are not identical clones of each other and have different views and opinions and many of us would love to play this in TPP because it is our preferred gaming perspective, regardless of whether it is 'worse' or 'better' or 'right' or 'wrong'. It's just a matter of personal preferences. And to the developers - people are all different. Some like FPP, some prefer TPP, just like some prefer X-Box and some prefer PS3 (but nobody prefers the WII) so do us all a favour, put an end to the bickering and make it a choice but without sacrificing the experience i.e. 'Fallout Floaty Feet' or 'gun stomach'.

When a character runs over ammo to collect it without actually bending down to pick it up, I pretend that they have a special magnetic ammo sucker in their trouser leg so the ammo shoots up the leg and wends its way through to the player's gun via crotch and sleeve. That is so realistic I am surprised it's not more well known in the gaming world.