PDA

View Full Version : First person, third person or both



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

kin
11th May 2009, 16:59
*Moderator Updates* (March 2013)

From the FAQs thread:

Thief is a first-person adventure featuring intelligent design that allows players to take full control, with freedom to choose their path through the game’s levels and how they approach and overcome each challenge.


From the City Watch thread

Do you think the gameplay in the background at the :12 mark is 3rd person gameplay of the new Thief? And some at 2:28, where we see lightning effects? 2:46 also a little.


Nope, definitely not. It's just someone playing a game on their break :) The work day went on like normal for those who weren't being interview.


As we've said before - http://community.eidosmontreal.com/blogs/Light-Camera-Hey - 3rd person cameras are extremely limited, reserved sparingly for situations like complex vertical navigation scenes. The same 1st person climbing (ledges etc) you saw in previous Thief titles STILL remains.

This is added functionality for the sort of complex vertical navigation you've never been able to do before in a Thief game.

And also, the wording in the article you've quoted there is actually a little misleading. I can assure you there is no "3rd person platforming" ala mario 64, if that's what you're imagining.

Thief is a first person game, guys. Relax :)



IWhere are you guys getting the impression that there will be "constant" switching between 1st and 3rd person?
As I mentioned above, read this blog. We're not making this stuff up, I promise you :) http://community.eidosmontreal.com/blogs/Light-Camera-Hey

3rd person cameras are kept to a minimum at all times. We hate jarring camera changes as much as you do. The places 3rd person cameras are used specifically when they'll improve the gameplay - for everybody. Thief is a 1st person game, the way it should be :D




As we've specifically stated before (http://community.eidosmontreal.com/blogs/Light-Camera-Hey), 3rd person cameras are used very sparingly, and specifically restricted to situations where they increase visibility - ie. Certain vertical navigation scenarios and focus mode take downs (which, as we've also stated before, are completely optional). Don't let your imagination run wild on this one - Thief is a 1st person game.

It's got nothing to do with showcasing animations or costume design (LOL!), and everything to do with increasing situation awareness and visibility in very specific gameplay scenarios. These types of design choices are HEAVILY, and repeatedly play tested at our in-house, state of the art play test labs (http://community.eidosmontreal.com/blogs/Playtest-Lab-Tour) - the team puts every game mechanic through dozens of tests and design iterations to ensure that they're creating the best Thief game they can. Rest assured that in the specific situations that you'll see a 3rd person camera, it's been used because it was needed to ensure the best gameplay experience in that situation.


____






Thief must be in first person only. First person is immersive and does not allow to see Garrett keeping the mystery in the character. First person simulates a persons view third person simulates a view that it is not possible in reality plus uncovers all the mystery that a player should only imagine.

If someone could make this a poll i would be thankfull, I tried but didn't manage to do it.

column5
11th May 2009, 17:00
I'll only play 1st person, regardless of what view modes are included.

Thievingtaffer
11th May 2009, 17:01
I'd play only First-Person. Adding 3rd person to TDS added exactly nothing.

Nate
11th May 2009, 17:03
First Person ONLY....third person was a neat looking gimmick designed to attract more players, but ended up being used more as a cheat to look around corners.

Bukary
11th May 2009, 17:04
Focus on first person. Period.

acridrose
11th May 2009, 17:04
Also, due to the third person, the movement in the game is awkward in first person- when you turn around and press w, you walk off in the opposite direction until your body turns... it was very painful.

first person FTW!

Necros
11th May 2009, 17:04
Both. But of course only if it doesn't hurt the development, 3rd person view is only an extra. And if both will be included, FPV must be the default, obviously.

Also, due to the third person, the movement in the game is awkward in first person- when you turn around and press w, you walk off in the opposite direction until your body turns... it was very painful.
They could fix that in this game. ;)

Bloodwolf806
11th May 2009, 17:05
Both. There's no reason to have fewer options.

Queue2
11th May 2009, 17:06
First-person only. I never bother with the third-person POV even when it's available--just seems awkward and pointless.

Goliath The Thief
11th May 2009, 17:12
1st person
It's directly linked to immersiveness. 3rd person == loss of immersion.
I'd like to see by my own eyes, not as some kind of all-seeing-entity-behind-Garrett

Nate
11th May 2009, 17:16
Hehe, that whole Thief DS 'looking in one direction while walking in another' really got annoying at times.

That said, I DID like how Garrett's arms and legs could be seen in first person view...it added to the game immersion IMO. I especially like seeing Garrett's limbs/weapons/equipment after I had installed the High Texture pack.

Grimmy
11th May 2009, 17:27
Both - leave the choice to the players. Then again I prefer 1st, you never know what may be around that corner - famous Garrett words: "I hate blind corners - you never know what you're going to run into" :P

Subjective Effect
11th May 2009, 17:39
A 3rd person option is nice in theory but really it messes all sorts up. Stick to 1st person. Just because its likely to be a cross platform game doesn't mean it needs 3rd person. Look at Mirrors Edge or Killzone 2.

The gameplay mechanic is VERY important in Thief. It was perfect in T1 and 2 and broken, badly, in T3. 3rd person definitely contributed to that.

Silmuen
11th May 2009, 17:42
1st person...

AND good body awareness would do the trick :)

Nate
11th May 2009, 17:46
Agreed!

Noceur
11th May 2009, 17:50
1st person is a must, but it won't bother me none if there's a 3rd person option in there as well as long as none suffer.
I also agree with Silmuen, good body awareness would be awesome.

Vladimyre
11th May 2009, 17:53
First person definitely it's much better immersion factor.

HellKittyDan
11th May 2009, 17:54
The whole concept behind thief is that you are Garrett...not that you are controlling a character named Garrett.

I can't agree with that. How can I be Garrett when Garrett has such a well defined personality? It's not me making those comments during the mission, it's Garrett, the character I'm controlling.

Personally I'd prefer they stick to first person. Character movement in DS was wonky, The Chronicles of Ridd ick did the body awareness thing much better, though to be honest I'd be happy if Garrett is just a pair of floating arms.

Nate
11th May 2009, 17:59
Errr, HellKittyDan....you don't agree to 1rst person ONLY with some body awareness???

Danie1
11th May 2009, 18:17
The problem with third person is that level devlopement must take into account that some players might use it. The product is very many wide open spaces, which can be very immersion breaking since the cellar coal chute you're using to break into some mansion could fit an elephant. Not very sneaky or rewarding when you discover that way to break in.

I don't like body awareness either. I don't think I've ever seen it done well.

HellKittyDan
11th May 2009, 18:18
I'd like first person only. I could care less about body awareness.


The problem with third person is that level devlopement must take into account that some players might use it. The product is very many wide open spaces, which can be very immersion breaking since the cellar coal chute you're using to break into some mansion could fit an elephant. Not very sneaky or rewarding when you discover that way to break in.

I don't think that's at all true. The Splinter Cell series has often featured fairly cramped environments, and both this series and the MGS series would shift the view to first person when crawling through tight spaces like vents.

Nate
11th May 2009, 18:27
VERY GOOD POINT Danie1.

They would try to make more open maps in order to fit the panning 3rd person viewpoint = maps that suck!

Let's not bother with all the hassles that 3rd point view would bring.

Noceur
11th May 2009, 18:29
The problem with third person ... (SNIP) ...

I don't like body awareness either. I don't think I've ever seen it done well.

It was rather well done in Far Cry 2, actually.

EDIT: Actually, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree that focusing on j

_OskaR
11th May 2009, 18:30
1st person - definitely.

TheJoe
11th May 2009, 18:32
I like being able to switch - in id games with a console (Quake 4, Doom 3...) I always bind v to "toggle cg_ThirdPersonDeath" because I liked the effect, although it's buggy - the camera is always on no clip so it can go through walls, mess up the sound and cause lag :<

So I'm happy with that little v key switching to third.

Nate
11th May 2009, 18:39
I hope they make it 1st person exclusively.

cobak
11th May 2009, 18:44
1st person PLEASE. Thief's gaming experience relies heavily on immersion into the character and the game world. 3rd person breaks this. Along with causing the other problems it did in TDS that people have already mentioned

WhatsHisFace
11th May 2009, 18:48
Since Eidos Montreal makes Deus Ex 3 cut to third-person frequently, I expect the same from their work on Thief 4.

Dominus
11th May 2009, 18:53
The problem with third person is that level devlopement must take into account that some players might use it. The product is very many wide open spaces, which can be very immersion breaking since the cellar coal chute you're using to break into some mansion could fit an elephant. Not very sneaky or rewarding when you discover that way to break in.

I don't like body awareness either. I don't think I've ever seen it done well.

+1 :thumb:

HellKittyDan
11th May 2009, 18:54
I was under the impression that 3rd person in DX3 was now entirely player controlled, when the player chooses to use the R6:V-like cover system, and that they'd scrapped the Rid**** style switch to 3rd when performing certain actions.

nicked
11th May 2009, 19:23
I'd have to agree that third person breaks immersion. In Thief 1 and 2, one could really feel like you were a master thief. In T3, you were pushing a somewhat wobbly and unstreamlined Thief-shape around the levels.

Platinumoxicity
11th May 2009, 19:37
1st person perspective is the only real way to go, but if you insist including a 3rd person option, please don't design the basic player movement animations based on the 3rd person mode like they did in T3. It felt "uncontrollable" when you played it in 1st person mode.
Also, they had to move the 1st person camera in front of the player model because they didn't have separate models for 1st person and 3rd person modes. This resulted in a more narrow field of view and it constantly felt like your eyes were at the heads of these stalks protruding from your face. :D

Bluey71
11th May 2009, 19:44
I was under the impression that 3rd person in DX3 was now entirely player controlled, when the player chooses to use the R6:V-like cover system, and that they'd scrapped the Rid**** style switch to 3rd when performing certain actions.

From what we know at the moment that isnt correct - DX3 will automatically switch to 3rd person for a number of actions - such as the use of some augs ect. The 'cover' system also uses 3rd person.

I guess some people find 100% 1st person way too difficult....

Princess_Frosty
11th May 2009, 20:03
1st person only.

The original games were first person, the only game that stupidly did 3rd person was Thief3 and that was generally considered to be rubbish.

If you absolutely must develop for multiplatform, and the console kiddies really badly need a 3rd person then let them have it, but keep the PC and console designs seperte, just share the art work and media between both productions.

And by that I mean, make the PC version beautiful and then shred our high definition polished version to shreds so the consoles can actually run it, while leaving our version intact.

kkk1
11th May 2009, 20:10
OMG "1st person exclusively PLEASE". Whats the problem with that 3st person?! If u soo hate 3rd person mode, than push that damn "c" or "v" key or whatever its binded and forget forever that 3rd even exist. In T4 must be both modes.

GmanPro
11th May 2009, 20:11
Since Eidos Montreal makes Deus Ex 3 cut to third-person frequently, I expect the same from their work on Thief 4.

Damn, I'd forgotten about that. But you're probably right about that.

I would have preferred first person only.

Orest Reinn
11th May 2009, 20:11
I'm not sure. In Hitman, for instance, 47's presence was essential to catch his personality. Switching into 1st person I felt like losing something. I controlled myself, not 47. But I played DS in 1st person perspective, switching it from time to time if I wanted to admire Garrett ;]

Btw. If you immerse so much, why is it so important that it must be Garrett, not some other person? After all, you play as yorselves.

Yandros
11th May 2009, 20:12
First person ONLY, and NO body awareness. Having to account for it compromises gameplay design. Cutting to third person for cutscenes is one thing, but not during play.

Blue Sky
11th May 2009, 20:14
OMG "1st person exclusively PLEASE". Whats the problem with that 3st person?! If u soo hate 3rd person mode, than push that damn "c" or "v" key or whatever its binded and forget forever that 3rd even exist. In T4 must be both modes.

The trouble was that Deadly Shadows suffered a bit due to trying to work in both modes... Controlling the character in first person was occasionally very wonky because of the allowances made to have the third person mode.

nicked
11th May 2009, 20:14
The problem with third person, as has been mentioned, is it forces certain level design choices like high ceilings and wide spaces (and I'm not talking about vents and stuff which you could change to 1st person for). Why would anyone playing Thief want 3rd person? What's the benefit, besides being able to cheat a look round corners?

Princess_Frosty
11th May 2009, 20:16
OMG "1st person exclusively PLEASE". Whats the problem with that 3st person?! If u soo hate 3rd person mode, than push that damn "c" or "v" key or whatever its binded and forget forever that 3rd even exist. In T4 must be both modes.

I would normally agree but won't for 2 very important reasons.

1) In Thief3 they made a 3rd person game and tagged on 1st person for the PC, this resulted in being able to see your own model which looked awkward and wasn't done well at all, and it also made the 1st person movement really REALLY bad.

2) Giving the console newbs a 3rd person view feels like it lowers the tone of a game which is supposed to be an elite series based around an elite character, a lot of the community want to compete in ghosting levels and not using cheap tactics like 3rd person view to cheat and look around corners. It's just not in the spirit of the game.

Orest Reinn
11th May 2009, 20:17
What's the benefit, besides being able to cheat a look round corners?
The benefit is that you can see a mysterious hooded person, sneaking around agily. It's climatic.

benny
11th May 2009, 20:18
As long as there are no compromises in 1st person and I have the option to stay in first person I could care less. But Thief is all about immersion. I'll only play in first person because there is more immersion. I can't for the life of me understand the point of 3rd person where you have your character blocking an important part of your view, but I came from an older generation of gaming. I can understand the console kiddies like the 3rd person trash, so if it attracts more buyers, fine. Just don't compromise the 1st person for any reason and I don't really care. :thumb:

mazai
11th May 2009, 20:29
I believe that the "Thief" experience can be reached only in a 1st person view, so I would surely vote for 1st person only.

Bud Bud
11th May 2009, 20:31
hopefully thief 4 wont have a 3rd person view.

kkk1
11th May 2009, 21:11
This discussion is not about or 1st or 3rd only. Maybe for someone spirit of the game its playing in 3rd p.v.?! And why u must decide for them in which mode play? Nobody screaming here - take out 1st p. coz i dont like it. Its players choice.Hey, if its breaks immersion, its just yours problem - press damn magic swich key! I agree that in T3 1rst p. was badly realized, but thats not a reason to disable 3rd p.v. in T4. Im sure, that devs will fix that problem.

Princess_Frosty
11th May 2009, 21:18
This discussion is not about or 1st or 3rd only. Maybe for someone spirit of the game its playing in 3rd p.v.?! And why u must decide for them in which mode play? Nobody screaming here - take out 1st p. coz i dont like it. Its players choice.Hey, if its breaks immersion, its just yours problem - press damn magic swich key! I agree that in T3 1rst p. was badly realized, but thats not a reason to disable 3rd p.v. in T4. Im sure, that devs will fix that problem.

I realise that some peope such as the console crowd can't deal with 1st person adn need to cheat and look around corners or see people coming up behind them with 3rd person.

In all fairness them people should go play another game, Thief isn't 3rd person, it's 1st person, thats how the original team made it and the moment there was deviation from their original ideas it came out totally rubbish.

3rd person has too many design implications on first person, at the end of the day the 1st person view of the game will suffer just like it did in Thief 3 if the game is designed from the ground up with 3rd person gameplay in mind.

maddermadcat
11th May 2009, 21:21
I'd play only First-Person. Adding 3rd person to TDS added exactly nothing.

Actually, it added terribly frustrating player movement and general awkwardness. First person was made difficult by the fact that the player's behaviour was designed for third person.

Danie1
11th May 2009, 21:31
It did. Leaning used to be useful for staying in the dark and peeking around a corner. In Thief DS, leaning was useless.

ZylonBane
11th May 2009, 21:39
It did. Leaning used to be useful for staying in the dark and peeking around a corner. In Thief DS, leaning was useless.
Leaning didn't even exist in TDS. They replaced it with sidestepping. Which, like so much of TDS, entirely missed the point.

sgt_geist
11th May 2009, 21:46
FPS only plz!!

First Person Stealth!

Would also be nice to have a sword again, I missed the sword.. The knife is ok, but a sword is a sword!

maddermadcat
11th May 2009, 21:47
At first I thought sidestepping was just leaning with a different animation. I was very disappointed when I tried to get a better look at something and ended up falling to my death.

Mshade
11th May 2009, 22:23
I would play 1st-person but adding 3rd person as an option does not take away from anyone.

Gan Xodos
11th May 2009, 22:24
I only used third person to see if I was about to fall off of something but the movement system should be totally revamped for thief 4...
...so first person rulez 4evr

Kamyk
11th May 2009, 22:40
1st person please. Add 3rd person if you must but please make 1st person the default focus. I never even used 3rd person in TDS.

demagogue
11th May 2009, 22:46
First Person, but I might not mind something like the first Deus Ex where conversations would cut to 3P perspective just for the duration of the conversation.

randomtaffer
11th May 2009, 22:48
It irritated me seeing new players to the series use only third person. First person is much better for atmospheric titans like Thief.

ZylonBane
11th May 2009, 22:51
I would play 1st-person but adding 3rd person as an option does not take away from anyone.
Yes, it does. It takes away development resources. There's a huge amount of work required for full third-person support.

randomtaffer
11th May 2009, 23:03
Yes, it does. It takes away development resources. There's a huge amount of work required for full third-person support.

Agreed. Time is money. I'd much rather the dev team spend their extremely valuable time elsewhere.

Garrett21
11th May 2009, 23:05
!st person please

Watcheratthegatesofdusk
11th May 2009, 23:17
optional please.

Subjective Effect
11th May 2009, 23:17
Victoria, why not do a poll? 98% of people will say 1st person only. The 0.01% who say 3rd person only will clearly have been drunk at the keyboard, and the people wanting both are those that need banning stat. From anything fun ever.

Yandros
11th May 2009, 23:28
Yes, it does. It takes away development resources. There's a huge amount of work required for full third-person support.
+1 :thumb:


Look people, it's really quite simple.

If you're a hardcore Thief fan, you want first person only.
If you'd even consider asking for third person, you're a

http://www.wearytaffer.com/images/tard.jpg

'Nuff said.

Dia1
11th May 2009, 23:31
Leaning didn't even exist in TDS. They replaced it with sidestepping. Which, like so much of TDS, entirely missed the point.

I definitely missed the leaning option in TDS (along with about a gazillion other things the devs left out or screwed up). But one thing in TDS that I did like was Garrett's ability to flatten himself against a wall. I thought that was a great option to have, but wouldn't want to see it replace the ability to lean in T4.

That said, I'll stick to playing in the 1st person only. Trying to play in the 3rd person always frustrated me in TDS.


For God's sake Jim; my name is Garrett, not Lara!!!

Smiffydude
11th May 2009, 23:32
I only play it in 1st person, so scrap 3rd person view.

CurtX
11th May 2009, 23:37
Thief is in a mystifying world. First person adds to the mystique. Third person detracts from it. Simple concept, actually.

xXFl4meXx
11th May 2009, 23:45
Well, 3rd person just sucked because it was to easy, and wasnt immersive enough. Also like others mentioned in Thief III when playing in first person, the movement was akward, like the game was meant to be played in 3rd person..

NewUser2
11th May 2009, 23:51
first person only.

Slither
11th May 2009, 23:56
First-person, only. It's more personal. Leave the third-person to the Mario Brothers.

Garrett21
12th May 2009, 01:23
First person much more immersive and am i the only one who missed the little carrying body icon at the bottom heh

I only used 3rd person to see what Garrett looked like and found out i missed his hooded cloak

Direlord
12th May 2009, 01:33
first person view only its the only true way to play Thief

hem dazon 90
12th May 2009, 03:30
I love these pc eletists here! they are so deliciously ignorant!

ZylonBane
12th May 2009, 03:34
I love these pc eletists here! they are so deliciously ignorant!
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7977/fullconsoletard.jpg

Neb
12th May 2009, 03:35
If there is a third-person option then people who choose to play in first-person perspective should not have to put up with being interrupted by out-of-body experiences. It kind of worries me that Deus Ex 3 is set to play out like that.

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 03:40
I love these pc eletists here! they are so deliciously ignorant!

A well thought out and intriguing observation. :rolleyes:

hem dazon 90
12th May 2009, 03:48
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7977/fullconsoletard.jpg


yes I am stupid for not having enough to upgrade my pc for any new games that does make me stupid

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 03:54
I could care less if they bring it to console, I just want it to be made for the PC.

I don't think anyone was calling you stupid for not having enough money, your previous post does not reflect that fact.
What I read from your previous post is that "People who think PCs are better than console's are ignorant" and that it was somehow "delicious", which makes no sense. At all.

One could shoot back that your post was "deliciously idiotic."

kin
12th May 2009, 04:15
You see the problem is that there should not be any third person but the cutscenes. Do you remember dark messiah? Everything was in first person even the cutscenes. An also to remind you the game was made from ex looking glass people and had tons of thief gameplay and looks. To those who have played tell me what the full first person added? I can tell you mystery and immersion! You don't have not one chance to see your character. I havent seen shareth once but i know who i am.. i mean who he is.
Third person unroots you off the game action.
And personally I like to be in the action when playing rather outside watching someone doing the job (third person).
If there has to be some sort of animation off Garrett doing something could be the animated hands in front of you.

GmanPro
12th May 2009, 04:30
yes I am stupid for not having enough to upgrade my pc for any new games that does make me stupid

What makes you stupid is that you spent hundreds of dollars on a console instead of on your PC.

Nate
12th May 2009, 06:15
PC versus Xbox360 flaming wars are a complete waste of time guys. They WILL be making this game for both!

But if you really want to spend the next year hating on each other over this topic, have fun!

Necros
12th May 2009, 06:56
Look people, it's really quite simple.

If you're a hardcore Thief fan, you want first person only.
If you'd even consider asking for third person, you're a

http://www.wearytaffer.com/images/tard.jpg
'Nuff said.
Well, I'm a hardcore Thief fan and I prefer the 1st person view too. But I like to have options, so if they can put it in, I'll welcome it, if not, I'll not miss it. Oh, and I've never owned a console and I'm not planning to in the future either (unless I win the lottery but that's an other case :D).

yes I am stupid for not having enough to upgrade my pc for any new games that does make me stupid
You don't have to do that...

Jables_Kage
12th May 2009, 08:02
both, i liked the idea of switching to third after playing alot of splinter cell.

THIEF
12th May 2009, 08:05
1st person only please :)

Theefzor
12th May 2009, 12:33
Both in my opinion, but I guess true thief fans knows it better.

ZylonBane
12th May 2009, 12:58
Both, some players like to play in 3rd person
And some players like to shoot everything that moves, and some players like to jump over barrels, and some players can't leave without their buddy Superfly.

These people can just go PLAY SOMETHING ELSE.

Theefzor
12th May 2009, 13:38
It's not a matter of 'liking' third person or not...it's what works best within the mechanics of the game. As TDS demonstrated, third person derails the mechanics that made Thief what it was. You were able to see around corners and have a birds eye view of guard patrols. The whole hook in Thief was that you WERE Garrett and you did not know where someone was coming from. Third person effectively breaks that gameplay mechanic. It's not a question of 'like' over 'dislike'...it's what delivers the best gameplay. Third person is fine for games that aren't meant to have the same level of immersion, but if you're making a game like Thief...do it right, or don't bother doing it at all.

Oh well, I guess you're right. Forget my first post.

KharN
12th May 2009, 13:40
I find it pathetic when i see people who are supposed to have certain levels of maturity arguing over which is the best platform for gaming.. each has their pros and cons.. we dont all have to like the same thing.. The arguing needs to stop seriously its sad.. childish.. and ignorant..

Anyways.. Keep it 1st person.. i agree that it makes the immersion of the game and mystery all the better.. and 3rd person certainly does ruin the game.. like poster above stated.. the object was that you WERE garrett..

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 13:54
I find it pathetic when i see people who are supposed to have certain levels of maturity arguing over which is the best platform for gaming..

In truth I haven't heard a sound argument yet.
There really isn't an argument to be had, one is clearly superior to the other. It's a simple equation of:

Equipment < More powerful equipment

This is the internet. There's going to be arguing and there's really nothing you can do about it. The best thing to do is to not take everything so seriously.

kin
12th May 2009, 15:03
I think "NewHorizon" said it the best way. Thief stealth gameplay works well only in first person.

SeaBiscuit
12th May 2009, 15:06
1st person is the best...

with the option to move to third... but if I had a choice... 1st is it...

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 15:17
I think the main concern is the time spent on making the game third person.
It would be time better spent elsewhere.

Mocke
12th May 2009, 16:37
1st person exclusively. 3rd isn't good for immersion. Also, 3rd person gives players too much information (for a stealth game).

On a side note, I think the people hating on the consoles stopped paying attention to the market years ago. This generation consoles have plenty od 1st person only games. Also 3rd person perspective was created on the PC (probably for the 'PC kids').

cobak
12th May 2009, 16:50
It's not a matter of 'liking' third person or not...it's what works best within the mechanics of the game. As TDS demonstrated, third person derails the mechanics that made Thief what it was. You were able to see around corners and have a birds eye view of guard patrols. The whole hook in Thief was that you WERE Garrett and you did not know where someone was coming from. Third person effectively breaks that gameplay mechanic. It's not a question of 'like' over 'dislike'...it's what delivers the best gameplay. Third person is fine for games that aren't meant to have the same level of immersion, but if you're making a game like Thief...do it right, or don't bother doing it at all.

absolutely.

Terr
12th May 2009, 18:07
If you'd even consider asking for third person, you're a [Console 'Tard]

I must be pretty awesome then, considering I have never owned a console and am a die-hard PC fan. :scratch: But seriously, away from the ad-hominem attacks now.

_______________________

Body-awareness is part of immersion, and while first-person has benefits it fails on that particular angle. You have no idea how much of you is actually visible around a corner, but in real life you would be acutely aware whether your elbow is showing or not.

IMO the developers should try two goals:
Know when to switch between first and third person, such as entering small areas versus pressing up against a wall.
Engineer the third-person camera so that when it does appear you cannot use it to look around corners.


_____________________

Proposal:
First person view by default.
At any time you can press-and-hold a button to go to third-person view.

While in third-person view, everything in the distance is blurred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field), and enemies/NPCs aren't visible. Maybe the architecture near you takes on an abstract look. It's only useful for checking whether your head is showing above a ledge while crouched, etc. Basically, it's not "third person" so much as "body awareness view". Switching between the two views is very fast, is disabled in some vents and narrow areas.

Wazootyman
12th May 2009, 19:51
I agree that body awareness is part of immersion, but I firmly believe that can be implemented without need of a contrived third-person mode. Presumably, if you have an elbow sticking out of the shadows, your light gem will be lit, making you aware of the fact. Pair this with being able to actually see your body, so you can be aware of these things, and I think that's all that's necessary.

People complain about the movement in TDS, but I think it was fine; in real life, your head DOES bob a bit, and when you're mantling, it's NOT going to be completely smooth. And, shock of all shocks, you CAN see your legs/torso and hands!

I would be happy to see a more realistic movement/self-awareness implemented in T4, but I DON'T think it requires a third-person mode, and all the problems inherent with it, to be implemented. I say stick with pure first-person, but up the immersion by letting us see and be aware of our body as in real life, and make that awareness an important aspect of the stealth gameplay. Basically, I don't want to be able to have half my body sticking out from the shadows and not be penalized for that, but, at the same time, the game needs to provide enough feedback in the first-person view so that it's easy for the player to tell what they're doing wrong and it doesn't just become hopelessly frustrating when they can't tell what part of them is exposed.

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 19:54
I would be happy to see a more realistic movement/self-awareness implemented in T4, but I DON'T think it requires a third-person mode, and all the problems inherent with it, to be implemented. I say stick with pure first-person, but up the immersion by letting us see and be aware of our body as in real life.

Yep, I agree with you. (Though Garrett's head also bobs in TDP and TMA)

Terr
12th May 2009, 21:43
People complain about the movement in TDS, but I think it was fine; in real life, your head DOES bob a bit, and when you're mantling, it's NOT going to be completely smooth.

I agree, but it's worth guarding against overdoing head-bob to the extent where immersion is hurt. Generally because you can't reconcile what you're seeing with what your inner-ear balance is telling you.

DiegoFloor
13th May 2009, 00:29
I don't have much to say about body awareness... Usually I forget that there is/isn't any body below me, so it seems a little unnecessary. But it's nice, if the developers want more work :D

Third person is a different story.

First and third person possibilities is a matter of gameplay design. For example, you could offer the possibility to play with a cell shading rendering system, but that would affect the visual design of the game and, if that is important for the game in question, this option should be carefully analized. The same goes to any other aspect of the game design.

Most of the fun in the original series was the amazing gameplay, that forced the player to rely A LOT on the sound of the game. Adding the mere 'possibility' to view the game from another camera is going to create a inconsistency in the gameplay design. Wich may not be a bad thing! Maybe there are better gameplay designs waiting to be experimented. But this should be a conscious decision, not a 'the more options the better' naive way of making games.

Personally, first person ONLY is the way to go. Especially if we are talking about maintaining the same gameplay design of the original thief.

Nate
13th May 2009, 02:08
Hehe, I still chuckle about Garrett being nothing more than a happy face on a stick in the first game. Body awareness in Thief DP....not so much!

The joke mission intro with all the childlike drawings was awesome too....especially with Garrett's serious voice over.

Why don't devs do that sort of thing anymore? I guess they are so pressured to get the game out the door, no time for the little touches.

kin
13th May 2009, 04:44
Hehe, I still chuckle about Garrett being nothing more than a happy face on a stick in the first game. Body awareness in Thief DP....not so much!

The joke mission intro with all the childlike drawings was awesome too....especially with Garrett's serious voice over.

Why don't devs do that sort of thing anymore? I guess they are so pressured to get the game out the door, no time for the little touches.

They made already their first joke "Thiffourtineff"
edit: If this is a joke. Because if it is not then:mad2:

GarretDarkCity
13th May 2009, 07:31
First person only

DF-HellFier
13th May 2009, 18:25
Only the 1st person, otherwise it will ruin the atmosphere of Thief... Look what happend to TDS...

esme
13th May 2009, 18:39
include a third person view for those that want it

however I always play in first person, thats me in there stealing things, and I find looking at the back of my own head while I'm doing it tends to break the immersion a bit, plus the avatar body gets in the way of what I'm looking at and I might miss stuff that could be valuable

DF-HellFier
13th May 2009, 18:46
I think, that if there be a 3d person view, the game will be like TDS - Its one of my gratest fears!

esme
13th May 2009, 18:49
yes that is a worry

DiegoFloor
14th May 2009, 07:59
include a third person view for those that want it

I don't think that works with the game design. Of course, if we're talking about doom, half life, tomb raider, etc, what you say is perfectly applicable, as the camera view doesn't a big role in the game design. That is not the case in Thief. Giving the option to have a third person camera in Thief would be like giving the option of x-ray vision in a shooter game, it changes the whole dynamics of the game. The game designers have to make this choice, not the player.

Tiptoe
14th May 2009, 08:47
I completely disagree with most of you. I will ONLY ever play in third person mode. I will NEVER play a first person game because they make me seasick.

I don't see why Thief4 can't have both views. If you don't like the third person view, then don't bloody use it! Geez!

I'll tell you this much, if Thief4 can only be played from a first person perspective then I'm outta here. I have no further interest in a game I can't play.

Terr
14th May 2009, 08:55
DiegoFloor: I was suggesting that third-person view be given extreme depth-of-field effects, so that it's useful for positioning yourself--most of the extra stuff you can see is blurry, representing Garrett's uncertainty and limitations of Thieving Superpowers ;)

kin
14th May 2009, 10:08
All i know is that first person view simulates a persons view. A third person view simulates nothing

Platinumoxicity
14th May 2009, 10:39
People complain about the movement in TDS, but I think it was fine; in real life, your head DOES bob a bit, and when you're mantling, it's NOT going to be completely smooth. And, shock of all shocks, you CAN see your legs/torso and hands!

Body awareness is fine as long as it's made well. In T3, you weren't always absolutely sure what you were doing because of it. It created uncertain movement that you had no control over. When you have something like that in a game, you've done something wrong. For example: Half-Life and Half-Life 2 have basically the smoothest, most conrollable player movement in a first person game ever, it gives the player absolute control over the character. Surely you can't see your own feet and the movement seems too automated for a human being, but that's how it should be in a good FPS game. F.E.A.R., on the other hand, has body awareness and you can see your own feet and your body, and you can even make nice melee moves that include your feet and it feels like it's all in your control. That is how body awareness should be executed, not by making the screen bob up and down and making the character slip off ledges when trying very hard to stay on them.

T3's body awareness was like putting a blindfold on Garrett and trying to guide him around by shouting directions.

Gan Xodos
14th May 2009, 14:09
we should definitely see his feet and legs in first person for immersion.

if you put in 3d person make it available only if you select the "Noob" option in the difficulty menu. :)

sterlino
14th May 2009, 14:44
one and only thing...

in thae name of the Builder him self :

NO MORE 3RD PERSON VIEW ! i beg !

NO MORE !

thanks..

Corvin25
14th May 2009, 14:53
First person only. Otherwise you get a lot of movement problems and exploits. You shoudn't be able to see around a corner when you're four feet away from the building's edge.

Goliath The Thief
14th May 2009, 15:06
Third person removes all need for leaning, and dammit leaning is so damn cool.
THINK OF THE LEANING!!

And bring back the FORWARD LEANING! Man that was so cool.

And for body awareness, Dark Messiah's was great. I don't think its easy to do, but I think the devs should definitely consider it as a reference.

sterlino
14th May 2009, 18:23
I seriously would that the eidos staff copy this point of view for Thief4.. it would be awesome:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6661/mirrorsedgeorthief4.jpg

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3239/mirrorsedgeorthief42.jpg

it's EA's MirrorEdge...

partial viewing of the arms and legs while moving..


what do you think ? :)

HellionKal
14th May 2009, 18:27
Um...no?

-Immersion breaker.
-Serves absolutely no purpose.
-Looks rather silly all-around.
-It's...just wrong.

(in regards to the arms and legs shaking in front of you while walking, that is)

DarthEnder
14th May 2009, 18:29
I certainly would not be averse to Garrett having some parkour skills, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Assassin's Creed then Mirror's Edge. But that's mainly because I prefer to be in 3rd person view when I'm doing any kind of running and jumping.

But if they were going to go to have the game throwback to being only 1st person, then yes, Mirror's Edge view would be great.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
14th May 2009, 20:03
First person ONLY with smooth and graceful controls/movement. No clumsy super moves and stuff. Just forward, backpeddle, strafe left, strafe right, lean left, lean right, lean forward, crouch, jump/climb, and a button or mousewheel to modify speed. If it could work well and add to gameplay then maybe prone would be a good addition. No doublejumps, no wallhugs.

God I loved how in the first 2 games the movement was just so perfect.

Contradictio In Terminis
14th May 2009, 20:03
First Person ONLY....third person was a neat looking gimmick designed to attract more players, but ended up being used more as a cheat to look around corners.

ah! so you used to do that to? :lmao:

Ice1019
14th May 2009, 20:55
I don't know how thrilled I'd be about Garrett being some kind of ninja/parkour guy. The reason he has rope arrows is because he can't run up walls and stuff like that. Actually, pretty much all of the items in Thief were to make up for what Garrett lacked physically. If all of a sudden he's free running all over the place, what's to stop him from just running through the levels, smacking up guards left and right. He's not Altair, or Sam Fisher, or Solid Snake. He's Garrett.

FPS I definitely think is the way to go, but I think parkour style moves gets us a little too far from the kind of gameplay that defines the Thief series.

theBlackman
15th May 2009, 08:41
No thanks, Sterlino. It's the same crap that TDS had with the blackjack and when you made the mistake of looking down at the ground in TDS. You saw disembodied footses or a leg.

Definitely an immersion breaker. Thank God you didn't try to do that with Flying age or Horns of C.

I know the dark engine would not let you, but I'm sure you would have tried.

Petike the Taffer
15th May 2009, 10:55
Definitely both, but the movement has to be fluid. I don't mind a feeling of slight shaking while running in first person - it adds to the realistic feel. This I actually liked in TDS and disliked in the first two, where running feels more like skateboarding than actual running.

Jilly The Taffer
15th May 2009, 11:01
BOTH, but make sure the default is FIRST PERSON

Keeps everyone happy.

Those who want to feel as if they are Garrett, use first person.

Those who want to check out Garretts behind, use third person.

Tatyana's Flowers
15th May 2009, 12:36
both...can't do harm...

Jayy
15th May 2009, 13:29
Having a third person perspective that you can switch into or out of can be useful. You can sometimes get an angle on a corner that you can't quite get in first person. You can check where your shadow is falling or see if part of your body is in or out of the shadow of a building. But it all depends. If purely first person were done it might work as long as the play testers are genuinely willing to criticise and the developers willing to listen to their whinges.:rolleyes:

Terr
15th May 2009, 19:35
I'd like to vote against "see your own limbs in first-person".

Counterintuitively, it breaks immersion. The reason for this is that you don't notice your own limbs in the same way in real life, whereas on the screen they intrude. You have to take that extra split-second to figure out what you're seeing because you weren't already expecting it, and that just underlines that it's not you who is moving.


You can sometimes get an angle on a corner that you can't quite get in first person.

I'd like to try a third-person view with severe depth of field (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=109) so that while you could look around corners, you can't see very far. But the arrangement of you, your shadow, the amount of cover you are hiding behind, etc. would all be visible.

Hypevosa
15th May 2009, 19:40
Agreed, all the 3rd person camera offered was the ability to cheat by looking around a corner... one of the things I think thief got SO RIGHT... was the simple ability to lean one direction or the other, like a normal person can do. Let us lean around corners, out of the shadows for a second just to knock someone out, then drag them into the darkness. I actually loved it when I'd peer around a corner and all the sudden see a guard's kneecaps or face... the tension and surprise are retained in first person, and are lost in 3rd person perspective.

Nate
15th May 2009, 22:33
the problem is that allowing 3rd person will influence how they make the maps (they'll want extra room for camera view panning).

So, to keep in simple, might as well stick with First Person...

nitrogav
15th May 2009, 23:13
first person only , lost its immersion in thief 3 for me

Petike the Taffer
15th May 2009, 23:42
BOTH, but make sure the default is FIRST PERSON
Keeps everyone happy. Those who want to feel as if they are Garrett, use first person.
Those who want to check out Garretts behind, use third person.

Well said ! :)
When I first played TDS, I forgot about third person nearly to the end of the entire game. I only started to use it more often after replaying the missions and while climbing with the gloves (it was more "comfortable" and useful in that mode than in first person).

As for the naysayers :
How about a compromise ? Playing on higher difficulties disables third person and therefore "corner cheating".

Botlas
15th May 2009, 23:46
I played Deadly Shadows in first person, didn't care that it had a third person option. I'm replaying the games in parallel now, and Deadly Shadows does feel a bit different from Dark Project and Metal Age. But it's hardly gamebreaking, after a few minutes to get used to it it's not noticeable at all.

I don't see the problem with having both. If it breaks immersion or whatever for you to switch to third person, don't do it. Simple.

Prince_VLAD
15th May 2009, 23:48
I'd go for both...The third person view got its benefits in some situation, you can see the "big picture" in a mission at some point.

Vae
29th May 2009, 04:33
First person = Immersion
Third person = Anti-Immersion

So which would you want to have in the most immersively designed game experience in the history of electronic gaming?

Hypevosa
29th May 2009, 05:09
I've switched positions because I'm pissed, and god damnit there should be the option.

Not everyone's a damned cheat, and would use the camera to peer around corners, SOME PEOPLE need to use 3rd person in order to play, because they suffer motion sickness from FPS gaming style. And how SELFISH are you people who would deny them the right to play and enjoy something because they have a physical incapacity that can be simply overcome. Sure, they lose the immersion you all are whining about being so crucial, but it's better than them NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Make a 3rd person camera, but give us the god damned control over it, make it a separate entity from Garrett, so that he doesn't turn when it turns, have it freely rotate around him. Instead severely limit it's scope of vision. Here's my suggestion

using first person it's just like the first 2 games

Using 3rd person you can only see perfectly clearly what you've already seen before, and what you're looking at. Simple (complex) scenario:

Garrett has just exited a large gate and walked down the street to a stone corner. 3rd person camera, you can see clearly everything behind him and in the front of him, except people that are behind him are not visible, only landscape. if you turn the camera to try and look around the corner you see nothing but a severely blurred image (nothing is distinguishable in the mess of mush). However, there are footsteps, and if you look behind Garrett, you see little disturbances in the background where feet are estimated to be, and around the corner, the mush kind of waves with every footstep, meaning simply that there's sound coming from around that corner. As you slowly edge the corner, it all unblurs and becomes clear, and you quickly back up because of the guard that is in the middle of the street. Now that you know his position, when you look around the corner, you see waves, but instead of just being where the guard is, there's a general area of about 5 feet where sound waves appear, and they extend until they reach a substance that makes a different sound. So the guard walks away, and a little 5 foot circle moves that direction, stopping at metal grating for a bridge. When the guard finally walks on that bridge, a wide sound mark is accross the threshold of the bridge, and slowly extends as he walks across until it's a little deeper. Garrett then turns the corner estimating the guard went straight across the bridge, only to find that the guard instead took a turn and is now just looking over the edge of it (which is not the center of, but still within the radius of the sound lines made.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Hell, if this idea was used correctly, even the hearing impaired could at least attempt to play the game in 3rd person due to the sound wave thing.

Anyways, MAKE BOTH so we can ALL enjoy thief, just make 3rd person a camera that moves around, and doesn't affect Garrett's movement at all. And no click to go here controls either...

Hypevosa
30th May 2009, 04:21
Settle down and think things through before getting pissed.

So, the answer to people who suffer from motion sickness is to hobble the game with two completely different control systems, in a game that was purposefully created and labeled a 'first person sneaker'?

That's absolute bull$*it. Nobody needs third person to be able to play Thief and nobody is being SELFISH for asking the developers to focus on a single, consistent, control system, rather than two half assed systems in a game meant for first person gaming.

Do you want to know what players who get sick from head bobbing NEED to help them with their sickness? They need a simple slider in the menu that reduces or completely turns off the head bobbing effect that makes them sick. Not two completely different perspectives...one of which completely changes the gameplay.

If they're going to experience playing the game without getting sick, they should at least be able to play it from the perspective it was meant to be played in.

You coulda bothered reading the rest. I proposed a solution to the 3rd person thing as well... I thought it was a pretty good one too. But a little blue dot in the middle of the screen would fix it too, ala mirror's edge. I just figured I'd try and come up with an original solution to the problem of 3rd person and looking around corners. Any means of fixing the motion sickness thing makes you lose immersion because it's the problem to begin with. Give my solution a read, it may fascinate you.

CookieMcCrumble
30th May 2009, 08:46
First person all the way for me.

I just found it perfect for T1 and T2. I always played TDS in 1st person too, though it didn't have the same immersive effect due to the dodgy limbs lol

Platinumoxicity
30th May 2009, 09:00
Can you imagine crawling in the ventilation ducts in the Bank or in CoSaS - Mission X in 3rd person? There were so many things that were missing in TDS, but I couldn't really put my finger on them, and this is one of them. TDS didn't have those nice little secret passages because the 3rd person camera would've bugged out in them. Don't you EM dare to take out anything good in the game in order to make room for something that sucks.

Hypevosa
30th May 2009, 12:18
Can you imagine crawling in the ventilation ducts in the Bank or in CoSaS - Mission X in 3rd person? There were so many things that were missing in TDS, but I couldn't really put my finger on them, and this is one of them. TDS didn't have those nice little secret passages because the 3rd person camera would've bugged out in them. Don't you EM dare to take out anything good in the game in order to make room for something that sucks.

Now that really would be tricky to do in 3rd person... you'd probably need to force the camera into first person for a little while at the very least, or worse, you'd have to have it exist through the walls you're climing in and show the tube your in with a wall taken out so you see Garrett. That doesn't scream I'm playing a game now does it.

hawk047
30th May 2009, 19:07
I love Splinter Cell and I love Thief.

Splinter Cell is very fun to play in third person. Thief on the other hand should remain First Person, its an important feature of the game.

DF-HellFier
1st Jun 2009, 20:25
As I said. Slider in the menu....'reduce' or 'completely remove' the head bobbing in first person. Simple and effective.

Agree with you... It's the best way to help to all players fully engoy T4!

P.S. And again: No 3d person view!!! :mad2:

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 20:47
Yes, I read your solution, but for goodness sake...do you realize just how much work that would be? :eek: It's completely impractical. You propose working around the problems inherent with adding 3rd person, by having the developers implement a series of visual systems to compensate for the advantages 3rd person gives the player. That's insane. :mad2: No offense, but that is a complete waste of development, and worse than just leaving 3rd person in there. Not only would they have to take time away from properly developing first person control, a clean and simple system, but then they would have to spend most of their time working out the bugs trying to get this complicated system working too?

Your solution would also require more cpu overhead due to the extra visual checks the game would have to do in order to render all of the extra visuals.

It's an idea, but it's neither fascinating nor a good one for this type of game. Thief is about minimalism, not over complicated systems.

As I said. Slider in the menu....'reduce' or 'completely remove' the head bobbing in first person. Simple and effective.

I do realize how much work it would be, but it would be something completely new and innovative, and would even help deaf or hard of hearing people play the game if they wanted to, so I think it would be pretty cool. How would it take time away from the first person side of it, when all you people want anyways is a copy and paste of the first person controls from the first 2 games?

I agree that it would require more cpu overhead, but it shouldn't take anything more powerful than what the game will probably already require anyways due to updated graphics, AI, level size, and all that.

I'm also pretty sure that headbob isn't the only cause of first person motion sickness. People get it playing games like the old duke nukem, where headbob wasn't even there to begin with. Sometimes people get sick because they have no point of focus in an FPS, and that's why mirror's edge put a blue dot in the middle of the screen. Some say it's the angles you view things at. One solution I saw was changing the field of view in the game. Normal FPS's give you a FOV of 90 degrees, when in real life it's 120 degrees, so having a 120 degree field of view might help as well. I even saw one suggestion where someone recommended a drug the person could take to help them with it.

I'm pretty sure it's alot more things than headbob that cause motion sickness, so your "simple solution" isn't really the panacea that 3rd person is for those that suffer from first person motion sickness.

DF-HellFier
2nd Jun 2009, 04:21
Just forget it, If they make 3d prson, it will be something like TDS - Implayable... And the reason of this will be: not enaugh time to make it right and 100% it will have devastating affect on 1st person view and the game it self! Thief & 3d person view = Imcompatible!

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 04:27
Just forget it, If they make 3d prson, it will be something like TDS - Implayable... And the reason of this will be: not enaugh time to make it right and 100% it will have devastating affect on 1st person view and the game it self! Thief & 3d person view = Imcompatible!

they just announced thief 4 what, less than a month ago? they have plenty of time to work on it... are you saying eidos montreal is not competent enough to make a good way for 3rd person to work? They've done good so far with alot of games, I wouldn't underestimate them and say they cannot make it work. Who knows, they may even have a new idea that'll revolutionize 3rd person perspective XD

DF-HellFier
2nd Jun 2009, 13:16
are you saying eidos montreal is not competent enough to make a good way for 3rd person to work?

No, I'm saying, that they can spend this time in more rational ways... Like more time to "polish" the final product or work on the small detales of the game: Gameplay, movements, inventory, levels... e.t.c...

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jun 2009, 15:08
I just thought of something. The robe. If there's going to be a third person mode, Garrett has to have his robe, that he always wears in box art and cutscenes! If they make Garrett have that sleeveless ninja suit again, the 3rd person mode is worthless. But if Garrett had his robe, that dragged around the floor when he's crouching in dark corners and waved in the wind as he's standing on a rooftop, that would be pretty cool. The only reason I'd see Garrett in 3rd person mode. He needs his robe!

Not that I would ever use 3rd person when playing, but even seeing the shadow of the robe on the wall would really say: "I'm Garrett once again" :)

Iscor
2nd Jun 2009, 15:14
I'd have to say first person too!

GmanPro
2nd Jun 2009, 15:16
they just announced thief 4 what, less than a month ago? they have plenty of time to work on it... are you saying eidos montreal is not competent enough to make a good way for 3rd person to work? They've done good so far with alot of games, I wouldn't underestimate them and say they cannot make it work. Who knows, they may even have a new idea that'll revolutionize 3rd person perspective XD

Eidos Montreal hasn't released a single game.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 18:34
Oh yeah, they're just working on deus ex 3 (I forgot it hadn't been released yet).

EMCEE
2nd Jun 2009, 18:53
As 4 me, the 3D person in Thief is ****, but it's not deadly: I just play in 1st person whole T3 adn it was OK...

The Mental Age
2nd Jun 2009, 19:52
First person is the best way to go for Thief. Then you can call it an FPS and confuse people. X3

But seriously. For some reason, Thief in third person just doesn't appeal as much as first person. You get so much more into the game when you're looking at it as though you ARE the character. Works for every first person game I've ever played - although most of those were shooters. With a sneaker like Thief, it's... Id'no... it's just so much more fun.

clock12345
11th Jun 2009, 21:16
i say that if people want first person for this game and some people want thirth person i have an idea at the beggining of the game you can chose to have 1rd person or 3rd person if you chose one of them you will be with them for all of the game you can not switch to the another view for example if you choose 3rd person then you cannot change back to 1rd person untill you will begin the game from the first level of the game how about this idea? i say they should create this.

kaekaelyn
11th Jun 2009, 22:16
Seriously...you have a real fixation with this...

Nate
12th Jun 2009, 02:19
3rd person WILL take up time and effort on the devs part = it will take away from the game to some degree.

3rd person view is a mistake.

DarthEnder
12th Jun 2009, 05:00
Well, good luck getting them to make it first person only. I'd be fine if it was, but it just ain't gonna happen.

jay pettitt
12th Jun 2009, 08:44
What makes you think that? It's not exactly as though it's a risky strategy, that potential customers up and down the land will be saying - 'omg no third person option, that's sooo not cool', it's not as though it's particularly difficult or costly to implement. It's not as though there is a precedent that says 1st person games won't be financially viable, critically merit worthy or for that matter can't be the hip in thing, it's not like there haven't been hundreds of first person games. And it's not as though any of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of readers on these boards, except Vasquez, has said they want 3rd person, and even that was a mistake. The nearest we got was a number of especially nice people not wanting to risk upsetting anyone just in case they did want 3rd person.

Granted; developers, and publishers especially, sometimes have very strange ideas - but very, very, occasionally they do something genuinely smart.

clock12345
12th Jun 2009, 11:02
both please.

Psychomorph
5th Oct 2009, 14:01
First Person ONLY....third person was a neat looking gimmick designed to attract more players, but ended up being used more as a cheat to look around corners.
TDS had online multiplayer!?!?

THIEF
6th Oct 2009, 06:03
1st person 1000% !

3edere
6th Oct 2009, 06:24
Almost everybody play 1st person. I did the same. I always will. :thumb:

If in the game u've got another option on the base that otherwise T4 commercially would not be at the same level of other good games present in the market, than fine, let EM add the feature as an option. Who cares?

That is...."who cares"...as long as the budget spent for this "unnecessary" development does not prevent EM to work on better, more useful, more desirable features.

Money-money...all comes down to it! :naughty:

Vae
6th Oct 2009, 07:35
The problem is that it will get in the way of dev time for other more desirable features, also adversely effecting and limiting level design to accommodate the 3rd person camera. There is no "extra" dev time...there will ultimately be a sacrifice of something else in order to implement 3rd person.

3edere
6th Oct 2009, 18:33
If that be the case dear Vae, then I'm definitely AGAINST the 3rd person camera.****

Exit
31st Oct 2009, 20:36
But if you could just change the view from 1st to 3rd or from 3rd to 1st like in TDS then everyone would be happy... :D

Oon Kuka Oon
26th Dec 2009, 20:16
Here's another vote for first person.
Third person breaks the game, becouse you can see your surroundings. It breaks first person too, becouse of body awareness.
If you makers want to offer third person, make third person patch. Keep the game first person, without real body. If third person is brought by patch, it doesn't screw up first person.

Secondary
26th Dec 2009, 21:55
nothing wrong with keeping both as logn as they are well done, but i say work hard on a solid 1st person and if youve got enough time/ recources add in a 3rd too, no harm done

Platinumoxicity
26th Dec 2009, 23:30
But the whole game should be designed according to 1st person only, so that environments can be desinged will full detail, like in the earlier Thiefs, very small objects and switches can be hidden behind and under things and in small spaces. Some of those are impossible to find in 3rd person, so that's why there was no stuff like that in TDS, and everything from switches to doors, items and objects were made larger so that people using a camera that's farther away from the game world could see them. I'm not saying that I think that a person who has eyes in the head isn't able to see a switch on the wall, but apparently the devs thought so.

Take for example in "Down in The Bonehoard" -there's a chest hidden behind a small crack in the wall. Even if a player was to notice the crack, they wouldn't see the object behind it because when they're looking straight at it, the player model is standing on the way, blocking the view. We need secrets like that to keep the levels interesting, but if the game is designed for those who are unable to effectively see their surroundings (Ironic, isn't it? For those who can see around corners? :) ) in detail, those things will be left out.

PlumsieTaker
27th Dec 2009, 02:37
It was called FIRST-Person-Sneaker for a reason.

Secondary
27th Dec 2009, 03:45
by no harm done i was implying that they should make a complete, reliable and proven first person viewpoint first, and then if they have the time, they should add a third person aswell

if they have no time than they should ommit the thrid person and stick with the already compelte 1st person, so no harm done, although i suppose instead of no harm done a more accurate phrase would be something like "lets quit while were ahead:D"


im not trying to suggest that they could just cobble the two viewpoints together without losing any veracity from one end or another


but it is possible to make a functional game with both 1st and third person views, however i do agree that it would be closer to making two completely separate games. the programming compensations would make the two scripts very different. what i mean to imply is that only one script should be written initially, the first person. once this is done, it would be possible to program the thrid person in, however it wouldnt be a simple switch on/off like in TDS, youd have to choose before entering a level and then youd have to adher to your selection.


my opeing statement was very vague, to say the least, and poorly worded.:o

xDarknessFallsx
27th Dec 2009, 05:42
There were some pretty tight crawlspaces, passageways behind walls and tiny rooms (e.g., closets), in T2 that I feel would've wreaked havoc on a 3rd person POV camera. In order to give EM utmost flexibility in designing levels -- and to give the game the best gameplay experience possible -- I hope they don't try to accommodate 3rd person POV. It would definitely take time to make a decent 3rd person camera... (we all hear and see all the game reviews where the 3rd person camera bites). So it'd obviously take a bunch of resources to implement it successfully/well... and the negative impacts to level design are something I don't want to risk. :)

Namdrol
27th Dec 2009, 08:53
And Assasins Creed 2 with it's millions of quid and 100's upon 100's of devs has a camera that swings around in a very annoying way.
My nephew got it for Christmas and I sat and watched him play it for about an hour.

(Secondary, the phrase "no harm done" jarred mightily.
Read the threads here and at TTLG and play TDS again.)

Nate
2nd Jan 2010, 03:26
Well, it seems that some gamers still don't understand that maps have to be very open spaced for 3rd person viewpoint to work.

We aren't against 3rd person view in the game because we are meanies who don't want others to be able to enjoy 3rd person. We are against 3rd person view in the game because it will change map design in a negative way AND it will take time and $ to implement that could be better spent elsewhere.

esme
2nd Jan 2010, 13:17
with third person view you have to have room in the map to swing the camera round so the player can see what is in front of the avatar for close in work, so the map has to be made open and lacks cramped small spaces, which means hiding places look ridiculously large in first person view and lack that claustrophobic feel you got in say the air vent on the first city bank & trust level

further the objects, switches, and small details have to be made larger so they are still visible from this viewpoint, so no hiding a tiny switch for a secret door in the detail of a fresco or even on the edge of a doorframe because the player has no chance of finding it in third person

so really you need to switch back to first person view to deal with these situations

design the game so that it plays well in third person without needing to switch back to first person and you pretty much ruin it for first person play

Psychomorph
3rd Jan 2010, 00:30
with third person view you have to have room in the map to swing the camera round so the player can see what is in front of the avatar for close in work, so the map has to be made open and lacks cramped small spaces, which means hiding places look ridiculously large in first person view and lack that claustrophobic feel you got in say the air vent on the first city bank & trust level
Exactly the thing I experienced with Splinter Cell, there have been countless situations where I wished to switch to the 1st person, because the camera always hit the walls in the tighter rooms/hallways and zoomed into Sam's head, constantly changing the perspective and obstructing the view. That was uncomfortable, I don't like 3rd person.

Hypevosa
3rd Jan 2010, 01:24
Just watching gameplay videos of 3rd-person games that weren't over-the-shoulder views ticks me off, with the camera flying through walls and AIs, showing how they are all hollow shells and blocking the view entirely.

actually in Gears of War if you put your camera in someone it would peel back their layers and you could see everything from their eyeballs to their muscle structure. It was also how when you exploded someone in that game you could see all the structures fly everywhere.

Hypevosa
3rd Jan 2010, 03:08
In all honesty I liked it much better than hollowing people out, disappearing them, or having the camera, jaggedly attempt to avoid them. But I suspect it cost a good deal of processing... but thinking about it, Gears has always looked good, played well, and never been laggy.... I wonder how they did it, because very single person had all that junk in them moving at the same time, but it didn't slow the game down a bit.

Psychomorph
3rd Jan 2010, 03:20
In all honesty I liked it much better than hollowing people out, disappearing them, or having the camera, jaggedly attempt to avoid them. But I suspect it cost a good deal of processing... but thinking about it, Gears has always looked good, played well, and never been laggy.... I wonder how they did it, because very single person had all that junk in them moving at the same time, but it didn't slow the game down a bit.
Well, Epic is epic.

Hypevosa
3rd Jan 2010, 12:06
I believe I remember around 20+ of at least 3 different types (humans, grubs, and various other castes).

Black Vine
15th Jan 2010, 16:14
1st person only why bother even asking??????:scratch::scratch:

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
30th Jan 2010, 11:57
Give the option of both views.

Pieter888
30th Jan 2010, 15:22
ⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶ!

ⓛⓞⓛ


And sacrifice what standards this time?

Actually, it would not matter much for me if they do both, as long as the first person view works smooth. :cool:

minus0ne
30th Jan 2010, 15:48
Actually, it would not matter much for me if they do both, as long as the first person view works smooth. :cool:
So then you are okay with 3rd person view impacting "just" the level design, as it is currently doing to Deus Ex 3?

Vae
30th Jan 2010, 17:24
Give the option of both views.

Yeah, and also leave out swimming and rope arrows...:mad::thud:


ⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶ!

ⓛⓞⓛ


And sacrifice what standards this time?

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ doesn't have any standards...

xAcerbusx
30th Jan 2010, 17:53
Both.

This is the year 2010. Third person integration that is non-disruptive to both the Stealth and Immersive aspects of First-Person has been done several times over. (Just ask all of the people - myself included - who play Oblivion as 'Thief 4')

This 'only first-person works' argument is silly. Third isn't atmospheric enough? Velvet Assassin was one of the weaker Stealth games I've ever played... but no one (not even game reviewers who were trashing it) is going to argue that it wasn't atmospheric. Arguably more atmospheric than any non-Thief Stealth game out there. Yet that game was in Third-Person only.

Third-Person can't have cramped enough levels? Did anyone play Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory? Remember crouching through the corridors of the house in Hokkaido... sneaking up behind mercenaries in close quarters, pulling them through paper walls and snapping their necks? Or the cramped dungeons in Oblivion or Morrowind... playing as a thief / assassin was one of the more popular things to do in those games. And I never play those games in first-person. It certainly didn't break the game for me. Or ruin immersion.

Ion Storm was in its death throes when they made Deadly Shadows. They didn't have the resources to finesse the third-person mode, and consequently, it was buggy, the movement suffered, etc. Judging the entire third-person stealth concept on one botched attempt isn't fair or smart. Give EM a shot. It's easier than ever to do both viewpoints well.

Platinumoxicity
30th Jan 2010, 18:31
But would you rather risk making the same mistake again, than forgetting the whole 3rd person system because of the uncertainty of it's success? If the 3rd person mode manages to suck and affect the movement and level structure in the end, the damage has already been done and there's no going back. And all the resources and time you spent on trying to make it perfect are long gone.

"1st person only" has 100% success rate. There are always risks when trying to expand from that. And Thief isn't a game that requires a 3rd person mode anyway, because it's not based on gimmicky melee moves or acrobatics, so it would be a useless addition.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
30th Jan 2010, 20:21
Both.

This is the year 2010. Third person integration that is non-disruptive to both the Stealth and Immersive aspects of First-Person has been done several times over. (Just ask all of the people - myself included - who play Oblivion as 'Thief 4')

This 'only first-person works' argument is silly. Third isn't atmospheric enough? Velvet Assassin was one of the weaker Stealth games I've ever played... but no one (not even game reviewers who were trashing it) is going to argue that it wasn't atmospheric. Arguably more atmospheric than any non-Thief Stealth game out there. Yet that game was in Third-Person only.

Third-Person can't have cramped enough levels? Did anyone play Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory? Remember crouching through the corridors of the house in Hokkaido... sneaking up behind mercenaries in close quarters, pulling them through paper walls and snapping their necks? Or the cramped dungeons in Oblivion or Morrowind... playing as a thief / assassin was one of the more popular things to do in those games. And I never play those games in first-person. It certainly didn't break the game for me. Or ruin immersion.

Ion Storm was in its death throes when they made Deadly Shadows. They didn't have the resources to finesse the third-person mode, and consequently, it was buggy, the movement suffered, etc. Judging the entire third-person stealth concept on one botched attempt isn't fair or smart. Give EM a shot. It's easier than ever to do both viewpoints well.

Don't worry, we're talking about people who have been on the Thief forum since 2002 who have nothing better to do than flame anyone who disagrees with *their* vision of the game. I love it really, love to see the same egos circle-jerk each other with posts so rich in intelligence as this;


ⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶⒽⒶ!

ⓛⓞⓛ


Veterans, or should I say, "zealots" and all that... I hope they remove water and rope arrows just so I can see these guys have an aneurysm. :lol:

Loup
30th Jan 2010, 20:29
Both.

This is the year 2010. Third person integration that is non-disruptive to both the Stealth and Immersive aspects of First-Person has been done several times over. (Just ask all of the people - myself included - who play Oblivion as 'Thief 4')

Oblivion is set into Cyrodiil which is designed in a way which take the words "generic fantasy" to a such epic level that its main fanbase is the most sexual degenerated people that has ever picked up the tools of modding. There is nothing in the whole game that even as much as nudge your intelligence. There is no reason to steal anything since money is something which you simply stumble upon the same second you take a step. It is also a game where killing things is more or less the only thing you do when not staring into some of the most gruesome facemorphs that has ever been developed. Please explain how you can even begin to try to get the imagination going to the level where you can play it as "thief 4"?



This 'only first-person works' argument is silly. Third isn't atmospheric enough? Velvet Assassin was one of the weaker Stealth games I've ever played... but no one (not even game reviewers who were trashing it) is going to argue that it wasn't atmospheric. Arguably more atmospheric than any non-Thief Stealth game out there. Yet that game was in Third-Person only.

"atmospheric"? : /

What it does is that it breaks immersion since you are watching some else do something instead of feeling that your are doing it your self. 1:st person also gives you a more precise movement and also takes away the need of a cross hair. This delivers an experience which is not the same with 3:rd person.



Third-Person can't have cramped enough levels? Did anyone play Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory? Remember crouching through the corridors of the house in Hokkaido... sneaking up behind mercenaries in close quarters, pulling them through paper walls and snapping their necks? Or the cramped dungeons in Oblivion or Morrowind... playing as a thief / assassin was one of the more popular things to do in those games. And I never play those games in first-person. It certainly didn't break the game for me. Or ruin immersion.


By the Builder... are you seriously using morrowind and oblivion as examples? The dungeons in these games are neither cramped nor have any small crawlspaces (or vertical design while we're at it) They are completely irrelevant in this case. The very fact that in tight spaces the camera will zoom in to not clip though the walls. A possible solution is to move the camera into first person when this is needed but then you have a situation where the camera flips back and forth between two modes which is nothing but horrible design.

But since people are so crazy about third person, why not give some argument why it is relevant instead that it can be done and that it can work? The only relevant argument this far was some where in the beginning of this thread was some one who said that he gets motion sickness from playing first person.

Loup
30th Jan 2010, 20:38
Don't worry, we're talking about people who have been on the Thief forum since 2002 who have nothing better to do than flame anyone who disagrees with *their* vision of the game. I love it really, love to see the same egos circle-jerk each other with posts so rich in intelligence as this;



Veterans, or should I say, "zealots" and all that... I hope they remove water and rope arrows just so I can see these guys have an aneurysm. :lol:

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ. Your are horrible at trolling. You need to be much more delicate when your are dealing with people of intelligence who can argue in a civilized manner. I recommend you to try the comments section on youtube. You will simply be ignored if you state things as above since your haven't tried to back them up with arguments. You are as said, ignored because you don't contribute.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
30th Jan 2010, 21:09
ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ. Your are horrible at trolling. You need to be much more delicate when your are dealing with people of intelligence who can argue in a civilized manner. I recommend you to try the comments section on youtube. You will simply be ignored if you state things as above since your haven't tried to back them up with arguments. You are as said, ignored because you don't contribute.

Enjoying Thief Deadly Shadows shouldn't be considered trolling kind sir. ;)

esme
30th Jan 2010, 21:13
just for those 3rd person view supporters that missed it


with third person view you have to have room in the map to swing the camera round so the player can see what is in front of the avatar for close in work, so the map has to be made open and lacks cramped small spaces, which means hiding places look ridiculously large in first person view and lack that claustrophobic feel you got in say the air vent on the first city bank & trust level

further the objects, switches, and small details have to be made larger so they are still visible from this viewpoint, so no hiding a tiny switch for a secret door in the detail of a fresco or even on the edge of a doorframe because the player has no chance of finding it in third person

so really you need to switch back to first person view to deal with these situations

design the game so that it plays well in third person without needing to switch back to first person and you pretty much ruin it for first person play
I would add designing for 1st person pretty much ruins it for 3rd person as you have to keep switching back to 1st person to deal with the twiddly bits and this will get real old real fast

so it's one of those times when there can't really be a compromise, either the game will play well in 3rd person or it will play well in 1st person, I don't believe it is possible to satisfy both camps simultaneously and attempting to do so will screw it up for both perspectives

so it boils down to do you want an open, chunky, 3rd person game or do you want a tight, claustrophobia inducing, 1st person game which is full of fine detail

Vae
30th Jan 2010, 21:18
Keep in mind who you are talking to esme...this is ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ...

and

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ = irrationality

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
30th Jan 2010, 21:19
Keep in mind who you are talking to esme...this is ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ...

and

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ = irrationality

Ohhhhh so burned. :lol:

Vae
30th Jan 2010, 21:22
^
Case in point.....:lol:........:lmao:

esme
30th Jan 2010, 21:34
Keep in mind who you are talking to esme...this is ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ...

and

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ = irrationality

if he agrees with my argument or doesn't I don't really mind, I'm writing for the devs, they are the ones who will have to make the choice

I'm just pointing out that designing 1st or 3rd person view is a choice, choosing one affects the other and I don't believe it's possible to design for both

either objects are big and chunky for 3rd or they can be small and detailed for 1st
either crawlways can accommodate a horse and cart for 3rd or they can be tight and claustrophobic for 1st

the 3rd person camera affects the design of the level in ways that affect the gameplay for 1st person view and vice versa

if someone can find a flaw in this argument I'm quite willing to listen

Vae
30th Jan 2010, 21:55
These facts are not new, and have been discussed...and the devs should have already realized by now the design sacrifices that are necessary in order to create a multi-view THIEF game.

The only question now is whether the devs are willing to make that sacrifice in order to appeal to the mentality of the 3rd person player...thus diminishing the 1st person experience and the True Thief Experience (TTE) as a whole.

esme
30th Jan 2010, 21:58
true, they are not new, but they are being buried by continuing posts, I want to keep them fresh in the devs minds

plus it doesn't hurt to remind people who argue that you can simply switch views and the gameplay doesn't suffer, that in fact, it does

xAcerbusx
30th Jan 2010, 22:20
These facts are not new, and have been discussed...and the devs should have already realized by now the design sacrifices that are necessary in order to create a multi-view THIEF game.

The only question now is whether the devs are willing to make that sacrifice in order to appeal to the mentality of the 3rd person player...thus diminishing the 1st person experience and the True Thief Experience (TTE) as a whole.

Oh. Wow.

'True Thief Experience'.

Congratulations. You have taken the terms 'regressive' and 'elitist' to new and exciting lows.

Mark my words: If Thief 4 is just The Dark Project with better graphics... this game will sell ten units. One to every person shoveling their poorly-thought-out opinions about 'The First Person Master Race' ad infinitum in this thread. Maybe a handful more on account of the regressive FP only set on the TTLG forums.

The franchise deserves better than to be turned into a modern Stealth version of Mirror's Edge. And if that game's sales are any indication, then my previous contention was exact.

The sad fact is that some of the people offering their opinions about core concepts related to this game... people now foisting their opinions on us in this thread... have admitted in past TTLG threads that they have no interest in purchasing a fourth Thief game regardless. Well, good, then. But don't ruin or stagnate the new game for the rest of us. I don't want Thief 2 with better graphics. I've already played and enjoyed Thief 2. No reason to make it again. There's fan missions for all that. Give me new gameplay aspects, and if at all possible, finesse the third game's third-person view.

This isn't Ion Storm, guys. Eidos Montreal is owned by Square Enix, the Japanese EA.

They have money. Time to stop crying about 'wasted resources' or 'limited development time'.

Loup
30th Jan 2010, 23:22
Oh. Wow.

'True Thief Experience'.

Congratulations. You have taken the terms 'regressive' and 'elitist' to new and exciting lows.

Mark my words: If Thief 4 is just The Dark Project with better graphics... this game will sell ten units. One to every person shoveling their poorly-thought-out opinions about 'The First Person Master Race' ad infinitum in this thread. Maybe a handful more on account of the regressive FP only set on the TTLG forums.

The franchise deserves better than to be turned into a modern Stealth version of Mirror's Edge. And if that game's sales are any indication, then my previous contention was exact.

The sad fact is that some of the people offering their opinions about core concepts related to this game... people now foisting their opinions on us in this thread... have admitted in past TTLG threads that they have no interest in purchasing a fourth Thief game regardless. Well, good, then. But don't ruin or stagnate the new game for the rest of us. I don't want Thief 2 with better graphics. I've already played and enjoyed Thief 2. No reason to make it again. There's fan missions for all that. Give me new gameplay aspects, and if at all possible, finesse the third game's third-person view.

This isn't Ion Storm, guys. Eidos Montreal is owned by Square Enix, the Japanese EA.

They have money. Time to stop crying about 'wasted resources' or 'limited development time'.


But you still haven't given a single argument why you would want third person. Why would it become a Mirror's Edge? It doesn't even make sense. Argue why third person is preferred.




Enjoying Thief Deadly Shadows shouldn't be considered trolling kind sir.

You know, ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ, that's not what you have posted about and that is not what this discussion is about. But taking your earlier posts in to account, there is probably no idea to argue with you. I still recommend you to either try to present arguments, or improve your tactics for trolling because as things are right now. Your are failing at both. I think your should start either here: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trolling or if your actually want to be something greater in life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation#Conversational_argumentation

Vae
30th Jan 2010, 23:44
Oh. Wow.

'True Thief Experience'.

Congratulations. You have taken the terms 'regressive' and 'elitist' to new and exciting lows.

Mark my words: If Thief 4 is just The Dark Project with better graphics... this game will sell ten units. One to every person shoveling their poorly-thought-out opinions about 'The First Person Master Race' ad infinitum in this thread. Maybe a handful more on account of the regressive FP only set on the TTLG forums.

You simply do not understand where I or others are coming from. There are many ways to enhance THIEF by staying within the core design principals. One of these principals is immersion, which is of course exemplified by the 1st person *I am* experience, rather than the less immersive 3rd person *I am puppet master* experience.

There is nothing regressive or elitist about understanding the reality that a multi-view THIEF game would negatively affect immersion because of design sacrifices, which of course ultimately affects the THIEF experience.

I am looking forward to a new, fulfilling version of THIEF with concepts that enhance and not diminish the True Thief Experience (TTE).

These are some examples of new concepts that may enhance THIEF by staying within the core design of the game:

City Threat Level (CTL) (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=99713)
Randomized Locks and Traps (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=97203)
Randomized Loot (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=91959)

xAcerbusx
31st Jan 2010, 00:10
I've already read those threads.

Even the Dark Mod has more radical gameplay changes than those ideas. Solidifying further my belief that what you really want is a Thief II expansion. At which point, I would like to direct you to Thief 2X: Shadows of the Metal Age.

As a matter of fact, even T2X featured more radical departures in gameplay than those suggestions, and was decried by certain members of the community - some of whom are present in this thread - for exactly that reason.

'Regressive' really is the most apt description, because any attempt at progress has been met with four-page essays about the 'True Thief Experience' and 'wasted development time'. If you doubt me, just start at page one of this thread and work your way up.

Vae
31st Jan 2010, 00:27
If you fundamentally change the core design of any game or system, then it becomes something else, even if you slap the same name on it. If you do not understand this, then there is no way for you to understand what I and others have been saying....and thus you are lost.

Loup
31st Jan 2010, 01:03
Most people on this forum are not arguing out of nostalgia and there are very few who doesn't back up their views with arguments based on gameplay and design.

You still haven't explained the preferable aspects of third person view. Explain why you want it and what makes it a good choice of design.

Vae
31st Jan 2010, 01:06
Yes, please do...

Psychomorph
31st Jan 2010, 03:26
Don't worry, we're talking about people who have been on the Thief forum since 2002 who have nothing better to do than flame anyone who disagrees with *their* vision of the game. I love it really, love to see the same egos circle-jerk each other with posts so rich in intelligence as this;
Good one.


Veterans, or should I say, "zealots" and all that... I hope they remove water and rope arrows just so I can see these guys have an aneurysm. :lol:
Lol!

xAcerbusx
31st Jan 2010, 05:22
Yes, please do...

The current page started with me explaining why third person is viable and in no way detracts from an atmospheric, immersive Thief experience.

As for why it's preferable: I may as well explain why my taste in music is preferable.

The point of my post wasn't to show why it's preferable. That's a matter of taste. The point of my post was to show why it's viable and why it won't break the first-person mode. And furthermore, that all statements to the contrary are absolutely knee-jerk and regressive.

As for why someone would personally prefer to play a game in third person, I can only offer my own personal opinion. I prefer seeing my character. I don't like first-person games. It's overdone. It was original in 1998 when Thief was made because we still had yet to see the launch of a trillion Halo / Killzone / Haze clones that now flood the market. Third-person, I would argue, allows the player to bond more closely with the character because they can actually see who it is that they are playing as. Not being able to see your character is just as unrealistic as looking down and not seeing your character's feet. It's unrealistic and ruins immersion as surely as Deadly Shadows' jerky movement hurt the experience. You asked for why it was preferable. There you have it. I like art design. Playing as 'Disembodied head with a floating hand at the corner of the screen #6847688' doesn't appeal to me.

Platinumoxicity
31st Jan 2010, 08:48
Not being able to see your character is just as unrealistic as looking down and not seeing your character's feet. It's unrealistic and ruins immersion.

...No it strenghtens immersion because normally when you look down at the floor you don't pay attention to the presence of your feet because they're a part of your body. When was the last time you purposefully checked whether your feet exist or not by looking down, honestly not knowing whether they're there or not? You know the character has feet, so you don't need visual proof that it has feet.

In games where the body is visible, it's possible to block parts of your vision with your own body parts, like legs or shoulders. And you don't really have ingame muscles to move your legs away with absolute control and precision. That is something that breaks immersion, because suddenly there is one thing that the character does but that the player can't control. IRL everytime you try to look at something where your legs might be on the way, you subconsciously move them aside or change the position of your head and eyes without realizing it. Because 1st person game characters don't have the muscles that subconsciously prevent your body parts from blocking your view, the invisibility of those body parts is the next best thing.

Loup
31st Jan 2010, 09:36
The current page started with me explaining why third person is viable and in no way detracts from an atmospheric, immersive Thief experience.

As for why it's preferable: I may as well explain why my taste in music is preferable.

The point of my post wasn't to show why it's preferable. That's a matter of taste. The point of my post was to show why it's viable and why it won't break the first-person mode. And furthermore, that all statements to the contrary are absolutely knee-jerk and regressive.

As for why someone would personally prefer to play a game in third person, I can only offer my own personal opinion. I prefer seeing my character. I don't like first-person games. It's overdone. It was original in 1998 when Thief was made because we still had yet to see the launch of a trillion Halo / Killzone / Haze clones that now flood the market. Third-person, I would argue, allows the player to bond more closely with the character because they can actually see who it is that they are playing as. Not being able to see your character is just as unrealistic as looking down and not seeing your character's feet. It's unrealistic and ruins immersion as surely as Deadly Shadows' jerky movement hurt the experience. You asked for why it was preferable. There you have it. I like art design. Playing as 'Disembodied head with a floating hand at the corner of the screen #6847688' doesn't appeal to me.

ok acerbus. You prefer looking at your character and feel that it breaks immersion when you can't see the feet. Now that you actually presented some arguments. I don't agree that you bond with the character by seeing it. The feeling that you're doing what the character is doing is in my opinion a great way to make you bond with the char since it will feel like you are sharing the character's experience. What a lot of games and movies do in dramatic or scary scenes? They change the perspective to first person so that you see the horrors out of the characters point of view. Another important aspect is that you don't want to see Garrett. What made him so great in TDP and TMA was the fact that you never got a really good look at him. I've said it before but one of the main aspects of thief as a concept is that it is thriving on mysteries.The factions, most of the characters, the city it self and even your equipment are all shrouded in mystery and they remains interesting as long as you are not given to many pieces of the puzzle. Demystifying something is like shoot your self in the foot. Getting a good look at Garrett from the first second of gameplay is a horrible choice of design out of this perspective.

Even you acerbus can't say that thief would be interesting if you know all there is to know about the various aspect of the universe or the characters?

Apart from this aesthetic choice in which everyone has the right to have their own opinion there is actual game design issues which people has stated earlier. What about:

- Clunky or exploitive mechanics when looking around corners
- problems when it comes to tight crawlspaces
(no oblivion and morrowind didn't have those)
- Having to introduce crosshair and nerfing archery because of the reduced ability to aim at long distances.
- Designing the levels in a oversized fashion to make up for the reduced ability to spot details
- Giving various actions animations which reduce your control of the character

Meet those arguments and contribute to the discussion.

esme
31st Jan 2010, 17:39
...The point of my post wasn't to show why it's preferable. That's a matter of taste. The point of my post was to show why it's viable and why it won't break the first-person mode. And furthermore, that all statements to the contrary are absolutely knee-jerk and regressive....

simply having a third person view won't affect the game I agree, however designing for a third person view affects first person gameplay for the reasons I outlined earlier (clunky, crude objects and a tight spaces that are laughably big) and similarly designing the game for primarily first person view will affect third person gameplay as you will find that you will continually have to shift to first person view to deal with the detail

so it's not really a question of should we have first and third person views, it's a pretty safe bet we'll have both

it's more of a question of which viewpoint should the game be designed for

my preference is to design for first person view as this will give us the fine detail, smaller objects and tighter spaces

Oon Kuka Oon
31st Jan 2010, 19:16
In my opinion, the game should be done 1st person. If the devs want to offer 3rd person for the 0.01% of potential buyers who want it, they can create 3rd person patch. This is only way to offer 3rd person and not corrupting 1st person.

xAcerbusx
31st Jan 2010, 21:37
- Clunky or exploitive mechanics when looking around corners
- problems when it comes to tight crawlspaces
(no oblivion and morrowind didn't have those)
- Having to introduce crosshair and nerfing archery because of the reduced ability to aim at long distances.
- Designing the levels in a oversized fashion to make up for the reduced ability to spot details
- Giving various actions animations which reduce your control of the character

Meet those arguments and contribute to the discussion.

- Arguably, being able to see around corners ahead of time adds to, rather than diminishes, the tension of infiltration. Besides, it's just an extension of the concept that Looking Glass put into the game to begin with: The lean.

- No problem with tight crawlspaces can't be fixed by switching to first-person on the fly. I don't understand why this is such an issue. I prefer third person, but I'm not going to start peeing vinegar if a crawlspace gets tight and I have to switch. Also... the sudden change of camera angle changes the mindset of the player, making those segments feel even more claustrophobic than they would if the entire game was first-person. (And yes, Oblivion had those. Someone never played the Mehrunes' Razor quest... where you swam through cave tunnels no bigger than three or four feet across to find the thing. didn't break the game... and it won quite a few Game of the Year awards despite offering both viewpoints.)

- Archery: As I said, just because the game offers third-person doesn't mean you have to stay in it in perpetuity. I want both viewpoints, as I said. The same principal is at work during Thief's cutscenes. Is storytelling easier to do if we remain in first-person? Or did Looking Glass decide that seeing your character during these moments was preferable? See also: Fallout 3... a shooter... with third-person mode. Also a Game of the Year, for the record. The crosshair in both Oblivion and Morrowind is optional. You can switch it off. No reason Thief can't keep exactly the same archery mechanics.

- Your argument about oversized levels was already proven wrong. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Metal Gear Solid 2-4, Velvet Assassin... I could keep going. I even took the trouble of posting screenshots proving this argument wrong in the TTLG forums. Third person doesn't change a single thing about level design. And how important are tight crawlspaces to Thief, anyways?I have played and beaten every game in the series, and I can only think of a handful of situations where being in a tight crawlspace was mandatory. Actually, Splinter Cell: Double Agent had more of those moments, now that I think about it... crawling in air vents (The camera shifts to third-person over-the-shoulder perspective, for the record)... crawling under tanks during battle. All in third. Without once taking control from the player.

- Action animations? Like what? I don't recall the game taking control from me at any point during Thief: Deadly Shadows. What about third-person would out-and-out require you to have control taken from you. Nothing that wasn't already present in the series. When Garrett nocks an arrow to his bow... are you actually reaching around your back for the bow and arrow... or does the game do that for you? Thin... thin argument there, man. You seem to be assuming that we all want the game to be Assassin's Creed. You're mistaken.

Well, there you are. Contributing to the discussion. This is my last post in here, though. I'm tired of this merry-go-round already.

Platinumoxicity
31st Jan 2010, 22:15
Third person doesn't change a single thing about level design.

Then why are the small apartments of the poor in TDS twice as tall and more spacious than the ones in T1 and T2? Why are switches and items larger? Why is everything so huge? Why are there no small hidden items in small cramped places that you could only detect by looking very closely?

xAcerbusx
31st Jan 2010, 22:54
Wow. Cite specific examples and prepare to have them ignored in favor of vague suppositions about which game in the series I prefer (Thief II, for the record. not Deadly Shadows) or dwelling on one off-handed statement.

You sure are proving people wrong about the whole 'knee-jerk' thing.

Loup
31st Jan 2010, 23:03
- Arguably, being able to see around corners ahead of time adds to, rather than diminishes, the tension of infiltration. Besides, it's just an extension of the concept that Looking Glass put into the game to begin with: The lean.


So you mean that by being able to see around corners, without the character, which you are controlling need to peek around the corner for you to see"adds" to the the tension?
You don't even need to peek around the corner risking to be seen to know what is around the corner How is that even possible? It is out of the characters point of view. It adds further to the feeling that you are a puppet master who leads your puppet. "don't let the guards see the puppet!!!" Please specify further what you mean because if the above stated interpretation is correct I don't really know what to say.



- No problem with tight crawlspaces can't be fixed by switching to first-person on the fly. I don't understand why this is such an issue. I prefer third person, but I'm not going to start peeing vinegar if a crawlspace gets tight and I have to switch. Also... the sudden change of camera angle changes the mindset of the player, making those segments feel even more claustrophobic than they would if the entire game was first-person. (And yes, Oblivion had those. Someone never played the Mehrunes' Razor quest... where you swam through cave tunnels no bigger than three or four feet across to find the thing. didn't break the game... and it won quite a few Game of the Year awards despite offering both viewpoints.)

Now here you are actually contributing! Welcome to the discussion acerbuser! Changing between two views can indeed enhance the feeling of claustrophobia and is a possible solution for this aspect of tight spaces.


- Archery: As I said, just because the game offers third-person doesn't mean you have to stay in it in perpetuity. I want both viewpoints, as I said. The same principal is at work during Thief's cutscenes. Is storytelling easier to do if we remain in first-person? Or did Looking Glass decide that seeing your character during these moments was preferable? See also: Fallout 3... a shooter... with third-person mode. Also a Game of the Year, for the record. The crosshair in both Oblivion and Morrowind is optional. You can switch it off. No reason Thief can't keep exactly the same archery mechanics.

About archery, yes, changing from third person to first person when drawing the string is a possible solution. But we need to question the choice of design. My feeling about it is that it will feel quite annoying changing between the perspectives. Then, the first person view might toggle as long as you have the bow drawn instead of every time you draw the string.
The cutscenes is a completely irrelevant thing to bring up since they have nothing to do with the gameplay and game mechanics. Finally you argue that thief 4 should keep the archery mechanics so then I figure you don't think third person supported by a crosshair is a good design, which I agree upon.



- Your argument about oversized levels was already proven wrong. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Metal Gear Solid 2-4, Velvet Assassin... I could keep going. I even took the trouble of posting screenshots proving this argument wrong in the TTLG forums. Third person doesn't change a single thing about level design. And how important are tight crawlspaces to Thief, anyways?I have played and beaten every game in the series, and I can only think of a handful of situations where being in a tight crawlspace was mandatory. Actually, Splinter Cell: Double Agent had more of those moments, now that I think about it... crawling in air vents (The camera shifts to third-person over-the-shoulder perspective, for the record)... crawling under tanks during battle. All in third. Without once taking control from the player..

Being in tight crawlspaces is optional, a possible way of entry, exit etc. Which adds to the various ways to tackle a mission.

Tight level design can be countered as you said earlier by letting the camera switch to first person or hover over the shoulder when needed and may counter the situation where staring at the characters ass or neck because it covers most of your line of sight. But this is also a constant switching back an forth if you reach cramped areas. This is something which I personally feel is a bad game design and is annoying as hell. But when it works it it comes down to the question of aesthetics and is by that reason not worth arguing about.




- Action animations? Like what? I don't recall the game taking control from me at any point during Thief: Deadly Shadows. What about third-person would out-and-out require you to have control taken from you. Nothing that wasn't already present in the series. When Garrett nocks an arrow to his bow... are you actually reaching around your back for the bow and arrow... or does the game do that for you? Thin... thin argument there, man. You seem to be assuming that we all want the game to be Assassin's Creed. You're mistaken.

Well, there you are. Contributing to the discussion. This is my last post in here, though. I'm tired of this merry-go-round already.

Who are "all those which I think want another ass-creed"? Yes I was thinking about ass-creed, but also about prince of persia and Outcast (which you still have failed to mention which is probably one of the best third-person games ever done). Third person games is generally slower in responses and feedback because of every action is linked to animations. I'm not saying that this is bad in any of the earlier mentioned games, but in thief a slow feedback is simply not a good choice of design when dealing with the situations in general thief-gameplay. Your want to be able to act quick and by reflex. Having a non responsive feedback which you have to take into account when you need to act quick is nothing but frustrating. This is also linked to Garrett as a character which is supposed to feel nimble and quick on his feet. This can be achieved in third person but when not giving a third person character enough animations or not enough time to finish an animation, it feels jerky and it does not seem to follow the rules of basic physics. Great examples is going from standing still to running in morrowind, or the way the characters are moving in combat in Deus Ex. So my arguments are not thin, but I got to hand it to you that the topic was not very well stated.

It's a shame that you stop posting by the time that you are starting to actually contribute. I also think that you are taking things personally in a very childish manner. I'm not attacking you, but encouraging you to develop your thoughts instead of throwing angry conclusions around you.

Namdrol
1st Feb 2010, 00:16
Spandex grow a pair of balls and either stop making veiled insults or come right out and say who you mean.
Why shouldn't the game be firstperson?
The whole 3rd person is more immersive is quite an odd argument.
I'd rather do something than watch someone else do it.

ToMegaTherion
1st Feb 2010, 09:45
VtM: Bloodlines is a really immersive game that happily switches between the perspectives depending on what is more sensible, so that particular concern can be overcome. There are also lots of tight spaces where the third-person camera decides to be effectively first-person for a while. It's not perfect (it's usually better to switch to first person in such areas) but it isn't particularly bad, especially given the overall general technical scrappiness of the game.

Aelwe
1st Feb 2010, 15:49
First person. It's the only way to truly achieve the immersion of the first two games, the feeling of actually being there kinda disappears when using third person.
*If* third person could be added without messing with general level design or with first person, then sure...why not? But sadly it isn't possible. Also, if there is a third person mode, devs might get the temptation of doing cutscenes this way, instead of using the good old "animated" style :D

And about body awareness: on paper usually looks like a good idea that actually adds to the immersion, but sadly I have yet to see a game that does it right. There have been some that got it almost right, but these were mostly action/fps games (Severance, Dark Messiah of M&M, Mirror's Edge, etc.); making it work for a game where stealth and movement is more important than action is much more difficult, and the devs can spend this time on other, more important things.

Telex
1st Feb 2010, 16:43
I L0L at anyone who doesn't think that 3rd person effects level design. I L0L hard.

xAcerbusx
1st Feb 2010, 23:30
I L0L at anyone who doesn't think that 3rd person effects level design. I L0L hard.

I 'L0L' at a few things:

-People who use the phrase 'L0L' in a sentence. With a zero, no less

-People who use the words 'effects' and 'affects' interchangeably.

-Those who have likely never played enough third-person stealth games to judge the impact of third-person on level design, but nevertheless offer their opinions on the issue. (e.g. this entire thread)

Psychomorph
2nd Feb 2010, 00:32
-People who use the words 'effects' and 'affects' interchangeably.
Lol.

glyph07
2nd Feb 2010, 12:23
Third-person, I would argue, allows the player to bond more closely with the character because they can actually see who it is that they are playing as.

With 1st person character the player doesn't need to bond with it, because the player is actually within the character, which is the top it can be asked, in my opinion.

esme
2nd Feb 2010, 12:39
With 1st person character the player doesn't need to bond with it, because the player is actually within the character, which is the top it can be asked, in my opinion.

yup :flowers:

Moi dix Mois
2nd Feb 2010, 15:04
Thief 4 should be in second person.
Just as soon as somebody gets a holodeck working.

Psychomorph
2nd Feb 2010, 16:01
Thief 4 should be in second person.
Lol.

Oon Kuka Oon
2nd Feb 2010, 16:13
-Those who have likely never played enough third-person stealth games to judge the impact of third-person on level design, but nevertheless offer their opinions on the issue. (e.g. this entire thread)

It's obvious you haven't played enough Thief to see how great immersion 1st person allows, and not enough TDS to see what damage 3rd person can do.

xAcerbusx
2nd Feb 2010, 18:20
It's obvious you haven't played enough Thief to see how great immersion 1st person allows, and not enough TDS to see what damage 3rd person can do.

Yes. By all means. Don't read my previous posts (Where I explained that Thief II is my favorite in the series). Make erroneous assumptions about my personal taste, and then cap it off with a generalization about Third-Person gaming based on one game released by a nearly-bankrupt company six years ago. Now you're thinking like a TTLG poster.

It certainly beats forming cogent arguments or backing them up with fact.

Moi dix Mois
2nd Feb 2010, 19:04
Now you're thinking like a TTLG poster.
What the **** is this?

Oon Kuka Oon
2nd Feb 2010, 19:04
xAcerbusx.
So you focused on that I said you haven't played enough Thief, ignoring the point of my post. And you decided to missunderstand that I was claiming that you haven't played Thief at all.
If you don't answer to arguments, this discussion leads to nothing.

And yes there is lots of 3rd person games, but they are so different that it's difficult to properly compare them to Thief. That's why TDS is only proper example of what 3rd person does to Thief-like FPSneaker.
And you say that 3rd person wrecked TDS becouse they lacked money, wt*? Explain what they couldn't afford to make 3rd person better. And you should explain how the problems with having 3rd person can be fixed.
And it seems to me that you're also mixing things. I'm not accusing 3rd person of everything that was wrong with TDS, but indisputably 3rd person screwed up many things. If you like TMA, I presume that you think you don't like it because of 1st person, but some other things, and so your overall opinion of TMA doesn't matter when we're talking about should it be 3rd or 1st person. If you like TMA becouse of 1st person, you're idiot if you are trying to get 3rd person into Thief IV.

Are you a 5 year old child that says "I like it becouse I like it so much and I prefer it to others, and you're stupid" or are you able to make proper arguments of why Thief IV should have 3rd person included, and answer to arguments against 3rd person?

Namdrol
2nd Feb 2010, 19:23
I agree with Oon K Oon, it seems that "Acerbus's" only argument is, I like it and if you don't then you're dumb.

thinking like a TTLG poster and proud of it

xAcerbusx
2nd Feb 2010, 21:50
So... citing examples of games where atmosphere and immersion were not broken (my earlier post, mentioning Velvet Assassin) isn't tantamount to forming an argument or backing it up with fact?

Explaining how no problem with the camera couldn't be fixed by switching to FP on-the-fly...

...also not a fact or an argument, evidently.

Explaining that games like Splinter Cell Double Agent have even more cramped areas than Thief, (Effectively killing the 'levels have to be BIG to accomodate Third Person argument that jtr7 loves to throw around without troubling himself to back it up) and that switching to an over-the-shoulder perspective not only fixes this, but enhances the player's feeling of 'infiltration'?

...I'm still not making arguments or backing them up with facts, apparently.

I'm surprised you people take a break from sipping your own Kool-Aid long enough to even reply to my posts, frankly.

Namdrol
2nd Feb 2010, 23:00
Camera spinning round on the fly, shifting perspective at the drop of a hat, changing views is one of the worst features of computer gaming ever.
It is the most immersion breaking thing bar none.
And if 3rd person is so damn good why does it have to resort to first person to get it out of a tight squeeze?
Saying Splinter Cell has more cramped areas than Thief doesn't make it true because it hasn't.
And Velvet Assassin has nothing to do with Thief so stop pretending it does.
Why do you want to make Thief an action game? Why?
It is a slow, careful thoughtful game.

Please, if you want to play rubbish like Assassins Creed go and play it and let us have our games.
We've been through this again and again, Captain Spandex/xAcerbusx

Pieter888
2nd Feb 2010, 23:16
we all know velvet assassin will never be close to thief, but we are talking about camera modes right? why bring up gameplay differenses while it was an example of how the camera was handled?
i do prefer first person mode, but simply because it worked so well in the previous thief titles. though TDS got both modes wrong... Makes me wonder how thief would play if done right :)

Namdrol
2nd Feb 2010, 23:27
why bring up gameplay differenses while it was an example of how the camera was handled?


The pointless point was made that because one game had third person that worked so should Thief.
I have a feeling it was from a book Captain Spandex is writing called "How to Sidestep Arguments With Merit by Clinging to Pointless Minutiae"

Pieter888
2nd Feb 2010, 23:46
Aside from the discussion. who is captain spendex... am i missing something? I assume you mean xAcerbusx by captain spendex but why?

Back on topic: i know of the technical difficulty of third person, i also don't see third person working for thief, but this oppinion of mine might be affected by TDS's take on third person mode. i hope EM knows what their doeing when they decide to go thirdperson.

The biggest reason for me to say third person is a no-go is that it changes the was the player hears sound.

Pieter888
3rd Feb 2010, 00:02
*Looks back in the art thread*
I can't believe 'captain spendex' was explained in the art thread already and i missed it...

xAcerbusx
3rd Feb 2010, 00:21
The pointless point was made that because one game had third person that worked so should Thief.
I have a feeling it was from a book Captain Spandex is writing called "How to Sidestep Arguments With Merit by Clinging to Pointless Minutiae"

Okay...
All arguments aside...

...that was a pretty good one.

Namdrol
3rd Feb 2010, 00:56
;)
.

ToMegaTherion
3rd Feb 2010, 10:07
A third-person view that effectively zooms into a first person view when things are too cramped works quite well, I find. It rather cements the "this bit is claustophobic" feeling that one wants to create.

Namdrol
3rd Feb 2010, 10:17
But why have a third person view at all if you need to use a first person view?

ToMegaTherion
3rd Feb 2010, 12:31
Presumably there is some reason why people like third person views in general situations (I can't control third person easily, perhaps a lot of people have the opposite skills?). So if we start from the assumption that third person is preferable to someone (it must be, else it wouldn't be used), we observe that even for this person, there will occasionally be moments where the third person view stops being preferable. In such moments we want to move to the currently-optimal first person perspective, and then switch back out as soon as it becomes non-optimal again.

Basically, we shouldn't assume the stance "I like third person more than first person" means "I like third person more than first person in all situations". So finding a situation where first person works and third person doesn't doesn't mean we've demonstrated third person players to be wrong, we've just identified an area where they'd be forced to agree that a temporary first-person switch would be a good idea.

And that the approach "third person does not handle cramped areas well, we must avoid cramped areas" is bad design, and the correct approach is "third person does not handle cramped areas well, so let's use something else when in such an area."

Moi dix Mois
3rd Feb 2010, 13:59
Third person perspective is unimmersive and exploitable - it gives the player a significant advantage over the NPCs through a significantly wider field of view, and allowing limited view to the rear of the player at all time. It also allows the player to cheat by spinning the camera around corners without exposing the avatar. A limited first person perspective places the player in the avatar's shoes, and is more claustrophobic and tense, because the player's field of view and awareness is limited, giving a feeling of vulnerability.

It's a pointless conversation though. The developers have already made their choice (though we don't know it yet) and nothing said here will change their minds. We just have to hope that they are clever enough to recognise the advantages of first person and limit the game to that mode only.

Oon Kuka Oon
3rd Feb 2010, 16:19
So... citing examples of games where atmosphere and immersion were not broken (my earlier post, mentioning Velvet Assassin) isn't tantamount to forming an argument or backing it up with fact?

Explaining how no problem with the camera couldn't be fixed by switching to FP on-the-fly...

...also not a fact or an argument, evidently.

You are ignoring the reality.
Maybe 3rd person doesn't break immersion in your opinion, but 99% of potential buyers of Thief want 1st person.
-> Thief will never be 3rd person only.

So you have to convince us of that there can be 3rd person without breaking 1st person.
You have to answer to these arguments:
- how to stop your body, which you'll have becouse of 3rd person not blocking your view
- how 1st person can be solid when the avatar is doing the animations necessary for 3rd person at the same time
- how interacting with world can be solid in 1st person, with body awareness necessary to 3rd person
- whatever I can't remember just now

You have to also convince us of that it's worth it to use money and time to make 3rd person.

xAcerbusx
3rd Feb 2010, 21:19
You are ignoring the reality.
Maybe 3rd person doesn't break immersion in your opinion, but 99% of potential buyers of Thief want 1st person.
-> Thief will never be 3rd person only.

There's a difference between '99% of potential Thief buyers'...and a handful of very dedicated fans on this forum and TTLG. The former are Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell fans that probably don't care what point of view the game is set in to begin with, but they are probably more familiar with third than first, anyways. The latter detest third-person almost irrationally. Mention it, and you instantly get pages and pages of arguing. Not that I want to pander to the former and dispense with the latter at all. But there's a benefit to both views, and with the release of DS, there is a precedent for it, as well.


You have to answer to these arguments:
- how to stop your body, which you'll have becouse of 3rd person not blocking your view
- how 1st person can be solid when the avatar is doing the animations necessary for 3rd person at the same time
- how interacting with world can be solid in 1st person, with body awareness necessary to 3rd person

It's been discussed before, but body awareness isn't required. Thief: Deadly Shadows was very unique in its inclusion of body awareness. It drew the ire of the TDP-worshipping set for this reason, but it also attracted interest for this reason, as well. I remember sitting a friend of mine down to finally show him the third Thief game (I'd already introduced him to the first two years before) and as soon as he switched to first-person, creeping through the cellar in the training mission, and noticed that his player still cast a shadow... he was sold. In a way that he wasn't when I'd shown him the first two.

Personally, I'm on the fence about Body Awareness. It's a unique trait that is rarely attempted in gaming, so it would probably generate positive word-of-mouth, and I think walking through a house and suddenly seeing your shadow cast on the wall in-game goes a very long way toward making the player feel 'immersed'. Especially if - with modern gaming hardware - we could finally make it realistic enough so that on higher levels of difficulty, the enemies could be tipped off by the mere sight of your shadow.

But BA isn't required for good 1st-to-3rd transitions. Oblivion is a good example of this.


You have to also convince us of that it's worth it to use money and time to make 3rd person.

Ubisoft Montreal built an engine for Assassin's Creed from scratch at a time when Ubisoft had just about the resources and team size of EM. Granted, the UM team eventually swelled, but the initial engine creation and design was done by a relatively small team.

And the game was a monster in a year of monster games. As a new IP.

Eidos Montreal doesn't have the challenge of building a new engine. They also don't have the challenge of being a new IP. They've got the time and resources. Again... this isn't Ion Storm and it's not Looking Glass. It's not a dying company on its way out the door. They're owned by Square Enix. A big company with lots of money.

Namdrol
3rd Feb 2010, 21:36
Ubisoft Montreal built an engine for Assassin's Creed from scratch at a time when Ubisoft had just about the resources and team size of EM.
No no and no. Misrepresented half truths.
Assassins Creed took 4 years and ended up with 150 (http://www.nowgamer.com/news/513/assassins-creed-ii-triples-size-of-dev-team) people working on it.
So even if they only had 80 people for 2 years they had another 2 years with twice that number.
And they built a game only in third person. Not in both 1st and 3rd with all the extra work that entails.
Or is this what you want for Thief? Only third person?
Thief 4 as has been stated again and again will have no more than 80 people working on it and will take 2 years.

xAcerbusx
3rd Feb 2010, 22:19
I thought I clarified this already.

The work creating Assassin's Creed's scimitar engine took place while the team was no larger than EM's Thief team. Perhaps smaller, even.

And yes. The team eventually swelled. But that is completely irrelevant to a discussion concerning the sort of changes that are done early on in development. Such as adding body awareness and third person. No matter which way you look at it, the "We have nae time, cap'n!" argument doesn't hold water. Particularly with Deus Ex 3's development cycle being granted an extension.

Namdrol
3rd Feb 2010, 22:27
Eventually swelled? IT WAS OVER TWICE THE SIZE OF THE THIEF 4 TEAM AND THE GAME TOOK 4 YEARS TO MAKE.
Stop pulling numbers out your but.
Provide links and evidence like I did or stop using these arguments.
You are the one who used Assassins Creed as an example of how combining a third person and first person view in one game would have no impact on development time. WTF?
Despite the development time and number of team members being so widely different and the fact that AC was ONLY THIRD PERSON.

xAcerbusx
3rd Feb 2010, 23:35
Jade Raymond talked about the small size of the team that made the engine on the interviews included on the bonus disc of the Assassin's Creed (1) Collector's Edition. And in the GTTV interview that you can find quite easily at GameTrailers.com

But the fact that you're completely mistaken about how large the AC team was in the beginning isn't relevant. I could have used a hundred different examples. The team that made Morrowind - which featured both views - had around 60 people, twenty less than Eidos Montreal, and that's with me including writers and artists, people who never had to mess with first-to-third integration.

I used AC as an example. For context. You're acting like adding third-person would suddenly bankrupt Eidos Montreal and sap the company's resources. Like if they spend even half a minute programming some character animations, suddenly the world is going to come to a screeching halt.

Thief 4 is using an established engine. And has money, whatever the size of their team is. They are NOT building an engine from the ground up and third person's inclusion isn't suddenly going to drain every financial resource in Square Enix's pocket book, either.

It does not matter how large the team is because - using an existing engine - it will be much easier to implement third person than if they also built it from the ground up.

You're desperately grasping at straws, here. Picking apart one phrase, and ignoring the entire argument in context. I'm just apparently the only person who sees the irony that a game series that was made by Looking Glass and Ion Storm - two studios that were defined by their ability to never be afraid of trying new things - is now in your estimation defined by a specific formula. Any change greater than "Hey lets take loot glint away and make annotations on maps printable" is unwelcome and unnatural, and invariably gets flamed into submission or politely dismissed out-of-hand.

Namdrol
3rd Feb 2010, 23:59
Do you have inside knowledge?
There is one piece of information about the Thief engine on the internet.
And that is a unsubstantiated report of a conversation between a guy walking his dog and an Eidos Montreal web developer.
Apart from that there is no information at all about what engine Thief4 is being built on.
If I'm wrong please provide a link.
I am not saying third person would bankrupt anyone.
What I am saying is that time spent on one thing is time taken away from another.
How you can deny this is beyond me.
And show me were I was mistaken about the size of the AC team at the beginning, I didn't mention once how large it was at the start.

Oon Kuka Oon
4th Feb 2010, 16:24
There's a difference between '99% of potential Thief buyers'...and a handful of very dedicated fans on this forum and TTLG. The former are Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell fans that probably don't care what point of view the game is set in to begin with, but they are probably more familiar with third than first, anyways. The latter detest third-person almost irrationally. Mention it, and you instantly get pages and pages of arguing. Not that I want to pander to the former and dispense with the latter at all. But there's a benefit to both views, and with the release of DS, there is a precedent for it, as well.

So... if majority of potential buyers want 3rd person, why only you are here arguing?! :mad2:
Get back to reality.
And didn't I just say that Thief will never be 3rd person only? Where are those pages and pages arguing? :lol:
Only you see benefit to both views. I think EM sees no benefit making 3rd person just for you.




It's been discussed before, but body awareness isn't required. Thief: Deadly Shadows was very unique in its inclusion of body awareness. It drew the ire of the TDP-worshipping set for this reason, but it also attracted interest for this reason, as well. I remember sitting a friend of mine down to finally show him the third Thief game (I'd already introduced him to the first two years before) and as soon as he switched to first-person, creeping through the cellar in the training mission, and noticed that his player still cast a shadow... he was sold. In a way that he wasn't when I'd shown him the first two.

Personally, I'm on the fence about Body Awareness. It's a unique trait that is rarely attempted in gaming, so it would probably generate positive word-of-mouth, and I think walking through a house and suddenly seeing your shadow cast on the wall in-game goes a very long way toward making the player feel 'immersed'. Especially if - with modern gaming hardware - we could finally make it realistic enough so that on higher levels of difficulty, the enemies could be tipped off by the mere sight of your shadow.

But BA isn't required for good 1st-to-3rd transitions. Oblivion is a good example of this.


So you don't demand body awareness? And btw, you don't need real body to give Garrett a shadow.
You haven't answered to these yet:
- how make sure the avatar doesn't block the view in 1st person?
- how keep 1st person solid when the avatar is doing animations?

Platinumoxicity
4th Feb 2010, 17:26
- how make sure the avatar doesn't block the view in 1st person?

1. Have the "head" slightly in front of the body awareness model, and make the 1st animations different in a way that they avoid blocking any parts of the screen at all times. (FEAR, TCoR)
2.Have an entirely separate 1st person mode that doesn't have a model at all. (Half-Life, T1&T2)


- how keep 1st person solid when the avatar is doing animations?

1. Make dynamic animations that respond to the player's input only. This will slightly sacrifice the visual look of the animations in 3rd person but everyone knows that it's the feel and gameplay that are more important. In this case the movement in 3rd person will be identical to 1st person movement, and just as fluid. (Jedi Knight 1&2)
2.Have an entirely separate 1st person mode that doesn't have a model at all. (Half-Life, T1&T2)

The separate 1st person mode comes with 1 problem that might be a slight inconvenience to 3rd person players. Because it's movement and feel are superb in every way compared to 3rd person, the 3rd person players will get jealous at the 1sters because they're always being blocked by the avatar in tight situations while the 1sters don't have anything to whine about. :D

Oon Kuka Oon
4th Feb 2010, 17:33
Putting the "head" in front of real head would be a bit problematic, as it's hard to estimate where you really are.
As I have suggested earlier, it would be best to keep 1st and 3rd person completely separate.
Thief should be made into 1st person, and 3rd person can be offered later by a patch (we don't want 3rd person to take time from everything else that is being made to the game itself, do we?).

Platinumoxicity
4th Feb 2010, 17:36
Putting the "head" in front of real head would be a bit problematic, as it's hard to estimate where you really are.

:scratch:

"Hard to estimate where you really are?" It's the player's "self" that's driving the animated body that's attached to it, not the other way around. (Except in TDS, but that's a horrible example)

Oon Kuka Oon
4th Feb 2010, 19:07
Didn't you suggest putting the head slightly in front of the body aw. model?
... when the avatar would be slightly behind the camera, and player would of course think that the body is where the camera is, which won't be true anymore.