- Status
Shavod;n10950278 said:
Having any kind of character customization affecting only in game NPCs and not the person who is playing the game is the definition of "completely pointless".
Lisbeth_Salander;n10950293 said:
But it still affects your character through it's interactions with NPC's, like people in the night club of low repute telling you to F off when you try to talk with them while wearing expensive looking business suit or some low lifes trying to mug you in the alley when they see you looking like that, assuming logically that it means you are pretty stacked as well. This kind of interactions are something that I really wanted from the game based on early promises of how the way you look may impact storyline. Having customization for cosmetic purposes only, just to be able to look at yourself, will make it nothing more then a novelty that will wear off a minute after putting on a new suit or trying a new hairstyle, before you stop paying any attention to your character appearance. And that's, my good sir/madam, is my definition of "completely pointless".
Lisbeth_Salander;n10950293 said:
I have to disagree.
1) Full customization which affects gameplay but without possibility to look at my character during gameplay still has a purpose which is rather clear.
2) Full customization only for me to admire how my character looks is actually pointless FOR ME.
Of course best is to combine both - affecting gameplay by how you look and let player to admire what he created but If I had to choose I would choose 1.
Because I am rather into FPP than TPP it would be completely sufficient for me to be able to preview my character only from the character menu.
Shavod;n10950344 said:
What you're implying is that Cyberpunk 2077 is either in "first person with npcs reacting to your style or a third person game for cosmetic purposes only". It might sound crazy, but it's actually possible to have a third person game with npcs reacting to you.
In a first person perspective only game, the player will mostly react to his/her main character's appearence when NPCs' also react to it. (perhaps also when using the inventory, etc.)
In a third person perspective only game, the players impact to how his/her main character looks like won't be dependent to NPCs' reactions. Also, NPC's reactions to the main character's appearence will have more impact to the player since he/she will be also able to see it.
Should CP2077 have only a third person perspective? Not at all, it should have both TPP and FPP. CDPR should give players the option to alternate between them both.
Lisbeth_Salander;n10950371 said:
Did I? I don't recall anything of sort.
You made an argument of how customization would be pointless in first person perspective, because you couldn't see your character, I offered counter argument to that, but in no way I implied that customization having some sort of impact on gameplay would be impossible to do in third person.
Lisbeth_Salander;n10950293 said:
On the contrary. If the game reacts to your characters looks, it means it's been specifically taken care of that your looks matter.
I know that in several games, like Skyrim and Breath of the Wild, NPCs can react to what your character is wearing. Skyrim, they even react to what race your character is.
It shouldn't be that hard to add to a game when it's mostly ground already tread by a number of others.
It shouldn't be that hard to add to a game when it's mostly ground already tread by a number of others.
Yeah. It's not difficult stuff.
The question is, is simply having NPCs react to your clothing -- although you can't see any of it (except for your arms) -- enough? For some people, such as Kofe, it is. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not a superior (or inferior) preference.
For others, such as myself, actually seeing the badass outfits CDPR's artists spent all that time on regularly, and as often as I'd like (free toggle between FPP/TPP, for example) is definitely necessary. Adding onto that with NPC reactions would be great.
It's a perfect example of a win-win situation. If there's a free toggle, nobody has reason to be upset unless one mode is complete garbage compared to the other. Plus, you get NPC reactions and cosmetic fun.
The question is, is simply having NPCs react to your clothing -- although you can't see any of it (except for your arms) -- enough? For some people, such as Kofe, it is. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not a superior (or inferior) preference.
For others, such as myself, actually seeing the badass outfits CDPR's artists spent all that time on regularly, and as often as I'd like (free toggle between FPP/TPP, for example) is definitely necessary. Adding onto that with NPC reactions would be great.
It's a perfect example of a win-win situation. If there's a free toggle, nobody has reason to be upset unless one mode is complete garbage compared to the other. Plus, you get NPC reactions and cosmetic fun.
Free toggle is notoriously buggy. Just about every game I've seen with it has some problems somewhere that the devs eventually give up on. Bethesda have been relying on their modding community to correct these bugs for years. And their games are typically good examples of free toggle implementation. I've noticed developers who pride themselves on relatively bug free games avoid free toggle like the plague because of the issues it has.
I'm not saying I don't think it will be included, but I can definitely see reasons why they might avoid it.
I'm not saying I don't think it will be included, but I can definitely see reasons why they might avoid it.
BaalNergal;n10950581 said:
Please name a few games other than Bethesda titles with particularly buggy free toggles. Please also elaborate on what the inherent bugs you feel free toggle brings to the table.
Also, I've never had issues with Bethesda's camera toggles, so I'm actually not sure what you're referring to. I've played every one of their games except Morrowind on release.
Third person doesn't look that great, but that's because Bethesda's animators didn't spend much time on them. Not because it was buggy.
Snowflakez;n10950611 said:
Tribes and Tribes 2, notable for lack of crosshair in third person.
H1Z1 problems with camera randomly locking while in first-person mode.
GTA V camera started glitching on not displaying what is on the ground if you are airborne after first-person camera added. It also has a bug with shooting. And I've seen random complaints about lighting differences between the two modes.
PUBG third-person camera glitchy after first-person mode added.
Blade and Soul camera getting stuck in first-person mode.
And the list goes on.
The bugs are usually related to the camera getting stuck or animations in first-person mode glitching out.
Usually, the complaints are about stuck camera, arms getting stuck above your head (Fallout series is prone to this one), or other animation problems in first person related to the arms. I've noticed people tend to be more forgiving of the third-person animations due to lack of glitches.
BaalNergal;n10950581 said:
In my many years of playing games with a toggle between 1st and 3rd person, I have rarely experienced buggy toggles.
BaalNergal;n10950788 said:
I'm currently playing GTA V/Online and with 150 hours played I've never experienced this at all. And people are stupid, yes there is a lighting difference in first person if you are wearing sunglasses as Rockstar went out of their way to program first person mode to be affected if your character is wearing sunglasses. My only issue with 1st person mode is when I'm trying to drive a car as it feels awkward.
BaalNergal;n10950788 said:
I put in some decent time in playing this game a few years back and never experienced this issue.
BaalNergal;n10950788 said:
I have also played Fallout 3 and New Vegas for a long time and not once did I ever encounter this bug. And I wouldn't say it's the full series as you seem to be making it out to be because the first 3 Fallout games are isometric RPGs and not 3rd/1st person shooters like 3, New Vegas and 4 are.
Snowflakez;n10950566 said:
In GTA 5 and GTA Online, the NPCs react to the kind of car your character drives. If it's a high end model that take pictures of it and react in a positive manner while lesser cars are mocked. My only issue with NPC reactions in GTA5/Online is in 5 where the NPCs instantly react negatively and run away from your character as you just stand there doing nothing. What is funny is that many people make the claim you can easily kill NPCs with out retaliation. Very wrong, ever since GTA3, some NPCs will fight back or hunt you down if you steal their car. One time long ago in GTA3, I had stolen a car from a little old lady npc, I didn't go far because I thought she would run away, NOPE, she ran up to the car pulled me out and ran me over to get away.
The toggle isn't the issue, the reality is any game that does that still has design that favors a single viewpoint. Bethesda games for instance are clearly meant for FP. The closest to parity I've seen has been GTA5, but even that is awkward in FP in certain situations.
Garrison72;n10951238 said:
For me it's the driving in first-person, at times it feels like the camera is set in the back seat so it's hard to see around the steering wheel and dashboard while you're driving.
I'll admit I've not experienced significant issues with camera toggles either. Minor annoyances at best, and the arms issue that somehow plagues the Bethesda Fallout games (it's always a Fallout game I see this for; something related to the guns, maybe?) is one I've only seen in New Vegas and even then was only an occasional annoying glitch.
But the key point I was trying to make was the word "notorious." Even if these bugs are being overblown or a result of player error, there are still a lot of people complaining about them. That combined with the fact that even most games made with free toggle were clearly designed for only one camera creates a reason for a company to be leery of making the attempt. Which is what I was saying: I can see a reason why CDP might not go for free toggle in Cyberpunk 2077. Especially since they have not done such before and have so much else they could fit into the game instead.
But the key point I was trying to make was the word "notorious." Even if these bugs are being overblown or a result of player error, there are still a lot of people complaining about them. That combined with the fact that even most games made with free toggle were clearly designed for only one camera creates a reason for a company to be leery of making the attempt. Which is what I was saying: I can see a reason why CDP might not go for free toggle in Cyberpunk 2077. Especially since they have not done such before and have so much else they could fit into the game instead.
walkingdarkly;n10951187 said:
The retaliation is minor, and not long-lived. I don't particularly care if an idiotic NPC pulls out a pistol to get back at me for stealing his car. His aim sucks (always), and I'll either run him over or simply leave without taking more than one bullet, if that.
If someone tries to pull me out of the car, I'll kill them in two punches because they suck at fighting back (no matter who they are), or I'll simply drive off as they helplessly try to hold on to the wheel. Or I'll simply outrun them in less than 15 seconds, or leap over a barrier because they apparently don't know how to climb.
The GTA games are designed around causing chaos, they aren't designed with realistic consequences in mind, so none of this is a bad thing. I'm just clarifying why people say there's no retaliation. There's no meaningful retaliation. People don't come after you later in the game after using their criminal contacts to hunt you down. You can kill dozens of police with impunity, because you have either magic partial-regenerating health, or an RPG with 80 rockets.
Again, none of this is bad, but nothing about GTA's "consequences" system is realistic. At least, very little of it is. It's nice to see Rockstar making attempts to add more world reactivity, though, it didn't go unnoticed for me. I loved it and hope they continue doing it.
But I agree with virtually everything you said about the TPP/FPP thing.
BaalNergal;n10951313 said:
Notorious is not the correct word if most people do not have issues with the camera toggles, though. That implies it's a widespread issue, which it is not.
Over 1300 hours in Skyrim so far and I've never had a significant camera bug. The only issue I had was that the crosshair was slightly off, which was easily fixed by a tweak I made myself and not that big of a deal for gameplay (you quickly learn to aim properly to compensate).
As such, I see absolutely no reason CDPR shouldn't/can't/won't go with a free toggle. Aside from minor bugs, as Su and Walking pointed out, there are no major inherent issues with having the option.
The reason Bethesda's third person sucks is because their animators suck at making third person animations. They aren't good at giving weight to attacks, or adding variety, or even making them look believable.
They improved upon this slightly in Fallout 4, but it was still an issue. That's a Bethesda thing, not a TPP/mixed perspective thing. If Bethesda had more talented animators with a bigger budget, I'm 100% certain they could make both perspectives fantastic. On top of that, they are using an incredibly dated engine.
By contrast, many, many games do third person just fine, even if they have first person as well. GTA V is a good example. Many mixed perspective MMOs, as well.
GTA V was made with third person in mind; of course it does third person well. Just like how Bethesda makes with first person in mind and does that well. Those are differences in design focus.
And if you want a good reason, take a look at Garrison's post. GTA V comes closest to having the cameras working without bugs in both modes. A game that cost $265 million. Skyrim only cost $90 million, and unless my read of their comments on the issue is wrong, we're probably looking at a budget closer to Fallout 4 for Cyberpunk 2077.
Given their likely budget and the camera issues that plague the games of a similar budget, do you think they might have a reason to be leery of free toggle?
And if you want a good reason, take a look at Garrison's post. GTA V comes closest to having the cameras working without bugs in both modes. A game that cost $265 million. Skyrim only cost $90 million, and unless my read of their comments on the issue is wrong, we're probably looking at a budget closer to Fallout 4 for Cyberpunk 2077.
Given their likely budget and the camera issues that plague the games of a similar budget, do you think they might have a reason to be leery of free toggle?
BaalNergal;n10951352 said:
You keep bringing up camera issues. We've already discussed these issues are few and far between.
We also don't have absolutely no idea what 2077's budget is, so I don't think we can use that as a point of argument.
I already laid out all of my thoughts, I'm not going to repeat them here. We will have to agree to disagree, it seems.
- Status