On the OP subject:
One of the things making a game feel cool for me is the mechanics: movement, combat, interaction, etc. Found out today the game will support both first person and third person perspectives, and also there's a lot of talk about a multiplayer feature. I fear the scope in these regards is too large and something will end up underdeveloped. Let me briefly explain why:
1. Developing a complex FPS experience in regard of mechanics (with a lot of first person presence - like seeing your hands do various actions, for example) is a totally different volume of work than developing a complex 3rd person perspective experience (body animations, maybe a cover system, various types of interactions with the environment). So there are basically 2 separate and large volumes of work.
2. A first person perspective implies a less straight up reactive environment, while in a 3rd person perspective game, the environment has to be way more tightly connected and wrapped around the player's actions. Switching from FP to TP, while maintaining a high level of detail for each, would actually mean changing between 2 different sets of environmental behaviors. I strongly doubt that's easy to code.
3. In multiplayer, the limits to movement types and actions types are very high. Any additional move, no matter how cool it feels or looks, means loss of time and a chance to get wasted. Also, you can't lock a player into a reaction animation imposed by another player, because it always would feel unfair and there will be a lot of rage.
One perfect example of what I'm talking about is SW Battlefront 2 ('cause it's the latest I've played; there are a ton of others), albeit it's exclusively about combat (the core principle stands though). Even though it does provide a 3rd person view, the mechanics are exclusively developed for FPS. Not only you feel it's missing something in 3rd person, but it's also clunky and annoying to play it like that, be it in multiplayer or the campaign. It simply feels really dated in this specific regard.
One of the things making a game feel cool for me is the mechanics: movement, combat, interaction, etc. Found out today the game will support both first person and third person perspectives, and also there's a lot of talk about a multiplayer feature. I fear the scope in these regards is too large and something will end up underdeveloped. Let me briefly explain why:
1. Developing a complex FPS experience in regard of mechanics (with a lot of first person presence - like seeing your hands do various actions, for example) is a totally different volume of work than developing a complex 3rd person perspective experience (body animations, maybe a cover system, various types of interactions with the environment). So there are basically 2 separate and large volumes of work.
2. A first person perspective implies a less straight up reactive environment, while in a 3rd person perspective game, the environment has to be way more tightly connected and wrapped around the player's actions. Switching from FP to TP, while maintaining a high level of detail for each, would actually mean changing between 2 different sets of environmental behaviors. I strongly doubt that's easy to code.
3. In multiplayer, the limits to movement types and actions types are very high. Any additional move, no matter how cool it feels or looks, means loss of time and a chance to get wasted. Also, you can't lock a player into a reaction animation imposed by another player, because it always would feel unfair and there will be a lot of rage.
One perfect example of what I'm talking about is SW Battlefront 2 ('cause it's the latest I've played; there are a ton of others), albeit it's exclusively about combat (the core principle stands though). Even though it does provide a 3rd person view, the mechanics are exclusively developed for FPS. Not only you feel it's missing something in 3rd person, but it's also clunky and annoying to play it like that, be it in multiplayer or the campaign. It simply feels really dated in this specific regard.
Last edited:
