FPP only cutscenes might be a deal-breaker for me

[SigilFey]

I'll just share an anecdotal story that by no means should be read as anything beyond only what is being described, but this did really happen recently -- I was on a very busy livestream for another announced game, and there were probably about 20ishk people on there at the time. Cyberpunk came up and I was genuinely shocked at how many people were trashing the game because of both all FPP and no TPP cutscenes. It was pretty pervasive and it wasn't by just a select minority of people but quite a bit of people. Granted, these might not the target audience of CP2077 and it could even be anomalous to that specific situation, but I was genuinely shocked how aggressive this stream was against the game and how many people were as a third prong joking about "V on mirrors" TPP and the fourth prong I was seeing a lot too was about how terrible the dev reveal was with them sitting around, etc. I'm pretty open minded about FPP and like it for gunplay, but I worry the FPP won't' really show V's actual body all the time 100% of the time and you will be stuck with invisible head with no torso, legs, feet, etc all the time.

I think they’ve already confirmed you can see V’s body when you look down.

And anyways, people tend to complain about vanity features more than the actual substance. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it. I’d echo the choir if it had anything to do with how the game works mechanically, but since it’s mostly about what’s on the screen in detail... meh.

I personally put little stock in such casual gatherings of people ganging up on something. Firstly, people tend to group up and get vocal when they dislike something, but will hardly ever take the time to express themselves when they do like something. (We're living in a world where simple please's and thank-you's are no longer the norm.) For big uproars of negativity, it's largely deindividuation. I would bet that over half of the people that wind up jumping into such discussions would probably never have cared enough to say anything -- until they were suddenly immersed in a sea of negativity about it. Then, it's the path of least resistance to join in. Basic human psychology, and the anonymity of the internet makes it rife. (Note: I am NOT stating that there are not strong arguments on both sides, I am simply identifying that nay-saying tends to be loud, and appreciation tends to be silent. We will largely ever only hear from the negative perspective. I take any such situations with a grain of salt.)

I will state what I always have: the game needs a sense of itself. Anyone can have pre-conceptions about what an upcoming title will be. Many people put a lot of stock in their own imaginings, then enter into an experience with the expectation that their assumptions will be honored and their fears assuaged. I'd say that such an outlook is prone to result in disappointment on a fairly regular basis. I prefer to remove myself completely from the equation and look at a project as objectively as I can.

I can easily see why remaining in FPP for cutscenes helps to create a continuous flow to the action and energy. If handled more like Half-Life, the player is always directly involved in the present action from the gameplay perspective (as opposed to being disconnected for a non-interactive sequence). We lose some vanity elements, possibly some visual connection to our characters, but we simultaneously gain a more seamless, cohesive experience of the action.

As always, liking it or not will be up to each player. Doesn't mean that any creator should compromise their vision to humor the whims or preferences of others.

 

[Itsdacisco]

Just...let the chefs cook. Then, try the dish.

Or not.

Ok I might try it after reviews come out, but y'all expecting a 10/10?

Post automatically merged: Sep 16, 2019

I personally put little stock in such casual gatherings of people ganging up on something. Firstly, people tend to group up and get vocal when they dislike something, but will hardly ever take the time to express themselves when they do like something. (We're living in a world where simple please's and thank-you's are no longer the norm.) For big uproars of negativity, it's largely deindividuation. I would bet that over half of the people that wind up jumping into such discussions would probably never have cared enough to say anything -- until they were suddenly immersed in a sea of negativity about it. Then, it's the path of least resistance to join in. Basic human psychology, and the anonymity of the internet makes it rife. (Note: I am NOT stating that there are not strong arguments on both sides, I am simply identifying that nay-saying tends to be loud, and appreciation tends to be silent. We will largely ever only hear from the negative perspective. I take any such situations with a grain of salt.)

I will state what I always have: the game needs a sense of itself. Anyone can have pre-conceptions about what an upcoming title will be. Many people put a lot of stock in their own imaginings, then enter into an experience with the expectation that their assumptions will be honored and their fears assuaged. I'd say that such an outlook is prone to result in disappointment on a fairly regular basis. I prefer to remove myself completely from the equation and look at a project as objectively as I can.

I can easily see why remaining in FPP for cutscenes helps to create a continuous flow to the action and energy. If handled more like Half-Life, the player is always directly involved in the present action from the gameplay perspective (as opposed to being disconnected for a non-interactive sequence). We lose some vanity elements, possibly some visual connection to our characters, but we simultaneously gain a more seamless, cohesive experience of the action.

As always, liking it or not will be up to each player. Doesn't mean that any creator should compromise their vision to humor the whims or preferences of others.

idk we really like the witcher, which is why y'all are here now.

 

[SigilFey]

Ok I might try it after reviews come out, but y'all expecting a 10/10?

Naw. I can always find something that I feel needs improvement or could have been handled a much better way. (And most of the games that are 10/10 to me are very niche games that "the majority" probably won't be that interested in. )

idk we really like the witcher, which is why y'all are here now.

Well, my response to that is basically: "Yes they did! What does that have to do with CP2077?"

I worked with a group called the Peridot Players in Boston for years (acting troupe). It was the same cast and crew, the same directorial team, and we largely used the same venues. The run of one show might break box-office records. The next one would close a few weeks early because we were losing money. The next show would be great, but we woudn't come close to breaking any records. That's how creative work goes.

TW3 was a magnum opus. Such things are rarely intended. Sure, creators always strive to produce something they feel is incredibly impactful, but whether or not it achieves its goal is up to a massive amount of chance. A slew of insanely complex things that happened to line up...just so... (I bet you if we asked the devs how production went, they'd all say everything was perfect clockwork with a shared vision throughout the departments, and everything worked out exactly as planned in the end. Right? [That's why the game was delayed for years.])

Naw. Such things are a wide range of people trying their best to put a massive project together with things unexpecctedly going wrong, and seemingly broken things working out, and stuff being cut, and new stuff appearing like lightning out of a clear sky. But I am sure that everyone was driving to make things work the best way they could. (We definitely don't get results like TW3 if anyhting less happens.)

TW3 will be a hard act to follow. Invariably, people will compare CP2077 to TW3. Even if Cyberpunk is mind-blowingly awesome, within the first week of release, we'll see YouTube videos about, "Top 10 reasons The Witcher 3 is better than Cyberpunk 2077!" But there's no way that CP2077 is going to be TW3. In fact, I can't think of a better way to ensure the game flops than trying to have it ape another game. Especially one as signature as TW3.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

We lose some vanity elements, possibly some visual connection to our characters, but we simultaneously gain a more seamless, cohesive experience of the action.

For those who find videogame FPP cohesive anyway.
Actually now that I have FPP VR games I know why I never did find any interest in flat screen FPP.

 

[Goosen]

As many have said, seems a bit overkill to pivot like this and take something away from the game. Why not just let FP people watch them in FP with a setting in options menu, and the rest of us choose to watch our CREATED CHARACTER—with supposedly tons of options and customization—play out in regular perspective cutscenes?

Not a threat or a whine or anything, but any remaining interest in the game is gone if cutscenes stay FP, and driving in third-person is removed. Just an FYI and a fact from a potential player. That's just overkill to me, and further counterintuitive to all the customization and talk by you guys about "looking cool in the Cyberpunk world."

Thanks for allowing us to provide feedback here and listening.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

driving in third-person is removed

Is that actually hinted?

If so, this is getting better by the moment.

 

[gregski]

Is that actually hinted?

If so, this is getting better by the moment.

No, it's not.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

No, it's not.

Aww. Disappoint.

 

[SigilFey]

For those who find videogame FPP cohesive anyway.
Actually now that I have FPP VR games I know why I never did find any interest in flat screen FPP.

"Cohesive" from a purposefully objective standpoint. Either you remain in a given perspective, or you do not. If FPP gameplay suddenly switches to TPP for cutscenes, the action is not remaining cohesive. It's switching to a different perspective. Therefore, the only way to maintain cohesion (perspective, action, and energy) is to keep the player in FPP. Changing it would not necessarily be "bad", but it would definitely require the audience to disconnect from the experience they were just engaged in to introduce a new experience from a new perspective. Not a judgment, just an observation of exclusivity.

Also...have to say...Elite: Dangerous is the only game I own right now that I would probably play in VR. Don't really care for VR. I like it for vehicle-based games, actively dislike it for FPP games and TPP games, and absolutely looove it for RTS games. (Not even slightly kidding. If you've never tried VR in an RTS, try it!)

 

[GeometryOfShadows]

"Cohesive" from a purposefully objective standpoint. Either you remain in a given perspective, or you do not. If FPP gameplay suddenly switches to TPP for cutscenes, the action is not remaining cohesive. It's switching to a different perspective. Therefore, the only way to maintain cohesion (perspective, action, and energy) is to keep the player in FPP. Changing it would not necessarily be "bad", but it would definitely require the audience to disconnect from the experience they were just engaged in to introduce a new experience from a new perspective. Not a judgment, just an observation of exclusivity.

I think Kingdom Come Deliverance switched between FPP gameplay to TPP cutscenes and conversations quite well without any disconnect. I dont recall complaints about it breaking immersion either. I can understand CDPR not wanting to do that, but it still can be done well I think.

 

[Itsdacisco]

Naw. I can always find something that I feel needs improvement or could have been handled a much better way. (And most of the games that are 10/10 to me are very niche games that "the majority" probably won't be that interested in. )




Well, my response to that is basically: "Yes they did! What does that have to do with CP2077?"

I worked with a group called the Peridot Players in Boston for years (acting troupe). It was the same cast and crew, the same directorial team, and we largely used the same venues. The run of one show might break box-office records. The next one would close a few weeks early because we were losing money. The next show would be great, but we woudn't come close to breaking any records. That's how creative work goes.

TW3 was a magnum opus. Such things are rarely intended. Sure, creators always strive to produce something they feel is incredibly impactful, but whether or not it achieves its goal is up to a massive amount of chance. A slew of insanely complex things that happened to line up...just so... (I bet you if we asked the devs how production went, they'd all say everything was perfect clockwork with a shared vision throughout the departments, and everything worked out exactly as planned in the end. Right? [That's why the game was delayed for years.])

Naw. Such things are a wide range of people trying their best to put a massive project together with things unexpecctedly going wrong, and seemingly broken things working out, and stuff being cut, and new stuff appearing like lightning out of a clear sky. But I am sure that everyone was driving to make things work the best way they could. (We definitely don't get results like TW3 if anyhting less happens.)

TW3 will be a hard act to follow. Invariably, people will compare CP2077 to TW3. Even if Cyberpunk is mind-blowingly awesome, within the first week of release, we'll see YouTube videos about, "Top 10 reasons The Witcher 3 is better than Cyberpunk 2077!" But there's no way that CP2077 is going to be TW3. In fact, I can't think of a better way to ensure the game flops than trying to have it ape another game. Especially one as signature as TW3.

I see where you are coming from,

Naw. I can always find something that I feel needs improvement or could have been handled a much better way. (And most of the games that are 10/10 to me are very niche games that "the majority" probably won't be that interested in. )




Well, my response to that is basically: "Yes they did! What does that have to do with CP2077?"

I worked with a group called the Peridot Players in Boston for years (acting troupe). It was the same cast and crew, the same directorial team, and we largely used the same venues. The run of one show might break box-office records. The next one would close a few weeks early because we were losing money. The next show would be great, but we woudn't come close to breaking any records. That's how creative work goes.

TW3 was a magnum opus. Such things are rarely intended. Sure, creators always strive to produce something they feel is incredibly impactful, but whether or not it achieves its goal is up to a massive amount of chance. A slew of insanely complex things that happened to line up...just so... (I bet you if we asked the devs how production went, they'd all say everything was perfect clockwork with a shared vision throughout the departments, and everything worked out exactly as planned in the end. Right? [That's why the game was delayed for years.])

Naw. Such things are a wide range of people trying their best to put a massive project together with things unexpecctedly going wrong, and seemingly broken things working out, and stuff being cut, and new stuff appearing like lightning out of a clear sky. But I am sure that everyone was driving to make things work the best way they could. (We definitely don't get results like TW3 if anyhting less happens.)

TW3 will be a hard act to follow. Invariably, people will compare CP2077 to TW3. Even if Cyberpunk is mind-blowingly awesome, within the first week of release, we'll see YouTube videos about, "Top 10 reasons The Witcher 3 is better than Cyberpunk 2077!" But there's no way that CP2077 is going to be TW3. In fact, I can't think of a better way to ensure the game flops than trying to have it ape another game. Especially one as signature as TW3.

I totally agree, and in all honesty, before hearing it was going to be mostly FPP. You could tell that CP2077 was going to surpass TW3. At least thats how I felt, and thats why it had a lot of hype. Now what, 10-15%? of that group is gone because they want TPP. I hope CDPR starts doing less misleading ads in TPP and start showing in ads what the game actually is in, FPP. So for CP2077...We'll just see. I am more open to FPP now. I still hope their is some photo TPP option at least.

 

[SigilFey]

I think Kingdom Come Deliverance switched between FPP gameplay to TPP cutscenes and conversations quite well without any disconnect. I dont recall complaints about it breaking immersion either. I can understand CDPR not wanting to do that, but it still can be done well I think.

Sure! And Half-Life created an awesome experience having the player maintain complete control over Gordon even during cutscenes. And FarCry has a cool blend of action, adventure sequences, and quick-time events that are universally FPP. Same with Call of Duty. While Bethesda games allow the player to swap freely between perspectives for gameplay, all conversations are FPP only (by default). Halo worked well doing very cinematic TPP cutscenes with exclusively FPP gameplay.

That's art. Is there a specific way to hold the brush when you paint? Are there certain colors that are "right" and others that are "wrong"? Is there a certain size or style that is "correct" and others that are "incorrect"?

Nope. Any possible combination of factors above may work, or they may not. And whether one or the other is true will be up to the interpretation of every individual person that looks at the final painting. Some will say yes, and others will say no. The "majority" will likely shift between one group and the next.

CDPR has chosen to "paint their picture" like this.

I totally agree, and in all honesty, before hearing it was going to be mostly FPP. You could tell that CP2077 was going to surpass TW3. At least thats how I felt, and thats why it had a lot of hype. Now what, 10-15%? of that group is gone because they want TPP. I hope CDPR starts doing less misleading ads in TPP and start showing in ads what the game actually is in, FPP. So for CP2077...We'll just see. I am more open to FPP now. I still hope their is some photo TPP option at least.

We'll see. I have very few worries about people liking the game. Plus, I'm not sure that ALL of the cutscenes are TPP. I think that the goal is to keep the player witnessing the game out of V's eyes as much as possible, making it intimate, personal, and ground level. Plus, that means that you can "hide" a lot of stuff from the player for effect. There's a vulnerability that exists in FPP that doesn't exist in TPP. As I have mentioned before, seeing a gun aimed at your character is a very different energy than staring down the barrel of a gun.

 

[JMB96815]

I personally put little stock in such casual gatherings of people ganging up on something. Firstly, people tend to group up and get vocal when they dislike something, but will hardly ever take the time to express themselves when they do like something. (We're living in a world where simple please's and thank-you's are no longer the norm.) For big uproars of negativity, it's largely deindividuation. I would bet that over half of the people that wind up jumping into such discussions would probably never have cared enough to say anything -- until they were suddenly immersed in a sea of negativity about it. Then, it's the path of least resistance to join in. Basic human psychology, and the anonymity of the internet makes it rife. (Note: I am NOT stating that there are not strong arguments on both sides, I am simply identifying that nay-saying tends to be loud, and appreciation tends to be silent. We will largely ever only hear from the negative perspective. I take any such situations with a grain of salt.)

I will state what I always have: the game needs a sense of itself. Anyone can have pre-conceptions about what an upcoming title will be. Many people put a lot of stock in their own imaginings, then enter into an experience with the expectation that their assumptions will be honored and their fears assuaged. I'd say that such an outlook is prone to result in disappointment on a fairly regular basis. I prefer to remove myself completely from the equation and look at a project as objectively as I can.

I can easily see why remaining in FPP for cutscenes helps to create a continuous flow to the action and energy. If handled more like Half-Life, the player is always directly involved in the present action from the gameplay perspective (as opposed to being disconnected for a non-interactive sequence). We lose some vanity elements, possibly some visual connection to our characters, but we simultaneously gain a more seamless, cohesive experience of the action.

As always, liking it or not will be up to each player. Doesn't mean that any creator should compromise their vision to humor the whims or preferences of others.

I really agree generally about the negativity and the negative psychology behind how it can manifest particularly in an online environment. I was still surprised because numerous other upcoming games came up as well and did not suffer that treatment and I have never seen any other game in perhaps about 100 or so online streams (I help manage the legal, business, taxes and smaller things like admin of a very well known YT/Twitch personality) with this specific community reacting this way, which I would say has a slight RPG slant. So my surprise was not as much just the negatively but the context of maybe 100 prior streams with this same rough audience (of course they can be different each stream, but as a general proposition they are fairly consistent demographically as least) never ever reacting to any other game before this way. Maybe it was just a really rough crowd perhaps and unique/anomalous to that situation which I certainly count as a possibility. And certainly I can see the mob mentality so to speak spewing forth at specific times and situations. I personally think - of course this is speculative but I feel it's at least a sound hypothesis to explore - it's the huge expectations of such a high profile studio with a prior masterpiece in W3 that frankly is never likely to be surpassed. This huge expectation heightens the rancor and disappointment if anything they imagined in their mind in this "this is going to be an amazing game!" game is not exactly what they are getting.

In fact, I actually took three different friends of mine specifically saying they were no longer interested in the game with FAR more interest than that entire chat simply because I had the context of knowing how die hard they were for the game and how closely they were following the game from about different time periods ranging from years ago to about a year ago.

Post automatically merged: Sep 17, 2019

I think they’ve already confirmed you can see V’s body when you look down.

And anyways, people tend to complain about vanity features more than the actual substance. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it. I’d echo the choir if it had anything to do with how the game works mechanically, but since it’s mostly about what’s on the screen in detail... meh.

Yeah I've heard this too but I'm trying to distinguish from seeing V's body in specific situations like animations, cutscenes and specific sequences/dialogues/locations versus ALWAYS seeing her body all the time in game if I happen to look down while just walking on the street, etc. No demo yet has shown this feature (for example if you look down to loot a body I can't see V's lower body, legs, or feet in just normal mode only when not doing an animation or specific dialogue or cutscene) but I am still hopeful. I think not having it 100% breaks cohesion a lot for me although I personally love some FPP ideas like for example having a guy right up in my face threatening me with a knife or someone sneaking up behind me and I hear the heavy breathing, etc. It's more visceral that way.

 

[GeometryOfShadows]

Sure! And Half-Life created an awesome experience having the player maintain complete control over Gordon even during cutscenes. And FarCry has a cool blend of action, adventure sequences, and quick-time events that are universally FPP. Same with Call of Duty. While Bethesda games allow the player to swap freely between perspectives for gameplay, all conversations are FPP only (by default). Halo worked well doing very cinematic TPP cutscenes with exclusively FPP gameplay.

That's art. Is there a specific way to hold the brush when you paint? Are there certain colors that are "right" and others that are "wrong"? Is there a certain size or style that is "correct" and others that are "incorrect"?

Nope. Any possible combination of factors above may work, or they may not. And whether one or the other is true will be up to the interpretation of every individual person that looks at the final painting. Some will say yes, and others will say no. The "majority" will likely shift between one group and the next.

CDPR has chosen to "paint their picture" like this.

I agree. I dont doubt CDPR will paint a great picture, it just wont be my preferred style. I suppose its more of disappointment when their previous "paintings" were all the style I liked and it makes me... less than enthusiastic for a new style. If their last 3 games were all fully FPP in all things it wouldn't of come as a disappointment.

Alas it is what it is now, ill still play the game and will have to adapt to their style, which im willing to do since aside from this subject I like everything that I see. My hope at this point is with all the requests... maybe they will consider doing more of a combination for their next cyberpunk game.

 

[SigilFey]

I really agree generally about the negativity and the negative psychology behind how it can manifest particularly in an online environment. I was still surprised because numerous other upcoming games came up as well and did not suffer that treatment and I have never seen any other game in perhaps about 100 or so online streams (I help manage the legal, business, taxes and smaller things like admin of a very well known YT/Twitch personality) with this specific community reacting this way, which I would say has a slight RPG slant. So my surprise was not as much just the negatively but the context of maybe 100 prior streams with this same rough audience (of course they can be different each stream, but as a general proposition they are fairly consistent demographically as least) never ever reacting to any other game before this way. Maybe it was just a really rough crowd perhaps and unique/anomalous to that situation which I certainly count as a possibility. And certainly I can see the mob mentality so to speak spewing forth at specific times and situations. I personally think - of course this is speculative but I feel it's at least a sound hypothesis to explore - it's the huge expectations of such a high profile studio with a prior masterpiece in W3 that frankly is never likely to be surpassed. This huge expectation heightens the rancor and disappointment if anything they imagined in their mind in this "this is going to be an amazing game!" game is not exactly what they are getting.

In fact, I actually took three different friends of mine specifically saying they were no longer interested in the game with FAR more interest than that entire chat simply because I had the context of knowing how die hard they were for the game and how closely they were following the game from about different time periods ranging from years ago to about a year ago.

I agree. I dont doubt CDPR will paint a great picture, it just wont be my preferred style. I suppose its more of disappointment when their previous "paintings" were all the style I liked and it makes me... less than enthusiastic for a new style. If their last 3 games were all fully FPP in all things it wouldn't of come as a disappointment.

Alas it is what it is now, ill still play the game and will have to adapt to their style, which im willing to do since aside from this subject I like everything that I see. My hope at this point is with all the requests... maybe they will consider doing more of a combination for their next cyberpunk game.

No doubt that many people are disappointed. There are people in the world that can't stand The Witcher 3. Too violent and frightening, story is too hard to follow, don't like fantasy, not enough action, too much action, etc. The large numbers of people making an argument against such an enormous departure is only because there were so many people that did play (and love) TW3. The people that didn't will be much more likely to enjoy CP2077. Then, there are those like myself that are happy with pretty much any mechanic as long as it works well.

The only issue is that people were assuming the game was going to made according to the very limited knowledge that was shared about the production, and that they were going to get what they had assumed. I can't stress enough that looking at things this way is almost guaranteed to result in disappointment.

I prefer to just watch production develop over time. I might speculate, for fun, argue for this or that approach, for fun, but I'll never make the mistake of believing that I understand the vision of another artist. Nor will I ever assume that their vision needs to match my speculations. For a creative process to alter its development on that type of mindset would introduce stagnation.

 

[BooteeSpooter]

The game would be nowhere near as intense if it was in third person so I dont mind. And for everyone who gets sick from playing in FPP, they've said they have option where you can turn off motion blur and head bobbing etc to avoid the motion sickness.

 

[Motsie]

We'll see. I have very few worries about people liking the game. Plus, I'm not sure that ALL of the cutscenes are TPP. I think that the goal is to keep the player witnessing the game out of V's eyes as much as possible, making it intimate, personal, and ground level. Plus, that means that you can "hide" a lot of stuff from the player for effect. There's a vulnerability that exists in FPP that doesn't exist in TPP. As I have mentioned before, seeing a gun aimed at your character is a very different energy than staring down the barrel of a gun.

The bottom line is that the audience has to care about the character - the perspective is completely irrelevant. See any critically acclaimed show where you want the main character to survive, or in particular Red Dead Redemption's main characters - ask anyone how they felt about the endings in those.

The ability to see the emotion of how a character feels, as they're going through any given circumstance, is important in establishing empathy between the viewer and the character. Just imagine playing TLOU in first person and seeing everything through Joel's eyes. Would you sympathize more with him and the internal conflict that he feels towards Ellie if you couldn't see it illustrated on his face and eyes?

FPP hamstrings that dynamic.

 

[gogmeister777]

The ability to see the emotion of how a character feels, as they're going through any given circumstance, is important in establishing empathy between the viewer and the character. Just imagine playing TLOU in first person and seeing everything through Joel's eyes. Would you sympathize more with him and the internal conflict that he feels towards Ellie if you couldn't see it illustrated on his face and eyes?

How much anyone will like it is, of course, subjective but I think the point here is that you're not supposed to be 'seeing' a characters emotion . I mean, what character are we even talking about? It's supposed to be you, the fantasy you that you're roleplaying/pretending to be, character generator and all.

You're not supposed to 'see' the emotion, you're supposed to 'feel' it yourself, experience it as if you are there. The other characters stories, personalities, plots and, perhaps more than anything, the writing will be what makes us care enough to feel emotion about it all, assuming they are of good quality.

Joel and Ellie's story is theirs and you're a guiding onlooker. V's story is YOUR story and you are living V's life, not observing it.

Imo, that's what CDPR are aiming for, though obviously not everyone will find it to their tastes.

I myself have never had a problem feeling emotional about characters, regardless of perspective. I mean, I cared a great deal about characters in Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment and the only faces you see are static pictures And don't get me started on books.

 

[Motsie]

My ultimate point is that it's stronger when you have the full spread of social dynamics to read from in any given scene. Consider the recent cinematic and how it would feel in FPP.

Pre-defined character or not you can still feel more from seeing how the character reacts during any sequence or cut scene. Body language, facial expressions, etc. Writing is one thing, but delivery is equally important and there are many aspects that go into delivery which enhances the writing.

 

[Rawls]

Body language, facial expressions, etc. Writing is one thing, but delivery is equally important and there are many aspects that go into delivery which enhances the writing.

Is the visual representation automatically mean better though? Is it better to be shown how a character feels? Or is it better to let the player interpret how the character feels based on the content of the scene itself? Not trying to offer an answer one way or the other... just thinking out loud. Regardless, the answer would be subjective either way.