FPP/TPP Perspective Thread OPEN. Be NICE.

[Sild]

i can get that from TPP also it feel more alive in TPP than in FPP

Yes, thats because of the increased space awareness and the environment perception capacity the 3PP inherently brings. Which is also what they purposely want to keep confined within standard binocular vision limits as much as it is possible without VR . See? Facts. Not everything is a matter of opinion. No disrespect intended.

 

[Rawls]

I would more like that resources was spent in TPP than on so many NPC who probably going to have 0 interaction with V or to spend it on MP.

Strong disagree on this one. Making the city feel like a city is much more important than perspective for me personally.

 

[Brando97s]

I can actually. Plenty of studies on the topic have proven as much.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by immersion. You can be engrossed or immersed in a movie for example but it's not like YOU are part of the action, which is what they are trying to relay. To transport the player to that world psychologically, it is the best option outside of stuff like VR.

You kept mentioning "plenty of studies" but you didn't name any, so I checked on google and I picked a random one, it could be different from other ones. It's called "Immersion and Involvement in a 3D Training Environment: Experimenting different points of view", by Amon Rapp and Cristina Gena if anyone is interested.
As you say it depends on what you mean by immersion. FPP is more immersive as "it allows users to forget the mediation of the avatar" (I'm gonna put in quotation marks the things that I'm copying from the pdf) and gives you an idea of where things are supposed to be (for example if you are in FPP you know where your right arm and hand are supposed to be and if there is an object on your right you can feel it as if it's on your right, while this same process isn't as immediate in TPP, or at least that's what I understood). At the same time though, in FPP "users need some additional features when they are exploring a complex 3D world, especially when they do not know the environment", because a FPP doesn't give you awareness of the world around you, since you can only see in front of you. According to the article a map of the environment could help the user with orientation.

"So, even if in the video games world, as we have seen above, the most common interaction model for action games is the avatar in a TPP [1] and in virtual worlds like Second Life a TPP appears preferable [4], in virtual environments designed for training sessions that aim at preparing users to face with potentially dangerous situations, the best design solution is the FPP, since it produces a better sense of immersion and a deeper involvement, providing a better quality of personal experience that could improve the learning process and the training activities."
So this is the objective part, what comes next is subjective. Personally I think a game like this would fall in the same category as "action games" and "virtual worlds", for which the TPP is recommended, but others could say that they prefer "a better sense of immersion and deeper involvement" that apparently would be better for training sessions; but again, at this point it depends on what you prefer.

So, to summarize: if you mean "immertion" as "being the one who is doing things, instead of an avatar who does them for me" then you will want FPP, while if you intend it as "feeling part of the world around me" TPP is probably gonna be better for you.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

I personally don't have any problems with FPP (if done right), but the most immersve game I've ever played is RDR2 in TPP. Thanks to the animations you really feel like you're arthur and feel the need to eat, shave and bathe even if it's completely useless gameplay-wise. I won't spoil the game but the more you progress the more you emphatize with arthur.

Still, as I said before I prefer no TPP at all if that let CDPR make an excellent FPP instead of both perspectives but bethesda-like. Goddamn if their games look ugly. Even TW3 would look border-line in 2020 after we had several games with better animations (in 2015 it was absolutely fine).

 

[Sild]

So, to summarize: if you mean "immertion" as "being the one who is doing things, instead of an avatar who does them for me" then you will want FPP, while if you intend it as "feeling part of the world around me" TPP is probably gonna be better for you.

Not the best summary. As one can easily argue that "feeling part of the world around me" is directly proportional to the real world dissociation component which that very study showed is higher in 1PP than 3PP.

 

[SarahGabriella]

You may recall my suggestion of a dual mode system and how it wouldn't that hard to implement (half the needed code already exists and is used by NPCs).

How do you know how hard it is to implement? Unless you work for CDPR you cant know that. And its done, its first person, i dont think this is debatable. I think this conversation is more about first person vs third person perspective, and less about Cyberpunk 2077 and should be moved off topic into a separate thread.

Post automatically merged: Feb 9, 2019

Who ask for selfie mode ? people who want to play game in TPP don't get anything from Photo mode

Post automatically merged: Feb 8, 2019

And CDPR say it is RPG, but now it look like they making just FPS shooter.



See you don't respect other people's opinions.

Its a action rpg and first person shooter. The perspective has nothing to do with the genre, it has to do with how CDPR wants to portray the game and show the game world to the player.

I will play it and so will many others. So i dont see the issue here at all. Also, first person is simply much better for this type of game. What would be terrible for Wicher games is amazing for a shooter.

Post automatically merged: Feb 9, 2019

I can actually. Plenty of studies on the topic have proven as much.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by immersion. You can be engrossed or immersed in a movie for example but it's not like YOU are part of the action, which is what they are trying to relay. To transport the player to that world psychologically, it is the best option outside of stuff like VR.

Perspective doesnt have anything to do with immersion. Its simply a design decision by the game devs to go with either one or both. Shooters due to their nature, being, you shoot over being in melee combat like Witcher 3 makes first person superior. In Witcher games and games like it you need to see what goes on around you, in a shooter you simply hide behind a corner, look out and shoot, check your surroundings and shoot some more.

 

[Rawls]

You kept mentioning "plenty of studies" but you didn't name any, so I checked on google and I picked a random one, it could be different from other ones. It's called "Immersion and Involvement in a 3D Training Environment: Experimenting different points of view", by Amon Rapp and Cristina Gena if anyone is interested.

First person vs. third person perspective in digital games: Do player preferences affect immersion?
"Contemporary digital game developers offer a variety of games for the diverse tastes of their customers. Although the gaming experience often depends on one's preferences, the same may not apply to the level of their immersion. It has been argued whether the player perspective can influence the level of player's involvement with the game. The aim of this study was to research whether interacting with a game in first person perspective is more immersive than playing in the third person point of view (POV). The set up to test the theory involved participants playing a role-playing game in either mode, naming their preferred perspective, and subjectively evaluating their immersive experience. The results showed that people were more immersed in the game play when viewing the game world through the eyes of the character, regardless of their preferred perspectives. "

Is the one I see cited the most in other recent scholarly stuff. However, you have to pay to actually see the methodology since it was published. EDIT: IIRC they took two groups of players sorted so that each group had roughly equal number of players who preferred TPP and FPP. Then had group 1 play a TPP game for a bit and had a survey about their immersion afterwards using a specific set of questions. Also had group 2 play a FPP game for a bit and had a survey about their immersion afterwards using a specific set of questions. The biggest flaw IIRC was their sample size was relatively small (like 50 people or something).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

You may recall my suggestion of a dual mode system and how it wouldn't that hard to implement (half the needed code already exists and is used by NPCs).

Sure.

I have a bunch of options as well (as you know).

Anyway... those all work regardless of perspective. Some of it just might feel a little unorthodox in FPP to an "average gamer". But that's OK, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mebrilia]

First person vs. third person perspective in digital games: Do player preferences affect immersion?
"Contemporary digital game developers offer a variety of games for the diverse tastes of their customers. Although the gaming experience often depends on one's preferences, the same may not apply to the level of their immersion. It has been argued whether the player perspective can influence the level of player's involvement with the game. The aim of this study was to research whether interacting with a game in first person perspective is more immersive than playing in the third person point of view (POV). The set up to test the theory involved participants playing a role-playing game in either mode, naming their preferred perspective, and subjectively evaluating their immersive experience. The results showed that people were more immersed in the game play when viewing the game world through the eyes of the character, regardless of their preferred perspectives. "

Is the one I see cited the most in other recent scholarly stuff. However, you have to pay to actually see the methodology since it was published. EDIT: IIRC they took two groups of players sorted so that each group had roughly equal number of players who preferred TPP and FPP. Then had group 1 play a TPP game for a bit and had a survey about their immersion afterwards using a specific set of questions. Also had group 2 play a FPP game for a bit and had a survey about their immersion afterwards using a specific set of questions. The biggest flaw IIRC was their sample size was relatively small (like 50 people or something).

A questionable study on people tastes?.. Like you said the sample they took was small i don't think this study is a well done one to start with and i don't believe in the validity of it in the end we know there is who find first person immersive and there is who find third person or even isometric games more immersive. This study is a waste of time and just prof my point and the point is people a different taste on it therefore it prof also Immersion is something subjective from person to person. There would be many more questions to ask like:

What game they played?

 

[Suhiira]

How do you know how hard it is to implement? Unless you work for CDPR you cant know that. And its done, its first person, i dont think this is debatable. I think this conversation is more about first person vs third person perspective, and less about Cyberpunk 2077 and should be moved off topic into a separate thread.

I'm a programmer (over 20 years experience) and have been NONPROFESSIONALLY involved in game development for about 40 years. So while I don't know exactly how much time and effort would be required (never having seen CDPR dev tools and source code) I have a pretty good ballpark idea what's involved.

As to first person, I've never suggested changing to third, BECAUSE I have a good Idea what it would require.

Would I like to see third-person, of course. But I understand why CDPR went with first, and the benefits, and limitations, of doing so.

My concern is CP2077 going too FPS at the expense of RPG. I have little doubt the FPS community will love the game, but I have my reservations about us RPG types.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

I will play it and so will many others. So i dont see the issue here at all. Also, first person is simply much better for this type of game. What would be terrible for Wicher games is amazing for a shooter.

Good for you and those others who will have fun in FPP, but what with those people who want to play game in TPP because it is more fun for them that way or have motion sickness?

You don't see issue here because you don't want to accept that other people like different things, not all like FPP like not all like TPP.

I am sure many people would love to play witcher in FPP, also again you say "for this type of game" what type of game you talking about pure FPS, FPS with few ability?????

 

[lelxrv]

You don't see issue here because you don't want to accept that other people like different things, not all like FPP like not all like TPP.

At this point it's rather useless, because it's clear they designed the game around FPP. Stuff like characters looking you straight in the eye, limited vision abuse for cutscenes or sliding under cars (and other parkour) is pure FPP. At BEST they can probably add TPP in certain circumstances like peaceful hubs (where you can't start wrecking havoc) or already confirmed TPP during racing sequences, but that's it.

 

[Sardukhar]

At this point it's rather useless, because it's clear they designed the game around FPP.

Precisely this.

This is a discussion forum and we all enjoy a good discussion. Thus this thread.

Nothing new has been said here, nothing CDPR hasn't already considered. It's good to talk about things and kick ideas around, but FPP is very much the Cyberpunk 2077 perspective. They have been ultra, totally utterly clear about this.

It's their vision for their game. Even if I don't agree with the artist, whether or not I buy or even view/listen to/taste their work, I agree it must be their vision in the end, and not mine.

 

[SarahGabriella]

A questionable study on people tastes?.. Like you said the sample they took was small i don't think this study is a well done one to start with and i don't believe in the validity of it in the end we know there is who find first person immersive and there is who find third person or even isometric games more immersive. This study is a waste of time and just prof my point and the point is people a different taste on it therefore it prof also Immersion is something subjective from person to person. There would be many more questions to ask like:

What game they played?

Now you discredit a study? Because it doesnt support your stance?

 

[Suhiira]

<clip> the point is people a different taste on it therefore it prof also Immersion is something subjective from person to person.

People like what they like for reasons that vary as much as people themselves. Many are resistant to new things because they like the familiar, they don't need, or require, any more reason then that. We all have our reasons for our preferences, and beyond a certain point nothing anyone says or thinks is going to change our minds. The irrational people are the ones that refuse to accept that other people's opinions are just as valid as their own.

Present your case as clearly as you can, hope ... yes hope ... the other person is open minded enough to consider your points and maybe alter their views. But don't expect them to.

 

[Mebrilia]

I don't discredit a study... But was a study on a sample of 50 people and we have no idea what game was played in the end the study just confirms what i always told.. For some people first person is more immersive for others don't. I don't think i am discrediting anyone affirming that cd projekt can't say first person is more immersive when is clearly subjective.

There could be a study saying that 30 people on 50 like hamburgers more than pizza but thid dosn't mean the hamburger is more delicious that pizza it just means people have different tastes there is no need to make a study out of that.

I define the study questionable because in the end there is no need a study for prove something can be liked to some and disliked to another.

I play Arma3 in first person but i got way more immersed in planescape torment for example that is isometric..

 

[Rawls]

This study is a waste of time and just prof my point and the point is people a different taste on it therefore it prof also Immersion is something subjective from person to person.

Whoa there. I'm not defending the study (in fact I said it has flaws). Someone asked for an example and I provided one. There are others that concur with it's conclusions, but this is the most recent one I know of that has been cited several times in other scholarly articles.

I don't think studies are a waste of time at all. It's true that what is immersive for an individual is subjective, but when your talking about the gaming community as a whole, what is most frequently considered more immersive can be measured. The results are very beneficial for developers in making design choices and beneficial for gamers as a group in providing games that satisfy more people.

What game they played?

I think it was Skyrim. Everyone played the same quest (cant remember which one). One group played in TPP and the other group in FPP. Also if your curious, the questionnaire was 30ish questions on a Likert scale.

EDIT: Aha! Found it uploaded somewhere else by one of the authors - https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Games_Do_Player_Preferences_Affect_Immersion
Basically the results were the players who claimed to prefer FPP found FPP more immersive by a fairly decent margin, and those whom claimed to prefer TPP found FPP to be slightly more immersive (but within deviation margin).

 

[Suhiira]

I'd have to agree that for "player immersion" FPP is the better choice. For situational awareness and "character immersion" I'd vote TPP.

So it's really the same old question.

Are you playing a game or playing a character?

 

[Garrison72]

I'd have to agree that for "player immersion" FPP is the better choice. For situational awareness and "character immersion" I'd vote TPP.

So it's really the same old question.

Are you playing a game or playing a character?

This is a useful distinction. Player immersion means FPP. Character immersion means TPP. I've never felt right saying one or the other does immersion better.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

I know FPP is done deal, my hope is that they add it later after game come out or that modder will do it.

Adding TPP later after game come out really would not be bad or wrong move it would just make people happy and show that developers still value their fan opinions.

Look Pillars of Eternity 2 they add turn based mode, 10 month later but they add it, did they need to rework combat system yes, did it take time yes, but they did it and people are happy, so if CDPR take time and add TPP later that would be great.