In game character Perspective!

[BaalNergal]

In a sort-of similar note, people that play a lot of shooters do, generally, find TPP shooting very clumsy. Thus why there are so few TPP competitive shooter games. Any? Are there any? I can think of none.

Mass Effect series, to a degree. PUBG is another.

It's because if you do play at anything vaguely approaching a moderate skill level, TPP shooters suck. They lack crispness, they lack accuracy, they lack mobility. You could say looking around corners is also cheap, but shooters aplenty have corner peeking, so that's fine.

Not as bad as actually being nauseated of course, but for many serious shooter-players, TPP immediately makes the game shooting-meh. Which is fine! I quite enjoyed several TPP shooters! But in spite of the rifle-combat, not because of or integral to it.

This pretty much sums up my experience with shooters. FPP simply is better, in part because your own character isn't in the way of what you're shooting at.

 

[Sardukhar]

[video=youtube;wy-sVTaZRPk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy-sVTaZRPk[/video]

Jokes aside, I'd like to get kofeiiniturpa's take on your explanation for FPP being better than TPP for shooters.

As for competitive shooters, sure there are. Fortnite and PUBG are both examples. You're right that they are infrequent, though.

Ah, there are FN and PUBG competitions, although I would say those are not based on them being highly-competitive shooters as opposed to their current crazy popularity. Fortnight especially is pretty silly shooter-wise. They are both recent, too. Very recent. For a reason.

PUBGs first major tournament is this summer. We'll see hows that goes.

I've played both. Both are famous for their clunky shooting and RNG damage issues. Google PUBG shooting mechanics to see what I mean.

I think they are both improvements over their predecessors though.

https://www.redbull.com/au-en/pubg-w...ive-fpp-or-tpp

Interesting piece. High level player. He likes TPP for tactical peeking options and overall prefers to play in TPP, so yeah, that's a dissenting opinion. Part of the reason they picked him for the article in fact, since the generally held opinion is that FPP is more competitive, as they say at the start of their piece.

The TPP perspective on big maps also allows what most of us think is the bullshit tactic of safe-sniping. Hide and look without a chance to be spotted, then pop up and bang. THAT is very not-Cyberpunk. You should need cyberware to do that kind of thing.

 

[Snowflakez]

The TPP perspective on big maps also allows what most of us think is the bullshit tactic of safe-sniping. Hide and look without a chance to be spotted, then pop up and bang. THAT is very not-Cyberpunk. You should need cyberware to do that kind of thing.

I don't understand this. Could you elaborate? Are you saying third person shooting wouldn't be Cyberpunk because of that? That's not an accusation, just want to see if I'm picking up what you're putting down.

 

[Sardukhar]

I don't understand this. Could you elaborate? Are you saying third person shooting wouldn't be Cyberpunk because of that? That's not an accusation, just want to see if I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Yeah. See, the essence of combat is risk - at least realism based combat. You want to minimize risk and increase chances of success. That trade-off, performed under adrenalin after hopefully planning as best you can, is utterly key to scary exciting combat. At least with modern arms.

So if you want to shoot someone, you have to expose yourself to getting shot. Shooting them safely is absolutely desirable, but you should have to go to extra effort for this - rabbit ears cyberware that looks around corners for you ( and can be spotted and/or jammed), a COT system so you can look and shoot with your gun, spotters placed to call shots, etc.

Just having some built-in side effect that lets PCs crouch behind cover to spot their target safely without risk or upgrades is not only not realistic as modern combat goes, it also flies in the face of Cyberpunk - risk/reward tradeoffs driving success. Also not doable in the PnP without cyberware or friends - for a reason. "Hey Ref, can I just -see- where the Bad Guys are without, you know, risking being seen?" "Do you have.." "Oh, no, I don't have any gear or anything, I just, you know, want to. Because it's safer!" "...No. And now the Bloodrazors heard you talking to yourself. Prepare to run."

If you incorporate a peek mechanic in FPP that's realistic - or if you give enemy NPCs the chance to check Awareness and spot you even behind your corner while you are totally being cheap and watching them with your invisible God camera.

 

[Snowflakez]

Yeah. See, the essence of combat is risk - at least realism based combat. You want to minimize risk and increase chances of success. That trade-off, performed under adrenalin after hopefully planning as best you can, is utterly key to scary exciting combat. At least with modern arms.

So if you want to shoot someone, you have to expose yourself to getting shot. Shooting them safely is absolutely desirable, but you should have to go to extra effort for this - rabbit ears cyberware that looks around corners for you ( and can be spotted and/or jammed), a COT system so you can look and shoot with your gun, spotters placed to call shots, etc.

Just having some built-in side effect that lets PCs crouch behind cover to spot their target safely without risk or upgrades is not only not realistic as modern combat goes, it also flies in the face of Cyberpunk - risk/reward tradeoffs driving success. Also not doable in the PnP without cyberware or friends - for a reason. "Hey Ref, can I just -see- where the Bad Guys are without, you know, risking being seen?" "Do you have.." "Oh, no, I don't have any gear or anything, I just, you know, want to. Because it's safer!" "...No. And now the Bloodrazors heard you talking to yourself. Prepare to run."

If you incorporate a peek mechanic in FPP that's realistic - or if you give enemy NPCs the chance to check Awareness and spot you even behind your corner while you are totally being cheap and watching them with your invisible God camera.

Ah, I see.

In my mind, this is one area where I'd personally temper realism with gameplay design. For example, if I had a studio full of people (And an audience full of people) asking for the game to be third person, I'd be willing to toss some of that aside. This is pure metaphor, since I honestly have no clue what CDPR is cooking up and I have no clue what their audience at large wants. It's also possible to implement some restrictions specifically designed to limit the effectiveness of third person as far as "psychic" vision goes.

But thanks for clarifying, I understand what you mean at least, even if I disagree with the concept from a personal gameplay perspective.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

while you are totally being cheap and watching them with your invisible God camera.

The ”god camera” is a thing, but it’s a bit if a cheap excuse since it could be so easily fixed (at least on a conceptual level) by tying the visible fidelity to the characters perceptive abilities and immediate memory if that’s what’s wanted from the design.

Camera panning won’t help if the objects behind the corner only appear if the character, through a succesful check of relevant stats, can see/hear/smell/remember them.

Jokes aside, I'd like to get kofeiiniturpa's take on your explanation for FPP being better than TPP for shooters.

I don’t really have one. Aiming works exactly the same in both. I believe it’s more about accepted consesus than practicality. TPP does have that dead area behind the character that limits the screenspace and the character movement might feel distracting of the enemy movement on up close situations, but it also has wider FOV which helps quite a bit in taking the world around you since you aren’t left blind to the world beyond the tubevision the FPP camera offers you (i.e. senses other than sight).

 

[Sardukhar]

The ”god camera” is a thing, but it’s a bit if a cheap excuse since it could be so easily fixed (at least on a conceptual level) by tying the visible fidelity to the characters perceptive abilities and immediate memory if that’s what’s wanted from the design.

Camera panning won’t help if the objects behind the corner only appear if the character, through a succesful check of relevant stats, can see/hear/smell/remember them.

God. This would be SO BADASS.

And think of the other shit you could tie to such checks. Hearing alerts. Weapon spots. If you can see someone's face - blurred or not blurred by distance? You could do identifiers on people by faction or gear. You could have highlighted features when your character sees someone that you never noticed, but the character did. So cool.

Oh well.

Highly unlikely. The reason it's not a "cheap excuse" is because it is much, much easier to do the traditional TPP way in the name of gameplay concession, ( blah) as opposed to a much more complex series of checks against stats, then adjusting the perceived world. So it's actually more like a reasonable concession to gameplay at the cost of better, deeper gameplay. Most people won't even know what they are missing. Some would even be annoyed if such a system was implemented.

Bummer, though.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Oh well.

Highly unlikely. ...... it is much, much easier to do the traditional TPP way in the name of gameplay concession, ( blah) as opposed to a much more complex series of checks against stats, then adjusting the perceived world.

That’s true, of course. But it’s also precisely the reason why I’d call it cheap and an excuse - from the developer. There’s no push or creative ambition, just a dull feeling of ”what ever, this’ good enough”.

If that’s not what’s wanted of the design, so be it, though. It’s their game. I just think too much is played overly safe these days (from a players perspective).

 

[Sardukhar]

That’s true, of course. But it’s also precisely the reason why I’d call it cheap and an excuse - from the developer. There’s no push or creative ambition, just a dull feeling of ”what ever, this’ good enough”.

If that’s not what’s wanted of the design, so be it, though. It’s their game. I just think too much is played overly safe these days (from a players perspective).

I don't think that's fair. There is plenty of creative ambition and push. Just not in the way you might like.

I totally agree that much of that creative ambition and push comes too often to be focussed on broader, not deeper worlds. More gorgeous realizations of visuals and less what to do while looking at those worlds.

I guess you saw how little Prey and Dishonored 2, both "sim" games that tried for better-rounded gameplay, did in sales eh? Disappointing.

In this case, I still think a first or third person switch is best but I wouldn't mind seeing a top/isometric tactical view a la DA Origins. Or, perhaps, view points from multiple party members. Netrunners could see through hacked cameras and cyberware.

 

[Snowflakez]

I don't think that's fair. There is plenty of creative ambition and push. Just not in the way you might like.

I totally agree that much of that creative ambition and push comes too often to be focussed on broader, not deeper worlds. More gorgeous realizations of visuals and less what to do while looking at those worlds.

I guess you saw how little Prey and Dishonored 2, both "sim" games that tried for better-rounded gameplay, did in sales eh? Disappointing.

In this case, I still think a first or third person switch is best but I wouldn't mind seeing a top/isometric tactical view a la DA Origins. Or, perhaps, view points from multiple party members. Netrunners could see through hacked cameras and cyberware.

To be fair in Dishonored 2's case, they lost my business because the game ran like garbage on PC. I can't say for sure where the majority of the game's sales went (because it's a "sim", and particularly a stealth sim, I think a nice chunk are probably PC, but probably not the majority), but I wouldn't chalk it all up to the nature of gameplay-focused design. The original Dishonored did very well for itself, for example.

 

[Suhiira]

To be fair in Dishonored 2's case, they lost my business because the game ran like garbage on PC.

A lot of that has to do with how much the developer/publisher wants to spend on porting a game to other platforms.
The minimum amount of time/money for a basic,quasi-functional port, or more time/money for a good one?

That and UNFORTUNATELY these days there's little to no expectation that a game will run well "out of the box". And some developers/publishers don't bother to spend the time/money to patch things if it's "good enough".

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I don't think that's fair. There is plenty of creative ambition and push. Just not in the way you might like.

Is there, though? I dunno, if an aspect, such as the one we talked about for example, is made the easy, safe and mundane way, I don't think it's unfair to call it for what it is inspite there possibly being excellence elsewhere. Credit goes where credit is due for certain, but so does discredit.

I also have to agree with Snow on the point of Dishonored 2 and Prey. I don't believe they fell on the "complexity" of their gameplay design (they don't even look complex), but on other merits. They've repelled me so far by looking too dull with forced setups. (On different note, I wouldn't be surprised if Bethesda eventually discontinued Arkane based on those games.)

I believe that if the gameplay is an act of discovery, finding out those mechanical opportunities, possibilities and fineries it will find the audience even if it was initially more complex than what you would normally see in mainstream games. The lukewarm reception could well be about the design not being relentless enough in what it tries to achieve, e.g. RPG complexity, and instead aiming for halfsies and walking on eggshells with everything to not "offend" anyone who might prefer simpler games (since the mainstream audience comes in many shapes and forms). And in doing so, diluting everything to an extent and repelling more people from both sides of the argument. I'm not a market analyst (nor do I want to be, people are more complex than numbers on a statistic graphic), but I think it's logical.

In this case, I still think a first or third person switch is best but I wouldn't mind seeing a top/isometric tactical view a la DA Origins. Or, perhaps, view points from multiple party members. Netrunners could see through hacked cameras and cyberware.

No opposition here, really.

I do think, if the gameplay works in a specific manner, it doesn't matter what the perspective is... ISO, 3rd person, or 1st person, or all of those by switch. Just as long as the perspectives don't force a characteristic norm specific for them... i.e. "if in 1st person, it must work like a FPS games do", but are accepted to work as they do through the core design.

Witcher 1 had three perspectives that had unified mechanical base (to my recollection). One of those could've well have been 1st person while still holding on to the cursor driven gameplay with the time-combo system.

 

[dimonicus92]

I really don't mind the camera. Ideally the game should have both 3rd person and 1rst person

 

[wisdom000]

Witcher 1-3, third person. Every game with even halfway decent customization is primarily third person. Cyberpunk 2077 is made with the same engine as with her 3, and heavy customization is absolutely vital in emulating Cyberpunk 2020. There is no reason to believe that the game will not be primarily third person perspective, especially as it will likely include melee combat, driving, and flying.

First person Is not immersive to me, it never has been. Until they figure out a way to give us 3 separate axis of vision, body, head, eyes, that work seemlessly, it won't be immersive for me. Maybe when VR is advanced enough and affordable, certainly not until then.

 

[Sardukhar]

I would like to see Third Person, and certainly axis of view is a concern, but I played many fun hours of Cpunk without seeing my character. I got to see the gear he was buying and the world he played in and that was just fine.

So I wouldn't say third person and visual customization is at all vital in emulating Cyberpunk 2020. Nice, but not vital.

 

[Suhiira]

So I wouldn't say third person and visual customization is at all vital in emulating Cyberpunk 2020. Nice, but not vital.

Yes, no, maybe.
I'd be happy with a good visual of your character in the equipment management screen and during cutscenes. Playing in 3rd person generally permits more situational awareness due to a wider field-of-view but 1st person can work fine as well IF there's a FOV slider.

I frequently pull back my camera (when a game allows it) to get a "tactical" view or just to do something as simple as figure out where the door is. Many 1st person games lock you strictly into a limited FOV, and I find that annoying.

 

[Sardukhar]

Yes, no, maybe.
I'd be happy with a good visual of your character in the equipment management screen and during cutscenes. Playing in 3rd person generally permits more situational awareness due to a wider field-of-view but 1st person can work fine as well IF there's a FOV slider.

Yeah, these would all make me happy. Also maybe the ability to use TrackIR would be cool.

So, I dunno. I'm playing Vampyr recently and I like it a lot.

But I did notice a disconnect between me and my character - watching as I run along the city reminds me of doing the same in Witcher 3 and GTA and Assassins Creed and Watch Dogs and so on. It made me feel..fatigued? Like I was just driving a guy around a town again? Like I've seen the back and legs of Some Dude With Weapons running a -lot-.

Now, I haven't had that feeling in FPP that I can think of. I replay Bloodlines every year and mess around in Stalker constantly as well as Deus Ex. I feel claustrophobic sometimes because of the viewpoint, especially Deus Ex for some reason, but not bored or like I've seen it a hundred times.

Maybe there's a difference between absorbed and immersed? In Third Person and isometric games, I can get pretty absorbed. I burned through Deadfire in a few days of steady play and had a great time. I miss my teleporting fists-of-destruction Monk already.

But in First Person I feel actually immersed, like I'm in the world myself. Sometimes ( Stalker) that means I can only play for short periods at a time, but it does seem to mean I don't get tired of the same view...

I dunno.

 

[atomowyturysta]

This threat is loong Again. People in favor of TPP have nothing against FPP as long as TPP is in the game. People in favor of FPP want everyone to stick to FPP because a flying, dismembered camera with severely reduced field of view is oh so IMMERSIVE. What's not immersive in TPP. Did you all found the Witcher 3 lacking immersion because you could see your character instead of immersing yourself into flying TV? I found every single TPP game more immersive than FPP. Imagine said Witcher 3 as FPP - disaster. Imagine Tomb Rider as FPP - disaster. Butimplementing FPP is cheap and easy. Implementing good TPP takes an effort. So let CDPR implement good TPP and then FPP, so both worlds are happy. Still, I don't know why would anyone want to play an RPG in FPP. I'm really sorry for yours PnP group.
GM "Please describe your character"
FPP Fan: "His name is Teddy the Killer. He's flying camera with silly hands awkwardly holding an SMG"
Ok. I'm totally making fun of FPP people but you guys are so ABSOLUTE in your views. "FPP is better becauste thist, that and this and that and YOU CAN'T like it the other way!" Yes I can and yes you can. Let's have both TPP and FPP. What's wrong with choice?

 

[Shavod]

This threat is loong Again. People in favor of TPP have nothing against FPP as long as TPP is in the game. People in favor of FPP want everyone to stick to FPP because a flying, dismembered camera with severely reduced field of view is oh so IMMERSIVE.

That's funny, because so far I didn't see a single person who favors FPP over TPP saying that making the game TPP would be a deal breaker to them, however there was plenty of people who said that they are not going to buy the game unless it's TPP. Hell, one of the reasons this thread blew up so much is because people were getting seriously upset over those rumors saying that CP2077 might be FPP only.

Did you all found the Witcher 3 lacking immersion because you could see your character instead of immersing yourself into flying TV?

There were certainly a times when I really wanted to be able to see through character's eyes in The Witcher 3. In fact, I still hold the opinion that FPP mode would allow for a much more immersive investigations.

Butimplementing FPP is cheap and easy. Implementing good TPP takes an effort. So let CDPR implement good TPP and then FPP, so both worlds are happy.

Implementing good FPP is certainly not an easy task, as shown by Rockstar with GTA V, which required a tremendous amount of extra work. And I doubt that making good TPP, then throwing in whatever FPP mode would make people who prefer FPP happy.

Ok. I'm totally making fun of FPP people but you guys are so ABSOLUTE in your views. "FPP is better becauste thist, that and this and that and YOU CAN'T like it the other way!"

That's pretty ironic, after what you wrote above.

 

[RandomCyberdude]

In game character Perspective!

I believe the game should go with 3rd person perspective as default. By all means give us a first person perspective option, but the default should be 3rd person. When its done the other way around, like in the Fallout games, the character just looks goofy when they move, especially when they run or strafe. Plus, 3rd person allows me to see my awesome character.

Absolutely agree with this one.But for me it will be fine if they will just save an option to change to 3d person view.On the other hand if the game will be first person only, for me and for big amount of other players it will drop its position so hard, that i,personally,will think twice on possibility of buying the game.I really dont want to see smth like Deus ex in game like Cyberpunk.Damn, i'm gonna be fine if CDPR will just copy 3d person view and combat from Witcher 3 and paste it into Cyberpunk.So i, just as many other players, really, really want to see 3d person view at least as an option and if it will happend, i'm gonna throw all my f*cking money into the monitor and after this into CDPR's wallet, even if game will get bad comments from everybody else.