You didn't use miniatures? You didn't draw your character, or otherwise have an image you used as visual representation?
Yeah, i hope we all see the hilarity that Random's post follow Atom's? Especially after mine, which was all "TPP would be great! Even if I like FPP the most!"
Nah. Drawn images were always crappy and my characters were way cooler in my head. Even a lot of the early CP art was crap.
I'm surprised you'd prefer FPP. I know we've discussed it before, but it still surprises me, given the games I know you've enjoyed in the past. Nothing wrong with it though.
Yeah, motion sickness sucks. It's real - I see people get it in VR pretty badly. Seems to be no pattern either. Friend of mine who is pilot-qualified and a real-life tactical shooter can't play in VR longer than 5 minutes. He's really great at Onward..and then has to lie down. I don't know what the fix is for that, but I hope companies that do FPP games look at it.
Yeah, this would be a real worry. Both in terms of melee weapon/martial arts and terrain movement across obstacles. And vehicles. These problems can be overcome - Kingdom Come is still so fun - but typically they are inferior solutions.
This is the only argument that ever needs to be made for the presence of TPP (optional or otherwise) in any game, ever.
I get Sard's point about immersion and the superiority of FP shooting mechanics. High level shooters in the tournament space are always FP. This is no accident. I'd like to think some variation of TP shooting could get there at some point. Not sure what that would look like. At the very least TP represents to me a more holistic design approach.This is the only argument that ever needs to be made for the presence of TPP (optional or otherwise) in any game, ever.
I do get that and it is definitely a good reason to be opposed to that, however as you already said, most people complaining about the game being possibly FPP only don't have motion sickness of any kind, yet they still make it a deal breaker to them, which I find really silly, since just as Sard, I personally don't have nothing against TPP or even hybrid system, I simply have my preference for game being FPP only for different reasons that I already voiced elsewhere (and because in hybrids one of the two perspectives usually sucks and you never can't be sure which one it's going to be).
Well, when I started following The Witcher game and CDPR for the first time all I knew about the game was that it's going to have isometric camera only and it kinda looked like Neverwinter Nights, so I never really cared about what kind of camera the game will have, as long as it looks interesting, but I can see how for some people it can be troublesome.
Only if you're one of those people that uses three monitors so you have some peripheral vision.
Right, I was specifically referring to people with motion sickness. They may have bought CDPR's games because they're one of the few "safe" developers (who probably won't change camera perspectives, even if they change everything else), but if CDPR does change it, they will be collateral damage. Not saying they shouldn't change it regardless if that's what they want to do, of course.
The Witcher 1 had isometric camera that they got rid of in the sequel, the first game also allowed you to play the whole game using nothing more then a mouse (maybe with the exception of accessing the interface), which also was not present in the later games. And yes, there were people with various physical disabilities that complained about that, since now playing the game was almost impossible to them (unless they got a multifunctional mouse). So they are not really above ditching certain features across the different games, if they think it will make for a better experience overall, even if it means alienating some of the previous fans. Of course, I'm not wishing for you to not be able to play the game, I'm just making it clear that decision like that wouldn't be nothing unusual for CDPR, especially for a completely new title that they revealed almost nothing about and that based on what we know of will definitely incorporate some shooter elements.
Actually we don't KNOW this.
Being a character oriented RPG doesn't mean shooter elements are impossible. Considering that the 2 most likely mechanical choices for combat would be either turn based or "falloutish" combat I'd go will the latter since CDPR has more experience with real time action.
In job offers for combat designers they stated that they search for people who had experience working on shooters with RPG elements, so I would say that's a pretty strong indication that the game during combat will at least play similar to the shooter in terms of controls and aiming.
Yep.
At least early on they were planning some kind of tactical mode and the poster with that feature is still in the office, suggesting that it's not (completely) outdated, so it's definitely a possibility that they include something like that on top of shooter mechanics.
What? The Witcher 1 wasn't isometric focused. Not even close. Maybe in the Polish version? The character perspective has stayed virtually 100% consistent across all three games. Third person, over the shoulder. Everything BUT that has changed. That's not to say tweaks haven't been made to it for usability, and "next-gen" gameplay, but still.
I never said it was the only perspective available, but isometric perspective was very much an option, however for example combat system seemed to be much better suited for that particular camera. My point was that there were people who prefered isometric view over TPP, yet it didn't stop RED's from removing this feature completely in the later games.
Sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.
