Why missing Cinematic/3rd person Cutscenes is THE biggest flaw

[Guest 3847602]

Oh sorry, then it's not false advertising. It's just bait and switch.

No, it can't be bait and switch if they tell you what exactly you'll be getting more than a year in advance. It's simply a change of plans fully disclosed to the public. No foul play. 15 months is more than reasonable amount of time to cancel the pre-order for everyone who thinks that not having TPP cutscenes is a dealbreaker.

Skyrim, Greedfall, All four of the Way of the Samurai games, Mass Effect 1 (1 only) KoTOR 1.....

I've never heard of Way of the Samurai games, but vast majority of people do consider all those other games as RPGs. Not especially deep (except for KotOR), but still RPGs.

 

[Audi82]

Maybe you have a link, I don't see which "demo" you talk about (famous maybe, but unknow for me).

for "demo" (as demonstration) I mean the gameplay footage showed by CDP

Post automatically merged: Aug 28, 2021

Yes. This was before the decision was made to remove 3rd-person altogether. All part of sharing a Work in Progress:

The images you're seeing may not represent the final product. Everything you see is subject to change.

"This was before the decision was made to remove 3rd-person"

so the "immersion" has nothing to do with it, otherwise they knew from the start what they wanted to do, not after years of development, or they don't know the difference between 1st and 3rd person games, even as gamers? resources and time are the reasons, no one can make me change my mind about it especially considering the pitiful state in which the game came out, and the lacks of contents wich can only confirm it further, at least if we don't want to insult our own intelligence


"The images you're seeing may not represent the final product. Everything you see is subject to change."

this is the classic excuse "per pararsi il culo" ("to be able to cover your butt", literally) as we say in Italy, don't know if a non-italian person can understand the meaning of this methaphor, but I think is pretty clear . Obviously, this is not strictly linked to CDP or the world of games, but also in other contexts where are used similar marginal notes ...

 

[LeKill3rFou]

for "demo" (as demonstration) I mean the gameplay footage showed by CDP

If it's a demo dating from before CDPR decided "only first person", this video is no longer accurate... sound logic (to me at least)
So the useful mention : "Everything you see is subject to change"
If it is indicated, why be surprised if there is a change... when CDPR had announced that there could be...

 

[Audi82]

"f it's a demo dating from before CDPR decided "only first person"

it isn't, the entire gameplay was showed only in 1fst in the same video

Anyway "the demo" that I've talking about:

Since the start we have a beautiful 3d person cinematic that show V out of the gameplay in a pure narrative cinematic ( "night city three days later"...so a sequence picked after some mission, a job wich had success so "V have money to burn" as said in the video)
it's pretty clear that there had to be narrative third-person cinematics like TW3 even if the gameplay was in first (. Just another thing removed to respect the time schedule saving A LOT of works

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Since the start we have a beautiful 3d person cinematic that show V out of the gameplay in a pure narrative cinematic ( "night city three days later"...so a sequence picked after some mission, a job wich had success so "V have money to burn" as said in the video)
it's pretty clear that there had to be narrative third-person cinematics like TW3 even if the gameplay was in first (. Just another thing removed to respect the time schedule saving A LOT of works

So yep, it's only few seconds at the very beginnig for "intro"... After you can clearly see that it's only first person for the gameplay...

And not sure a first person cinematics like CDPR have done in CP (where you can look whatever you want) is more "easly" and "cheap". In a "fixe" cinematic, where players have no control, you can "hide" whatever you want easily... Like with Dex, you can look Dex, you can look ouside, you can look the driver, you can wait as long as you want before answering... Not easy at all...

But if you think not, I won't try to convince you. The game is and will still in person person view only, it was announced like that, year before the release and it's all good for me

 

[Bloodartist]

"f it's a demo dating from before CDPR decided "only first person"

it isn't, the entire gameplay was showed only in 1fst in the same video

Are you aware that the "gameplay" video is fake in its entirety?

I've never heard of Way of the Samurai games, but vast majority of people do consider all those other games as RPGs. Not especially deep (except for KotOR), but still RPGs.

I dont know Greedfall, but all the others are deeper RPGs than Cyberpunk 2077.

 

[Guest 3847602]

So yep, it's only few seconds at the very beginnig for "intro"... After you can clearly see that it's only first person for the gameplay...

The way they've talked about it made me think of Kingdom Come Deliverance cinematics, which were non-interactive and generally rare. Plus, conversations were always intended to be in first person, so I never got the impression that they were planning to have as many cutscenes as TW2 and 3.

I dont know Greedfall, but all the others are deeper RPGs than Cyberpunk 2077.

Greedfall is very similar to Dragon Age Inquisition, only it's not medieval, but "age of discovery" fantasy. I'd say it's either as much of an RPG as CP or slightly less.
Skyrim may be deeper RPG, but only by a hair. Those people who love it, do it for sandbox, exploration and modding, there are countless other games that offer better and deeper RPG experience.
I don't know how can ME1 be more of an RPG than Cyberpunk... And I adore ME1, btw.

 

[cartlidge]

Doing first person only allows them to direct the users view whilst still allowing them some freedom of movement. Take the cop in the nomad start where you're sitting in the car. How would this have been done third person? How would you gain the immersion of the cop leaning over you invading your personal space being intimidating? All that would be lost if you're looking at the top of the car and the cop beside it.

I really appreciate them taking the first person route, to cater for third person as well would have meant compromises and loss of immersion and control in several areas. During dialogues you can still look around albeit limited, in third person the camera is static.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Doing first person only allows them to direct the users view whilst still allowing them some freedom of movement. Take the cop in the nomad start where you're sitting in the car. How would this have been done third person? How would you gain the immersion of the cop leaning over you invading your personal space being intimidating? All that would be lost if you're looking at the top of the car and the cop beside it.

The same in the Street Kid begining, a video by @DefaultDanielS

Spoiler

This "cinematic" in third person... maybe/certainely not as great

 

[Audi82]

So yep, it's only few seconds at the very beginnig for "intro"... After you can clearly see that it's only first person for the gameplay...

And not sure a first person cinematics like CDPR have done in CP (where you can look whatever you want) is more "easly" and "cheap". In a "fixe" cinematic, where players have no control, you can "hide" whatever you want easily... Like with Dex, you can look Dex, you can look ouside, you can look the driver, you can wait as long as you want before answering... Not easy at all...

But if you think not, I won't try to convince you. The game is and will still in person person view only, it was announced like that, year before the release and it's all good for me

I not see anyhing particularly harder in terms of extra work with the cinematic in 1st person even with the free control of the camera (that is not so free anyway...): what you see in that case is the same environment that you see in game during real time gameplay, you haven't need to create so much "from scratch", frame to frame and dedicated... plus with this kind of 1st person sequences you may see strange things happens that not improve the immersivity, but on the contrary they ruin it. For example while you are in the car with someone and move your look freely around you see the pedestrians that appear/disappear as happen during the gameplay, and you clearly see the car that is unrealistically on a "binary" and wich steer, brake and accelerate in a odd and not organic way while strange things around can happen due too the poor AI. A 3rd person cinematics on the other side, requires a richer "camera direction" a wider visual spectrum and must be animated in a richer way and created frame by frame (!) from scratch, this is a lot of extra work, but the result will end to be smoother, organic, without weirds and unpredictable events around you and even more spectacular, allowing you to see your character animate and rendered in his entirely poligonar glory!
Apart from that, the fact that the gameplay in a game is in 1st person, hardly automatically mean that the cinematic are/must be in 1st person too, especially when they showed that sequece above...but above all considering that every single quest of TW3 had its own dedicated cinematics...

Post automatically merged: Aug 29, 2021

The same in the Street Kid begining, a video by @DefaultDanielS

Spoiler

This "cinematic" in third person... maybe/certainely not as great

Is there a law that prevented them from making different and mixed pov depending on what they wanted to show on a certain sequence?

Post automatically merged: Aug 29, 2021

Are you aware that the "gameplay" video is fake in its entirety?

if the "played section" (the fight) was fake it is certainly not a compliment to cdp but could be a further reason for criticism, not defenses ...you are aware of that? ^_^
However I was talking about the third person cinematic, whether the gameplay cut was fake or not is not strict functional to the matter


LONG STORY SHORT:

they could make us see our damn V more often, that's all

 

[Guest 3847602]

I not see anyhing particularly harder in terms of extra work with the cinematic in 1st person even with the free control of the camera (that is not so free anyway...)

I can name a few:
- you have to make seamless transition between gameplay and cutscene
- characters must have uninterrupted animations (if you use free camera in TW3 during cutscenes, you'll notice that the characters are teleporting between the cuts)
- even those characters who are not directly facing, or are not conversing with V have to be animated, not idle, like they are during TPP cutscenes

 

[LeKill3rFou]

but above all considering that every single quest of TW3 had its own dedicated cinematics...

Little difference, maybe ?
("CDPR choice", on their own perspective to make it more immersive... who can please somes or not others, whatever)
TW3 > only third person view, Cyberpunk > only first person view. That could explain why, I think

Is there a law that prevented them from making different and mixed pov depending on what they wanted to show on a certain sequence?

No law, but a single and deliberate choice... "use only first person view, to being more immersive..."
If it don't work for you, that's unfortunate, but for others (like me), it's great (and I really want to see that way more often, in all games)

For example, if Bioware publish a "remake" for ME Trilogy on first person view, I will buy it right now, even if I have the original three episods and ME-LE. It could be fantastic... I can't imagine facing the reaper on Rannoch in first person... way way more epic than in third person (for me at least)

 

[Audi82]

if Bioware will publish ME in first person, the cinematic will always be in third person because of the narrative direction itself (epic/movie-ike style story and events)

 

[LeKill3rFou]

if Bioware will publish ME in first person, the cinematic will always be in third person because of the narrative direction itself (epic/movie-ike style story and events)

You point out the right thing > "the narrative direction itself (epic/movie-ike style story and events)"
Exactly the same for Cyberpunk. CDPR have choose to do it in "100% first person view" :
- Not because it's cheaper. If it was really cheapier, why "small/little" studios still make third person cinematics... (like Obsidian in Outer World or even Bethesda where it's all that you want but not epic/movie-like at all in TES or Fallout).
- Not because "lack of time". It could be also long (even more longer) to do it in first person view when players have full control of what they want to look at.
Only because it's more immersive for CDPR and many players at least

 

[Audi82]

I can name a few:
- you have to make seamless transition between gameplay and cutscene
- characters must have uninterrupted animations (if you use free camera in TW3 during cutscenes, you'll notice that the characters are teleporting between the cuts)
- even those characters who are not directly facing, or are not conversing with V have to be animated, not idle, like they are during TPP cutscenes

-I enter in a car, or in a certain location and the game in a precise point take the control of my charcter and I can look around for some degree, nothing special and not seamless at all, you notice when it happen unless you mean the fluidity of the passage that ok, there is, but I couldn't care less, I can't see V, that's the problem for me

-if you don't want to see the transition is enough just a fade effect (as in a video montage) that masks any visible "jumps" which for me is not even such deal but a sorta of cut/scene changes like in a movie. Honestly I've never heard anyone complain/talking about cutscenes it previus TW games while the first person in cyberpunk has and still been brought into question several times. This "jump" doesn't seem to me such problem like an imposed camera view that practically never allow me to see my character in all the game (sure one can mention the few seconds at the beginning or end of the game, but I will start laughing XD)

-in the in-car sequences the characters out of it and around you are not scripted, in fact as I alredy said may happen to see things that it would be better not see at all, the most recent happened to me was in the mission with Rogue while going to the ebunike, where everything happened around as just to get out of the afterlife and get into the main street XD

 

[-Nailes-]

"This was before the decision was made to remove 3rd-person"

so the "immersion" has nothing to do with it, otherwise they knew from the start what they wanted to do, not after years of development, or they don't know the difference between 1st and 3rd person games, even as gamers? resources and time are the reasons, no one can make me change my mind about it especially considering the pitiful state in which the game came out, and the lacks of contents wich can only confirm it further, at least if we don't want to insult our own intelligence

Maybe they just tried to make 3rd person and then decided that it didnt work and wasnt immersive enough.
Resources have little to do with it I'm afraid. Since you have a body in 1st person, that means they had to do the 3d modelling, rigging and animating during cutscenes even if the camera was stuck on V's body. Thats still a lot of work while they could have gone the Bethesda route where you have no body in 1st person, just a pair of arms.

 

[Guest 3847602]

-I enter in a car, or in a certain location and the game in a precise point take the control of my charcter and I can look around to for some degree, nothing special and not seamless at all, you notice when it happen unless you mean the fluidity of the passage that ok, there is, but I couldn't care less, I can't see V, that's the problem for me

-if you don't want to see the transition is enough just a fade effect (as in a video montage) that masks any visible "jumps" which for me is not even such deal but a sorta of cut/scene changes like in a movie. Honestly I've never heard anyone complain/talking about cutscenes it previus TW games while the first person in cyberpunk has and still been brought into question several times. This "jump" doesn't seem to me such problem like an imposed camera view that practically never allow me to sees my character in all the game (sure one can mention the few seconds at the beginning or end of the game, but I will start laughing XD)

-in the in-car sequences the characters out of it and around you are not scripted, in fact as I alredy said may happen to see things that it would be better not see at all, the most recent happened to me was in the mission with Rogue while going to the ebunike, where everything happened around as just to get out of the afterlife and get into the main street XD

Well, I was trying to explain what makes it more difficult to program and implement properly compared to classic, TPP cutscenes. If you think it's not a big deal, or it's a wasted effort, that's fine. Still doesn't make it lazy and cheap solution. What I forgot to mention is that assigning animations to a model seamlessly, on the fly is also more difficult than it is "in isolation", during TPP cutscenes.
I remember these examples being brought up in relation to cinematic set pieces in FPP-only games like Half-Life 2 and BioShock Infinite, so I thought it's worth repeating.

 

[Audi82]

Maybe they just tried to make 3rd person and then decided that it didnt work and wasnt immersive enough.

my two cents: they "decided" that time and moneys are not infinite and realize that the release date was closer and closer.. All the problems that the game had at launch (and after over 8 months still have, even if much less, thanks to all the big patches) and the cut contents says a lot

 

[CS554]

That being said, its just an objective observation that first person is always more immersive than 3rd person could ever be. Being a bystander you can feel empathy for the character in a 3rd person setting. But too often this is confused with sympathy, which can only be felt by seeing things through the eyes of a character. Sympathy is when you share someones feelings and emotions, empathy is when you understand them but do not (necessarily) share or feel connected to them.

That's very interesting take on this.

Playing CP 2077 for the first time was the most intense gaming experience that I have ever had and for months I tried to figure out what made it so. First person perspective is huge contributing factor but why and I remembered some NPC's from Glen, City Center. One type particularly, one with long brown coat wandering in sort of absent minded manner. Someone who's going going to lunch or meeting and while I'm not physically like that there's something in body language and that, in real life, that could be me so naturally that's NPC that presents something quite relatable and I think that had a lot influence for my experience, even I didn't perhaps register that on very conscious level during my first playthrough.

 

[SigilFey]

That's very interesting take on this.

Playing CP 2077 for the first time was the most intense gaming experience that I have ever had and for months I tried to figure out what made it so. First person perspective is huge contributing factor but why and I remembered some NPC's from Glen, City Center. One type particularly, one with long brown coat wandering in sort of absent minded manner. Someone who's going going to lunch or meeting and while I'm not physically like that there's something in body language and that, in real life, that could be me so naturally that's NPC that presents something quite relatable and I think that had a lot influence for my experience, even I didn't perhaps register that on very conscious level during my first playthrough.

The trouble is the way some people use the word "immersion" and the way other people interpret the meaning.

"Immersion" in video games, to many if not most players, is used to mean: "I am totally sucked in by this game, and it completely captures my attention -- I can't put it down!"

To many others, it means: "I feel like I'm actually there, in that world. It's so realistic!"

And to others, it means: "It feels like I'm thrown in the deep end with this game. So much to do and so much to think about!"

^ That's the problem with using the actual word immersion for anything.

The actual meaning of the word is:
a.) submerge completely in liquid
b.) absorbing involvement

So...all of the above meanings can apply...and it can be completely unclear which meaning is intended by the speaker.

It is therefore perfectly valid to say, "1st-person perspective is objectively more immersive than 3rd-person." This uses definition a.) metaphorically. Being in 1st-person means I am completely immersed in the game world -- looking out of my character's eyes as if I myself were actually there. If the game world is like a pool, 1st-person means every part of my perspective is completely "under water". This is unarguably more "immersed" in the gameworld than a disembodied, 3rd-person camera offering a more omniscient perspective of the gameworld.

However, this does not mean that people will universally like 1st-person more. They may find it to be overwhelming, annoying, or frustrating to play 1st-person games because of the way that limited view of the gameworld works. They may dislike the controls and responsiveness. They may dislike the less cinematic views, and missing cool-factor of being able to see your character. Hence, it would also be perfectly valid to say, "I don't like 1st-person games because I don't find them immersive." This uses definition b.) to correctly argue a subjective consideration of the effect the game's perspective has on that player's enjoyment, how "absorbing" they find it, and level of "involvement" that they feel.

So, two, perfectly valid statements, one objective and one subjective, each of which correctly and validly uses different meanings of the same word to express completely conflicting ideas.

The problem isn't people's understanding or arguments -- it's that the freaking English language is a mess. It's best not to use words like this if they introduce vaguities to the core understanding of the concepts being discussed...but try convincing advertisers that want to use those powerful keywords and catch phrases.