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

[CS554]

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.

[...]

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.

English could do it I think, but I haven't practiced that level of English for decades so it's a moot point.

But yeah, I have noticed this and that's why I avoid using the whole term and instead like to write about things that contributes towards suspending my disbelief. The whole immersion debate is further complicated by things that aren't depended from 1st/3rd person factors. Say making every food stand interactable. For me that would mean, dialogue prompt appearing every few steps in certain areas of city, it wouldn't matter if perspective would be 1st or 3rd. Now where that would leave developers? They needed to fix that too and that would be less food stands in city, but then that would lead to another issues, less food stands with existing NPC population would mean that they should either have less NPC's or have them forming lines on food stands. That is example of cycle that starts from complaints, and I don't say that's not valid feedback, though what was going happening on Dec/Jan especially, not all of that feedback was intellectually honest, but... This process adding interactive food stands resulting game world that would be objectively emptier than what we have now which would be counterproductive for making it more "immersive". This is also to highlight something else. In real life I when I go to visit market square, I don't engage in conversation at every stall, nor I buy anything from every stall but check what there's for sale from slight distance. Anyway I tend to avoid immersion debates for reason.

Have you paid attention that some NPC's has micro expressions? It's been said that about 70% of human communication is through non-verbal communication. From 3rd person view... I think, it's been a long time though, but the first Mass Effect game did that for some degree at least IIRC but then those scenes, they were integrated cut scenes without much freedom for players. CP 2077 takes these interactive scenes much further, player can study say Peralez Aparment while discussing with them and get back to conversation and that's how we, people tend to work, though situationally we may be more or less conscious about that.

In the end, I think it's about goals from the point of view from developers and players, but as a rule of thumb perhaps 3rd perspective limits creative freedom in certain ways, while first perspective allows experiences only video game format can achieve, at the moment at least. What will become of VR in coming decades may change things regarding movies and tv-shows too.

Something to add regarding "immersion" and player goals. I don't look for experience being absorbed in something, casual games are for that, racing, shooting zombies, they can be great for relaxing. CP 2077 is something very different though, does some things that other game, the Outer Worlds do. It portrays scenarios about real life topics that are relevant to me, in mature, intellectual manner through characters, through environmental story telling, shards, etc. It does what original Cyberpunk literature did the best.

Maybe someone can make that all work in game from 3rd person perspective, even I don't see how, but then I don't make games, I only play them sometimes though Covid kinda changed things for a lot of people including me.

 

[SigilFey]

English could do it I think, but I haven't practiced that level of English for decades so it's a moot point.

But yeah, I have noticed this and that's why I avoid using the whole term and instead like to write about things that contributes towards suspending my disbelief. The whole immersion debate is further complicated by things that aren't depended from 1st/3rd person factors. Say making every food stand interactable. For me that would mean, dialogue prompt appearing every few steps in certain areas of city, it wouldn't matter if perspective would be 1st or 3rd. Now where that would leave developers? They needed to fix that too and that would be less food stands in city, but then that would lead to another issues, less food stands with existing NPC population would mean that they should either have less NPC's or have them forming lines on food stands. That is example of cycle that starts from complaints, and I don't say that's not valid feedback, though what was going happening on Dec/Jan especially, not all of that feedback was intellectually honest, but... This process adding interactive food stands resulting game world that would be objectively emptier than what we have now which would be counterproductive for making it more "immersive". This is also to highlight something else. In real life I when I go to visit market square, I don't engage in conversation at every stall, nor I buy anything from every stall but check what there's for sale from slight distance. Anyway I tend to avoid immersion debates for reason.

Have you paid attention that some NPC's has micro expressions? It's been said that about 70% of human communication is through non-verbal communication. From 3rd person view... I think, it's been a long time though, but the first Mass Effect game did that for some degree at least IIRC but then those scenes, they were integrated cut scenes without much freedom for players. CP 2077 takes these interactive scenes much further, player can study say Peralez Aparment while discussing with them and get back to conversation and that's how we, people tend to work, though situationally we may be more or less conscious about that.

In the end, I think it's about goals from the point of view from developers and players, but as a rule of thumb perhaps 3rd perspective limits creative freedom in certain ways, while first perspective allows experiences only video game format can achieve, at the moment at least. What will become of VR in coming decades may change things regarding movies and tv-shows too.

Something to add regarding "immersion" and player goals. I don't look for experience being absorbed in something, casual games are for that, racing, shooting zombies, they can be great for relaxing. CP 2077 is something very different though, does some things that other game, the Outer Worlds do. It portrays scenarios about real life topics that are relevant to me, in mature, intellectual manner through characters, through environmental story telling, shards, etc. It does what original Cyberpunk literature did the best.

Maybe someone can make that all work in game from 3rd person perspective, even I don't see how, but then I don't make games, I only play them sometimes though Covid kinda changed things for a lot of people including me.

That's well said, and I very much agree with how big of an impact some of the little gameplay details can have on the overall experience and general suspension of disbelief! But...we're beginning to deviate again from the main point of the thread:

Whether removal of 3rd-person / cinematic cutscenes was a flaw.

What's actually being identified there is the subjective, psychological effect that a more traditional, cinematic cutscene would have had on the game's tone and mood, the impact of the delivery of certain moments, and the more polished flavor it would have created in terms of advancing dramatic action more fluently. I can definitely compress a scene much more using planned shots and cuts than I can trying to play things out in real-time (essentially using a continuous shot). Also, and it's no small detail, this is what the wider world audience is used to. Everyone is most familiar with cinema and television when engaging in a visualization of dramatic work. We could argue games as another very common medium...but most games to date that want to deliver a dramatic scene will use film techniques to do so.

Then, we have the pioneer titles in gaming that wanted to try to break the mold. Most notable was Half-Life 1, in which the player never, for even one instant, left the perspective of Gordon from the start of the game to the end. You saw the entire experience play out as if you were viewing every moment through Gordon's eyes. No "cutscenes"...no external camera shot showing Gordon leaping off a cliff while stuff exploded behind him...no dramatization of the player character in any way. It was a different, more intimate way of creating a connection between the player and the world. Games like FarCry have continued to use it to great effect! One key thing that both Half-Life and the FarCry games do is leave the player character a largely blank slate. We will normally get only a glimpse or two of ourselves throughout the games. (Well, FarCry 3 onward, anyway.) Yeah, there's some character work and motivation delivered through dialogue whenever the player character speaks, but both Gordon and [InsertFarCryProtagonistHere] are not very developed characters.

With Cyberpunk, V is much more defined. Intricate voice acting, a very defined character arc, and there are absolutely scripted moments -- no matter how much choice is offered in deciding which script will play out. This means that V, regardless of player interpretation or vision, is a key character in many scenes. A character...we never get to see in action. While I wasn't bothered by the 1st-person perspective in the least, I have to argue that it would have been better to leave the 3rd-person cinematics in. It would not only have made key moments of this cinematic game more cinematic, but it would have been our chance to see the V we created actually interacting in this world. It was a final tie that I think was needed to make players feel as if their character was actually there and connected with the other characters. (And this is a storytelling consideration, not a gameplay consideration.)

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I just did the 3 episodes of Tomb Raider, where it's 100% 3rd person gameplay and 100% third person cinematic.
So yes, it's beautiful, it's "cinematographic", but the difference with Cyberpunk is that I feel like I "look" instead of "live" the game. In short, I played as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, while in Cyberpunk, I'm "V".
It's not the same "sensation" at all, and that make a huge difference in my point of view. Basically Cyberpunk is a little bit like VR, but without a headset

 

[GogRelvas]

I love how they implemented 1st person in cyberpunk, including only having 3rd person cutscenes in the end, making them much more meaningfull in new ways.
If 3rd person were to be included in the game I would prefer having the chance to play in 3rd person on peacefull moments (anywhere but toggle to 1st in combat) or safe locations (Vs apartment, Judy's, afterlife...) than having cutscenes replacing what we have now (freedom when characters are talking to us, even if the freedom is only on where we look).

 

[CS554]

With Cyberpunk, V is much more defined. Intricate voice acting, a very defined character arc, and there are absolutely scripted moments -- no matter how much choice is offered in deciding which script will play out. This means that V, regardless of player interpretation or vision, is a key character in many scenes. A character...we never get to see in action. While I wasn't bothered by the 1st-person perspective in the least, I have to argue that it would have been better to leave the 3rd-person cinematics in. It would not only have made key moments of this cinematic game more cinematic, but it would have been our chance to see the V we created actually interacting in this world. It was a final tie that I think was needed to make players feel as if their character was actually there and connected with the other characters. (And this is a storytelling consideration, not a gameplay consideration.)

I can understand reasoning here, though I disagree and I tried to cover the benefits 1st person perspective in scripted scenes over 3rd person view in my post. But in the end it's up to that we just are different, for me 1st person enabled experience like how @LeKill3rFou put it above. VR without a headset so what connects to use in game world is obviously subjective. Your post made me think of novels, how there are people who prefer either from first or third person technique presenting the story, for me what comes to novels, either way works though I think they enable different things. And it's interesting how I recall some discussions from somewhere where it really came down which enable people to feel connected to world.

What comes to like you put it, cinematic, I'm not sure if we entirely on the same page there. Cinematic can be used to describe something dramatic, if there are characters involved it might be what I call "toy commercial pose" moments in Disney superhero movie. These movies have every right to exists, but cinema they are not. Think of European art films, think it was Cet obscur objet du désir (That Obscure Object of Desire) 1977 by Luis Buñuel, when when film is ending, there shot that is not portrayed through view of any character nor have any characters, it just view from the point of view of camera and in scene, there are locomotive wheels and it shows how those wheels rotate back, before locomotive moves forward, that is to portray what is also happening to couple in that film. That scene is not portrayed through view of any character but camera.

So I argue that 1st person perspective used in CP 2077 allows what is done is cinema and whole approach was ultimately decided because CDPR's approach to virtual game world was not about that it's something electrical, something French avant garde film makers studied back in '50's what is virtual, IIRC it was French philosopher Philippe Quéau who summarized that to be "theatre set". I'm absolutely sure, that CDRP's decision here was based on very well educated opinions and that they were aware that it doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone.

That said, the nomad ending my V on Panzer with Panam was very powerful moment for me but for me it's that way because 3rd person isn't used anywhere else in game. It's not just one thing, it's unexpected, emotionally huge experience, it's stylish, it's beautiful yet very grounded portraying something very human.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I think stupidly it's really personal and due to the sensations felt
For the gameplay some examples in my case:

• In racing games, I prefer the cockpit view because I feel like I'm driving a car instead of controlling a car.
• I don't have the feeling of vertigo in 3rd person at all. Like in Tomb Raider where Lara "often" crosses bottomless chasms, I never had this feeling. Unlike other first-person games where it's technically less high, less impressive, but I still had it.
• I'm not talking about horror games where I'm "scared" in 3rd person but where I'm "terrified" in first person. Even in "non-horror" games like when I first got eaten by a giant wolf spider in Grounded... So terrifying...

And for the cutscenes, I think in Cyberpunk, it puts more emphasis on the emotions/expressions of the interlocutors rather than on the character himself. I find it much more interesting.

But it's really personal and a matter of "taste"

 

[xangreigor]

While the game is great from the first person perspective and I like that we do not have a third person view option... I mean come on, the city would look so small without the ant perspective... but the cinematics are sorely missing. I mean really sorely.
For quests, important events etc. Some things just work in first person. Jacky especially. I knew it was coming but it felt so much more impactful from first person.
And yet, so many things could be done through third person cinematics. Quest intros, car purchases, important conversations.... The reason we all love Mass Effect games and the Witcher especially are facial expressions. And when we design our own character... it's us. I want to see us!

 

[CS554]

I think stupidly it's really personal and due to the sensations felt
For the gameplay some examples in my case:

• In racing games, I prefer the cockpit view because I feel like I'm driving a car instead of controlling a car.
• I don't have the feeling of vertigo in 3rd person at all. Like in Tomb Raider where Lara "often" crosses bottomless chasms, I never had this feeling. Unlike other first-person games where it's technically less high, less impressive, but I still had it.
• I'm not talking about horror games where I'm "scared" in 3rd person but where I'm "terrified" in first person. Even in "non-horror" games like when I first got eaten by a giant wolf spider in Grounded... So terrifying...

And for the cutscenes, I think in Cyberpunk, it puts more emphasis on the emotions/expressions of the interlocutors rather than on the character himself. I find it much more interesting.

But it's really personal and a matter of "taste"

Oh these are good. Racing games for me it's about compromises, hood cam if that's available and back when I played competitively 3rd person, to see rammers coming

But... Vertigo, I never experienced it in video game, no matter the perspective, but I don't think that would work for me in 3rd person at all. For 1st person only comparable relatively recent titles are those new Wolfenstein games but nope, no vertigo. It was rather surprising that it works in CP 2077.

Horror games brought me to think horror elements used in game, the Devil ending at space station. Technically could be done from 3rd person but I wouldn't want it that way. It was very clever use of those elements, not going for a cliche but instead like living a ancient Greek horror story and later I looked something up and maybe it was, hit me like a ton of bricks anyway.

Facial animations, micro expression I was referring to NPC's specifically. Even on Xbox One X I recently finished Queen of the Highway and later was chatting with Mitch in his tent and there is body language, there is facial animation, mouth but also they modeled tiny muscles around eyes down to cheek, he really does smile also with his eyes. Remarkable work and to make that work from 3rd person, cutscenes or not, it's valid opinion to wish that but it wouldn't work as well for me as what we have now.

Few of those interactive cut scenes we have are with Peralez couple and it's quite something how they look at V like they want to go for threesome. And it's actually psychologically interesting. I remember thinking "what the fuck it's with these people" Haha... and that I guess it comes to realization that that this might be exactly what V would be experiencing. Hilarious stuff and I don't see it working as well from 3rd perspective. Anyway, it's difficult to express this blurry line between that and our world and yet process is definitely something that contributed for my suspension of disbelief. And while I don't know where they were going with that at CDRP, maybe they just pulled prank but Peralez being these political people, it would make sense for them to engineer their character and mannerism even on sexual level. In real life ridiculously expensive business lawyers have used pheromones for years.

Last example, Judy Alvarez and how we study through with her story arch not only stages of grief but also existential depression, so it's like multidimensional character study and it reminds me of what they used to do at stage, in theatre here back in the 90's, there were entire plays dedicated just for that. So we can use that to study difference between Cinematic and cinema. In theatre we are bound to follow character(s) from our seats, same goes for movies, Bunuel and other film makers had they ideas to break that formula.

What CP 2077 does is that it allows players explore inside this "theatre set" and make discovery on their own, instead of having camera shoveled to NPC's face. This is very constructive use of virtual. They actually do this also on Sinnerman, NPC profiles matches real life psychological theories about certain things and only similar exploration I have seen on screen has been on Cinema, meaning mostly European art film, those things they never watch in America, they do those serial killer movies and that and those products has right to exist, but they are also hopelessly limited to what comes to exploring the human condition.

Then there's a matter that is also present in how people prefer fiction they read presented and these things can perhaps be something fundamental in a way that there's no right/wrong there, but I can't think of any research I know that goes into that subject.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Clearly a matter of opinion and taste, and I much prefer first person for gameplay, but I would have preferred third person for the cutscenes and any of the dialog where you can't just walk away. I actually think that the mix in games like Fallout 4 and Skyrim is about ideal (and they include the option to toggle back and forth at-will while exploring and fighting too). I think Cyberpunk is a much better game overall than either of those, but the ability to switch between 1st and 3rd person view and the natural flipping to 3rd person for cutscenes is perfect. Cyberpunk's 1st person is also better than the Bethesda games' -- it's tighter and more responsive. Cyberpunk's is more like a FPS, which is incredible in an RPG.

The Witcher 3 was only 3rd person, which I find frustrating for gameplay (I just never like the controls in third person games, including all the Tomb Raider-style games, they always feel mushy to me compared to the precision of 1st person). On the other hand, it's nice to see your character doing stuff. In spite of being 3rd person, the Witcher 3 is one of my absolute all-time favorite games. Those 3rd person cutscenes are probably a big part of my connection to the characters and the game. If I only saw Geralt through his own eyes, like V, I doubt I would feel the same connection with him.

Cutscenes also often involve your character doing things that you can't quite do exactly as shown and make them look incredibly cool. In the Witcher, even though it was years ago now, I still remember the scene on Bald Mountain where it shifts to a cutscene as you/Geralt is winning the fight and the Wild Hunt rider grabs Geralt, who then Igni-blasts him in the face, superheats the guy's helmet so he has to remove it. That could never happen in during the player-controlled part of a fight, but it was amazing in the cutscene. It even makes the regular player-controlled fighting more exciting, because it helps you imagine doing similar things in the regular fights. There are a lot of opportunities for those kinds of amazingly cool scenes in Cyberpunk 2077 with all the different weapon and quickhack attacks, but they lose their impact when viewed first person.

For me: if you're going to take the control away from me anyway so I'm just sitting back and watching for the story or entertainment, then show it like the movie it is, in 3rd person and use it to build drama and do things that are consistent with my character, but slightly out of reach, like that scene on Bald Mountain. But at the same time I LOVE that all the action I control is all 1st person. Thanks for that!

 

[SigilFey]

I can understand reasoning here, though I disagree and I tried to cover the benefits 1st person perspective in scripted scenes over 3rd person view in my post. But in the end it's up to that we just are different, for me 1st person enabled experience like how @LeKill3rFou put it above. VR without a headset so what connects to use in game world is obviously subjective. Your post made me think of novels, how there are people who prefer either from first or third person technique presenting the story, for me what comes to novels, either way works though I think they enable different things. And it's interesting how I recall some discussions from somewhere where it really came down which enable people to feel connected to world.

What comes to like you put it, cinematic, I'm not sure if we entirely on the same page there. Cinematic can be used to describe something dramatic, if there are characters involved it might be what I call "toy commercial pose" moments in Disney superhero movie. These movies have every right to exists, but cinema they are not. Think of European art films, think it was Cet obscur objet du désir (That Obscure Object of Desire) 1977 by Luis Buñuel, when when film is ending, there shot that is not portrayed through view of any character nor have any characters, it just view from the point of view of camera and in scene, there are locomotive wheels and it shows how those wheels rotate back, before locomotive moves forward, that is to portray what is also happening to couple in that film. That scene is not portrayed through view of any character but camera.

So I argue that 1st person perspective used in CP 2077 allows what is done is cinema and whole approach was ultimately decided because CDPR's approach to virtual game world was not about that it's something electrical, something French avant garde film makers studied back in '50's what is virtual, IIRC it was French philosopher Philippe Quéau who summarized that to be "theatre set". I'm absolutely sure, that CDRP's decision here was based on very well educated opinions and that they were aware that it doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone.

That said, the nomad ending my V on Panzer with Panam was very powerful moment for me but for me it's that way because 3rd person isn't used anywhere else in game. It's not just one thing, it's unexpected, emotionally huge experience, it's stylish, it's beautiful yet very grounded portraying something very human.

Clarifying: by "cinematic" I mean, "as it applies to the Art of cinema." Cinema requires a camera, a set, a framed shot that will use shape, color, and perspective to create a final image that will be universal for the entire audience. (For example, I don't get to watch a movie shot from a different angle than you, or choose to have the camera look at a different character during the same moment of a given scene. Once the final cut of a movie or television show is made, that is the film that every person will then see.)

The same is not necessarily true of a game. It's very possible for players to be looking any which way or doing any number of things differently at any given moment of gameplay.

Thus, we have an exclusive situation here: a.) I want to arrest player agency at key moments to introduce cinematic storytelling, or b.) I want to forego that storytelling and let the player maintain complete agency at all times, maximizing the sense of "actually being there" instead of "playing a game" or "watching a film".

What's said next:

But in the end it's up to that we just are different...

I think stupidly it's really personal and due to the sensations felt...

Clearly a matter of opinion and taste...

...is 100% true.

But there's also a matter of resonance vs. dissonance with any creative piece. Of course, show me the most popular whatever of all time, and I can find 100 people in no time that can't stand it. Show me the most hated thing ever made, and I can find 100 people in the same amount of time that absolutely love it.

If we look at TW3, what we see is a massive, sweeping popularity because all parts of the game resonated with each other. The characters fit the storyline. The music accented both the character and the story. The settings highlighted the tone and mood of every scene, and the dialogue played into that tone and mood, underscored beautifully by the music. We connected to the characters that were regularly visualized on screen, even though we may not have been able to make Geralt an elven magic archer, or halfling thief, being able to see our vision of CDPR's Geralt grow and change created a connection. We got to experience the world of The Witcher in a way that filled so many tick boxes for so many people, that many lauded it as a masterpiece and one of the greatest games ever made. Despite criticisms, everything resonated.

CP2077 despite all of the great stuff it does do, does create a dissonance with a huge number of players. And I really believe it was largely the design shift to go fully 1st-person and attempt a "Half-Life / FarCry" approach to the perspective and delivery. Here, we have not a blank-slate character...not a developed literary character that we get to see in action...but rather a developed character...
...that we can create and customize and define...
...that is also narratively dictated to a large extent...
...and we can hear speaking dialogue to other characters in their own voice...
...but we never have that character's development visually delivered...
...and then we can see ourselves in a mirror, or on a motorcycle, or when we take pictures...

And as that list grows and grows, rather than arriving at a resonance, things are falling more and more out of sync with the delivery of how our character connects to the world around us. I think a silent protagonist with quick-phrase dialogue options would have worked wonderfully for this type of approach. But having so much of my own character defined for me (outside of looks), and never getting to see the "director's vision" of how it would all fit together -- exactly like the 3rd-person cinematics that helped to establish V and Jackie in the first trailer -- and the impact of watching the interaction between Jackie and V, then the confrontation between V and Dex in the second cinematic -- because it is never created in the actual game. And that type of stuff, I would argue, is one of CDPR's greatest strengths. Creating and visualizing amazingly detailed and powerful characters.

So, the dissonance is what I think so many people are bothered by. It doesn't ruin the game or anything, imo! I still had a blast, and I have no trouble filling in all the blanks with my imagination. (I actually prefer silent protagonists.) I simply think that there was enough narrative dictation going on here that players would have felt as if they were more connected to events if we had been able to see the character we had created playing the role(s) that CDPR had intended. Kind of like any of the Bioware games. Can you imagine never once seeing your Grey Warden, or Hawke, or Shepard, or Inquisitor in action? How awkward and disconnected that would have made parts of the dramatic action feel? How the games would have been telling this incredible story about you...without you.

And, yeah, I think that the simple decision to remove the 3rd-person cinematics is probably what created all of that dissonance.

(Also, by no means am I arguing that this is the thing that created the negative reactions the game received. I think it's simply an important, storytelling and suspension-of-disbelief element that conflicted with game that CDPR made. I think the exclusively 1st-person / real-time experience would have worked perfectly fine if V was a blank slate character and not so developed by the narrative.)

 

[CS554]

So, the dissonance is what I think so many people are bothered by. It doesn't ruin the game or anything, imo! I still had a blast, and I have no trouble filling in all the blanks with my imagination. (I actually prefer silent protagonists.) I simply think that there was enough narrative dictation going on here that players would have felt as if they were more connected to events if we had been able to see the character we had created playing the role(s) that CDPR had intended. Kind of like any of the Bioware games. Can you imagine never once seeing your Grey Warden, or Hawke, or Shepard, or Inquisitor in action? How awkward and disconnected that would have made parts of the dramatic action feel? How the games would have been telling this incredible story about you...without you.

This helps me understand people who favor 3rd person cut scenes but also demonstrates how it doesn't create dissonance for some of us.

Deus Ex doesn't have silent protagonist and it never bothered me that I didn't see Denton in action from 3rd perspective. From the list, I have only played Mass Effect series and cinematic stuff really wasn't always... some of that stuff was cheesy as heck but I don't know how good example ME series is as at least latter two in trilogy appeared to use technique as crutch.

Process, when I explore virtual in first person I'm both, spectator and actor, when I look things from 3rd perspective I look myself as actor in virtual and while Tomb Raider, Mass Effect, Gears of War games have their moments, I actually appreciated early GoW games for being like Fast and Furious being product of genre and parody of that at the same time, don't know what happened then but I never found them engaging in way Deus Ex or CP 2077. I could add the Outer Worlds on the list too, while it doesn't have production values of CP 2077 writing is excellent, beyond what I expected from video game and that is what kept me interested. Seeing my avatar as actor in virtual is just uninteresting and convolutes experience compared to spectator/actor. Action then isn't necessarily even what we do but what we don't. In CP 2077 my V started limiting violence, not because he had any illusions of the Night City but because himself and he never installed any arms cyberware, wasn't that cybered even in end game and that didn't had anything to do with lore aspects but what he thought he wanted to be with Panam and rebellion against system that makes people become those drones. Process is actually pretty close reading a novel, only that this one is interactive.

 

[CyberBobber]

I hope they keep improving first person for sequel.

Lots of fun stuff you can do it with it. At the beginning of the game you pushed back those Trauma guys for example, you cant do that kind of stuff in third person. Sure you can push someone in third person too, but it doesnt feel like it. Yeah, first person is more physical.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I hope they keep improving first person for sequel.

Lots of fun stuff you can do it with it. At the beginning of the game you pushed back those Trauma guys for example, you cant do that kind of stuff in third person. Sure you can push someone in third person too, but it doesnt feel like it. Yeah, first person is more physical.

It remind me the scene when Peralez say you : "thank you" with is hand on your shoulder. Or simply when you stroke Judy's cheek... It seem totally impossible for me to imagine how it could be "better" in 3 person

 

[CS554]

I hope they keep improving first person for sequel.

Lots of fun stuff you can do it with it. At the beginning of the game you pushed back those Trauma guys for example, you cant do that kind of stuff in third person. Sure you can push someone in third person too, but it doesnt feel like it. Yeah, first person is more physical.

It remind me the scene when Peralez say you : "thank you" with is hand on your shoulder. Or simply when you stroke Judy's cheek... It seem totally impossible for me to imagine how it could be "better" in 3 person

Invading personal space, aggressive, friendly and certain way sexual manner, in emotional context. I would add scene where V has rescued Saul and in abandoned house Panam is resting her legs on V's lap and they chat.

Why would this be something very awkward from 3rd person. @SigilFey mentioned imagination filling the gaps, so what we are discussing there is abstraction and in 1st person this abstraction, we don't see our character face allows us to connect to events and situations exactly because there's no dissonance that would happen if we were experiencing these as in movie where we would be bound to actor, computer generated or live, expressions.

Psychologically this freedom to abstract, even if we are conscious about it or not, results in what I think could be thought as feedback loop. Often movie adaptations of books are met with disappointment from part of audience that is familiar with book they are based on and it's said that they do not match how they imagined things while reading, but again imagination in that context is a form of abstraction. Written work can be more intense experience because through this abstraction we draw things from real life experiences and everything is saturated with that and these things change us over time, leading to that our expectations for medias we enjoy can change too.

I still think of "VR without headset" how LeKill3rFou put it. What would be the point of VR if "our actor" would be visible in scenes or VR experiences would be build around that?

 

[GraniteStateColin]

@SigilFey, in that great post a few steps above described the dissonance between first person, but still the lack of complete control, including the voice and emotional tone of the character. In Witcher 3, we're not each playing as "I am the Witcher," we're controlling Geralt, who has his own predefined personality. We accept this, because that's the game and we like watching Geralt do his thing in third person. In Cyberpunk 2077, we're told we can be anyone we want, but then lose some of that agency through the voice actor for our character and the cut scenes, even if they're first person, which creates a dissonance in the experience that's not there in TW3.

I think those are all facts, not really debatable, but I also don't think that dissonance is a narrative or enjoyment deal breaker. I think that's about the equivalent to the difference between a first person or third person book -- both can and do work just fine and there can be bad books in both forms too. Even in a third person book, the point-of-view can be tightly limited to one character or one character at a time, or it can be an omniscient POV, and this storytelling choice doesn't have any significant bearing on whether or not the book is any good.

@LeKill3rFou and @CS554 described some some scenes that really do work very well because they're in first person and, as shown that way, probably wouldn't work as well in 3rd person. I think that first person cutscenes can be great and provide scenes that are more compelling than the EXACT SAME SCENE shown in third person, but that doesn't mean that a different scene describing roughly the same events couldn't be as or more compelling in third person (like in the video comparison that started this thread).

I agree with @SigilFey that no matter the choices, there will be some who love and some who hate, so I can only speak for myself in having specific preferences for game play like this: when I have control of my character (agency), I prefer first person. This isn't for storytelling reasons, it's for gameplay reasons: I much, much, much prefer the control in first person. Third person just always feels awkward to me. When I don't have control, then I prefer to be able to watch what's happening like in a movie, seeing it unfold in third person. While different games could certainly pull those things off really well or really poorly, and even I loved TW3 in spite of being all third person and I love CP2077 in spite of virtually no 3rd person cutscenes, I would have preferred both if they used 1st person for control and 3rd person for cutscenes. I am certain of it (for me).

I frequently complained about the control problems in TW3 because of the camera angles and just wished it were in 1st person. Objectively, this must have been an issue for others, because, at least on console, one of the DLC updates added a different 3rd person control model. For me, both were poor compared to 1st person control. I have also frequently complained about the lack of engaging cutscenes in CP2077, because I never get to see V's face as she reacts to the world around her. Again, objectively, while many people probably do like those in 1st person, this inability to see V certainly seems to be one of the biggest complaints about CP2077. Similarly, I have never heard criticisms of the control and cutscene choices in the Bethesda open world games, which give the option for 1st or 3rd person when in control and (always?) use 3rd person for cutscenes. So while I can only speak for myself in terms of knowing what I would like, it does seem there is compelling data that my preferences are at least somewhat representative of a significant portion of players of these kinds of games.

So my request for CDPR's next game: either give us the choice of 1st or 3rd person control, or mix and match, giving us 1st person when we truly are in control and using 3rd person for all cutscenes, which also gives an immediate visual cue that we're not in control of the action.

Last thought on this: as a video game, and not a movie, they COULD actually offer both options for cutscenes too. Other than maybe slightly increasing the size of the game on disk (maybe it wouldn't even do that), it would be fairly easy to render a cutscene in both 1st and 3rd person and let the player choose which to watch (like we can do in CP2077 for Braindances). However, here, as I suspect @SigilFey would point out, there is an artistic approach to those scenes and what works for one view may not work well for the other, even if it's technically straightforward to offer the option. So, while possible, this may not be a good idea and perhaps instead provides an example of why more choice is not always better.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Last thought on this: as a video game, and not a movie, they COULD actually offer both options for cutscenes too. Other than maybe slightly increasing the size of the game on disk (maybe it wouldn't even do that), it would be fairly easy to render a cutscene in both 1st and 3rd person and let the player choose which to watch (like we can do in CP2077 for Braindances). However, here, as I suspect @SigilFey would point out, there is an artistic approach to those scenes and what works for one view may not work well for the other, even if it's technically straightforward to offer the option. So, while possible, this may not be a good idea and perhaps instead provides an example of why more choice is not always better.

It's a bit my biggest fear
Namely that CDPR could tell themself that it was a good idea, that it was great, but not popular enough. And that in the "next Cyberpunk", it goes to the 3rd person only for the cutscenes. Without option to keep the possibility of being in the first person (It is obviously possible, but it seems difficult to me and need a lot of work for have both available in the same game).
That Cyberpunk 2077 be a kind of "shooting star" and that we will never see this kind of "full first person" again in the future (because it's really not common at all, for me at least).

 

[Guest 3847602]

It's a bit my biggest fear
Namely that CDPR could tell themself that it was a good idea, that it was great, but not popular enough. And that in the "next Cyberpunk", it goes to the 3rd person only for the cutscenes.

It's a possibility, but FPP is not something that's universally panned or even disliked by majority to be thrown away like that.

 

[GogRelvas]

Agree. This point is where I think a lot of player's opinions are entitled. If this was an artistic choice then we should only be discussing how it was implemented, what else could be done, ideas for improving...

 

[CS554]

@SigilFey, in that great post a few steps above described the dissonance between first person, but still the lack of complete control, including the voice and emotional tone of the character. In Witcher 3, we're not each playing as "I am the Witcher," we're controlling Geralt, who has his own predefined personality. We accept this, because that's the game and we like watching Geralt do his thing in third person. In Cyberpunk 2077, we're told we can be anyone we want, but then lose some of that agency through the voice actor for our character and the cut scenes, even if they're first person, which creates a dissonance in the experience that's not there in TW3.

I think those are all facts, not really debatable, but I also don't think that dissonance is a narrative or enjoyment deal breaker. I think that's about the equivalent to the difference between a first person or third person book -- both can and do work just fine and there can be bad books in both forms too. Even in a third person book, the point-of-view can be tightly limited to one character or one character at a time, or it can be an omniscient POV, and this storytelling choice doesn't have any significant bearing on whether or not the book is any good.

@LeKill3rFou and @CS554 described some some scenes that really do work very well because they're in first person and, as shown that way, probably wouldn't work as well in 3rd person. I think that first person cutscenes can be great and provide scenes that are more compelling than the EXACT SAME SCENE shown in third person, but that doesn't mean that a different scene describing roughly the same events couldn't be as or more compelling in third person (like in the video comparison that started this thread).

There's more to this than if this or that. Voice work is obvious but I didn't go to that in my post as I used novels in comparison. Characters in novel, authors can anticipate what reader is expecting these characters to say or surprise them, revealing something new about character and world work is set into. That we enjoy them despite is again through abstraction.

In video game anticipating player agenda is far more important but yet if made compelling enough, abstraction can be enabled by what in real world where we say work with different people without never knowing that much of each other. I mean outside of family and closest friends, our relationships aren't normal and thus we have different social roles and we can apply these roles to V too.

Body language is far more difficult. One scene can play differently to different people: Someone may feel they character should lean forward and when listening to someone as V in for that player is very interested about what NPC is telling to V. For some other player in exactly same conversation, they would not lean forward, their V would rise an eyebrow as their V is not buying what NPC is telling and there are myriad of variations like that. Difference is important as we tend to be more conscious about our voice and verbal output than our body language.

Agree. This point is where I think a lot of player's opinions are entitled. If this was an artistic choice then we should only be discussing how it was implemented, what else could be done, ideas for improving...

It was definitely artistic choice made by people who understand visual virtual spaces far better than most people, not to put anyone down but to highlight that these people are experts and they are familiar with history and philosophy, ultimately it's always about that or you can disregard that and try to make that visual blockbuster in video game format but that's not automatically a recipe for success but can lead to worse outcomes, case in point Mass Effect 3. Interactive chase cut scene when chasing robot, players can't use biotic charge to catch a robot. Interactive cut scene where Shepard stabs Kai Leng was one of the most embarrassing video game moments ever regardless how it portrayed as. I recall from their forums how there were people complaining that Kai Leng was written for like 12 years old in game rated higher and then group of 12 years old showing up, telling folks basically to back off as Kai Leng was too juvenile character even for them. That is to demonstrate to failure on philosophical level. If Kai Leng was not written for humans then to whom it was written? And making things "Cinematic" can't save work from that hole. Distinction I made between superhero movies and cinema is important as cinema hasn't and isn't bound to do what superhero movies do, superhero movies being circus where we visit different tricks.

In this topic we have been able to put name on things and ponder if 1st person triggers certain feedback loop and analyze if so, why that would happen. That's is not to say that it can't happen from 3rd perspective and I appreciate @SigilFey among others for explaining their experience and what is means for user and CP 2077 is rather interesting case as it isn't held back by writing.

Only thing I'm still wondering is the case of VR and how 3rd person in real time would serve that.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Only thing I'm still wondering is the case of VR and how 3rd person in real time would serve that.

If it used speech recognition to let us actually talk to the characters and something like the former Xbox Kinect to read our body language, then first person (whether VR or on-screen) would clearly be the only reasonable option for dialog. But no game is anywhere near being able to do that yet. It's effectively impossible for writers to script that -- responses to all the things a player could choose to say or do (this wide open flexibility is the core remaining strength of pen and paper games over CRPG). This means that it won't be truly possible to have games do that for at least another couple of decades (maybe much further off than that), when the computer can have characters react, not based on a script, but dynamically based on emotions and situations in-game and generate its own on-the-fly dialog that is character appropriate. Inconceivable with today's technology. Because we can't do that yet, it's reasonable to show us how the V that they programmed is reacting so we know what V is feeling (I am not V, because I don't have full control -- I'm just watching V).

Ironically, if you thank about Braindances as entertainment within Cyberpunk 2077 and all the discussion about how they work to capture the emotions for the player to feel what the protagonist in the BD is experiencing, this effectively says the same thing: the reason those work is only because there is a direct emotional link between BD "actor" and BD viewer. Absent that, you need to see the actor's face to know those feelings.

I'm not suggesting that it can't be artistic to display scenes from first person. But there's a reason this is hardly ever done in the movies (Hardcore Henry, a brief piece of Doom, and some tense brief scenes in movies, usually horror movies) -- it's difficult to deliver the same emotional impact when you can't see a character's face. Emotional impact is best conveyed through watching the character experience (part of the old "show don't tell" storytelling rule). I can't immediately think of a single well-reviewed movie that's generally agreed is a great film that's shown in first person.

The only mainstream game I could think that could justify everything in 1st person on artistic grounds is the original Bioshock. If you know the plot twist of that game, you know what I mean ("Would you kindly..."). Player agency and its limits are actually part of the story.

I'm all for experimenting and trying new artistic approaches. And I do think visually the Bioshock games and Cyberpunk 2077 did this about as well as it could be done, but I don't think even they overcame the negatives of depriving us of seeing the character in those scenes. As evidence, I point to this very thread. On the other hand, you don't see much criticism of cutscenes for being in third person, even for games that are mostly in first person.

I'd draw an analogy to black and white in movies: there are specific cases where it can be done for artistic effect and impact (and think about it with only occasional use of color in movies like Schindler's List, Memento, and Pleasantville), but it's a niche effect. Unless there's a specific need (and I don't think you could argue that Cyberpunk 2077 couldn't work with third person cut-scenes), it shouldn't be done, and if it is, the game is less likely to become a mainstream blockbuster hit.

For me (and I think the data would suggest this is a majority view, which isn't artistically important, but it may be a factor in determining commercial success), it's a simple formula: use 1st person when player is truly in control, 3rd person when player is not in control.