I want a 3rd person camera in Deus EX: HR SEQUEL!!

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by badhabitz

Nothing illogical about a clear majority prefering certain mechanics over others. If you were on this forum 4 years ago it was clear to see. There is no doubt that consoles games have had an impact on the development of PC games this is undeniable.

EDIT- After IW people were complaining about mainly the universal-ammo and simplified skills/biomod and inventory system. At no time was anyone EVER asking for 3rd person or health regen...

While not wishing to trudge up old debates - especially where they don't belong - I find it ridiculous that you blame consoles for something the PC is doing just as often. Hell, some of the biggest "console-ized" games (Call of Duty, Halo, Bad Company), are exclusively first-person. Don't pretend like PC players are somehow completely blameless in all this.

[HERESY]

Originally Posted by badhabitz

Nothing illogical about a clear majority prefering certain mechanics over others. If you were on this forum 4 years ago it was clear to see. There is no doubt that consoles games have had an impact on the development of PC games this is undeniable.

EDIT- After IW people were complaining about mainly the universal-ammo and simplified skills/biomod and inventory system. At no time was anyone EVER asking for 3rd person or health regen...

The first person perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. You're still a dot on the screen, a gun to the lower right of the screen and it's a one sized fits all perspective. Yes, console games have had an impact on PC games. This is not deniable which is why no one is denying it. In addition to this, PC games have had an impact on the way console games are developed. You can look at any RTS game on a console or look at games that were developed on PC and later ported to consoles.

Concerning third person or health gen, health regen is a design choice that is not exclusive to consoles or third person games, lol. What exactly is your point by mentioning it? I'm not for health regen unless it ties into the lore of the game and makes logical sense. It makes sense to say, "You can regenerate health because the nano machines in your body do X". I can buy that argument. However, I do not buy the "be a bullet sponge, duck into cover and magically heal" ala Gears of War.

So I don't need health regen, I'm a gamer that is used to picking up health/med packs or one hit deaths. Don't blame consoles for these things. Blame the gamers for having weak skills and demanding easier games.

[m G h m u o s]

It means you're correct, that doing it that way is correct or that it is common sense.

You hang around old Americans? Have any old American family members? If so you may have heard this before.

Ohh okay, nah I haven't heard of that expression. I thought it was a typo or something.

"right? maybe.. tight? Tight? Is 'Tight' some game I've never heard of that is infamous for having so many options it broke itself?"

Personally I remain adamant that some kind of third person camera could totally work in the form of an aug.

[badhabitz]

Originally Posted by Romeo

While not wishing to trudge up old debates - especially where they don't belong - I find it ridiculous that you blame consoles for something the PC is doing just as often. Hell, some of the biggest "console-ized" games (Call of Duty, Halo, Bad Company), are exclusively first-person. Don't pretend like PC players are somehow completely blameless in all this.

I am not against consoles or console players I have had plenty in my time just it is sad to see once great PC exclusive titles be relegated to sub standard console ports. Well it is the age of profit. Consoles and their games produce more revenue for publishers/developers hence it is in their interests to create games for consoles.

The problem is games these days are designed for XBOX and PS3 FIRST and then ported to PC later. The last few years this has become more and more the norm. Multi-platform games are limited to what the XBOX and PS3 can achieve. It is the cold hard truth... plain and simple PC games are suffering because of this.

Deus Ex IW, AVP2010 to name just 2, would have been very different games had they been PC only. Look at the horrible clunky controls of AVP... the game was a step back from AVP2 (Even AVP1) apart from the the visual enhancements. I wont list them here but this is the case with so many games lately. Looking back I can't help but feel all the fuss on these forums was justified. The main concerns at the time are my main issues with the game now.

Health regen has a place in games but not all. Certainly not for reasons that we were given. "We don't want the player backtracking looking for medkits" (But it is ok to backtrack to look for magic candy bars that enable your arms to work) 2008 was Rainbow6 Vegas, Gears of War & Mass Effect... third person cover and health regen were in at the time.

Anyone ever play ARMA II ? It is a milsim, very immersive with huge maps, an ingame editor allowing you to create almost any type of scenario you can imagine. Now, it allows for both a first person and third person perspective HOWEVER you will find many clan servers and serious coop servers disable third person for added REALISM and IMMERSION. There is SO much more tension with 3rd person disabled... It is almost like playing 2 differennt games. Walking on foot, driving cars and flying planes is made that much more difficult and exciting when you can't see your surroundings in third person (Like you could not IN REAL LIFE) ARMA2 allows you to turn your head and look independently of your body and weapon, I would like to see more of this in future fps games. This is also a very nice feature especially when used with TRACKIR or FACETRACKNOIR that I am sure a lot of serious flight sim fans will be familiar with.

Sure I love some third person shooters, I have played plenty of Gears of War and Mass Effect but some games need to be just one or the other.. and Deus Ex needs to be first person only if you ask me.

[Romeo]

Oh, you misinterpret me - I completely agree with your gameplay demands. I loathe both the perspective-switching and the health regen - I just wanted to point out that those aren't a fault of one group, but gamers as a whole.

I hope Deus Ex 4 can either remain entirely first-person, or have an option for third-person events for those that want them. And that health system needs to be tossed entirely. Partial regen all the way, or even medkit. Anything but the same thing the market has already saturated beyond the point of frustration.

[[FGS]Shadowrunner]

Isn't that what made Deus Ex so brilliant in 2000, that it was "real"? First person is important. I'd like to see energy devoted to make this as good as possible. I don't need arcade style watching my Tekken fighter...

DX4 - Well if it's about Unatco, I want there to be a maintenance man that doesn't like Gunther.

[m G h m u o s]

Isn't that what made Deus Ex so brilliant in 2000, that it was "real"? First person is important. I'd like to see energy devoted to make this as good as possible. I don't need arcade style watching my Tekken fighter...

I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

[HERESY]

Originally Posted by m G h m u o s

I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

Let's talk about the bold because you seem to be one that "gets it."

Concerning the first bold, you're correct. Our field of vision when playing a video game is nowhere near our field of vision in real life. Also, you can't forget the magical see through boxes thing, items being hid in the most odd places, moving people with phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs, etc. First person is a one sized fits all standard. Nothing more and nothing less.

Concerning the second bold, you are correct the convos are in third person which renders the "They'll have to animate for third person and it will take too much time" argument completely null & void.

The spirit of the game is not found in the camera. It doesn't matter if it's third person, first person or tenth person. But you seem to get it and I wish other people would as well. Kudos to you.

[kud13]

Originally Posted by m G h m u o s

I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

or, significantly more important, that note that says "password is xxxxxxxxx " in one of the Sarif offices, on a desk next to a computer.

ETA:

Originally Posted by HERESY

Let's talk about the bold because you seem to be one that "gets it."

Concerning the first bold, you're correct. Our field of vision when playing a video game is nowhere near our field of vision in real life. Also, you can't forget the magical see through boxes thing, items being hid in the most odd places, moving people with phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs, etc. First person is a one sized fits all standard. Nothing more and nothing less.

Concerning the second bold, you are correct the convos are in third person which renders the "They'll have to animate for third person and it will take too much time" argument completely null & void.

The spirit of the game is not found in the camera. It doesn't matter if it's third person, first person or tenth person. But you seem to get it and I wish other people would as well. Kudos to you.

I am getting real tired of you continuously saying this.
ARMA, Mirror's Edge, Red Orchestra- recent examples of innovation in First-Person Games.
you cannot claim that because "mainstream" publishers don't adopt something, "the genre hasn't moved since Wolvenstein". there are innovations. If you look for them.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by m G h m u o s

I hate it when people use the argument that first person makes something feel real. I've been just as immersed in third person games, like mgs3 with the ridiculously tense fight with the End.

Not to mention DX had third person convo scenes.

But I do feel its critical that it remains first person in default, after DXHR and the sheer attention to detail, they've got to a lot to follow up with (more lovely details like the post-it note on the the mirror).

I just wanted to interject. I agree that there have been incredibly immersive third-person games, but they are realistic in a polar opposite manner than first-person is: In first person, the character's actions are my actions. I am that character. In third-person, I'm more of a puppet-master. I'm controlling that character. Example: In Crysis, you always feel like "What would I do in this circumstance?" when entering a situation. In Mass Effect, you always feel like "What should Shepard do in this circumstance?"

There is nothing inherently wrong with either, but people are entirely justified in saying they want it to remain a first-person game; It is a different experience. There's already a few third-person shooter/RPG games, Deus Ex needn't change itself to become one too.

Now, as to your conversation, yes, it did go third-person for conversations (Not always, mind you). And I was AOK with that. Because once again, that goes back to the "What should JC do here?" kind of immersion. What I don't want is that same effect bleeding in to the combat situations.

Regardless, this is all ignoring the most patently obvious issue with the whole argument: There is absolutely no need to make Deus Ex third-person. It has always been first-person, and judging by community reaction to the cover system and takedowns, has always been appreciated more as a first-person experience only. Why can't we simply enjoy Deus Ex for what it is, rather than focus on completely re-writing every its every detail?

[m G h m u o s]

I just wanted to interject. I agree that there have been incredibly immersive third-person games, but they are realistic in a polar opposite manner than first-person is: In first person, the character's actions are my actions. I am that character. In third-person, I'm more of a puppet-master. I'm controlling that character. Example: In Crysis, you always feel like "What would I do in this circumstance?" when entering a situation. In Mass Effect, you always feel like "What should Shepard do in this circumstance?"

Really? I think its much more blurred than that. You think because of story there'd be distinction but I don't think there is, you're saying "What would I do in that situation?" and "What would <the character> do in that situation?" but to me, these questions generally just merged into one in your mind, completely regardless of whether its in first person or not. Unless its some major plot element / character-character interaction. Ultimately the sense of being a character or being a puppeteer is a personal one.

You aren't your character. It's an illusion and its easily broken with lack of control (ie why can't I pick this up, why can't I just shoot this guy moments). I think people just tag that onto the first person perspective for.. I dunno whatever reason. But I just find this argument annoying because I really hated the whole 'I AM Gordon Freeman' stuff people would say in fandom of HL/2, because of all the control I have and its a seamless first person experience.

Sure. Except they put Gordon Freemans face on the cover of the game.

Regardless, this is all ignoring the most patently obvious issue with the whole argument: There is absolutely no need to make Deus Ex third-person. It has always been first-person, and judging by community reaction to the cover system and takedowns, has always been appreciated more as a first-person experience only. Why can't we simply enjoy Deus Ex for what it is, rather than focus on completely re-writing every its every detail?

But yeah. Ultimately FPS is a genre and changing that would upset some people. But I think its an exaggeration to say they want to re-write everything and the details. I think a third person camera is a perfectly fine gameplay mechanic that could be used in DX, in some unusual or interesting ways.

You probably seen my naggings about a TPC aug, but how about a segment in the game where your augmented vision is outright disabled and you have to hack into an active link up to the CCTV all over an area to gather your bearings. Thats technically third person and thats the kinda stuff I don't want to be knocked just because people don't know the sound of the phrase 'third person camera' c:

But realistically speaking, with its implementation in DXHR, I really won't be at all surprised for it to make a return in the next installment.

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by kud13

I am getting real tired of you continuously saying this.
ARMA, Mirror's Edge, Red Orchestra- recent examples of innovation in First-Person Games.
you cannot claim that because "mainstream" publishers don't adopt something, "the genre hasn't moved since Wolvenstein". there are innovations. If you look for them.

Very true. Especially given that his actual claim was this:

Originally Posted by HERESY

The first person perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. You're still a dot on the screen, a gun to the lower right of the screen and it's a one sized fits all perspective.

...and in Wolfenstein 3D your gun was actually in the bottom-center of the screen, not at the lower right. There's evolution for you!

Also, "you're a dot on the screen"? No, that's a crosshair, that's not me. I don't think he understands first person at all.

[EDIT] Also, Wolfenstein 3D didn't have a crosshair. Does that mean I was playing as nobody in that game?

[EDIT 2] Pic related, it's Gordon Freeman from Half Life 2.

[AlexOfSpades]

Freeman gained quite a bit of weight since the Black Mesa incident.

Heresy, now i know why you got crucified here. You reap what you sow, really.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by m G h m u o s

Really? I think its much more blurred than that. You think because of story there'd be distinction but I don't think there is, you're saying "What would I do in that situation?" and "What would <the character> do in that situation?" but to me, these questions generally just merged into one in your mind, completely regardless of whether its in first person or not. Unless its some major plot element / character-character interaction. Ultimately the sense of being a character or being a puppeteer is a personal one.

You aren't your character. It's an illusion and its easily broken with lack of control (ie why can't I pick this up, why can't I just shoot this guy moments). I think people just tag that onto the first person perspective for.. I dunno whatever reason. But I just find this argument annoying because I really hated the whole 'I AM Gordon Freeman' stuff people would say in fandom of HL/2, because of all the control I have and its a seamless first person experience.

Sure. Except they put Gordon Freemans face on the cover of the game.


But yeah. Ultimately FPS is a genre and changing that would upset some people. But I think its an exaggeration to say they want to re-write everything and the details. I think a third person camera is a perfectly fine gameplay mechanic that could be used in DX, in some unusual or interesting ways.

You probably seen my naggings about a TPC aug, but how about a segment in the game where your augmented vision is outright disabled and you have to hack into an active link up to the CCTV all over an area to gather your bearings. Thats technically third person and thats the kinda stuff I don't want to be knocked just because people don't know the sound of the phrase 'third person camera' c:

But realistically speaking, with its implementation in DXHR, I really won't be at all surprised for it to make a return in the next installment.

I have no issue with optional third person things, nor do I have an issue where third-person makes sense (Hacking in to a camera, conversations). My only issue is either replacing first-person, or expecting the devs to create an entire perspective for a few people.

[HERESY]

Originally Posted by Ashpolt

Very true. Especially given that his actual claim was this:



...and in Wolfenstein 3D your gun was actually in the bottom-center of the screen, not at the lower right. There's evolution for you!

Also, "you're a dot on the screen"? No, that's a crosshair, that's not me. I don't think he understands first person at all.

[EDIT] Also, Wolfenstein 3D didn't have a crosshair. Does that mean I was playing as nobody in that game?

[EDIT 2] Pic related, it's Gordon Freeman from Half Life 2.

Dot, crosshair or reticule. Who cares? Not all games use the same thing. However, the point remains the same. You're a dot, crosshair or reticule with a gun to the lower right. If the game does not have the option to holster, you run around looking like an idiot the entire time you play it. Run into a NPC? Gun drawn. Short cutscene? Gun drawn. It's comical really.

And the dot, crosshair or reticule is NOT the perspective, LOL! Again, FPP has NOT evolved since Wolfenstein.

Originally Posted by kud13

or, significantly more important, that note that says "password is xxxxxxxxx " in one of the Sarif offices, on a desk next to a computer.

ETA:


I am getting real tired of you continuously saying this.

You don't have to read it. You can put me on ignore if the site offers an ignore feature, but I'm telling you the truth. You and others keep talking about "we won't see the items" or other hidden things, but this has been addressed several times in this forum and in the Theif forums.

ARMA, Mirror's Edge, Red Orchestra- recent examples of innovation in First-Person Games.
you cannot claim that because "mainstream" publishers don't adopt something, "the genre hasn't moved since Wolvenstein". there are innovations. If you look for them.

The perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. Again, we can look at Third Person and see it has evolved. From Winback and Full Spectrum to RE4 to Gears and the present day 3rd person shooters, it has evolved. I'm sorry, but we can't say the same for the games you listed. Have they set ANY trends that companies are attempting to emulate and do in their games? If so what are they?

[kud13]

btw, not all games have the reticule. See FarCry 2

Mirror's Edge: ARMA: offer body awareness - you see feet+ hands. (and you don't have to have a gun all the time! A feature that existed in FPS games since at least No One Lives Forever, if not earlier!)

Red Orchestra introduced a new system of first-Person cover. We are seeing something fairly similar in Far Cry 3 demos shown so far.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone here, untill you manage to define what exactly do you mean by "perspective": you start off by saying that Perspective is unrealistic and hasn't changed since Wolvenstein. You then bring up gameplay mechanics like transparent boxes, and imperfect dragging animations.
What is it that you mean, by the "perspective not evolving?" and how would you suggest it evolve?

[TrickyVein]

Games in first person have made use of better technology to simulate all kinds of neat things. Saying the genre hasn't 'evolved' is just semantics. HERESY, stop being obtuse. 3rd person is 3rd person just as 1st person is 1st person. Perspective is not subject to degrees of separation. Are you actually trying to say that 1st person can't 'evolve' into 1.1st person, but 3rd person can 'evolve' into 3.25rd person? Both perspectives make use of HDR, DoF, motion-blur, post-processing, and other imagespace modifiers.

What are you trying to say? If you're making a value judgement that you like 3rd person games better than 1st person ", fine. Don't be illogical.

[HERESY]

Originally Posted by kud13

btw, not all games have the reticule. See FarCry 2

Mirror's Edge: ARMA: offer body awareness - you see feet+ hands. (and you don't have to have a gun all the time! A feature that existed in FPS games since at least No One Lives Forever, if not earlier!)

Red Orchestra introduced a new system of first-Person cover. We are seeing something fairly similar in Far Cry 3 demos shown so far.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone here, untill you manage to define what exactly do you mean by "perspective": you start off by saying that Perspective is unrealistic and hasn't changed since Wolvenstein. You then bring up gameplay mechanics like transparent boxes, and imperfect dragging animations.
What is it that you mean, by the "perspective not evolving?" and how would you suggest it evolve?

You aren't reading, friend. Listen, I'll explain this again but I hate having to explain it over and over again, so I want you to read this reply and tell me what you think I'm saying before you critique, agree or disagree with what I'm saying. This way I'll know we're on the same page when it comes to you comprehending my point.

In regards to shooters, the third person perspective has evolved. It has gone from Winback to Full Spectrum Warrior to RE4. From RE4 the third perspective has evolved into Gears, Mass Effect, etc. Now if you look at third person action games, you'll also see a difference between the third person action games of old compared to the new ones. The perspective has evolved. Yes, some of this has to do with the advent of new tech, but they still utilized the tools to change the perspective and enhance the game.

The first person perspective has NOT changed. It is a one size fits all crutch designed to simulate what a person see's but it is limited. There is NO WAY the first person perspective can cover the human range of vision or accurately represent it. You and I see things in different ways. You and the member who I'm replying to in the second half of this post see and process what you see in different ways. The first person perspective simply says "this is what it is and this is what you can see" and again, this is limited. The perspective has NOT evolved. One size fits all.

Having phantom limbs, opening doors with phantom limbs and seeing through boxes IS NOT perspective. It is a design choice. However, it is wrong to argue that anything outside of the first person perspective is immersion breaking, and say first person is REALISM, when other things that contribute to immersion are subpar. What I'm saying is there are MANY more things that are "immersion breaking" yet people aren't up in arms about it because most likely, no one has brought it to their attention. No one has said, "Hey, you guys don't find that odd?"

So when I say first person games have not evolved since Wolfenstein, I'm referring to what you see and how you process it. Again, I've explained this before, maybe in this thread or another, but it's most likely gone since I'm heavily censored and moderated on these forums (don't worry I'll be leaving soon anyway.) I'm not talking about the dot on the screen, the reticule, the gun to the lower right, holstering or any of the gameplay mechanics. I'm not talking about seeing someones feet. Concerning a new cover system, I tell you what. Place your back against a wall and peak around the corner. What do you see?

Originally Posted by TrickyVein

Games in first person have made use of better technology to simulate all kinds of neat things. Saying the genre hasn't 'evolved' is just semantics.

The perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein.

HERESY, stop being obtuse. 3rd person is 3rd person just as 1st person is 1st person. Perspective is not subject to degrees of separation. Are you actually trying to say that 1st person can't 'evolve' into 1.1st person, but 3rd person can 'evolve' into 3.25rd person? Both perspectives make use of HDR, DoF, motion-blur, post-processing, and other imagespace modifiers.

See above. I'm not saying first person doesn't use motion blur, modifiers, post-processing, etc. I've explained what I'm talking about and suggest that you tell me what you think I'm saying. Doing this will allow me to clarify for you and not create an instance of where my posts are being taken out of context and I have to make four or five explaining what you should have caught in the first.

What are you trying to say? If you're making a value judgement that you like 3rd person games better than 1st person ", fine. Don't be illogical.

I've explained it several times before (was deleted by mods) and I'm explaining it again. The perspective has not evolved since Wolfenstein. No matter what rendering engine/farm you use, no matter how great your draw distance, no matter what flavor of the month processes you use, no matter what programs your models were made or rigged in none of it is exclusive to first or third person. So it isn't about the tools that you listed but about the creators of first person games giving you a one size fits all crutch and you want to know who has fallen for it hook line and sinker every time?

PC Gamers.

[Romeo]

I don't think you have a point to make. The only thing you've pointed to that third-person has done differently than first-person is draw distance. The thing about first-person is you CAN'T change the draw distance in first-person. To do so would be utterly ridiculous. First-person is already at the right draw distance: Eye level.

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by HERESY

Dot, crosshair or reticule. Who cares? Not all games use the same thing. However, the point remains the same. You're a dot, crosshair or reticule with a gun to the lower right. If the game does not have the option to holster, you run around looking like an idiot the entire time you play it. Run into a NPC? Gun drawn. Short cutscene? Gun drawn. It's comical really.

And the dot, crosshair or reticule is NOT the perspective, LOL! Again, FPP has NOT evolved since Wolfenstein.

Again, you are not the dot, crosshair or reticule. The dot, crosshair or reticule does not represent you in any sense, it represents where you're aiming, nothing more.

As for the "can't holster your weapons" example: that's the same for third person games. Where's the option to holster your guns in Gears of War? Just Cause? Resident Evil? Yes, I cherry-picked particular examples, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Yes, yes, you're going to say "I'm talking about the perspective rather than the game mechanics!" etc etc, but here's an idea for you - first person got it right early on and doesn't need to evolve. Other than adding in the ability to aim vertically as well as horizontally (not present in early shooters like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, though you seem to not really know much about those games, as you still insist the weapon was on the bottom right in Wolf 3D) and full body rendering (which, again, some FPP games have used but it added little to the experience while being a slight drain on resources) first person hasn't needed to evolve because frankly it doesn't have anywhere to evolve to. The perspective itself does what it needs to perfectly.

Third person, on the other hand, used to be plagued by clunky camera systems and poor aiming (you used Winback as an example - yeah, exactly) and so it's needed to evolve just to fix its own inherent shortcomings. It's only in the past 5 years or so that it's come close to catching up to the utility and intuitiveness that first person has had since Quake...in 1996.

[HERESY]

Originally Posted by Ashpolt

Again, you are not the dot, crosshair or reticule. The dot, crosshair or reticule does not represent you in any sense, it represents where you're aiming, nothing more.

Again, you aren't reading. At the end of the day you are that dot. That is your finest point of vision. It is supposed to be your center of vision. Not where you're aiming, although that is what it is used for, but it's purpose is your center of vision.

As for the "can't holster your weapons" example: that's the same for third person games. Where's the option to holster your guns in Gears of War? Just Cause? Resident Evil? Yes, I cherry-picked particular examples, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Read the reply I just made as I lay it out for you. These things are design choices.

Yes, yes, you're going to say "I'm talking about the perspective rather than the game mechanics!" etc etc, but here's an idea for you - first person got it right early on and doesn't need to evolve.

No, actually it didn't. With AR just right around the corner, companies that develop first person games are going to have to change the way they make games. First person hasn't gotten ANYTHING right when it doesn't even represent HALF of a humans field of vision.

Other than adding in the ability to aim vertically as well as horizontally (not present in early shooters like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, though you seem to not really know much about those games, as you still insist the weapon was on the bottom right in Wolf 3D) and full body rendering (which, again, some FPP games have used but it added little to the experience while being a slight drain on resources) first person hasn't needed to evolve because frankly it doesn't have anywhere to evolve to. The perspective itself does what it needs to perfectly.

It doesn't matter if the gun in Wolfenstein was at the top of the screen, in the middle, outside of the screen inside my house, wherever. The point is, you are more than a weapon. You are more than a dot, reticule, etc. You are more then the same damn red arrow in just about EVERY shooter that tells you you're taking damage from an enemy in a specific direction. And to claim that first person perspective does not need to evolve is funny. Study AR and the new panoramic tech hitting the scene and then come back and tell me that.

Again, you aren't even getting 50% of what a human see's with first person.

Third person, on the other hand, used to be plagued by clunky camera systems and poor aiming (you used Winback as an example - yeah, exactly) and so it's needed to evolve just to fix its own inherent shortcomings.

Thats the point! It EVOLVED! It went from something very clunky to something that works and is copied. You don't see that with first person. Like I told the other guy, put your back against a wall and look around the corner. What do you see?

It's only in the past 5 years or so that it's come close to catching up to the utility and intuitiveness that first person has had since Quake...in 1996.

LMAO! Sure.

Originally Posted by Romeo

I don't think you have a point to make. The only thing you've pointed to that third-person has done differently than first-person is draw distance. The thing about first-person is you CAN'T change the draw distance in first-person. To do so would be utterly ridiculous. First-person is already at the right draw distance: Eye level.

You don't know what draw distance means and it is changed in first person mods all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_distance

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by HERESY

Again, you aren't reading. At the end of the day you are that dot.

Really?

Originally Posted by HERESY

You are more than a dot, reticule, etc.

Originally Posted by HERESY

Read the reply I just made as I lay it out for you. These things are design choices.

Very true. And yet you mentioned them initially as flaws of FPP.

Originally Posted by HERESY

No, actually it didn't. With AR just right around the corner, companies that develop first person games are going to have to change the way they make games. First person hasn't gotten ANYTHING right when it doesn't even represent HALF of a humans field of vision.

That's a design choice. FPP games can, if they choose to, have a 360 degree FOV. That they don't choose to is not an inherent problem with the perspective.

Originally Posted by HERESY

It doesn't matter if the gun in Wolfenstein was at the top of the screen, in the middle, outside of the screen inside my house, wherever.

It doesn't matter to the point overall, no - but it matters in the sense that I'm bringing it up, which is that your repeated incorrect claims show you know next very little about the history of the perspective.

Originally Posted by HERESY

The point is, you are more than a weapon. You are more than a dot, reticule, etc. You are more then the same damn red arrow in just about EVERY shooter that tells you you're taking damage from an enemy in a specific direction. And to claim that first person perspective does not need to evolve is funny. Study AR and the new panoramic tech hitting the scene and then come back and tell me that.

Who's to say that FPP won't evolve to adapt to that new tech? The point is, it hasn't needed to evolve significantly to work perfectly on the tech currently available. When we're all wearing VR helmets or hanging out in the Holodeck, first person games will doubtlessly work differently than they do now. But we don't have that tech now, and so we don't need the evolution now.

Also, funnily enough, such tech will kill off third person.

Originally Posted by HERESY

Thats the point! It EVOLVED! It went from something very clunky to something that works and is copied. You don't see that with first person.

Your entire point is that first person perspective is the same in all games. Then you say it's not copied?

First person didn't start particularly clunky, and so didn't need to evolve past the clunkiness. You're claiming a strength as a weakness - and for third person, claiming former weakness as current strength.

Anyway, I have no interest in further fisking with you, as you're either heavily deluded or an oddly devoted troll. Either way, this is going round in circles as you're not taking in anything that anyone is saying to you, regardless of how many people say it or in how many different ways. I'm sure others will carry on feeding you though, so have fun with them.

[HERESY]

Really?
Very true. And yet you mentioned them initially as flaws of FPP.

There is no contradiction in the statement. Nice job at cherry picking. Take the entire quote in context.

Here is the rest of it for you:

That is your finest point of vision. It is supposed to be your center of vision. Not where you're aiming, although that is what it is used for, but it's purpose is your center of vision.

That is what you left out and what you don't comprehend.

Very true. And yet you mentioned them initially as flaws of FPP.

You aren't reading. They are flaws when it comes to people talking about IMMERSION. The flaw is not exclusive to FPP, but the 3rd person games don't make it as blatent.

That's a design choice. FPP games can, if they choose to, have a 360 degree FOV. That they don't choose to is not an inherent problem with the perspective.

LOL! So according to you it's a design choice? No, with the advent of the widescreen format it's become more reasonable in the way it looks. We've had DECADES pass yet the perspective is still LIMITED and you attribute this to design choice?

It doesn't matter to the point overall, no - but it matters in the sense that I'm bringing it up, which is that your repeated incorrect claims show you know next very little about the history of the perspective.

I know about the perspective, I don't care about those games to know all the small details. YOU don't know about the perspective. And you're the guy who saud the dot is where you're aiming and didn't even know it is your center of vision, so YOU'RE the one who doesn't know about perspective. Again, how is the perspective right when it doesn't even account for 50% of a humans FOV?

Who's to say that FPP won't evolve to adapt to that new tech? The point is, it hasn't needed to evolve significantly to work perfectly on the tech currently available.

Again, it does not even come close to a humans field of vision. It is a one size fits all crutch. And yes, the need to evolve has come. Again, with new tech right around the corner, developers are going to have to change the way they do FPP and they are going to have to make it a part of the gameplay element and not just camera.

When we're all wearing VR helmets or hanging out in the Holodeck, first person games will doubtlessly work differently than they do now. But we don't have that tech now, and so we don't need the evolution now.

AR is right around the corner. People are thinking that it will be the year 3877 or some far off crap. It's right around the corner. In order to stay ahead of the curve you have to plan for what is ahead. This is business 101. You just don't say "Hey, the tech isn't there so we'll wait." No, you start making the take yourself and put money into R&D or you hire consultants who know the market, know innovation and can keep you at least 10 years ahead of the game with disruptive technology.

Also, funnily enough, such tech will kill off third person.

It should! But the third person developers have a leg up because they've been forced to adapt. Do you understand now?

Your entire point is that first person perspective is the same in all games. Then you say it's not copied?

It's not copied in the sense that third person games are. No one is saying, "Hey, we want our first person perspective to be like like doom and not like Borderlands." However, people are saying, "We want our third person camera to be like Metal Gear Solid Guns of Patriots or RE4 and not like Ninja Gaiden 3." You see the difference?

First person didn't start particularly clunky, and so didn't need to evolve past the clunkiness. You're claiming a strength as a weakness - and for third person, claiming former weakness as current strength.

It's not just a matter of clunkiness. The perspective has not evolved to where it is truly utilized as an innovative gameplay mechanic. How are companies using the perspective to change the market? Again, we've seen how the third person perspective has evolved to change the market and contribute to innovation, where is first person perspectives contribution? And don't say it is done perfectly because it isn't. It is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from perfect.

Anyway, I have no interest in further fisking with you, as you're either heavily deluded or an oddly devoted troll. Either way, this is going round in circles as you're not taking in anything that anyone is saying to you, regardless of how many people say it or in how many different ways. I'm sure others will carry on feeding you though, so have fun with them.

You and others are using terms and tech out of context and yet I'm the troll? I'm telling people to tell me what they think I'm saying so I can clarify for them yet I'm a troll? And heavily deluded? Again, this is coming from a person who doesn't even want gamers to have the OPTION of third person in the next DX game and who believes that it must remain first person because that is what Spector intended. All this yet I'm delusional...

Good day sir. Put me on ignore and go about your way.

[TrickyVein]

HERESY, I've read through your posts. They're all tautologous. The difference between 1st and 3rd person perspective is, by definition, greater freedom in attaching the camera to the game world in 3rd person than in first. Of course this gives you a greater number of ways to look at yourself in 3rd person view. To argue that this is somehow a 'flaw' of 1st person view, or that because you can move the 3rd person camera from point x to point x + dx, that this represents an 'evolution' of 3rd person view is quite frankly, bizarre.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by HERESY

You don't know what draw distance means and it is changed in first person mods all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_distance

You're right, I used the wrong term. Now, feel free to address the point. Assuming you can rebut it, that is.