Do you also consider it disrespectful not to include the first person mode in AAA games?

[freeagent]

Not at all.

But you can show how much you care by not buying the game..

 

[Chomiq]

While op makes little sense I suggest something else to discuss:
Full body awareness in AAA fps games. I should be able to see my own player model just like I would in real life when looking down. If you don't have it you're doing it wrong.

 

[Macro Device]

I knew people usually don't even try to understand me but not to that extent.

I DID NOT SUGGEST REPLACING 3PP WITH 1PP. What I suggested is making it possible to also play 1PP in 3PP games where 1PP at least remotely makes some sense.

Why are you so against having QoL features?

 

[AusWolf]

I knew people usually don't even try to understand me but not to that extent.

I DID NOT SUGGEST REPLACING 3PP WITH 1PP. What I suggested is making it possible to also play 1PP in 3PP games where 1PP at least remotely makes some sense.

Why are you so against having QoL features?

It's not a QoL feature - it's an artistic choice.

 

[Macro Device]

It's not a QoL feature - it's an artistic choice.

It's an artistic choice from the dev's POV if only one of these options is present.

From the gamers' POV, having an option to choose between 1PP and 3PP is a QoL improvement.

 

[AusWolf]

It's an artistic choice from the dev's POV if only one of these options is present.

From the gamers' POV, having an option to choose between 1PP and 3PP is a QoL improvement.

I disagree. Whether the game is 1st or 3rd person is up to the developer - they choose whatever they think fits the game best. They don't have to make anything optional that they think wouldn't fit the game's style.

 

[Macro Device]

I disagree. Whether the game is 1st or 3rd person is up to the developer - they choose whatever they think fits the game best. They don't have to make anything optional that they think wouldn't fit the game's style.

Literally 1984.

Good thing I'm not forced to pay for games I don't like.

 

[AsRock]

IMO for immersion, 1st person all the way. Having played 500 hours in Red Dead 300hrs which was in 1st person and the rest in 3rd person ( never mind the 6000+ hrs in RDO (mainly in 3rd person as it gives many advantages). 3rd person makes shit so easy how ever with Red Dead 3rd person i had the most laughs due to getting to see all the shit happening. 1st person can be a pain like getting on the horse and the camera gets locked for a little while.

So glad CP2077 is mainly 1st person how ever drive cars in 3rd person as i find them annoying but the bikes always in 1st.

Days Gone wish that was 1st person too as the movment of the player is terrible in 3rd then again might be the same deal. I hope they make it better in the next one.

 

[AusWolf]

Literally 1984.

Good thing I'm not forced to pay for games I don't like.

It's not 1984. If I made a game, I'd make it the way I like it, not the way you want me to make it.

 

[erocker]

This seems more like a design/artistic choice rather than a financial one.

 

[Macro Device]

It's not 1984. If I made a game, I'd make it the way I like it, not the way you want me to make it.

So you don't get my money and get broke. Marketing is about making things enjoyable by payers.

This seems more like a design/artistic choice rather than a financial one.

If you are short on resources you have to cut corners and implement less features, that's why I don't criticise smaller companies. Big fish, however...

 

[lexluthermiester]

I understand that lower budget game developers are oftentimes forced to only make one possible but when it comes to higher budget development it feels cursed not to have a proper first person camera. I don't exactly know what is easier to implement but third person camera is a bit more difficult from my understanding so having none first person camera feels weird at best to me.

How do you ensure immersion without allowing players to being able to feel like they are the protagonist and not just an FBI surveillance drone spying on the said protagonist?

I think "disrespectful" might be the wrong choice of vocabulary. However, I understand what you mean.

 

[ShiBDiB]

I think "disrespectful" might be the wrong choice of vocabulary. However, I understand what you mean.

This, probably a lost in translation issue.

But also, just don't buy the game?

 

[Macro Device]

I think "disrespectful" might be the wrong choice of vocabulary.

This, probably a lost in translation issue.

Hmm... not considering implementing the feature solely based upon "we know better" approach feels like a lack of respect more than anything else.

But also, just don't buy the game?

Of course I don't pay for what I don't like but that's not the point. I'm talking scenarios where 1PP is totally possible and can be enjoyed more than 3PP by significant amount of players, yet the gamedevs don't implement one or another for some reasons. They absolutely can do it and both cameras make sense in the game (i.e. Cyberpunk 2077 would be better with 3PP and Max Payne 3 (3 specifically) would be better with 1PP) but they don't do it.

That seems like cutting corners just for the sake of cutting corners more than anything else.

 

[Sithaer]

Hmm... not considering implementing the feature solely based upon "we know better" approach feels like a lack of respect more than anything else.

Of course I don't pay for what I don't like but that's not the point. I'm talking scenarios where 1PP is totally possible and can be enjoyed more than 3PP by significant amount of players, yet the gamedevs don't implement one or another for some reasons. They absolutely can do it and both cameras make sense in the game (i.e. Cyberpunk 2077 would be better with 3PP and Max Payne 3 (3 specifically) would be better with 1PP) but they don't do it.

That seems like cutting corners just for the sake of cutting corners more than anything else.

That is entirely subjective, personally I prefer Cyberpunk and the Max Payne games the way they are.
Also keep in mind that developing 2 camera modes to work properly with the game's design and combat system with proper animations + whatever systems costs extra money and development time.
In most games with 2 camera modes one of them almost always feels off-weird for some reason cause one of them defo feels like a secondary idea/work just to please ppl like you. 'mods are even worse imo, it just doesn't feel right and has various issues'

In this day and age when a lot of AAA games are relased in a half assed state I would rather them fixing the core game first instead of trying to half ass a secondary camera mode/view into the game just because some ppl might not like it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Hmm... not considering implementing the feature solely based upon "we know better" approach feels like a lack of respect more than anything else.

But it's THEIR game. You might be buying a copy, but you control ONLY that copy. You can request a feature, but they don't have to accept it. And not accepting it does not qualify as disrespect. As developers and owner of the code they are free to do as they see fit, regardless of public opinions. If you don't like that, buy something else, mod the code on your own to put the feature in or make your own game.

Of course I don't pay for what I don't like but that's not the point.

Yes, it certainly is the point! Vote with your wallet.

 

[AusWolf]

So you don't get my money and get broke. Marketing is about making things enjoyable by payers.

Looking at how the poll stands, I think I'll be fine without your money.

But it's THEIR game. You might be buying a copy, but you control ONLY that copy. You can request a feature, but they don't have to accept it. And not accepting it does not qualify as disrespect. As developers and owner of the code they are free to do as they see fit, regardless of public opinions. If you don't like that, buy something else, mod the code on your own to put the feature in or make your own game.

Exactly my point!

Making the game one way is artistic choice. Expecting the developer to make it a different way is disrespectful towards artistic freedom.

 

[Bones]

From my years of playing games the view a player has can make or break a game, based on the game itself and player preference.

Some have one or the other, some have both available.

For example, one I have is NASCAR Thunder 2004 for the Sony PS2 and that one has at least 4 diferent views, two 3rd person and two 1st person.
I prefer the "Far" 3rd person view with that one because I can see what's around me and not get wrecked so easily if I happen to piss off one of the AI drivers because they will try to wreck you after you bump or hit them and it doesn't matter if on purpose or by accident - They will come after you.
In-Car (1st person) works too but it's not as good as 3rd person (To me) for those reasons.

For other games when you are in the machine 1st person works best.

I'll use an old fav of mine, Jane's WWII Fighters (PC game) as the example here.
In 3rd person (Chase) it's not that great because you can't see through the plane and an enemy plane could be in the blindspot but if using the 1st person view (In cockpit) it's alot better and it's best if you eliminate the cockpit itself - You can and it's just like YOU personally are flying around (Like Superman), going after enemy aircraft and you can really see what's going on.

No canopy or gauges in the way, just you in the big blue with enemies all around, coming after you.

For another that's been named, the COD series 1st person works but that's for me, for another a 3rd person view might work better but as it is with Jane's there may be a blindspot because you can't see through the character (Unless there is an option to make them transparent), making you vulnerable if they happen to be hiding somewhere in the blindspot.

For a game like FF, 1st person doesn't make alot of sense because it's not like you have alot of action going on (Turn based play) so that in itself will ruin any 1st person view play - By far best played with a 3rd person view instead.

It's really a mix of both factors I've named above and yes, there are games where one or the other doesn't make alot of sense but if both view types were offered, at least you'd have the option to play it however you'd like.

 

[Vayra86]

So you don't get my money and get broke. Marketing is about making things enjoyable by payers.


If you are short on resources you have to cut corners and implement less features, that's why I don't criticise smaller companies. Big fish, however...

I smell entitlement

 

[Deleted member 57642]

No, but i get how the (game devs) world not revolving around the personal tastes of a given individual - might seem disrespectful - from an entitled egocentric perspective. But hey, sometimes you just have to accept - that some AAA games (production wise) - are meant for a different audience (for people with different tastes who also happen to live in this world). Thus, instead of wasting resources to tailor it - for the tastes of every entitled individual - those resources were better spent on improving the product in question as much as possible (better acting/actors, spending resources on fixing and improving the game - be it bugs, balance or artwork).

Another way to put it: Do you know how many Turn Based D&D AAA Games were released in the past 10, no... make it 20... in the past 20 years?!

JUST ONE/1: Baldur's Gate 3 Sure, there's dozens of other successful titles - but none comes even close to BG3's budget of $100 million. For example - here's the budget for the last 2 successful titles developed by Larian (BG3 Devs):

Divinity: Original Sin - almost bankrupted Larian, while struggling to work with less than 1% of BG3s budget - but eventually "with the help of donations" they managed to raise around 5% of BG3s budget.


Divinity: Original Sin 2 - started with 0.5% and raised around 2% ($2 milion) - also from donations. Yet, raised over $85 Milion - a success which increased the investor's trust - and thus, they got a triple A budget to make BG3. Which, game-play wise, even graphics to some extent - it's more like a sequel to DOS2:

Same goes for other devs like Obsidian Entertainment and their Pillars of Eternity & Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire - both funded through Kick-starter - raising less than $5 Mil for each (while the initial target is lower) - and both highly successful among its fan base. Tho, unless the Devs get the same budget as BG3 - there won't be another sequel.

BG3 is just an example. Could be any triple A game with similar camera view or even 3rd person. You're also wrong about character immersion. That's more like an individual lacking (or maybe it's still a matter of taste). I mean, even beyond gaming - there's quite a lot of film fans - who can immerse themselves with ease as if they take part in the movie "if it's a movie they actually enjoy/like and there's no distractions around". It's just that - this type of immersion requires some level of empathy (to put yourself in a stranger's shoes). While the first-person view can be a perfect embodiment of ego-centrism - since you only see some hands and the objects used - especially in a game - where the world quite literally revolves around you.

Bottom line, above devs made this games out of passion - as if making it for themselves (and others with similar tastes). And they did a really good job at it - earning a fan base and the respect of those for whom this games were actually intended. That being said, there's nothing more disrespectful - both for the creators of a specific type of genre/game but also its fan/player-base - than some entitled gamer with different tastes - demanding/implying that the resources used for said game development should have been split to adapt the game to his wants - which could also imply hiring new devs specialized in those type of changes - even reworking the game to make it work.