PDA

View Full Version : GR3 - FIRST PERSON/ 3rd PERSON?!!!!!



PoPxtC
06-19-2005, 11:29 AM
well since iv seen it in alot of threads.. if you look at the gameplay vids this is what you will notice. when your running and walking you are in 3rd person view or over the shoulder, and when you stop you are in first person view with the gun. i think this is amazing and will make this game 10x better because their wont be as much camping because you wont be able to see around the corners anymore.. who thinks that this is what it is going to be like or what do you think it will be like???

MaggotSteve
06-19-2005, 06:38 PM
Hm....seems like that would stop the conflict between the 1st Person people and the 3rd person people. The developers said that the reason why they choose to put over the shoulder view was because they wanted to show the awesome character models. And IF this is true then I'd think it'll balance things out again. And hopfully make everyone happy again.

WhiteKnight77
06-19-2005, 09:39 PM
One thing to remember, first person shooter means viewing from the first person, not third person. We already have a 3rd person shooter/stealth game with Splinter Cell. For GR and other RSE games, the community complained long and loud to get it removed only to have it undone by adding the ability to cheat again.

Ben-Jammin
06-19-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Ben-Jammin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spm1138:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Biggy:
Everything I am seeing up to now is that Ubi is going with the "you have the choice" option...

Well you know what's going to happen? The same thing as in GR2...

Because the run and gun type player will host over the shoulder view, everyone else will have to follow which is EXACTLY what happens in GR2 servers...

Why?

Can't you tactical gamer types get your own servers and community going? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is most people do not like changes from the defaults or norms. Look at Halo 2. The community is often in uproar because they introduced Battle Rifle starts to some maps when SMG was default on all maps. So as much as I wish some servers would do that, I don't think it is possible. Another thing is that with the way servers work on XBL currently, the only information you can get prior to entering a game is the name of the host and maybe the current map. No one will know if a server is OTS or FP.

I personally am an advocate of the FPS. The reason is simple. As cool as OTS looks, it is absolutely cheap in multiplayer. People should no be able to crouch behind a rock and be able to see perfectly well what is going on in front of them while being perfectly hidden. It is unrealistic and cheap. First Person forces player to actually expose themselves if they want to see what's going on. This also helps the problem of camping. When players can sit behind an object and see everything they never have to move to find a better angle. FPS forces more movement and less camping which I think means more fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moe_14_1990
06-20-2005, 08:26 AM
I agree with Ben-Jamin. The only thing is in GR2 i dont like their fps, i only like fpvw not just without a weapon showing. And i think the third person view looks sweet, but like ben-jamin and other people said its kinda cheap, you can see whats around a corner without actually trying to PEEK and see whats there. GR3 is looking great, and i wouldnt really like the idea of when you walk you're in 3rd person and when you stop you're in first person. Well, i suck at forums but yea, i hope they do a better job in gr3 than gr2, especially with the AI, ridiculous..really disapoints me there.

MaggotSteve
06-20-2005, 04:34 PM
Not to go off topic but I think they tried to enhance the AI in the new co-op hamburger hill mode. But all they did is make them see you a mile away, behind rocks, or trees. When they say they'll enhance AI I want them not to just look further but to actually use tactics or hide when someone is shooting in their direction.

zoomerx13
06-20-2005, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by PoPxtC:
well since iv seen it in alot of threads.. if you look at the gameplay vids this is what you will notice. when your running and walking you are in 3rd person view or over the shoulder, and when you stop you are in first person view with the gun. i think this is amazing and will make this game 10x better because their wont be as much camping because you wont be able to see around the corners anymore.. who thinks that this is what it is going to be like or what do you think it will be like??? There is potential that this is just a feature contained in the demo. I havent been on in a while so forgive me if I am repeating someone. But there is a posibility that it will not be a feature in the release version. Most game designers "doctor up" the preview movies to make people want to play the game. Tha graphics you see are aprox 5-15 times better than what will be on the actual game.

blykmik
06-20-2005, 11:51 PM
Sorry, but can someone explain to me how having the option to force 1st person play doesn't solve this issue?

Why would having THE OPTION ever be a bad thing??!? People should be able to play with other like-minded people.

Sure get a FPS only ladder... Whatever, but to say that it shouldn't be in the game when they've already made it an O P T I O N, seems to be some people who are just looking for something to complain about.

Moe_14_1990
06-21-2005, 12:20 PM
Zoomer i doubt the graphics they're showing right now in there vids are 5-15 times better than the actual game (GR3)...i mean its xbox 360 here, the graphics are gonna be great. And if im wrong, well sorry haha.

camaroguyrs
06-21-2005, 01:58 PM
i personally have always like the 1st person of GR series. i strongly feel that even though everyone has the 3rd person option, it is still a bit cheating. sitting behind something and waiting for someone to pop out takes little skill. but having to lean around a corner and shoot while your body is being seen takes more skill to not get shot. i am not sayin i dont use 3rd person, everyone does, it just takes away from the originality of the ghost recon series. in GR3, i hope its either 1st person only, or when u run ur in 3rd and when you stop your in 1st, that would take away from sitting behind rocks looking over in 3rd person

Jakethejake
06-21-2005, 04:36 PM
I agree with blykmik. What's wrong with options? Play with like-minded people however you wish.

Let's face it: Not everybody is going to like to play things certain ways. I tend to like to play tactically. I usually only play LMS on the larger maps. If not that, then I play coop.

There are a lot of people who love Quarry and the run and gun style. They don't bother me because I still have the option of playing the game my way, with like minded people. If you took that away, then I wouldn't still be playing this game. I think that UBI/Redstorm understands this and realizes that they can reach wider audience by giving us options.

Some OGR players say that this game is purely run and gun and no tactics. I thought that this was true before I started hosting my own games. Basically when I explain to guys who jump into my room how I do things, they either stay or leave. More often then not they stay, and we have a great time, but they always have a choice. You all have the same choice. If you like FPV only, and playing tactically, put the word out. But don't try to take the freedom out of this game. That's one of the things that makes this game a good one.

The_Biggy
06-23-2005, 07:32 AM
No matter what, I am trying to make sure that we can at least get a ladder that offers FPV

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291043913/m/1841033033

ShadowCaptain
06-24-2005, 08:51 AM
Iv'e played Ghost Recon 2 ever since it came out and quite litteraly, I am the best in the world, but im retired, so no challenges.
Third-person makes the game more fun, though I like the idea of a FPS ladder, Thats what Rainbow's for, I play Ghost Recon for the Third-person.

In GR2, and im sure in GR3, there is an option when you host to make it FP or TP, which you can also set clan matches up for that way to, So if you dont like TP, host a room only for FP moron.

jchung
06-24-2005, 09:41 AM
@ShadowCaptain

Agreed. Here is the common sense you want to see here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291043913/m/1841033033

ShadowCaptain
06-24-2005, 09:44 AM
"Isn't it funny how "common" sense is so rare to find?"

That would be my sig, im not directly saying it for this thread, but I suppose it could work here.

hatrickpatrick9
06-25-2005, 04:52 PM
everyone wants these games to be as realistic as possible. how is third person view realistic? can you see around corners when you're walking through your house? no. so why should you be able to in the game. in gr2, i once turned third person off in my room and everyone left. you guys are spoiled with the third person view. i hope that it isn't in the new game. off topic, but i think that the new game should allow you to customize your character cause that would be really cool.

Goldnchild92
06-27-2005, 08:53 AM
First person is the way i go, but some people want a new genre of games. They want a new way of playing there games.
Ive been thinking this would be really cool if they had this. If they could make alot of stlyes of play. Like everybody has there own stlye. So players can pick what way of view they use, what weapon they use what soilder kit they use, and what there skin looks like.

Ben-Jammin
06-28-2005, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Jakethejake:
I agree with blykmik. What's wrong with options? Play with like-minded people however you wish.

Let's face it: Not everybody is going to like to play things certain ways. I tend to like to play tactically. I usually only play LMS on the larger maps. If not that, then I play coop.

There are a lot of people who love Quarry and the run and gun style. They don't bother me because I still have the option of playing the game my way, with like minded people. If you took that away, then I wouldn't still be playing this game. I think that UBI/Redstorm understands this and realizes that they can reach wider audience by giving us options.

Some OGR players say that this game is purely run and gun and no tactics. I thought that this was true before I started hosting my own games. Basically when I explain to guys who jump into my room how I do things, they either stay or leave. More often then not they stay, and we have a great time, but they always have a choice. You all have the same choice. If you like FPV only, and playing tactically, put the word out. But don't try to take the freedom out of this game. That's one of the things that makes this game a good one.

Here is the problem if it's an option, as I've already stated. If players in the same game can switch between 1st and 3rd perspectives the 3rd person players have an advantage. Those that prefer a realistic 1st person view get screwed because they can't see around corners. Because of this those that prefer 1st person play 3rd person just so they can play on an even playing field.

1st person ladders are nice, but what about the puc/casual players who want to play 1st person? They don't want to play ladders.

Vth_F_Smith_
06-28-2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Ben-Jammin:
Here is the problem if it's an option, as I've already stated. If players in the same game can switch between 1st and 3rd perspectives the 3rd person players have an advantage. Those that prefer a realistic 1st person view get screwed because they can't see around corners. Because of this those that prefer 1st person play 3rd person just so they can play on an even playing field.

1st person ladders are nice, but what about the puc/casual players who want to play 1st person? They don't want to play ladders. Keep in mind, there are still players out there who prefer the Single Player Mode so maybe there's a way to get "the best of both worlds" by giving the players the option to switch between 1st / 3rd Person View inside the Single Player but Outside of the Single Player only a 1st Person View! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif What do you think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ShadowCaptain
06-28-2005, 08:36 AM
I think that would ruin the game for many, many players. I know it would for me.

This may be my opinion, but i know many people would back this up, that The thing that makes this game differant from every other war game is that it is in third-person, what your saying, would change Ghost recon into another Rainbow, and First to fight: Close combat, this would not be a good thing.

Like I said before, and I guess i'll say it again, that you can create matches and clan matches in first-person only, so I dont see the problem, a gentleman above mentioned that he tried to create a room with only first-person, than he said noone stayed, that pretty much proves my point that this could ruin the game for alot of people.

jchung
06-28-2005, 09:31 AM
Ghost Recon has changed, and I seriously think that for anyone who wants a game like OGR needs to find a new game. I'm not saying this to get into the faces of OGR fans, but it is just a fact.

For those of you who do not know where I stand, I am one of the people who wanted the tactical style of OGR. I think my avatar says it all.

I'm still going to hang around just to see what the next GR will be like. Who knows it may be a good game in itself, just not like OGR.

Whitcomb2005
06-28-2005, 03:24 PM
I like the First Person idea, but not the first person like the original GR, i like fps's when you can see the weapon, such as Raven Shield. If Ubi is going to make the new GR into FP again, i want the gun in it.

ShadowCaptain
06-29-2005, 08:10 AM
You just wish it would change.
This is the only OTS squad combat game on xbox, I believe.
Seriously, if you dont like OTS on Ghost Recon, play Rainbow or First to fight.

jchung
06-29-2005, 08:31 AM
I personally don't mind the OTS view as long as UBI meets these two criteria:

#1 Offer the option of choosing FPV.

#2 Make the OTS view the way it appeared in the demo video, so that you cannot peak around corners.

In GR2 it was too easy to look around corners without your character actually physically looking around the corner. I have used this many times myself, and think it is a cheap tactic. Not to mention there were many times that I could shoot through a rock, or low wall from a crouched position, so that although my gun could not clear the object, the game would somehow allow me to shoot my target.

Fix these issues, and OTS would be a nice addition. Even though I would still use the FPV.

Jakethejake
06-29-2005, 08:47 AM
Ben-Jammin,

I will take your word that there is an advantage to playing with the OTS view. This game does give you the option to play with only FPV. Why not use it? Put the word out on this and other GR forums that you like to play with FPV only. Invite others to come and play with you, or seek out others who play this way. There has to be enough OGR players out there who are still using this view to get some good matches going. If not,......well that says something as well.

I personally use OTS. I have never asked another player which view they are using, but most are probably using OTS as well, so there has never been an advantage becuase they also can see around objects. FPV may have a disadvantage here. But once again, you have the choice of not mixing the two views.

I guess at the end of the day, I am not that hardcore about this game. The maps that I play on are larger, and the kills that I get are usually at some distances. If I were at some type of small disadvantage, it really wouldn't bother me. It's a game, and I'm just trying to have fun.

You have the option to play with your friends in FPV only. I have the option to play OTS only. In competitions, there should be a FPV only ladder. I'm having a hard time fully understanding what the problem with having choices is.

ShadowCaptain
06-29-2005, 09:12 AM
Jake, thats exactly what I have been saying for the last two days.

Jakethejake
06-29-2005, 09:17 AM
I hear you man. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ick0xbox
06-29-2005, 10:45 AM
Argument against giving people the option to choose FPV or OTS....

Argument #1 - When you give people the option you create friction.

When you are playing FPV with friends and a "public" comes in the room 80% of the time they bytch and bytch to switch it to OTS. Options are great, to a point. Prior to GR2 there was no issue and "publics" entered the room and were welcomed into our group, provided they were not *******es. Now there is friction abounding if you try to hold to the FPV. This sours the experience for everyone, INCLUDING the new player giving the game a try.

Argument #2 - You have GR2 abandonment situation.

Let's face it, this is NOT like giving the server the option to turn off radar....normally a UNANIMOUS decision to turn it off. I had a GREAT list of GR buddies. Many of these players, very adult mind you, had wide disagreements on how the game should be played. We lost several of our group over "preference" for one view or the other.....not to mention lost several GR players who refused to play GR2 and stated they will not buy GR3 or SS.

Argument #3 - Stick with what you know and do it well.

The game needs to be what it is....not some modifiable game to make it a beautiful OTS with magical "around corners" powers. When you go to McDonalds you don't expect a $15 steak on the menu. Likewise when you go to Ruth's Cris Steakhouse you aren't there to order a super-sized #1 with cheese. Stick to what makes a game great in its own right. If you want OTS, do a different game. You can't merge McDonalds and Ruth's Cris and make it work. This is what was attempted here.

Argument #4 - OTS is not necessarily "better" or "more updated".

We are NOT talking about a Series that needed to "grow up" and become something more than a sexy "see the soldier" OTS. We are talking about a real tactical shooter that added "magic powers" to the mix, an element that is NOT at the core of GR. When you add magical powers they are largely USED by players...and you have changed the GR experience forever, perhaps unalterably.

Argument #5 - The short term gain of OTS for marketability and increased sales has sacrificed the long life cycle that the GR series had as a FPV only. Don't get me wrong, you will catch me on GR2 most nights....but the interest in the game is not quite the same for many of my buddies that were die hard GR and GRIT fans. I see an atrophy of interest coupled with a huge wave of fans that turned their nose at GR2 initially. Blame it on the red X if you want, but I suspect OTS had a bigger part in it.

Argument #6 - Resources

I can't imagine the resources required to render my soldier movements on my screen in such a beautiful fashion, what with the prone, crouched, standing, reloading, switch weapons, etc. Imagine if this graphic requirement was allocated to, say, a blood spatter when I hit a target or the ability to enter buildings....better bushes or more intricate explosions.....or smoke grenades. You choose how to use the resources, I am willing to give up a view of myself on the screen.

Comment #1 - Unfortunately now that OTS has been added, a switch back to FPV will be regarded as a step backwards by the media and the public.....although adding the top of a weapon in view would help curb that.

Comment #2 - Unfortunately it may be to late for the series to re-commit to FPV. A line has been crossed.

Jakethejake
06-29-2005, 01:00 PM
Hi Ick

OGR, in my opinion was a great game for tactics and strategy, and only Ok for graphics and user interface. I tried to love that game but in the end it didn't become one of my true favorites. GR2 is better imo. Are there things about GR2 that I don't like. Yes. I have not picked up OGR since GR2 came out.

Why do I bring this up? Because I consider myself the target player for some of UBI/Redstorm's changes in the game. If I had a choice, I would choose what Summit Strike is trying to become. Solid tactical gameplay with some updates and the multiple view choices. I would not have bought GR2 without the choices.

If FPV is fading, then that will tell people something. The public wants another view. If choices are splitting up the community, then perhaps people need to either try a bit harder to get along, or find another game. There is always going to be friction on the public servers. So many people can't agree on which maps, gametype, and skin to use. and Why should we have to? We have the option to play the game how we choose. Isn't that what gaming is supposed to be about? Think about this. We are arguing over what view someone uses! This is supposed to be a game played for fun! The tiny advantage that may be offered by OTS is not worth not playing the game imo. Personally, given the amount of people who say they like FPV, I don't see how it's a problem. If your list is getting shorter, I'm truly sorry. But if everyone has gone to OTS, that will tell you that it is the more popular view. You can still use FPV against OTSers if your boys aren't playing.

I always love the argument that OGR didn't have to change. Obviously UBI/Redstorm's research says that it did. The fact that so many people are playing OTS just shows that most of the current community embraces this choice. There are people who will put down OTs players as less then the OGR players. We're all kids, we're all noobs. I think that these people need to let go of OGR, or go play OGR and IT, or learn to make the choices in GR2 work.

Jam_Dammer
06-29-2005, 01:07 PM
ICK,

I looked at your web site of weapon statistics at

http://www.ICK.BZ

I think your Marksman "1st zoom" factors of 7x are understated or too low, probably because the object you are measuring against is too small when you are viewing it at 1x (no zoom) - I believe you mentioned 1mm in your pdf notes.

Try this: point at an object so that it is about 10-12mm in height/width on the 1x setting (no zoom at all). Now right thumb click for "1st zoom" the object should have grown to 100-120mm in size as viewed through the scope - this is 10x zoom.

Right thumb clicking for the "2nd zoom" will cause the object to grow to 140-168 - this is about 14x zoom - and your measurements match mine, so no problem there.

BTW a very commonly used sniper scope just happens to come in 4.5x-14x zoom - the Leupold VXIII - which is what GR is probably modeled after.

-Jam

ick0xbox
06-29-2005, 01:13 PM
Actually there is a miss-type there. The object was in centimeters, not milimeters. This makes for a much easier measurement, like you say, milimeters would be too small.

Of course my magnification calculations are exprressed in the multiplication of an object.....an object that looks like it is 2 cm from a 10 meter distance wide will look 10 cm wide with a 10x zoom and so on.

Of course in the optics industry their zoom factors are calculated very different, but for my purposes here I thought a multiple of size would do nicely.

I had a buddy of mine check the zoom factors carefully. I also compared like weapons using split screen to verify small differences between weapons like the M4 scoped vs. the M4, so I think my calculations are correct for what is there.

Is there a specific weapon you find different?

ick0xbox
06-29-2005, 01:21 PM
From the weapon list:

>Zoom Measurement - Standing with back to
>southwest base window, look at barrier
>wall 66m awayin F5. Un-zoomed Target
>is 2.6cm wide. Measure zoomed in.

Consistency is king with this kind of data gathering, so everything was measured like this...being careful to have the soldier in the same spot, etc.

ick0xbox
06-29-2005, 01:37 PM
Jakethehake,


I always love the argument that OGR didn't have to change. Obviously UBI/Redstorm's research says that it did. The fact that so many people are playing OTS just shows that most of the current community embraces this choice. There are people who will put down OTs players as less then the OGR players. We're all kids, we're all noobs. I think that these people need to let go of OGR, or go play OGR and IT, or learn to make the choices in GR2 work.

To tell you the truth, I can play and enjoy either way. Of course OTS is sexier to a certain degree, but seems incompatible with the realism theme that the rest of the game has.

Given a choice on a long term curve the FPV has a much longer reward for me as a player. It keeps the gameplay at a more tactical level. The introduction of the OTS has added an element of magical ability that has soured the game for everyone in that particular way.

Instad of a tactical shooter it is more of an arcade "positioning" game where certain spots cover certain areas without exposure to fire.

Would there be less players if they had stuck to FPV? I doubt that assertion to a large degree......Halo 2 (which is NOT a fair comparison) is a FPV shooter. Nobody bytches that they can't see their soldier in that game....

So if OTS truely didn't affect sales.....then Ubisoft gave up an aspect of their game (that made it award winning) for nothing.

They gave up tactical for magical and lost a core game value.

Jam_Dammer
06-29-2005, 02:08 PM
As I said before, take 5 minutes and try my suggestion above.

Try it as I did on the Pagoda map, using one of the river rocks.

Since binoculars are not available in GR2, you must be using the Lone Wolf weapon's range finder to give you your "exact distance." And this is where your calculations are off - you are assuming this distance as given is correct. Ignore the distance GR gives you.

Use a ruler and lay it across your tv screen on one of the Pagoda rocks while you are on 1x (no zoom). Now right thumb click and measure it's enlarged size at "1st zoom." You should find it is now 10 times bigger than your first measurement.

Jam

Jakethejake
06-29-2005, 02:26 PM
Ick,

I actually prefer the FPWV, and if this view was offered, would use this instead of the OTS view. I would still allow all views in the games that I host. I can't stand having just the reticule on the screen. It's just a personal preference.

ick0xbox
06-30-2005, 07:08 AM
Jam,

We are having some kind of misscommunication. This is exactly what I did using a larger target further away.

I found that a closer smaller target had too much margin for error, especially when analyzing a sniper rifle zoom.

jchung
06-30-2005, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Jakethejake:
Ick,

I actually prefer the FPWV, and if this view was offered, would use this instead of the OTS view. I would still allow all views in the games that I host. I can't stand having just the reticule on the screen. It's just a personal preference.

I agree that all views should be allowed, but I just did not like how I could shoot over walls and rocks that my gun was not actually pointing over in GR2. I think that even the most hardcore OTS supporter would agree on that one.

StrikerD
06-30-2005, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by PoPxtC:
well since iv seen it in alot of threads.. if you look at the gameplay vids this is what you will notice. when your running and walking you are in 3rd person view or over the shoulder, and when you stop you are in first person view with the gun. i think this is amazing and will make this game 10x better because their wont be as much camping because you wont be able to see around the corners anymore.. who thinks that this is what it is going to be like or what do you think it will be like??? SOUNDS AWESOME TO ME! That's how I play GR2, whenever I'm not running from bullets I'm using a scope.

And to settle your argument, find somebody with a modded xbox, have them copy the files to their PC, and find the properties for w/e gun you're arguing about.

Jakethejake
06-30-2005, 10:35 AM
jchung,

I agree wholeheartedly. Hopefully this will be fixed in SS.

jchung
06-30-2005, 12:23 PM
@Jakethejake

What do you think of the OTS view in the new GR footage. It seems to prevent "peeking" around corners. Do you like this "new" OTS view, or do you prefer the OTS view in GR2?

IMO, the new OTS view would silence the complaints coming from the FPV crowd. What do you think?

Jakethejake
06-30-2005, 02:23 PM
jchung,

I think that what they're doing is a good idea. I'm not a hard guy to please. I like both FPWV and OTS. The new game will give us both, so I'm happy. I'd like to see the OGR people get what they want as well. I think that if we try to get along we can.

I hosted a room for 3-4 hours last night.(12 people) I asked if anyone was using FPV. One guy said that he just switched over to OTS from the FPV. He had never used it before, but since his brother had changed the view, he decided to give it a try and liked it. My point? This view is popular for a reason. It's fun! IMO that's what gaming is all about. We played LMS on different maps for the whole evening with almost no complaints, and virtually the same people played the whole time. We had fun! To me, this is the essence of this game. Having fun with people who enjoy playing the same style as you. This board has a lot of people who seem to really love this game, and who have been GR fans from the beginning. I guess that's why I am so suprised that something such as view choice has become such a hot topic. I would think that the OGR people would have tons of friends who would share a similar playing style, so that it would never become such a big deal.

Ben-Jammin
06-30-2005, 05:22 PM
People prefering and using OTS is not the reason why FPS is not favored. The reason is the FPS view is underdeveloped compared to other shooters and the DEFAULT is OTS. I bet if UBI wasn't lazy with the FPS view, made FPS view default, and made OTS an option for MP with the default being off everyone would be playing from an FPS view and prefer it.

theliberalleft
07-01-2005, 02:01 AM
I€m glad jchung mentioned it already. "It" being that GR2's OTS and Warfighter's OTS are completely different animals.

I've been a fan of the OTS, but I did agree w/ those who preferred FPSV and felt it put them at a disadvantage while playing OTS'ers.

The new OTS is superior to the old one and seems to be a pretty good compromise - as if Ubi took the FPS'ers complaints into consideration while designing it.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2005, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by Jakethejake:
I hosted a room for 3-4 hours last night.(12 people) I asked if anyone was using FPV. One guy said that he just switched over to OTS from the FPV. He had never used it before, but since his brother had changed the view, he decided to give it a try and liked it. My point? This view is popular for a reason. It's fun!

Something happened in recent weeks i never thought would happen. A friend of mine on live who has only ever played GR2 and OTS has changed to 1st person veiw. I had been hosting games locked into 1st person for a while and a few nights running someone else hosted. The friend started to complain he prefered to game view in my server, and hadnt realised he could still use it in open rooms.
Hes now changed his profile to play 1st person only and said he wish'd he had known earlier the view was available that way.

A lot of GR2 players dont even realise there's 1st person view in the game, usually the first time they realise is if they visit a 1st locked server and thats not often.
So it swings both ways

lonewolf43050
07-04-2005, 03:14 PM
Hay Shadow there is always some one BETTER...

ghost_sniper819
07-05-2005, 10:06 AM
I think wat they r gonna do is when ever u wanna shoot u have 2 press a button 2 go into first person mode. In first person i think they will also allow u to move but in a slower walk, as if u were walkin with etreme caution.

mandrewmx
07-06-2005, 03:37 AM
If you were to go to each GR2 multiplayer room and take a count of FP and OTS, and ask them which they prefer, my guess it it would be 98% OTS and 2% FP, yet the "diehard" GR fans want to stay true to the original. So here we are 2% trying to force their way onto the other 98% of us. Wow what a hit ubisoft would take if you removed the OTS! All of the fans that joined after OGR and GRIT who love the 3rd person will be pissed off. When Ubisoft released GR2 with OTS they opened pandora's box. Its too late to shut it now. In any case, why is it that 2% want to inflict their own preference on the rest of us? I am not forcing them to switch to OTS.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2005, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by mandrewmx:
In any case, why is it that 2% want to inflict their own preference on the rest of us? I am not forcing them to switch to OTS.

And i dont believe we are trying to inflict 1st person on anyone. We just want 1st persont to remain a option in the game and not be lost forever.

g1nababy
07-06-2005, 09:01 PM
<span class="ev_code_PINK">I think it should go back to first person. I loved the OGR and GRIT and i think that OTS ruined it for many gamers that came from OGR and GRIT</span>

mandrewmx
07-07-2005, 01:05 PM
ms-kleaneasy, anyone who just wants it as an option is fine with me. Like I said, those who want to play it OTS should be able to play it that way and those who want FP should be able to also. It is those who say it should be FP only that I have a problem with. But in any case, I have a fix for the problem. I will post it as a new topic called, "Fix for 3rd Person"
Check it out