3rd person view | Forums

[Dirtymurph]

First person is by far better in most cases as far as online in my opinion. Third person brings a whole new element of bs to the table. If they cant do it right then they shouldnt have the cover system at all. Ive said this a hundred times. Before Vegas came out they even said it was crazy to give us the "god view" and guess what, we still got it. So they know it shouldnt be the way it was. For whatever reason they just left it that way and later added in the fairly horrible High Stakes mode. Third person just has no place in a shooter thats supposed to be more on the realistic side unless its an option. They should just make a third person play list to please the extremely small group of people that want to play that way. I say to do it this way because from what theyve said so far it looks like we are going to get "blessed" with matchmaking instead of custom lobbies. Im just curious but Ubi always says they listen to the community but they never do anything we ask for, even something small like searching for custom lobbies. Nobody ever asked for matchmaking and it will kill the more personal and mature side of R6 that attracts a lot of people. The lobby searching in V2 was fine except for not showing your ping before actually joining, other than that it was almost perfect.

[doogsy91]

I prefer a third person view, but thats probably because I generally don't like FPS games. I like that you can see your characters animations beyond his hands and I feel that it really allows you to connect with your character as you can see that he/she is a living and breathing person (especially during dialogue) and not just a floating gun. I also like that in Ghost Recon, the player has a wider, more realistic lateral field of view. But GR's system doesn't work that well in tighter indoor environments which is why first person suits R6. Where a third person view falls apart is in cover which is where patriots looked to have addressed this issue really well by bringing the camera in close to your character's head, forcing the player to peek out beyond cover in order to see. I imagine this feature would also be extremely well received by the multiplayer crowd (of which I'm not really a part). I hope this feature remains and that it even makes it into the next GR.

[sameer_monier]

I prefer a third person view, but thats probably because I generally don't like FPS games. I like that you can see your characters animations beyond his hands and I feel that it really allows you to connect with your character as you can see that he/she is a living and breathing person (especially during dialogue) and not just a floating gun. I also like that in Ghost Recon, the player has a wider, more realistic lateral field of view. But GR's system doesn't work that well in tighter indoor environments which is why first person suits R6. Where a third person view falls apart is in cover which is where patriots looked to have addressed this issue really well by bringing the camera in close to your character's head, forcing the player to peek out beyond cover in order to see. I imagine this feature would also be extremely well received by the multiplayer crowd (of which I'm not really a part). I hope this feature remains and that it even makes it into the next GR.

100% Agree, I hope Ubi can see that there are both fans who like TPV and FPV, I think they found th best balance as you said when the camera gets so close to the face in cover and you are forced to peak, my only 2nd hope is again as you said that the main character talk, has a personality, and not just be a floating gun.

[Real720]

I honestly can't understand how people can enjoy first-person games. I enjoy how third-person gives me a greater awareness of my surroundings.

It requires more skill than 3rd person shooters.

[Dcopymope]

It requires more skill than 3rd person shooters.

After looking at the most popular third person shooters, I have to agree with this. Its like Dirtymurph said, if they can't implement the third person cover system the right way then it shouldn't be done at all. Other than games like the older Socom games, there aren't that many games that have done it right. The new Hitman game is another prime example of how not to implement a third person cover system. Instead of designing the cover system to fit with the Hitman style of play, which is a stealth game, they just wholesale ripped off the cover system from Gears of War, a cover system that no Hitman fan ever asked for. The cover system for Gears of War works because Gears of War is meant to be a fast paced shooter. You do the same with games like Hitman and it will only encourage people to play it the same way, especially if its got a Wolverine health system, instead of how Hitman was always meant to be played. Rainbow Six never was and was never meant to be a fast paced shooter yet this is what Ubi Soft turned it into with Vegas. A half done Gears of War style cover system that allows you to magically see around corners that some laughably call realistic. This cover system along with the Wolverine health system are the two main features that were responsible for the ruination of the Vegas gameplay and must be scratched off the list of returning features for Patriots.

[Tully__]

If you really want to know how much you can't see when you're properly in cover, try real life paintball. About 1 in 4 times you peek out to see what's going on you get a paint ball in your goggles/visor. If you're not properly in cover, you get a paint ball on the crown of your head, your shoulder, elbow, heel, whatever's sticking out. Very few games have what could be called a realistic "cover system" except the early ones that didn't have one at all. You either manually stood / crouched / lay prone behind something you couldn't see around or you got shot.

[KoffinKatRock]

I don't really care particularly if there's third-person or not. While it's nice to have, it would certainly be abused in pvp; hell, I was guilty of it in Vegas 2 and SOCOM. I don't see a problem making it optional in non-competitive modes, though. Though Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow did a good job of incorporating both in pvp. For those of you unfamiliar with SCPT, the pvp consisted of two spies vs two mercs. The mercs were first person at all times and the spies were third person. Both teams had their own little gadgets of course, but the pvp was incredibly solid. It would be interesting for the Rainbow Six team to incorporate a mode where you have something like six people with 3rd person god mode vs 12 people with first-person view. The team itself would have to work on making it fair, but that would be a unique and interesting gameplay mode in modern shooters that could give Ubi and Team Rainbow something to boast about if done properly. Hell, with C4, I bet a Rainbow Squad of six could easily fight off 15 to 20 FPS players.

[Execrate]

Where does it say it will be third person?

[OddieTheGrouch]

Where does it say it will be third person?

Lol thats what I have been wondering, WTF is this dude talking about?

I think the lack of Info may be getting to his head

[doogsy91]

Where does it say it will be third person?

Lol thats what I have been wondering, WTF is this dude talking about?

I think the lack of Info may be getting to his head

It's obviously in reference to the cover system.