PDA

View Full Version : Why Third-Person View?



scrapser
09-18-2015, 06:53 PM
So many games coming out now are all third-person view only. Where is the authenticity when you can see things going on around you that are outside your character's peripheral vision? How is that contributing to immersion or realism for that matter? There are many other issues I take with modern game development that are killing suspension of disbelief in game play.

For the record, I have been gaming since the beginning of gaming back in the 70's when I was in my twenties. Game development is and has been steadily consolidating down to only a handful of frameworks and genres. Everything else is being abandoned. Have developers run out of creativity or is this just another effect of focusing on money?

UbiBooma
09-18-2015, 07:28 PM
There are still lots of FPS games too...

I think it's just a preference thing. Personally I like 1st and 3rd pretty equally.

DmF-Lokiey
09-18-2015, 08:38 PM
So many games coming out now are all third-person view only. Where is the authenticity when you can see things going on around you that are outside your character's peripheral vision? How is that contributing to immersion or realism for that matter? There are many other issues I take with modern game development that are killing suspension of disbelief in game play.

For the record, I have been gaming since the beginning of gaming back in the 70's when I was in my twenties. Game development is and has been steadily consolidating down to only a handful of frameworks and genres. Everything else is being abandoned. Have developers run out of creativity or is this just another effect of focusing on money?

Well there is a lot to talk about here so lets see if we can cover a little bit of ground because i do share certain concerns as a gamer who started his career with frogger and pitfall. When it comes to the creativity there is a certain amount lacking for sure but the fact is we have gone from an era where 75%+ games all sold pretty well and there was a great deal of money to be made. The fact is though we have gone through that and trends emerged and the success rate of a game concept became more slime. It was then that developers would start following trends to help ensure the success of a title and testing the waters became more slim.

The other thing we have to consider is the days of having 50 studios producing games doesn't exist anymore because companies like EA,Activision,UBIsoft and others go through and buy them all out to consolidate the market. So with this its not always going to be developers who also own the studio calling the shots but more taking a certain amount of direction from there bosses and such. So the fact is were not going to see as many risk's taken as we have seen in the past because who wants to spend 50 million on development only to break even or see a slim return when they know certain trends are going to pay out 10 fold.

Now when it comes to the introduction of the hybrid TPS/FPS shooter, im all for it as i played it in GRP and it was very fluid and honestly didn't feel like i had much more of an advantage by being having the over the shoulder close up view point vs straight FPS. The fact is never once did i feel like i wasn't immersed in my environment and sometimes even felt more so to be honest then i felt in some FPS games in the past. What im more worried about is this being a true TPS with ADS because the fact is that is a trend and don't like the idea of being able to shoot with any amount of accuracy from the hip with the in between hip and ads shooting. This also would make the game feel less unique and more just like a GRFS 2 game. I can tell you that at least in GRP that your not getting this huge FOV that allows you to spot flankers or see so much it doesn't even remotely feel realistic.

I haven't played this game but know a few people who have that spoke about a little bit of there experience in a youtube video and such and said it was very fluid. The fact is the owner of GR.NET made a video on the topic and hes been a ghost recon fan since 2001 and said the game felt great and very fluid and would only say he hasnt seen a game get this much concern and care taken by a team who is blindly passionate about the series. So i think that we just wait until more information is known, gameplay is revealed before jumping the gun and just calling this yet another flavorless tps game.

The other great thing too is for those who want the early FPS red storm gaming experience it seems that siege will be delivering that to the gamers with the added destruction and such. The fact is the mechanics in that game are more rogue spear esch then ive seen in awhile, its not my cup of tea but it is for many. I think with the 3 major games coming from the clancyverse they are all very truly unique in there own way instead of just release 2 brand expansions and 1 new IP. We are instead getting one that is truly hardcore FPS CQC shooter, RPG based game with real world environment and shooter mechanics with the flavor of unrealistic and a hybrid TPS/FPS open world tactical shooter. So by that account they are at least thinking much further outside the box then some, anyone can just re brand COD over and over with 0 thought or .... given. The fact is weather the games are your flavor or cup of tea there still being produced with a much higher sense of care and emotion then many IP brands and that's worth more then any billion dollar cod style game.

meathead_79
09-19-2015, 11:33 PM
So many games coming out now are all third-person view only. Where is the authenticity when you can see things going on around you that are outside your character's peripheral vision? How is that contributing to immersion or realism for that matter? There are many other issues I take with modern game development that are killing suspension of disbelief in game play.

For the record, I have been gaming since the beginning of gaming back in the 70's when I was in my twenties. Game development is and has been steadily consolidating down to only a handful of frameworks and genres. Everything else is being abandoned. Have developers run out of creativity or is this just another effect of focusing on money?

Funny how you don't like seeing stuff outside your peripheral, yet don't mind having your peripheral completely cut off. Play FPS is like looking at the world with blinders on. You have absolutely no peripheral. I gave BF2 a try back in the day, and at one point, had an enemy laying right next to me. neither of us noticed for a few seconds, until we both scrambled and I was killed.

I do think the third person view could be tightened up a bit, and should get very tight when you are corner peeking.

GiveMeTactical
09-20-2015, 03:26 PM
TPV is just a new and improved Marketing scam... kiddies can see their different types of pink and red camo when running and gunning all over the maps. they waste tons of hours choosing their skin and then 2 minutes in the map before they get capped and move on to the next flavor of the month.

FPV was a bit constricted with tunnel vison but with technology as it is developers could have improved it and gain more peripheral vision because it was lacking a lot. Someone wasted millions of dollars in research and came up with the... we will sell more copies to kids if they can see their character.

My personal opinion is that movement on TPS is just wacky and if I need to run from cover to cover and I can't do so in a straight line, hard to explain perhaps but I feel like I am going all over the place... kinda like watching a pregnant woman walk LOL

GiveMeTactical
09-20-2015, 11:07 PM
Personal Preference for whom?

Third person comes from the Racing sim games as Grand Turismo and then the trend started with the other racing games... personally I saw my young children wasting hours changing colors and schemes in the cars and very few minutes racing.

The answer is very easy and simple... does it take more time to code TPV or FPV or which one is harder to code?

There is no irrational bashing here, most thing, sorry... improvement on the newer gen games are more marketing scams to make more money than actual improvements to make the game better. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion because FPV would be in the game, at least as an option.

DmF-Lokiey
09-21-2015, 05:56 AM
Personal Preference for whom?

Third person comes from the Racing sim games as Grand Turismo and then the trend started with the other racing games... personally I saw my young children wasting hours changing colors and schemes in the cars and very few minutes racing.

The answer is very easy and simple... does it take more time to code TPV or FPV or which one is harder to code?

There is no irrational bashing here, most thing, sorry... improvement on the newer gen games are more marketing scams to make more money than actual improvements to make the game better. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion because FPV would be in the game, at least as an option.

Well as i stated above i am an old school gamer and only played FPS and wasnt until Vegas 2 that i saw a new perspective with there cover system and despite many despising it i loved the game and system. When i first played ghost recon online back in closed beta with there hybrid system i honestly sorta fell in love with it and spent 99% of the time matching never caring what my player looked like with the camo's they offered. I mean even when they started offering more and more camo's in the game like vegas 2 i never messed with it because i just simply didn't care and just played the game and enjoyed it for what it was. Now i wasn't a fan much of GRFS because the camera system was slightly different then GRO as that game had a tighter over the shoulder feel to it unless you were running in the game. So where does this put me, im 42, i grew up on ghost recon and FPS games and to me the most enjoyable mechanic system for me has been GRO despite not being a huge fan of the game anymore but i loved the TPS hybrid and cover system and everything.

So it does in fact come down to player preference and what one enjoys more over another and not really a marketing scam in the least bit. I mean if you love FPS and CQC style tactical then you have RV6 siege coming out here very soon to scratch that itch, so im not sure what the real complaint here is because there giving gamers alot of different offerings to the market over the next few years. Now it would be silly to give players a complete FPS ability in this game because it wouldn't work if you ask me and anyone who uses it in multiplayer would be giving themselves a real disadvantage in there FOV. When it comes to player experience with mechanics you want it to be the same across the board for all players and the fact is based on what we know this system not only works it works great and for me far better then a standard FPS tunnel vision game.

Cortexian
09-21-2015, 09:49 PM
Third person comes from the Racing sim games as Grand Turismo and then the trend started with the other racing games... personally I saw my young children wasting hours changing colors and schemes in the cars and very few minutes racing.
Nothing wrong with customizing how you look. I spend hours "playing dress up" in ArmA III. Lots of people enjoy doing this, and if you don't enjoy it, click ranomize and hit save and go play.

It's better to provide the ability to do it, and satisfy the group that wants it than not do it at all and leave people wanting.



The answer is very easy and simple... does it take more time to code TPV or FPV or which one is harder to code?
This is not a simple answer at all. It depends on many many different factors. Which engine are you using? How skilled is your development team at on method VS the other? What kind of animation / texture artists do you have access to?

Also, Wildlands uses a hybrid of both first and third person right now. Out of the three different options:
1) First person
2) Third person
3) Hybrid system

3. Takes the LONGEST to implement correctly. They need to create third person art assets + first person assets, not just one or the other.



There is no irrational bashing here, most thing, sorry... improvement on the newer gen games are more marketing scams to make more money than actual improvements to make the game better. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion because FPV would be in the game, at least as an option.
I'm not following your reasoning here. If Ubisoft was attempting to scam people and/or only make as much money as possible by doing the least work required to put out a product to sell, then they'd use first person instead of the hybrid system they're currently using.

If you're under the impression they do third person just to make cosmetic items to then sell to players... Those cosmetic items take a lot of time to create and get looking good. It's not like they can just whip something up in 5 minutes and then sell 50,000 units for $5 each.

Customization systems in general take a lot of time to create, vs a system that doesn't have it.

I think you're assuming a few things that you shouldn't be, and arriving at a conclusion without anything to back it up.

Vipereye1
09-29-2015, 12:51 AM
Want to know the true difference between first person and third person gameplay?????
One of the perspective's offer the most toxic multiplayer game play experiences one could think of, Can you guess what perspective is the most toxic?

Ill spell it out point blank period, If this game goes third person in multiplayer or even hybrid, i will not support or recommend it. I refuse to go through the head ache of finding a first person dedicated server because people feel in there comfort zone in peeking around corners and walls, even though they are getting completely destroyed and frustraited when someone else uses the exploit against them.

If you want third person game play in single player...well then...why would anyone care, it truly is down to personal preference at this point, but adding this to multiplayer is beyond acceptable and i know a great user base will smirk and move on, A purchase of a video game should not come down to this "personal preference" It should come down to fair game play as a priorityin the first place.

If you can pull this off without wall peeking then all the power to you, go for it. I had great interest in wild lands, but i think going forward ill be more careful with my purchase. Im not sure if this is going to be a big multiplayer title or not. I was hoping it was, but now i could care less.

strigoi1958
09-29-2015, 01:21 AM
MDK.... about 20 years ago I played that. It was 3rd person shooter... before that, I had an Amiga and played a 3rd person shooter... Cabal (I think), so 3rd person has been around a long time and not just for car games... I've played both and enjoy both... limiting myself to one or the other would stop me playing a lot of great games.

Some people think it must be FPS because it appeals to their purist nature, some have preferences and others just cannot adapt... but nobody is being forced to play. The game is being made for millions of people... people can come here and vent that it should be this or that to suit their own preference... or simply choose to buy and enjoy or go without.
I'm desperate to get this game and regardless of how the view is set or changes.... I'll play it and I'll enjoy it.

Cortexian
09-30-2015, 02:17 AM
Yeah, not understanding how third person wall-peeking is "an exploit" when everyone can do it. If people complain about it they completely lack basic understanding of the third person concept, and I fully endorse that you mute/ignore them in-game. They likely aren't worth listening to anyway.

FGH_rjcastillo
10-08-2015, 02:59 AM
Yeah, not understanding how third person wall-peeking is "an exploit" when everyone can do it. If people complain about it they completely lack basic understanding of the third person concept, and I fully endorse that you mute/ignore them in-game. They likely aren't worth listening to anyway.

Exploit = while taking cover in TPV you can still see the enemy ahead of you. Taking cover in FPV you can't not see the enemy coming or if the enemy moved. This making the TPV not be realistic. In real life if one takes cover one can't see anything in front of him/her. TPV looks cool like in Arma3. Also Arma3 gives you the option to switch between TPV FPV on the fly. So maybe that to could be true for the new Ghost Recon Wildlands. If not hopefully the Devs could adopt the switch between the two as well.

Patu
10-08-2015, 09:30 AM
Funny how you don't like seeing stuff outside your peripheral, yet don't mind having your peripheral completely cut off.

That's why I play with Eyefinity. ;)

kourkourator
10-12-2015, 08:33 AM
Here's a really good video (from Dslyecxi / not mine) explaining how 3rd person could be an exploit. If you don't like the word exploit, then here's a video explaining differences between 1st and 3rd person view. Guy is talking about Arma 3 / Day Z, but it's quite informative and good quality content.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7zoVIsIT2A

For me that would be a game-breaker for PvP. On the other hand, dividing the community (implementing a server option) is always a risk, but if done on the server side (assuming we are talking about dedicated servers) I dunno.

The developers have in mind what they want to do with the game, but it's only fair to discuss here and provide as much feedback as possible. Everybody has their opinion and it's valid (because it's theirs).

Have a nice day!

ES-Ulukai
10-12-2015, 05:18 PM
Totaly agree with his point of view.

Personnaly for multiplayer that would be great fps view giving more challenge and no camera cheat behind walls.

ES-Ulukai
10-12-2015, 10:56 PM
The first person games always boil down to see then shoot without the need to stop, consider, discuss and execute. They go into rush mode every time.

Depend if you play alone or with friends in casual party. I've been in a clan on GR, R6:RS and COD4 and it was all about strategy, we had 2 trainings a week and matches on ladders against others teams. We studied all maps for defense and offence. Take position and defend bombs. Attacking the defense, creating decoy, using flashbangs to enter and get around.

We had programs with all maps on it to create defense and offence strategy to apply them on training with every members with his position to defend or to attack.

Everyone has his point of view but there's no more use of all that when get tpv to see what your not suppose to see, you let them come and shoot them lile rabbits because you saw them comming with the tpv.

Now I like the hybrid but giving the choice to use tpv or fpv well fpv will give me more challenge cause won't use tpv but imagine Dedicated servers where you choose to disable tpv well people prefering fpv will be happy and the people who don't like can find a server where tpv is enabled.

I think that giving the choise is the keyword, tpv or fpv there will people who like one and not the other one, giving the choice will make happy both side.

ITK5
10-13-2015, 03:08 PM
The first person games always boil down to see then shoot without the need to stop, consider, discuss and execute. They go into rush mode every time.

Depend if you play alone or with friends in casual party.

This is the main reason I stay away from FPS.

While i love to see guys like Jason aka Deosl's team move with team work and strategic call outs.
R6 is a very confined area...which is ok for some players..i can't handle being closed in like that.
The majority of FPS games that I jump in are simply rush in..and get the kills, instead of slowing
down, see whats going on making early call out..and moving in as a team.
This is where your role in the team comes in. In Ghost Recon we had our Killers
like Muddvain, HuskerFan, AfterFire..and even Shotcha, these guys moved in.. and push hard.
Then you had your intel guys, scouts making call out..spotting the movement of the enemy
(usually snipers tagging the enemy)
then you have your support guys, somebody to spawn in off of, or dropping sensors, dropping stun mines or claymores.

A patience squad will always beat out a run & gun squad..in Ghost Recon

*Gets off Soapbox*

btw Jonathan, its not an advantage or disadvantage if both teams have a TPV.
I heard Mercs 8itching about the Spies after every match in Splinter Cells Spys vs Mercs.

Lolssi
10-15-2015, 08:47 AM
This is the main reason I stay away from FPS.

While i love to see guys like Jason aka Deosl's team move with team work and strategic call outs.
R6 is a very confined area...which is ok for some players..i can't handle being closed in like that.
The majority of FPS games that I jump in are simply rush in..and get the kills, instead of slowing
down, see whats going on making early call out..and moving in as a team.
This is where your role in the team comes in. In Ghost Recon we had our Killers
like Muddvain, HuskerFan, AfterFire..and even Shotcha, these guys moved in.. and push hard.
Then you had your intel guys, scouts making call out..spotting the movement of the enemy
(usually snipers tagging the enemy)
then you have your support guys, somebody to spawn in off of, or dropping sensors, dropping stun mines or claymores.

A patience squad will always beat out a run & gun squad..in Ghost Recon

*Gets off Soapbox*
[/SIZE]
btw Jonathan, its not an advantage or disadvantage if both teams have a TPV.
I heard Mercs 8itching about the Spies after every match in Splinter Cells Spys vs Mercs.
Can't really fault FPS if you choose to play run and gun FPS games and not the good ones. Also Ghost Recon is FPS.

Lolssi
10-19-2015, 10:46 AM
Ghost Recon has been TPS on consoles since GR2 and TPS on all platforms for future soldier and phantoms
Ghost Recon as in the original. Specifics man specifics :)
Also pretty sure we all wanna forget Future Soldier and let's not even bring up Phantoms since that was multiplayer only and can't really be called Ghost Recon...or I guess they can tag the name in everything if they want.

CR0SSlX
10-20-2015, 06:54 PM
UBISOFT needs to do it as GRAW2... TPS on Consoles and FPS on PC.. Simple...
I dont like TPS at all!

ITK5
10-21-2015, 07:27 PM
Ghost Recon as in the original. Specifics man specifics :)
Also pretty sure we all wanna forget Future Soldier and let's not even bring up Phantoms since that was multiplayer only and can't really be called Ghost Recon...or I guess they can tag the name in everything if they want.

If you really want to be specific, original Ghost Recon was not FPS, but its own Reticle only Shooter. :cool:
FPS you see the weapon your carrying, Ghost Recon didn't have that..only the Targeting icon.

Future Solider (IMO) was the best one from the series, most players didn't give it enough play time
to figure that out. Game was ahead of its time..still has the best Cover and Sprint system around.

ZepG
10-27-2015, 06:50 PM
Please give us a full fps option, if I so much as see the back of my soldier once i'm out. I never bought a third person game ever, I got a free copy of Just Cause 2 loaded it and when I found out it was third person only I deleted it instantly.

DmF-Lokiey
10-29-2015, 10:49 PM
Please give us a full fps option, if I so much as see the back of my soldier once i'm out. I never bought a third person game ever, I got a free copy of Just Cause 2 loaded it and when I found out it was third person only I deleted it instantly.

I really dont see them adding a complete FPS option in this game because of the amount of work that would have to be done to make it happen and the added development timeline. The fact is if they do it right then it wont feel like a traditional TPS but if you refuse any form of it then i just wouldn't get your hopes up. I just don't see it being time or cost effective because so much would have to be added and configured for it to simply work weather you choose TPS or FPS.

murphdawg1
11-09-2015, 09:16 PM
Please give us a full fps option, if I so much as see the back of my soldier once i'm out. I never bought a third person game ever, I got a free copy of Just Cause 2 loaded it and when I found out it was third person only I deleted it instantly.

You are severely limiting yourself if you pass on a game simply for being in third person.

Cortexian
11-10-2015, 09:34 AM
When it comes to perspective and function, a well executed third-person game will trump any first person game every time when it comes to actually allowing you to effectively manipulate your character. First person, while more immersive, is also more restricting.

Considering how far along in development they are, and with the Ghost Recon franchise historically moving towards third person, I doubt we'll see anything except for the hybrid camera system that has been showcased so far. An ArmA 3-like system with both fully first and third person options would be neat, but it's a lot of development time that would be better spent elsewhere in my personal opinion.

Muddvain
11-10-2015, 06:46 PM
Funny how you don't like seeing stuff outside your peripheral, yet don't mind having your peripheral completely cut off. Play FPS is like looking at the world with blinders on. You have absolutely no peripheral. I gave BF2 a try back in the day, and at one point, had an enemy laying right next to me. neither of us noticed for a few seconds, until we both scrambled and I was killed.

I do think the third person view could be tightened up a bit, and should get very tight when you are corner peeking.

Couldn't agree more with ya there.....ive felt that way for years and I'm an avid Halo gamer, and the vision is so overly cut down they could blur the edges a hair but you can still make out movements and such that in FPS's just never allow you to see or notice.

Muddvain
HVT Ghost Team

Muddvain
11-10-2015, 06:47 PM
The immersion point often comes up in this debate, but peripheral vision is as limited in first person as it's expanded in third. Here's my take on it

Third person supports immersion if the gameplay requires controlled team play to deal with threats. Particularly where the sight lines are long and the mechanics make it more efficient to move into a better position as a team.

With the right maps and gameplay (non Respawn especially) it promotes flanking and overwatch bounding when attacking an objective and a heightened sense of tension when defending. Ironically, the most unrealistic aspect of third person - seeing around objects - provides the most realistic feeling for an authentic military situation, simply because you communicate, move, communicate, update, communicate some more and then act. With first person, seeing and shooting are the same instance more often than not.

Ghost Recon, especially siege and LMS provided the perfect scenario for TPV, whilst it would be horrible in R6. The CQB environment can't provide the sense of military intelligence gathering that you get with third person on large open maps. The downsides of magic vision and popping out to kill attackers would not be compensated for as it is with those GR settings.


It's a shame there's no voice chat on the video I've linked; you can see the speech bubbles, as that would help demonstrate what third person is offering. The player can choose to observe and recon for targets without being exposed which is exactly what you'd do in real life. He does this a lot around the 3 to 4 minute mark, he has to expose himself to scope in, but has a much greater chance of carrying out recon in third person. I played in this match as in many similar and was totally immersed. You are so focussed on the team work and comms that it overcomes the third person view. I have never found that in first person in 15 years.



http://youtu.be/tae4DRCBRiU

Couldn't agree with you more AI very well put.

Muddvain
HVT Ghost Recon

Muddvain
11-10-2015, 06:52 PM
I really dont see them adding a complete FPS option in this game because of the amount of work that would have to be done to make it happen and the added development timeline. The fact is if they do it right then it wont feel like a traditional TPS but if you refuse any form of it then i just wouldn't get your hopes up. I just don't see it being time or cost effective because so much would have to be added and configured for it to simply work weather you choose TPS or FPS.

Maybe for the campaign but not in a PVP situation it would limit you so much and they way they allow the characters to use all the cover and surroundings effect your direction and motion I think it would be foolish to run FPS even if they did over it. Think about it how many FPS allow you do dive roll, or dive in general, none that I know of but maybe there is one out there but even with that you cant tell if your even covered while up against a wall or some other structure. Sorry I have to go with all these guys I like FPS in games like Halo or BO but not Ghost Recon...

Muddvain
HVT Ghost Team

Lolssi
11-11-2015, 09:47 AM
Couldn't agree more with ya there.....ive felt that way for years and I'm an avid Halo gamer, and the vision is so overly cut down they could blur the edges a hair but you can still make out movements and such that in FPS's just never allow you to see or notice.

Console world problems unfortunately.

Muddvain
11-19-2015, 02:41 AM
Not sure what your point is about (Console world problems unfortunately) don't get whether your agreeing or disagreeing or changing the topic to PC VS Console or what. Are you implying the console has worse sight over PC or what?

Muddvain
HVT Ghost Team

Lolssi
11-19-2015, 10:46 AM
Not sure what your point is about (Console world problems unfortunately) don't get whether your agreeing or disagreeing or changing the topic to PC VS Console or what. Are you implying the console has worse sight over PC or what?

Muddvain
HVT Ghost Team
Exactly.
Of course depending what your setup is but bigger resolution and FOV helps so your vision is wider.

SuperBiscotCOT
11-20-2015, 09:49 AM
Guys I don't understand ?
Why don't let choose the player between two views like in Battlefront or Arma with just one key ?
Battlefront is a special example because it move a lot but Arma is very tactical and the choice is very intresting.

SamDECOIFFE
11-29-2015, 04:42 PM
ok for 100 % with "kappa-biscotte" for other exemple GTA V with toggle TPS to FPS and soon with the helmet VR

Opius_11
12-02-2015, 05:05 AM
UBISOFT needs to do it as GRAW2... TPS on Consoles and FPS on PC.. Simple... Well said!

Hi all!

Just gonna throw in my two cents in this forum again, for a game that I am looking forward to.

First off, I state that I am talking about this game on the PC platform and PC platform only. I have no interest in the console version. I leave opinion about console playing to console players.

Having played all GR games on PC platform, and I mean ALL, I have to say that I really really hope to see the return of FPV in PvP game mode. The two latest titles in this series (GRFS and GRP) have been such huge letdowns with the biggest reason being the TPV. I think the video posted earlier in this topic, from ARMA3, describes the problem with TPV pretty good, but I would like to add a couple of points as well:

Firstly, as a PC player, I am playing with a mouse and a keyboard. Mouse and keyboard control over a character in a game should be snappy, direct and accurate. Mostly it tends to be somewhat cumbersome in TPV games. This is a hard point to explain, but can easily be experienced in-game, e.g. GRAW2 (snappy and direct) compared to GRFS (sluggish, slow). To this date I have not yet played a TPV game that can match a good FPV game in this aspect.
Being snappy, direct and accurate, translates into a bigger degree of player interaction with the character, which then increase the immersion of the FPS <-- I know, this sounds pretentious, but is the best way I can explain it. Probably has something to do with TPV game dynamics and cover systems as well.

Secondly, FPV is a far better immersive experience, since you are much more reliant on the sound. Like it was portrayed in the video, you just see people above, behind obstacles in TPV. In FPV you use the sound of footsteps and gunshots, movement in general, as an aid to locate people. In my opinion, the immersion comes from players using their senses, hence playing FPS games without sound is a really good way of training your reaction times, as you need to react to things faster since you don't have the aid of sound. This element is sort of forgotten when you visually are over powered as in TPV, and also reflects on the challenge of "mastering" the game.

I am not saying GRW cannot use TPV, as TPV is great for sandbox story driven games, but not in PvP on PC.

The sad thing in all of this, is that a somewhat big community in GRAW 2 on PC was completely "destroyed", just because they did not care what the players told them. There were post up and down in the PC forum of GRFS telling them to make the game as FPV for PC players and give us dedicated servers to run. Did they listen, nope! Did the game become a success on PC platform, nope!

Ghost Recon on PC used to be the middle thing. Not really run and gun, even if it was fast paced to some extent and not as tactical as ARMA (tgft!), but something in the middle. If the developers and Ubisoft decides on finding that path again, I am pretty sure they can find some stepping ground for a good economical gain, as there really is not any competition in that spot. BF has gone all wappy fappy with no accuracy, and COD is just COD....

It just needs to be done the correct way!!!! (hint hint: FPV and Ded. Servers)

Lastly, I hope that next round of invites to the studio goes out to bunch of PC players, to play the PC version, with PC hardware (keyboard and mouse). Just ask a bunch of old GRAW 2 PC players, they are still gaming. The clans from the game still exists, even though we are living in obscurity since we don't have our favorite game to play.

A real shout out goes to all old GRAW 2 PC people :)

BR,
Opius11 (Still FSN)

BTW: Just as a fun fact, I think the player with the most hours in GRAW 2 clocked close to 3500h, I stopped following when I stopped playing the game, so might be more. Can any veteran match that for a single title in GR? Just curious :)

ES-Ulukai
12-02-2015, 07:24 PM
As you I played all GR and I am myself a fps player. I did talk about all of that with the devs and Yve Guillemot, ofcorse they have the last word.

It would be cool to have the possibility to switch or activate one of the two view so everyone would be happy. The game actualy use hybrid view tps with fps ln a better way than GRFS, something like MGS5.

Don't worry your feedback is red.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-03-2015, 08:32 AM
As you I played all GR and I am myself a fps player. I did talk about all of that with the devs and Yve Guillemot, ofcorse they have the last word.

It would be cool to have the possibility to switch or activate one of the two view so everyone would be happy. The game actualy use hybrid view tps with fps ln a better way than GRFS, something like MGS5.

Don't worry your feedback is red.

Ah !! I already talked about it in an other post but yes my idea was to allow player to switch beetween two cameras ( TPS and FPS ) with just a bind key. I think that everyone will be happy and the tactical aspect will be easier than an only FPS game. StarWars Battlefront is not a good example (it's shooting everywhere and it's not really tactical ) but Arma is a good example.
Also if the game is a TPS only I think that when you are aiming, the camera should be on your shoulder.

DmF-Lokiey
12-03-2015, 08:38 AM
Ah !! I already talked about it in an other post but yes my idea was to allow player to switch beetween two cameras ( TPS and FPS ) with just a bind key. I think that everyone will be happy and the tactical aspect will be easier than an only FPS game. StarWars Battlefront is not a good example (it's shooting everywhere and it's not really tactical ) but Arma is a good example.
Also if the game is a TPS only I think that when you are aiming, the camera should be on your shoulder.

I can only say that to code the game to not only be a tps/ads hybrid but also a straight fps for those who want to play that way would add such an immense amount of development that i just don't see that happening. I know it can be done despite not being able to think of a game to reference that allows both tps or fps but im sure there has to be one but i just think its highly out of the spectrum of development for this game but i could be wrong.

shobhit7777777
12-03-2015, 05:19 PM
The video misses the point that a large part of a military engagement is gathering intel on the enemy. Particularly with Ghost Recon, the name says it all, the point is watching whilst remaining covert. Hard to simulate in a video game, and showing the same thing over and over again, someone in cover observing others not in cover isn't representative of what happens in the actual game.

I can assure the guy who made the video that after years of clan matches in third and first person all the tension and suspense, communication and strategy occurs in third person games. The first person games always boil down to see then shoot without the need to stop, consider, discuss and execute. They go into rush mode every time.

I get the realism argument if you consider just the physics - I actually always use vehicles in first person, I simply can't fly a chopper in third person, and racing games are way more fun in first with a wheel and pedals - but a shooter like Ghost Recon is about a whole lot more than just the physics of the soldier. The dynamic of the teamwork and realism around the whole aspect of knowing where the enemies are, a real unit just simply would not enter theatre without good knowledge, are what define the experience. The Ghosts are hunters, they stalk their prey unseen in adversarial as well as co-op.

A straightforward comparison, based on the simplistic notion that you can simulate a complex military environment just by simulating (not even very well) a single soldier's view, is too narrow a perspective to take on this. Third person, even with its obvious limitation which is easy enough to counter, is a better balance of all the different elements that make up the experience.

This^

Wildlands is a hugeass game with a heavy emphasis on stealth gameplay....a FPV doesn't provide the required situational awareness. An FPV/TPV hybrid seems the best bet IMO...you have TPV for sneaking around and FPV for precision shooting.

mvbrownmvp
12-07-2015, 12:16 PM
I know lots of people are not fans but I would love the game even more if there was the 1st person and 3rd person option, similar to Elder Scrolls Skyrim. That option just changes the type of game so much. A simple thing which attracts all gamers who like either 1st person shooters or 3rd person shooters. To me GR WL seems like the ultimate military shooter, especially in an open world. I don't mind 3rd person as I love games like tomb raider and destiny but when its in 1st person, it seems more personal, like it is you there. And when I think of GR WL as the ultimate military shooter in an open world then 1st person just seems like it will make it so lifelike. There we go that is my opinion.

PLEASE PLEASE make it an option!

ES-Ulukai
12-07-2015, 05:40 PM
Agree and it's a point we talked about with the devs in June that they should bind a key to switch between TPV and FPV. so everyone is happy.

Personnaly I would like that option but i'm fine too with the hybrid view if the switch is not in the options. I think that for the game sake they should add that.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-07-2015, 05:50 PM
Agree and it's a point we talked about with the devs in June that they should bind a key to switch between TPV and FPV. so everyone is happy.

Personnaly I would like that option but i'm fine too with the hybrid view if the switch is not in the options. I think that for the game sake they should add that.

And I also think that the community talked about it too much on this forum and the dev's can't just escape the subject or we will see more and more posts talking about it until the realease of the game and then some people will punch as hard as they can Ubisoft for this "forgetting" if you see what I mean :p
But Ubisoft I trust in you ! :cool:

mezzatron
12-12-2015, 03:36 PM
I'm not going to go through 5 pages of comments. But just to let you know, because it is a cover based shooter it makes much more sense to have it 3rd person. However, switching to 1st person when you aim-down sight is pretty good. Anyone who has played Ghost Recon Phantoms would understand that 3rd person view is much better when you need to take cover.

They could include an option to play it 1st person only.. However, this will be a huge handicap for you guys.

Lolssi
12-14-2015, 09:43 AM
It really wouldn't. But anyways they pretty much confirmed it on the latest video that there won't be 1st person when not aiming :(

defiled669
12-14-2015, 12:07 PM
Ok if ghost is 3rd person that sucks guys im out, I was really hoping this game would fall back on its milsim orgins, but not, one idiot trying to say the game in 3rd person was more realistic, wow, so tell me one soldier who was able to spin around and locate targets without moving. What a waste on a franchise, really truly sucks. This is the franchise iI started really gaming on, the original was the best, everything else got dumb and dumber. Now you officially announced 3rd person. You let a bunch of people that played your free game online promise to buy this game, whats that 3000 people wow way to make a listen to your fans.if they were true fans they would have bought the other ghost also but no. Well World gaming league will not take this game, so once again your tactical pieace of bs will be under sold. Thought you guys were smart future soldier bombed hard because of hybrid 3rd person graw and graw2 failed considering how many had new consoles like the 360, compared to how many had the original Xbox, gaming was new not every kid had one. The success of rainbow 6 should tell you that the falling of star wars battlefront should tell you that. Stop making excuses for these ****ty gamers that can't play 1st person they are few and far between, the division works for 3rd because its not really a tom clancy title its the beginning of the frachise. This is not a new series, this was once the best game ubisoft ever made I think it got game of the year or something. No other ghost recon game got any awards, great big sign there, your going backwards, and the truth is the division will fail to. Great ideas folled buy dumb ideas, the fall of ubisoft, you could do us all a favor and sell ubisoft to Microsoft, they know what we want.

defiled669
12-14-2015, 12:17 PM
And not on console either. Fps rules console, don't believe us Cod sold more copies in one day than Jurassic world sold tickets for a week. Fallout 4 and rainbow both are kicking ***, while battlfront struggles because of the optional 3rd person versus 1st person, I thouvht hardline was a flop but star wars is losing people like crazy. There was 20 used copies at gamestop in my town.

ES-Ulukai
12-14-2015, 06:54 PM
I'm dissapointed too about that but I will keep defending a option to get a switch for TPV TO FPV but I'd like to you guys that get directly on they horses, have you played with the hybrid view ?

Didn't played much GRP but I played Metal Gear Solid 5 and it's almost the same hybrid view and it's cool, you want precision you directly enter in FPV !

It's a good compromise for me.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-14-2015, 07:02 PM
The first good thing is that the devs anserwed us in a Q&A and I really liked the engagement they envolved ;)
The second point is the hybrid view and what they announced is for me a good thing because the FPS was only for some situations where it's easier to be in this point of vue. But I still thing TPS/FPS choice should be from the player but I wait to see what will be be the TPS PoV in the Divivision :)

IJ S P A R K SI
12-14-2015, 11:27 PM
I like the third person point of view. I've been playing Ghost Recon games since the beginning, and I've enjoyed the third person view. One of my favorite game titles was third person and that was Socom. I really enjoy the third person view and honestly, I believe that all of the big name games are only first person, so it's nice to see some change. Call of duty, Battlefield, etc... Third person FTW.

defiled669
12-15-2015, 02:01 AM
3rd person veiw with the hybrid fpv killed ghost recon future soldier, we all know that. This is not metal gear we are talking about, this is the first tactical shooter for a great part of the world that play shooter games. The first 2 inspired ARMA, AND ALOT OF OTHER GREAT FPS. and yes if you have to spin the camera around to get intel your not a good soldier anyway. Becaise instead of running in there like an idiot and spinning the camera around corners or your location area to find enemies, you can't call that realistic in any case, its dumb its cheap and its cheating. And dishonors the game the frachise, and the real guys that actually have to peek thier heads out around cover in real life. Anyone that thinks 3rd person is realistic is a complete idiot and doesn't deserve my attention. Socom sucked thats why it never beat the original ghost recons. It was on an already thriving console and still got out done. 3rd person is for little crybabies that don't gather intel before they go into the hostile zone. Ghost recon phantoms and future soldier are more like cod and bf, because the are run and gun find the choke points bla bla bla. Next you'll be begging for a jump button. Corner glitches and rotating over head camera view so you can have eyes on you 360 without turning your head or moving your character is cheating. Can't do it in real life without some type of personal drone. I will not buy this game if 3rd person is all thats offered in the campaign, and if the pvp is any type of 3rd person hybrid ********. I wont buy it either. Multiplayer better have fpv servers and tpv. Or your game will not break even. Id stop listening to these game wreckers. And go back to your roots. Even socom is dead, ghost recon and socom are different games. One rocked the other died out. The other faded away, I don't want ghost to fade away.

Lolssi
12-15-2015, 12:53 PM
I believe that all of the big name games are only first person, so it's nice to see some change. Call of duty, Battlefield, etc... Third person FTW.
Unfortunately none of those games is a tactical shooter...

ITK5
12-15-2015, 04:03 PM
TPV is just a new and improved Marketing scam... kiddies can see their different types of pink and red camo when running and gunning all over the maps. they waste tons of hours choosing their skin and then 2 minutes in the map before they get capped and move on to the next flavor of the month.

FPV was a bit constricted with tunnel vison but with technology as it is developers could have improved it and gain more peripheral vision because it was lacking a lot. Someone wasted millions of dollars in research and came up with the... we will sell more copies to kids if they can see their character.

My personal opinion is that movement on TPS is just wacky and if I need to run from cover to cover and I can't do so in a straight line, hard to explain perhaps but I feel like I am going all over the place... kinda like watching a pregnant woman walk LOL

Hmm funny, I have been running Tom Clancy games in TPS view since 1999? Rogue Spear series
And even back then i didn't consider myself a kiddie (showing my age).

btw I do enjoy customizing my characters, makes it feel more personal when im playing.

Just Fugu
12-16-2015, 11:39 AM
You want 1st Play bow, 1st and 3rd have different ways of playing. TC has bow for FPS and Recon for TPS deal with it, I'll happily smack on you both 👍🏻

defiled669
12-17-2015, 04:08 PM
Lmao the elitist crying over 3rd person. First things first what you guys want for pc I dont give a fat crap. Im talking about console and yes ghost recon 1 and 2 where fpv graw 1 and 2 was optional, future soldier bombed wacky tpv laggy mechanics, ruined the game, and by the way im pretty sure rogue spear which was on dreamcast was fpv,but yeah its been a long time. Its funny rainbow kinda goes back to its roots and becomes best game on console. The announcement of ghost recon being tpv has started a war. Ask anyone that doesn't play tom clancy games anymore or never, not fpv took fake. And thats coming from cod and battlefront players. Ghost hasn't been a contender since the first to because those games were revolutionary. To many people caring about camera angles and outfits but not the game experience. Future soldier bombed it ****ing bombed. Phantoms barely had a revenue why do you think it took so ****ing long to make a new ghost ever since tpv was brought to console on ghost recon it has been failing to bring in the money they need to make new games. Pay good writers like tom to write a great storyline. And how ****ing ******ed is white hat. ****ing stupid. Hey we are looking for white hat, you seen him never mind he is the only one in the village with a big white cowboy hat. You tpv people are killing the franchise and have been since graw. You need camera angles to play tactical. Thats not tactical thats kiddie mode im scscscscared to move unless I can turn the camera around and quick scope people through flawed mechanics, ans laggy movement, I want to double stick my way out of getting shot when im in the middle of the street and not taking cover until I get scscscared again and I need to use the camera. Tpv takes stealth play out of the game, especially pvp. Ghost has never been run and gun, the ****ing name is ghost recon that should be the game moto stealth and surveillance. Tactical insertion. Thats why the first 2 games rocked thats what made it different. You skill against your opponents skill. Not your camera skill corner camping.waiting for some one totry to come in to you lglitched auto headshot when you pop around the corners. Thier mind is made up, they will burry the ghost recon series with this choice. Its funny Ubisoft all the number one selling games cross console a fps. Grand theft auto went fpv. Outsold cod. This would burry cod and bf if it comes out fpv. Dou you want people to buy your game and stop playing it or do you want people to play the game until the next game launches. People played the original 2 ghost until it finally came out on 360 people were playing. Rainbow six vegas 2, the day the beta came back out. Honestly you could have remade the first 2 original with todays graphics and that game would out sell any ubisoft game period.the originals were open world.tpv takes stealth and teamwork out the game it also makes the game less challenging.

ITK5
12-17-2015, 06:24 PM
Lmao the elitist crying over 3rd person. First things first what you guys want for pc I dont give a fat crap. Im talking about console and yes ghost recon 1 and 2 where fpv graw 1 and 2 was optional, future soldier bombed wacky tpv laggy mechanics, ruined the game, and by the way im pretty sure rogue spear which was on dreamcast was fpv,but yeah its been a long time. Its funny rainbow kinda goes back to its roots and becomes best game on console. The announcement of ghost recon being tpv has started a war. Ask anyone that doesn't play tom clancy games anymore or never, not fpv took fake. And thats coming from cod and battlefront players. Ghost hasn't been a contender since the first to because those games were revolutionary. To many people caring about camera angles and outfits but not the game experience. Future soldier bombed it ****ing bombed. Phantoms barely had a revenue why do you think it took so ****ing long to make a new ghost ever since tpv was brought to console on ghost recon it has been failing to bring in the money they need to make new games. Pay good writers like tom to write a great storyline. And how ****ing ******ed is white hat. ****ing stupid. Hey we are looking for white hat, you seen him never mind he is the only one in the village with a big white cowboy hat. You tpv people are killing the franchise and have been since graw. You need camera angles to play tactical. Thats not tactical thats kiddie mode im scscscscared to move unless I can turn the camera around and quick scope people through flawed mechanics, ans laggy movement, I want to double stick my way out of getting shot when im in the middle of the street and not taking cover until I get scscscared again and I need to use the camera. Tpv takes stealth play out of the game, especially pvp. Ghost has never been run and gun, the ****ing name is ghost recon that should be the game moto stealth and surveillance. Tactical insertion. Thats why the first 2 games rocked thats what made it different. You skill against your opponents skill. Not your camera skill corner camping.waiting for some one totry to come in to you lglitched auto headshot when you pop around the corners. Thier mind is made up, they will burry the ghost recon series with this choice. Its funny Ubisoft all the number one selling games cross console a fps. Grand theft auto went fpv. Outsold cod. This would burry cod and bf if it comes out fpv. Dou you want people to buy your game and stop playing it or do you want people to play the game until the next game launches. People played the original 2 ghost until it finally came out on 360 people were playing. Rainbow six vegas 2, the day the beta came back out. Honestly you could have remade the first 2 original with todays graphics and that game would out sell any ubisoft game period.the originals were open world.tpv takes stealth and teamwork out the game it also makes the game less challenging.


Someone needs a nap.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unc0GMWKtuI&amp;feature=share

jeannaq
12-17-2015, 08:37 PM
Someone needs a nap.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unc0GMWKtuI&feature=share

Yea, he also needs a dictionary and a thesaurus. Honestly, I don't see the issue. Some people like first and some people like third person. Personally I like both for different types of games. I actually think that Ghost Recon plays better in third person because you gain that awareness that turns to tunnel vision in first person. Also same with me, any game where I get to customize my character I prefer to play in third.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-17-2015, 10:45 PM
Yea, he also needs a dictionary and a thesaurus. Honestly, I don't see the issue. Some people like first and some people like third person. Personally I like both for different types of games. I actually think that Ghost Recon plays better in third person because you gain that awareness that turns to tunnel vision in first person. Also same with me, any game where I get to customize my character I prefer to play in third.

Agree :)

UbiKeeba
12-17-2015, 10:59 PM
Please keep all discussions on this forum respectful. Anything less will not be tolerated.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-17-2015, 11:03 PM
Please keep all discussions on this forum respectful. Anything less will not be tolerated.

Maybe too many " ******* " everywhere ;)

xxFratosxx
12-20-2015, 04:14 PM
I mean seriously 3rd person makes more sense in games. Now in reality it is not real cause there is no way you see over your shoulder from a back view if so please tell me how. You know what I rather not you to explain too creepy lol. Anyway 1st person is real but 3rd person is better at gaming. Think about it, why make a FPS and customize your character from head to toe when in game play you can only see your hands and your gun. In TPS you can see what you customize and not what is just in front of you. You see the whole 360 view and TPS works best when you cover

Lolssi
12-21-2015, 10:46 AM
I mean seriously 3rd person makes more sense in games. Now in reality it is not real cause there is no way you see over your shoulder from a back view if so please tell me how. You know what I rather not you to explain too creepy lol. Anyway 1st person is real but 3rd person is better at gaming. Think about it, why make a FPS and customize your character from head to toe when in game play you can only see your hands and your gun. In TPS you can see what you customize and not what is just in front of you. You see the whole 360 view and TPS works best when you cover
Ever heard mirrors, cutscenes/ conversations and character screen? All those should show how you're currently looking if that is your thing.. Also FPS games should let you see rest of your body just like FEAR did. Plus you shouldn't be able to see behind cover unless peeking.
Funny thing about mirrors in games btw. Unreal had working mirrors in what -97? And Fallout 4 can't pull it off in 2015 :D

Just Fugu
12-21-2015, 02:35 PM
Just leave the FPS fanboy to argue with himself,

Both views have different ways to attack and defend. You wouldn't go into a 3rd person defensive spot in 1st person view and vice versa.

You wouldn't attack a route in 3 person the same at 1st and vice versa.

This random is just a fanboy of one view, who's arguing for a view he'd still be bad at.

Leave him to talk to himself .

VorTechS
12-21-2015, 05:21 PM
I'm one of those that prefers the FPV aspect. For me it's about immersion and interaction with the environment, adding what I perceive to be an additional layer of realism.


If I'm taking cover behind a rock that is substantial in size, in TPV it's all too easy to use camera angling to gain a perception of your surroundings that wouldn't be possible if you were actually there in physical presence. Some games even let you perform targeting in such views meaning all you do is break cover and shoot, and the enemy is down.

If you were there in person would you in fact be able to perform those same tasks without the aid of equipment giving you that peripheral vision? Could you step outside of that cover and immediately target an enemy as precisely as some games allow? I suspect not.


Yes TPV is a positive thing for planning and seeing something you might not otherwise see, but it's also a frustration because there's always that part of your (my) brain that says 'there's no way you could do that IRL!'


But this is a game. It's not real. I understand that. Playability will always come first, as it rightly should.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-21-2015, 06:47 PM
I'm one of those that prefers the FPV aspect. For me it's about immersion and interaction with the environment, adding what I perceive to be an additional layer of realism.


If I'm taking cover behind a rock that is substantial in size, in TPV it's all too easy to use camera angling to gain a perception of your surroundings that wouldn't be possible if you were actually there in physical presence. Some games even let you perform targeting in such views meaning all you do is break cover and shoot, and the enemy is down.

If you were there in person would you in fact be able to perform those same tasks without the aid of equipment giving you that peripheral vision? Could you step outside of that cover and immediately target an enemy as precisely as some games allow? I suspect not.


Yes TPV is a positive thing for planning and seeing something you might not otherwise see, but it's also a frustration because there's always that part of your (my) brain that says 'there's no way you could do that IRL!'


But this is a game. It's not real. I understand that. Playability will always come first, as it rightly should.

The objective of the game is not to be the more realistic possible.
And I hope you can't look from high to see what is arround you. TPV should be only looking in front of you not above you.

sup3rpk3r
01-31-2016, 04:39 PM
Add option for both as FPS is more immersive imo! If a hybrid system is already in place which means both views are already seen!

DEATH-_DEALER-_
01-31-2016, 06:10 PM
Simple, FP view games are a dime a dozen...and garbage. At the most, that FPV crap should be an option only, period.

Ghost Sniper33
01-31-2016, 06:11 PM
I'm one of those that prefers the FPV aspect. For me it's about immersion and interaction with the environment, adding what I perceive to be an additional layer of realism.


If I'm taking cover behind a rock that is substantial in size, in TPV it's all too easy to use camera angling to gain a perception of your surroundings that wouldn't be possible if you were actually there in physical presence. Some games even let you perform targeting in such views meaning all you do is break cover and shoot, and the enemy is down.

If you were there in person would you in fact be able to perform those same tasks without the aid of equipment giving you that peripheral vision? Could you step outside of that cover and immediately target an enemy as precisely as some games allow? I suspect not.


Yes TPV is a positive thing for planning and seeing something you might not otherwise see, but it's also a frustration because there's always that part of your (my) brain that says 'there's no way you could do that IRL!'


But this is a game. It's not real. I understand that. Playability will always come first, as it rightly should.
Kinda like how in real life when prone you know excatly where your foot is ad that a leg isn' stricking out?

GiveMeTactical
02-02-2016, 02:37 AM
Its understandable that most people prefer TPV... how else are you going to enjoy coming out of hiding and killing the enemy because you were able to aim even before getting up? or come around him because you saw him coming even while taking cover? TPV is simplistic and easy to sell to the masses so it makes more sense. Don't get me wrong, I have grown to like it because there is no other way around it. I just wish that, at least in Hardcode Mode, for those of us who only play SP Campaigns, that they would make an effort to program it to be more realistic and leave the rest of the other modes for those who love TPV

Lolssi
02-02-2016, 01:08 PM
Simple, FP view games are a dime a dozen...and garbage. At the most, that FPV crap should be an option only, period.
And all the FPV games are the same? What was last tactical FPV shooter if not counting Armas...GRAW2 (2007)? Yeah they're like shrooms in a rain.

DEATH-_DEALER-_
02-02-2016, 04:02 PM
Most normal ppl do not roll shooter games in order to hone their 'real life combat skills for when the Russians attack Murica!!'

These are games meant to entertain, enjoy and have fun rollin etc...I have no problem if the kidos want to pretend they are a real black op scrubber and have the option to roll in FPV, but only an option...not take away 3rd person view for the people who just want to have some fun and play a great game.

Like I said, fps games...dime a dozen.

Lolssi
02-03-2016, 10:10 AM
Don't think anyone has been asking taking away 3rd person view?

Ghost Sniper33
02-03-2016, 04:04 PM
Most normal ppl do not roll shooter games in order to hone their 'real life combat skills for when the Russians attack Murica!!'

These are games meant to entertain, enjoy and have fun rollin etc...I have no problem if the kidos want to pretend they are a real black op scrubber and have the option to roll in FPV, but only an option...not take away 3rd person view for the people who just want to have some fun and play a great game.

Like I said, fps games...dime a dozen.

Its a fine balance. Sure noone wants to actually die when they're shot. and I know a few active service guys who love COD and BF$ because they can run and gun and not really pay any price for it - it gets their urges out

But then there are some who want to be punished somewhat for getting shot, want the realism, because we either 1 couldn't serve for some reason or another or 2 jsut enjoy realism and thigns to be "hard" like real life, or any other host of reasons,

but the fact is if it was really "realistic" there were be a button to "hide and cry" as that is what 90% of people would be doing when full Auto fire is coming over their head

Magsmp31
02-03-2016, 04:22 PM
Most normal ppl do not roll shooter games in order to hone their 'real life combat skills for when the Russians attack Murica!!'

These are games meant to entertain, enjoy and have fun rollin etc...I have no problem if the kidos want to pretend they are a real black op scrubber and have the option to roll in FPV, but only an option...not take away 3rd person view for the people who just want to have some fun and play a great game.

Like I said, fps games...dime a dozen.

These same people who complain about realism are the same ones who have no problem with Modern Warfare's plot that the Russians planned, logistically coordinated, and launched an invasion of the United States in less than a day. While the FPS view has grown on me because lets face it, there is so many that it has to if you enjoy playing shooters. I prefer the third person view. Many have buttoned up being able to see around obstacles. Take GRFS for example, if you were under heavy machine gun fire, then the camera would let you pan out to see where the fire is coming from. The x-ray vision and sensors are another story lol

in FPS, you only have the head view at eye level and unable to see your feet, legs, in some cases weapon which means you can't see obstacles, mantle low walls, or even adequately take cover. I have been hit multiple times because I think I'm in cover but exposed too much and get hit.

murphdawg1
02-04-2016, 03:46 AM
I take it the OP and maybe a few others never played Socom back in the days of the PS2.

GiveMeTactical
02-04-2016, 03:48 AM
Don't think anyone has been asking taking away 3rd person view?

nope, not really

What we have ask is for the fpv option to play sim-like shooter instead off tpv acade-like shooter... at leasy in hardcode campaign mode

Lolssi
02-04-2016, 10:12 AM
These same people who complain about realism are the same ones who have no problem with Modern Warfare's plot that the Russians planned, logistically coordinated, and launched an invasion of the United States in less than a day. While the FPS view has grown on me because lets face it, there is so many that it has to if you enjoy playing shooters. I prefer the third person view. Many have buttoned up being able to see around obstacles. Take GRFS for example, if you were under heavy machine gun fire, then the camera would let you pan out to see where the fire is coming from. The x-ray vision and sensors are another story lol

in FPS, you only have the head view at eye level and unable to see your feet, legs, in some cases weapon which means you can't see obstacles, mantle low walls, or even adequately take cover. I have been hit multiple times because I think I'm in cover but exposed too much and get hit.
Uuum pretty sure no person that wants bit more realism would think "I'll play COD" .
We've had FPS games with full body since 2005. Why this isn't the norm and devs don't do it more I have no idea.
Personally I prefer FPS cover. Adjust your lean right and it shows half your head, gun and bit of your arm when lookin from behind corner. Pretty much universal thing, granted new games might have small adjustment period to get it right.
Also I'd rather take hit if I'm shown little bit than have magical 3rd person cover where I won't get hit even when half of my head is above cover (ok generalized example).

Magsmp31
02-04-2016, 06:38 PM
Uuum pretty sure no person that wants bit more realism would think "I'll play COD" .
We've had FPS games with full body since 2005. Why this isn't the norm and devs don't do it more I have no idea.
Personally I prefer FPS cover. Adjust your lean right and it shows half your head, gun and bit of your arm when lookin from behind corner. Pretty much universal thing, granted new games might have small adjustment period to get it right.
Also I'd rather take hit if I'm shown little bit than have magical 3rd person cover where I won't get hit even when half of my head is above cover (ok generalized example).

That's just the thing many of them don't have the lean feature. I loved that about Rainbow Six siege and I loved the cover system in Vegas 1 and 2. While I've never been shot at, I'm sure the I could see a lot more than I could in an FPS game. I realize a part of your body must be visible to shoot back, not more than half of it which you have to expose in an FPS game to shoot. I do hope FPS shooters find a way to take away the tunnel vision and give more a peripheral view because that would incredibly immersive.

jeannaq
02-04-2016, 07:50 PM
That's just the thing many of them don't have the lean feature. I loved that about Rainbow Six siege and I loved the cover system in Vegas 1 and 2. While I've never been shot at, I'm sure the I could see a lot more than I could in an FPS game. I realize a part of your body must be visible to shoot back, not more than half of it which you have to expose in an FPS game to shoot. I do hope FPS shooters find a way to take away the tunnel vision and give more a peripheral view because that would incredibly immersive.

It really amazes me how few FPS games actually used a lean/peek system, and it's not like it is a new concept. MoH Frontline had a basic system in place, the MoH European Assault made it a proper lean out system though you could only use it why aiming with the sights. Then MoH Airborne brought it back but you could now use it independently of the weapon sights. Then games like CoD and Battlefield claim to be changing how you play by putting in these clunky systems where when you are near the edge of cover and aim you pop out. Talk about going backwards.

DEATH-_DEALER-_
02-13-2016, 09:58 PM
I take it the OP and maybe a few others never played Socom back in the days of the PS2.

Man I miss those days.... Not sure if you're meaning ALL the PS2 SOCOMS, but I loved them all...but preferred S3/CA. In any case the the view was the same in all 4...and it was ideal compared to the 1989 pc doom first person junk.

Options are key...if there is first person view, it needs to be optional.

Reverse Vision
02-14-2016, 01:33 AM
I never will understand the argument some gamers have for wanting every shooter to be first person view. In my opinion there isn't enough third person games out there either especially on newer consoles ps4/ xbox one. I'm happy ubi has chosen to go with third person with first person down the sights views for wildlands. Though I know for every person that agrees with me there's one out there that wants a ghost recon skinned call of duty instead.

Magsmp31
02-14-2016, 07:41 PM
I never will understand the argument some gamers have for wanting every shooter to be first person view. In my opinion there isn't enough third person games out there either especially on newer consoles ps4/ xbox one. I'm happy ubi has chosen to go with third person with first person down the sights views for wildlands. Though I know for every person that agrees with me there's one out there that wants a ghost recon skinned call of duty instead.

exactly, for those people, its Call of Duty Ghosts 2 lol

StealthTallyFox
02-15-2016, 05:08 PM
exactly, for those people, its Call of Duty Ghosts 2 lol

god no, CoD Ghosts is a disgrace to the word "Ghost", I can f'king fool the AI just by prone-ing in a really small bush, do that in GR series and you'd be dead as soon as the enemy can see you

Magsmp31
02-15-2016, 06:56 PM
god no, CoD Ghosts is a disgrace to the word "Ghost", I can f'king fool the AI just by prone-ing in a really small bush, do that in GR series and you'd be dead as soon as the enemy can see you

Too true or how about running at someone to stab them. You would be shot to pieces if you try that crap in Ghost Recon

smilingchicken
02-15-2016, 07:03 PM
Dude you don't really get it...the video that is...a team works together to gather info on the job at hand...(communication)...not use TPV to see over everything that blocks their view.(Advantage over the AI )..the game should be more realistic....your team against...the bad guys... NOT your team and a( third eye) against the bad guys...This game will die like all the other TPV games

Magsmp31
02-15-2016, 11:19 PM
Generally speaking, the FPS view has evolved at a slower rate than Third Person view. Many games have tightened up the cameral view so you can't just look around the corner with the camera.. GRFS had a feature where you couldn't move the camera if the enemy was pinning you down with heavy fire but you could see enough so you don't accidently get yourself killed without realizing you put your head up. Rather than "dying", I'm looking forward to this game re-establishing itself as the standard in tactical shooters

ITK5
02-16-2016, 03:17 PM
Dude you don't really get it...the video that is...a team works together to gather info on the job at hand...(communication)...not use TPV to see over everything that blocks their view.(Advantage over the AI )..the game should be more realistic....your team against...the bad guys... NOT your team and a( third eye) against the bad guys...This game will die like all the other TPV games

HAHaha!
Says you Mr. 1 post joined Feb 2016.

/tsk

SuperBiscotCOT
02-16-2016, 05:48 PM
HAHaha!
Says you Mr. 1 post joined Feb 2016.

/tsk

And most of the time 1 post and nothing more .... until the game is playable and they come to spit on devs ... :nonchalance: ( I hope smilingchicken you are not part of them :mad:)

CR0SSlX
02-16-2016, 07:55 PM
The best thing to do is :

Release the game in FPS on the PC
Release the game in TPS on the consoles
OR mixed (option to switch to FPS or TPS ) Simple as that and problem SOLVED!

PS: I just dont like TPS, its not my type of game
Ubisoft got too many TPS Games already: GRFS, GR Phantom, The Division and so...), so release a Proper FPS games, with Dedicated Servers this time!!!

SuperBiscotCOT
02-16-2016, 08:24 PM
But if you think like that you should also say that ubisoft makes too many FPV games : R6S, FarCry, .... :confused:

S.V.
02-17-2016, 10:39 PM
Third Person is cooler.

Cortexian
02-18-2016, 04:18 AM
IMO, third person gives you a more realistic situational awareness in tactical games like this.

Obviously third person itself isn't realistic, but if you've ever been in a team/group setting doing tactical type operations (training, drills, etc), you can use your other senses to know where people are around you. A lot more so than just your eyes. When stacking up on a door or clearing a building you can hear and feel people moving behind you, and this gives you an enhanced situational awareness that I think is facilitated well by the third person view. You can see everything in front of you, and a small area outside of your characters direct line of sight.

Not sure if this makes sense, but it was outlined by someone else earlier and it does make sense to me. I prefer this kind of camera system for a tactical shooter like Ghost Recon. I find that first person shooters nowadays have problems getting the field of view correct. Many PC players like me run multiple monitors, virtual reality, or other solutions like TrackIR to give a more realistic feel to first person, but I find that most first person shooters feel extremely fake. Usually because the FOV is set much to low, and it makes me nauseous.

DanHibikiFanXM
02-18-2016, 04:51 AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with a third person camera at all. My personal irritation regarding third person cameras is when some sort of stupid OTS camera is used and the game has no options for swapping camera positoin to the other shoulder (GoW, Sniper Elite, GR2/SS, etc.)...the optimal solution though is to have a lower/closer centered camera IMO so that problem is removed entirely and you can free up a button that can be used for something else. I also find dissatisfaction in that over the past decade or so TPSs have been marred and ruined by poorly designed and implemented cover systems that make movement clunky and frustrating. Aside from those things I have no problem with a third person camera.

adkogz7
02-18-2016, 03:30 PM
I've talked a lot about this in various threads of PoV topics. I tend to talk about it because PoV is only issue of this game preventing me from getting excited and I'll come to that in a minute...

First of all, again I'd like to point out the fact that I'd like this game to inherit both of the PoVs (like ARMA III, GTA V or Fallout 4 has done) so that everybody with their own preferences can enjoy the game to their liking. If and ever can the developers aim for this, it'd be perfect for everyone, but a good bunch of people on this forum claimed that it'd be time and money consuming so it's not possible. I'm not in the video game business so I can't say if they can or can't do, I hope it's still a possibility.

But if they are right, if it is not possible to implement both, then I'd like to share my thoughts about some discussed topics in this thread:

1- FPV: Yes, I know that it is more favoured by the gamers than the TPV because they say it is more realistic, in-the-moment, the shooting action mechanics are more satisfying and reactive, "the protagonist is you and it's your own story" etc.. These are some of the reasons I believe people liked it much more. For me, just the "realistic" part is not right; most people gave evidence here: the peripheral vision and the three-dimensional understanding (perceivability) of the surrounding area still aren't implemented quite well in FPS games. In TPV, you get more perception around your environment lifelike (peripheral vision is more implemented), and it felt more enjoyable and natural to play it. I don't necessarily prefer FPS but I don't hate it. Half Life and Far Cry franchises are on my top 20-30 list and it wouldn't give the same feeling if they were third person /or would become third person; it just wouldn't fit... They are perfect the way they are...

2- TPV: This is the reason I started to like gaming. Ever since I was a kid, I always like stories that people tell about their live experiences or sth that they made up from. It always fascinated me that other than yourself, everyone around you is a mystery storywise. That's what I like about movies, books, and gaming: it's about "somebody else's" story, not mine, The "Escapism" feel. And I strongly believe that's why developers mostly choose TPV: they can tell the story of this specific crafted character; you get to see your character, understanding/embracing that character, his/her conflict... you can achieve this kind of storytelling via third person better.

Other than that there is also the "animation" aspect of it that people drawn into TPS games, because if it is done well, it looks and feels perfect... Ubisoft does it well anyways... :)

3- Over-the-shoulder Aim (OTS): This is the reason of my post!... Because It is the only issue that I felt pretty sour for this game for the lack of OTS precision aim. Like I said, I prefer TPV over FPV but I really don't get the OTS aim hate in here. -Although it has more early conceptions- it was first truly implemented in Resident Evil 4 because Shinji Mikami made the game third person but he also wanted the game to have tension and I believe by OTS, he perfectly achieved it. After that, Gears of War picked up OTS and made it much more accessible and advanced that they proved everyone that the action games can also have that tension/intensity. I personally have that tension feeling when I was playing The Last of Us. That game (AWESOME!) had the most tension/intensity of feeling the weight of a gun through OTS aim-and-fire; and the constant "being on a knife edge" feel made the game really intense.

That's the reason I really want the developers of Ghost Recon Wildlands to have an *optional* over the shoulder precision aim because I believe it's not time or money consuming to make this and it's a viable request to be made and to make the game intense full-TPS for that audience. The developers say that they value feedback so here I am giving one, hoping it will be transmitted to them... :)

Note: Since a decent number of people embraced the hybrid design, I said "optional" OTS as through camera settings in the menu, not GRFS-style R3 button, to be clear... :)

P.S.: Although I believe I'm pretty good, I'm not a native speaker so pardon any mistakes :D

ES-Ulukai
02-18-2016, 07:30 PM
Well TPV has been confirmed with hybrid view, personnaly my favorite games are FPS but for having tested GRW alpha, the view didn't annoyed me and it's close to MGS5 one so it's fine.

Ofcorse if the devs could add a option to choose the view that would be even better ^^

adkogz7
02-18-2016, 07:55 PM
Well TPV has been confirmed with hybrid view, personnaly my favorite games are FPS but for having tested GRW alpha, the view didn't annoyed me and it's close to MGS5 one so it's fine.

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the assumption that there is no "L2/LT" over-the-shoulder precision aim in the game; you're saying it otherwise. So the game does have third person aim?
I think I misunderstand you so please verify it... :)

...and if you can; can you give specifics of how close you felt the game to MGS5 with a few words, please, if you're not occupied too much right now :)


Ofcorse if the devs could add a option to choose the view that would be even better ^^

I hope so, too. Everyone => Happy... We'll see... :)

ES-Ulukai
02-19-2016, 06:51 PM
If I remember correctly you go directly on aim mode, been some month now. Blue Cortex correct me if I'm wrong !

Cortexian
02-22-2016, 08:36 PM
Nothing prevents you from shooting while not zoomed in. I forget if you get a floating reticle or not, but I have a feeling the thing Blue saw in the trailer was theatrical/editing rather than a mode that will be provided in the game.

No proof either way though... Just speculation right now.

adkogz7
02-23-2016, 01:35 AM
Nothing prevents you from shooting while not zoomed in. I forget if you get a floating reticle or not, but I have a feeling the thing Blue saw in the trailer was theatrical/editing rather than a mode that will be provided in the game.

No proof either way though... Just speculation right now.

I know what you mean but I precisely said "L2/LT over-the-shoulder Precision aim" with crosshair... What you said is hipfire with random shots, that's not what I am talking about. What I'm saying is like Splinter Cell's, The Division's, GTA V's aim (with a reticle, crosshair)

...and yeah it looks like editing work in that trailer but it doesn't take away the fact that it can be implemented since it's shown in that trailer... I strongly believe that the developers can do that.

and finally; BTW I always strongly suggest that it should be optional in settings, not "R3 to Iron Sights", because I don't want to take away the hybrid gameplay for those who liked it and don't want the GRFS interface, thus it shouldn't be a problem for anyone and everyone happy. :)

Mattactic
02-24-2016, 08:45 AM
"L2/LT over-the-shoulder Precision aim" with crosshair...

Hate to beat a dead horse, but this guys got it right. And OTS precision aim is a MUST HAVE for me.
Say for example you're storming a house "room-to-room".. I don't want my weapon down at the hip, but I also don't want the lack of peripheral vision in FPV. OTS is where it's at and makes for very tactical gameplay in my opinion(for what it's worth).

The Divsion got it right as far as scoping goes.. But I personally would've love to see the same ADS with all those sweet optics(holo, red dot, even iron sights) as well.

Hopefully GRW will include OTS aim. it's all about tactics.

Lolssi
02-24-2016, 08:52 AM
Hate the beat a dead horse, but this guys got it right. And OTS precision aim is a MUST HAVE for me.
Say for example you're storming a house "room-to-room".. I don't want my weapon down at the hip, but I also don't want the lack of peripheral vision in FPV. OTS Makes for very tactical gameplay in my opinion(for what it's worth).

The Divsion got it right as far as scoping goes.. But I personally would've love to see the same ADS with all those sweet optics(holo, red dot, even iron sights) as well.

Hopefully GRW will include OTS aim. it's all about tactics.
On that note I'd send my team to clear the rooms.

StealthTallyFox
02-24-2016, 12:09 PM
well, last 2 GR games(GRFS and that crappy GRP) has OTS aiming, so I think they'll put that in

Novan_Leon
02-24-2016, 05:02 PM
I'd just like to say I love this thread. Lot's of mature discussion about a topic that I personally find interesting.

I started out as a FPS purist back in the day with the original Rainbow Six. With the ability to peak around corners without being seen, the TPS perspective felt cheap and unrealistic. That said, after playing many different games over many years, I've come prefer the TPS perspective for a number of reasons.

First, in real life when you drop behind cover you have the ability to quickly peak around corners and take quick glances while keeping your visibility profile low and minimizing your risk of taking fire. While some first-person shooters today have a "lean" mechanic, none of them have quite been able to simulate a real-to-live cover system that allows for visibility and awareness without exposing the player. The best system to do this today in a FPS remains the "strafe-in/strafe-out" mechanic which nobody in their right mind would attempt in real life combat. Despite what you may think, TPS games simulate this ability much more realistically by providing a permanent "peak" via the third-person perspective.

Second, in first-person games you're essentially always aiming. Even when you're peaking around a corner via strafing or leaning, you're aiming. Because of this, seeing an opponent and shooting the opponent are generally combined into the same "motion", if you will. In a FPS you will almost never peak around a corner or strafe out to take a look, see an opponent, and NOT immediately open fire. This is actually very unrealistic compared to real-life combat where awareness is of primary importance and where (except for CQC) there's a much more significant delay between identifying a target and firing your weapon (IRL: stop, take cover, overwatch, identify, aim, est for distance/windage/etc., fire, move, repeat). You'll notice that most tactical FPSs introduce complex aiming mechanics to slow down the action and force players into the longer, more thoughtful engagement loop. TPSs are able to fit into this loop more naturally by merit of it's natural separation movement, viewing and aiming mechanics. Because of these differences, FPSs are just naturally more conducive to reflex-based shooters while TPS are naturally more conducive to tactical shooters... at least until VR shakes up this formula.

I still enjoy FPS games. I'm a huge fan of the Rainbow Six series which has traditionally been FPS-focused. But I think games like Ghost Recon which are built around tactical combat in large open areas just work better with the TPS perspective. Playing a GR game in FPS would feel very strange to me. I don't mind players utilizing a hybrid approach but given two competitive teams squaring off against one another, one with solely the FPS perspective and one with solely the TPS perspective, I think the TPS team would win every time. Sprinting around in first-person mode and relying on your reflexes to win in a GR game is a sure-fire way to lose against a team who has any clue what they're doing. This is because awareness and strategy trumps reflexes, just as it would in real life.

On that note, I'm interested to see how VR shakes up this formula. It's quite possible that FPS games could have all the advantages of a TPS once VR becomes a reality. Only time will tell.

Lolssi
02-25-2016, 08:54 AM
First, in real life when you drop behind cover you have the ability to quickly peak around corners and take quick glances while keeping your visibility profile low and minimizing your risk of taking fire. While some first-person shooters today have a "lean" mechanic, none of them have quite been able to simulate a real-to-live cover system that allows for visibility and awareness without exposing the player. The best system to do this today in a FPS remains the "strafe-in/strafe-out" mechanic which nobody in their right mind would attempt in real life combat. Despite what you may think, TPS games simulate this ability much more realistically by providing a permanent "peak" via the third-person perspective.

Good points. However my issue with that TPS peek is that you don't expose yourself at all. Now if they someday would animate it so that when behind corner you turn your camera your hand touches the wall and you take peek. We can only dream.
I'd still go with FPS just because movement and being closer to objects. Also I remember TPS games having camera issues on tight spaces but maybe that is ancient history?

Novan_Leon
02-25-2016, 03:34 PM
Good points. However my issue with that TPS peek is that you don't expose yourself at all. Now if they someday would animate it so that when behind corner you turn your camera your hand touches the wall and you take peek. We can only dream.
I'd still go with FPS just because movement and being closer to objects. Also I remember TPS games having camera issues on tight spaces but maybe that is ancient history?

You're right, camera used to be an issue but, come to think of it, I haven't experienced TPS camera issues in a long time. They must've either found a way to work around these issues or found a way to avoid them entirely via map design.

In many TPS games you can usually tell if someone is hiding behind cover if you examine the cover intently enough. Usually the tip of the helmet or a piece of the foot or a shadow or something is visible, but yes, you're right. It would be more realistic if visibility/peaking required you to expose yourself for a split second. Being able to watch someone without exposing yourself at all is obviously not realistic, but given the trade-off I've learned to accept it.

Novan_Leon
02-25-2016, 11:17 PM
I think that not exposing yourself IS realistic. Certainly in the context of Ghost Recon and in the open maps used. Rather than copy and paste all the text here look at the section on Maps and viewpoint (as you say these two aspects are hand in hand) I put in my war and peace plea for multiplayer here https://docs.com/ai-bluefox/3627/wildlands-multiplayer-hey-does-everyone-have-a-mic

That's an excellent write-up and I agree with 99% of what you're saying. I'm just referring to the specific situations in-game where the third-person perspective presents an unrealistic scenario.

In real life identifying opponents requires line-of-sight (discounting technology of course). Truly realistic line-of-sight is difficult to simulate because (like you said) currently there's no way to simulate the bio-mechanics of a player peaking through thick foilage or looking through extremely small cracks in the wall. Just like you, I feel like the third-person perspective does the best job of simulating this without explicitly modelling these functions.

That said, there are still situations in-game where these options wouldn't be available to a real-life person; for example, navigating corridors in an indoors environment. In a real life situation, there would simply be no way to look around a corner in a hallway without exposing yourself to some degree. Another example would be looking over a 6-foot high wall. In real life you simply don't know whats on the other side of a wall unless you peak around it, yet in a TPS you can see over or around the wall just by manipulating the camera. These situations are obviously unrealistic, but I don't feel like they're frequent or overpowering enough to have a significant negative impact. It's certainly leaps ahead of an FPS where you're running around with tunnel vision and aiming your weapon at everything you look at.

On a related topic, I'd love to see a third-person game like Ghost Recon that could seamlessly and intelligently transition to first-person when in tight spaces and indoor environments. Other than make the third-person model transparent, I've never seen anything like this done before.

adkogz7
02-26-2016, 01:17 AM
I can't imagine R6 Siege being played in Third Person; I think it would be a disaster for the game. Third person vs first person, for me, has always been about context and which drives the more realistic behaviour in the players.

Couldn't agree more with Bluefox's words... :)

Although I don't necessarily worry about "too much realistic/simulation" since I'm more leaning towards the "getting fun/entertaining" aspect. That's why I believe that situational awareness or peeking or cover mechanics shouldn't be discussed under "realism/lifelike" part, it should be what's best for "tactical approach and getting fun at the same time" for the game.

Challenge is very important and good for games but giving too much challenge for the sake of realism is not good, it'll break the pacing and fun aspect, with too much rewinding the same and expected patience from the gamers...<this only sells to a niche audience which is not what Ubisoft is aiming for, I believe, they are leaning more towards fast-paced military action shooter... Of course everybody is entitled to their opinions. :)

and BTW, a lot of people have talked about it but I'll mention anyway:

MGS V & Ground Zeroes DEFINITELY have an ultimate solution to this TP aim/FP aim by giving "Keep Aim Viewpoint ON/OFF" as an option in the settings. I didn't know it was there!.. This was kind of what I'm suggesting by "Hybrid or TP aim" but a superior one.

Should be implemented in GRW!...:)

GiveMeTactical
02-27-2016, 08:24 PM
Although I don't necessarily worry about "too much realistic/simulation" since I'm more leaning towards the "getting fun/entertaining" aspect. That's why I believe that situational awareness or peeking or cover mechanics shouldn't be discussed under "realism/lifelike" part, it should be what's best for "tactical approach and getting fun at the same time" for the game.
+ 100%


Challenge is very important and good for games but giving too much challenge for the sake of realism is not good, it'll break the pacing and fun aspect, with too much rewinding the same and expected patience from the gamers...<this only sells to a niche audience which is not what Ubisoft is aiming for, I believe, they are leaning more towards fast-paced military action shooter... Of course everybody is entitled to their opinions. :)
Not 100% in agreement here... perhaps UBI should consider giving the Devs a little more room to maneuver and have the HARDCORE mode with just a tad more difficulty (lets call it a bit more sim-like) and not realism.

I remember enjoying the fact that back when I was playing GR I could run to the cover and then, feel that anxiety (immersing in the game) before I would peak to see if someone was going to cap my head off.

Today, I feel like Rambo because I know I can run, hit that miracle key that would put me in cover in less that a second and be able to see all the terrain in front of me and get ready to shot the baddie, which by the way, is looking totally the other way... hence, less immersion and more "I got 40 kills and 36 death" so I still POWN the game.

I would totally be ok with this method if they would just cut the visibility of ALL the terrain in front of you in half, at least, the anxiety of not knowing what is in front of you or how many baddies are looking at you just waiting to cap you off would be back. And again... perhaps this could be done in the hardest of the modes we play so there are options for everybody and not just the casual gamer?

I would probably say they could implement this on MP by giving the option to have or not have full view capabilities so the casual gamers don't get into that particular game and only those who want less view play the game... win win for everyone ;)

adkogz7
02-27-2016, 10:02 PM
+ 100%

Thank you :)


Not 100% in agreement here... perhaps UBI should consider giving the Devs a little more room to maneuver and have the HARDCORE mode with just a tad more difficulty (lets call it a bit more sim-like) and not realism.

I remember enjoying the fact that back when I was playing GR I could run to the cover and then, feel that anxiety (immersing in the game) before I would peak to see if someone was going to cap my head off.

Today, I feel like Rambo because I know I can run, hit that miracle key that would put me in cover in less that a second and be able to see all the terrain in front of me and get ready to shot the baddie, which by the way, is looking totally the other way... hence, less immersion and more "I got 40 kills and 36 death" so I still POWN the game.

I would totally be ok with this method if they would just cut the visibility of ALL the terrain in front of you in half, at least, the anxiety of not knowing what is in front of you or how many baddies are looking at you just waiting to cap you off would be back. And again... perhaps this could be done in the hardest of the modes we play so there are options for everybody and not just the casual gamer?

I would probably say they could implement this on MP by giving the option to have or not have full view capabilities so the casual gamers don't get into that particular game and only those who want less view play the game... win win for everyone ;)

Well, thank you for your response again :)

First of, I get what you're saying, and actually even though you said "not %100 in agreement", I believe that we actually said the same thing with different words. Let me explain:

What I said is; if you make the core gameplay to be just "full realistic approach" -for ALL difficulties, "Easy,Normal,Hard, Hardcore (Purist)" the game will suffer from the pacing (slow) and the entertaining aspects. Today's trend is leaning more towards fast pacing (on-the-go, in motion)... I suggested that the game SHOULD have to "keep the tactical aspect and getting fun at the same time" for the general difficulties such as Easy through Hard mode (the general gameplay) but not the hardest difficulty.

Yes I didn't say it specificly in my previous post :) but just like you said, Hardcore (Purist) difficulty mode could be implemented to the more hardcore players like you for having the more realistic, anxietic unhelping game.

TL: DR, What I was saying is that if the devs are to implement "full challenge" like you expected, the game will underperform in sales since I believe it will be for "niche audience"; so the best will be to do:

Make the game fun to play and tactical at the same time for every difficulty in between Easy > Hard, but for those guys who want the more slow realistic challenging gameplay; go straight for the hardest "Hardcore Mode" which is handcrafted just for challengers like you. So, everybody happy :)

I write it pretty fast, so there could be mistakes or repeats, if > sorry for that :D

Sorrosyss
02-28-2016, 12:37 AM
Having played both Future Soldier and The Division, I can say that I honestly prefer the cover based third person shooter over first person. I just like to see my character at all times honestly.

IJ S P A R K SI
03-01-2016, 11:39 PM
Most all games out now are first person shooters.. Battlefield, Call of Duty, Destiny, etc... I love the third person view.

GiveMeTactical
03-05-2016, 03:43 PM
Most all games out now? are first person shooters.. Battlefield, Call of Duty, Destiny, etc... I love the third person view.

Now? Before Marketing Gurus started calling them Shooters, games that had to do with handguns or weapons were in First Person... if I remember correctly.

Perhaps because technology was not there yet, perhaps because Devs were more interested in making a cool game and the game was all about the gameplay and not a Fashion Week Show where one spends an hour checking out the digs or whether the nail polish clashes with the pink bonet. I understand, really I do... appearance is a very important part of the gameplay now a days.

I also agree that Third Person View at times helps gameplay, of course it does, it gives you more of that third eye view that normally you wouldn't have so what's not to like.