I wouldn't generalize there but some people
certainly do (including many devs who design gear). If you play a
sorceress or something I don't have a problem with it but it is hard to
take a paladin in chainmail bikini serious.
Cosmetic items would likely still get sold, but on a vastly reduced scale imo, i think most people would be disinclined to purchase them if they didn't also get the benefit of being able to see them, making them even more pointless, cosmetic items are mostly of benefit to the one who buys them after all, so if you can't see them, how do you even know they are there in the first place?
Real life is first person too and people care about cosmetics there...
I was just about to write this exact remark until I saw this. So "yeah", pretty much "this".
real life isn't like a 'first person viewpoint' though, you can very much see yourself too which is not really a feature of games that have a first person viewpoint, they are not the same by any means.
How about just offer the option to switch perspective? i would care about cosmetics if i could see my character. Not wasting a single penny on something i can't see.
Its very easy to add a button to switch perspective. Rockstar added First person to GTA5 to please the FPS crowd, its only fair other companies add third person to please the rest of us. But yeah, cant see it? not paying for it. That's how i roll.
First person view is closer to reality than third person view.
You can't see behind you in first person. You don't know what's coming.
Everything you see is in a limited view in front and to the side of you.
One of the things I like the most is that your character doesn't block much of what you are seeing.
Third person is closer to an overhead view. It gives you a large advantage in the ability to see what's coming all around you and is more similar to watching your character instead of being them.
Real life is first person too and people care about cosmetics there...
I was just about to write this exact remark until I saw this. So "yeah", pretty much "this".
Not really. In real life there are severe consequences regarding how you look. People care a lot. It's the difference between getting a job or a second date or not. People might call 911 when they see you, or let you babysit for them, judging by how you look. Hence, you care a lot about how you look.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
How about just offer the option to switch perspective?
Because any time that both perspectives are supported in a competitive game, third-person has a massive advantage due to its increased field of vision, which ends up forcing the people who actually like first-person to use third-person if they want to remain competitive.
Look at PUBG: there is a very large portion of the playerbase that would like to be playing in first-person only, but due to the massive advantage conferred by third person in peeking around corners, through windows, over walls, looking around while prone, etc, they're forced to use third person at least some of the time to avoid being at a disadvantage.
In other words, would people care about cosmetics if they couldn't actually see them, but they knew that others could see them?
How do you make this as a sales pitch to a gaming company? Hey, I got this idea, that admittedly will bring you less money from cosmetic sales but will more than make up for it with ___________
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
In other words, would people care about cosmetics if they couldn't actually see them, but they knew that others could see them?
How do you make this as a sales pitch to a gaming company? Hey, I got this idea, that admittedly will bring you less money from cosmetic sales but will more than make up for it with ___________
With increased appeal to the niche audience that likes both first-person and MMORPGs which currently isn't being served by anyone.
I wouldn't generalize there but some people
certainly do (including many devs who design gear). If you play a
sorceress or something I don't have a problem with it but it is hard to
take a paladin in chainmail bikini serious.
It's a blessed chainmail bikini!
It might be awarded to her by the Gods themselves, we still see the words "bimbo" glowing over her head.4507 said:
Because any time that both perspectives are supported in a competitive game, third-person has a massive advantage due to its increased field of vision, which ends up forcing the people who actually like first-person to use third-person if they want to remain competitive.
Look at PUBG: there is a very large portion of the playerbase that would like to be playing in first-person only, but due to the massive advantage conferred by third person in peeking around corners, through windows, over walls, looking around while prone, etc, they're forced to use third person at least some of the time to avoid being at a disadvantage.
Agreed. Either you have third or first person (at least in combat, outside I guess you could use whichever).
The thing is that people generally prefer third person in fantasy games. particularly ones with tab targetting or autoaim.
Now, a MMO with modern firearms is another matter, if you for instance made a Shadowrun or Delta green MMO with manual aiming first person would be the right way to go. And if you want player skill to help you could add a little autoaim boost if you shoot near enough with a higly skilled character.
In a fantasy MMO it is different, fencing generally don't look as good in first person unless you go virtual realisty where I think third person would loose a lot of the benefits VR actually gives.
As you said, in any case you need to pick one. I seen a MMO or 2 that tried first person for bows and Xbows and aiming for them but not for melee players but that have never worked out so far since you give a huge disadvantage to any ranged players then and if you balance the damage to reflect that a few skilled players will rule the game while everyone else would use melee weapons.
With increased appeal to the niche audience that likes both first-person and MMORPGs which currently isn't being served by anyone.
I do believe that a rather large part of the MMO community play some kind of FPS gama as well, ask people on a Wow forum if they play Overwatch as well if you don't belive me. In my case I don't play that many FPS games but I do play a little R6: Siege now and again.
You just need the right kind of MMO if you want a successful firts person game. Preferably one with relatively modern firearms (wild west - sci -fi blaster games). As I said above, Shadowrun would work excellent as first person MMORPG for instance. Wow on the other hand would not.
Because any time that both perspectives are supported in a competitive game, third-person has a massive advantage due to its increased field of vision, which ends up forcing the people who actually like first-person to use third-person if they want to remain competitive.
Look at PUBG: there is a very large portion of the playerbase that would like to be playing in first-person only, but due to the massive advantage conferred by third person in peeking around corners, through windows, over walls, looking around while prone, etc, they're forced to use third person at least some of the time to avoid being at a disadvantage.
Agreed. Either you have third or first person (at least in combat, outside I guess you could use whichever).
Yeah, I suppose you could have an out of combat-only third-person 'cinematic mode' available without really taking away from the game.
The thing is that people generally prefer third person in fantasy games. particularly ones with tab targetting or autoaim.
Now, a MMO with modern firearms is another matter, if you for instance made a Shadowrun or Delta green MMO with manual aiming first person would be the right way to go. And if you want player skill to help you could add a little autoaim boost if you shoot near enough with a higly skilled character.
In a fantasy MMO it is different, fencing generally don't look as good in first person unless you go virtual realisty where I think third person would loose a lot of the benefits VR actually gives.
As you said, in any case you need to pick one. I seen a MMO or 2 that tried first person for bows and Xbows and aiming for them but not for melee players but that have never worked out so far since you give a huge disadvantage to any ranged players then and if you balance the damage to reflect that a few skilled players will rule the game while everyone else would use melee weapons.
True, a gunpowder and later first-person MMORPG would certainly have more mass market appeal than a pre-gunpowder one.
As for first-person melee combat, I'm keeping a close eye on Kingdom Come: Deliverence, an entirely first-person medieval RPG releasing in a few weels. Hopefully they'll bring some innovation into that area, but you're right that it's exponentially more difficult to design good melee combat systems than firearm/ranged combat systems.
With increased appeal to the niche audience that likes both first-person and MMORPGs which currently isn't being served by anyone.
I do believe that a rather large part of the MMO community play some kind of FPS gama as well, ask people on a Wow forum if they play Overwatch as well if you don't belive me. In my case I don't play that many FPS games but I do play a little R6: Siege now and again.
Oh, certainly. But it's been my feeling that a lot of people think of shooters as first-person and MMORPGs as third-person, and I usually get a fair bit of hesitance when I bring up the topic of first-person MMORPGs to average players. I remember seeing a forum poll on ESO a while ago where about 80% IIRC said they preferred third-person.
However, you'd also have the possibility of attracting FPS players who happen to like things like persistence but not third-person and the firework shows that often come with that perspective's combat.
As for first-person melee combat, I'm keeping a close eye on Kingdom Come: Deliverence, an entirely first-person medieval RPG releasing in a few weels. Hopefully they'll bring some innovation into that area, but you're right that it's exponentially more difficult to design good melee combat systems than firearm/ranged combat systems.
Oh, certainly. But it's been my feeling that a lot of people think of shooters as first-person and MMORPGs as third-person, and I usually get a fair bit of hesitance when I bring up the topic of first-person MMORPGs to average players. I remember seeing a forum poll on ESO a while ago where about 80% IIRC said they preferred third-person.
However, you'd also have the possibility of attracting FPS players who happen to like things like persistence but not third-person and the firework shows that often come with that perspective's combat.
Hmm, I shoudl check up that one.
And yes, we tend to think on some first person MMOs that weren't that succesful when we here it, like Mortal online and many want to forget them. When people think of first person perspective they usually think of FPS games /(and not without good reasons).
I think the setting in itself is as big problem as the view to get more FPS fans into the genre, a huge percentage of all MMOs are high fantasy (or Forgotten realms/Lord of the rings/Warhammer rip-offs for that matter). It would probably be easier to get FPS fans into the genre if there was more focus on firearms.
That is why I think Shadowrun would work well, it have fantasy elements like magic and elves but also modern firearms and unlike most RPGs missions (or quests) have a planning stage when you gather information and plan your run instead of following simple instructions the entire time. It would feel different from all current MMORPGs and FPS games but still be both a roleplaying game and a FPS game. Best of 2 worlds.
I cannot play first person games because I throw up and have headaches so I would not be very bothered about them but to answer the OP if you cannot see yourself why bother to customize.
Real life is first person too and people care about cosmetics there...
we had mirror weren't we ?
Yes, but MMOs have those as well, at least many of them.
Anyways so giving an impression on other people and having your own look is important in social situations. With the right looking gear it is actually easier to find PUGs (I seen more then a few people being booted from PUGs when they people recruited from the chat showed up and looking like beggars, everyone assumes you have crap gear if it looks like crap).
By "looking cool and badass" most people mean wearing as less as possible on their female toons ;-)
I wouldn't generalize there but some people certainly do (including many devs who design gear). If you play a sorceress or something I don't have a problem with it but it is hard to take a paladin in chainmail bikini serious.
I don't think comments like this are based on any kind of rational basis. In most cases, women fighting in combat is unrealistic. Especially in hand to hand combat and with weapons like swords and bows. There are a lot of unrealistic things about games. You can't just pick the ones that bother and say these break it for me while saying the others are fine IMO.
I don't really care that much how my character looks anymore. In fact, the fewer items that are in a game for me to pick up and upgrade the better I like it usually.
Real life is first person too and people care about cosmetics there...
we had mirror weren't we ?
Yes, but MMOs have those as well, at least many of them.
Anyways so giving an impression on other people and having your own look is important in social situations. With the right looking gear it is actually easier to find PUGs (I seen more then a few people being booted from PUGs when they people recruited from the chat showed up and looking like beggars, everyone assumes you have crap gear if it looks like crap).
By "looking cool and badass" most people mean wearing as less as possible on their female toons ;-)
I wouldn't generalize there but some people certainly do (including many devs who design gear). If you play a sorceress or something I don't have a problem with it but it is hard to take a paladin in chainmail bikini serious.
I don't think comments like this are based on any kind of rational basis. In most cases, women fighting in combat is unrealistic. Especially in hand to hand combat and with weapons like swords and bows. There are a lot of unrealistic things about games. You can't just pick the ones that bother and say these break it for me while saying the others are fine IMO.
I don't really care that much how my character looks anymore. In fact, the fewer items that are in a game for me to pick up and upgrade the better I like it usually.
I guess the chainmail bikini would be a pretty small MT though?
Real life is first person too and people care about cosmetics there...
we had mirror weren't we ?
Yes, but MMOs have those as well, at least many of them.
Anyways so giving an impression on other people and having your own look is important in social situations. With the right looking gear it is actually easier to find PUGs (I seen more then a few people being booted from PUGs when they people recruited from the chat showed up and looking like beggars, everyone assumes you have crap gear if it looks like crap).
By "looking cool and badass" most people mean wearing as less as possible on their female toons ;-)
I wouldn't generalize there but some people certainly do (including many devs who design gear). If you play a sorceress or something I don't have a problem with it but it is hard to take a paladin in chainmail bikini serious.
I don't think comments like this are based on any kind of rational basis. In most cases, women fighting in combat is unrealistic. Especially in hand to hand combat and with weapons like swords and bows. There are a lot of unrealistic things about games. You can't just pick the ones that bother and say these break it for me while saying the others are fine IMO.
I don't really care that much how my character looks anymore. In fact, the fewer items that are in a game for me to pick up and upgrade the better I like it usually.
I guess the chainmail bikini would be a pretty small MT though?
Maybe she's like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan the Barbarian.
I never really thought about things like this as a kid. I just enjoyed it.
I don't think comments like this are based on any kind of rational basis. In most cases, women fighting in combat is unrealistic. Especially in hand to hand combat and with weapons like swords and bows. There are a lot of unrealistic things about games. You can't just pick the ones that bother and say these break it for me while saying the others are fine IMO.
I don't really care that much how my character looks anymore. In fact, the fewer items that are in a game for me to pick up and upgrade the better I like it usually.
Women are generally less strong then men, yes. However, using a sword or bow is a skill, not raw strenght. A well trained warrior will beat someone far stronger but with less training. Yes, being stronger is an advantage with 2 equally skilled persons but so is being taller and more then a few of the toughest people was rather small.
Women archers is not as unlike as you think. In fact did Robert the Bruce have a bunch of female archers at Bannockburn, or so say at least 2 different sources (and since more then a few scottish women at the time hunted small animals with bow for food that makes sense, the Scots needed anyone with any weapon skill when fighting one against 3.
Bodicea was a good warrior with a spear and in fact is the only leader that actually destroyed London.
The reason we had so few female warriors is that we generally don't allow women to fight, now that they can't. Some strong induviduals have ignore these rules (Jean D'arc comes to mind but more then a few girls dressed up like men in various wars, especially in the American civil war and war for independance).
Anyways, in a gameworld where religion and politics are different there is no reason a lot of warriors shouldn't be female. In our world that might have been rare during most periods but that doesn't mean it would be like that in another world with different religions and customs.
The Vietnam war had a lot of female warriors, especially in the Viet Cong. One of Russias top tank aces from WW2 was a women, and they had 2 female fighter aces as well (12 respectively 11 victories).
I do not want to support a developer who segregates it's community and assets into who pays more gets more.If i am not playing the EXACT same game,EXACT same assets as the next guy,i am out of that game so fast it's not funny.
You're missing out on a lot of great games then. People paying for cosmetics means you get more content in the future and cosmetics have no impact on actual gameplay.
Comments
Its very easy to add a button to switch perspective. Rockstar added First person to GTA5 to please the FPS crowd, its only fair other companies add third person to please the rest of us. But yeah, cant see it? not paying for it. That's how i roll.
You can't see behind you in first person. You don't know what's coming.
Everything you see is in a limited view in front and to the side of you.
One of the things I like the most is that your character doesn't block much of what you are seeing.
Third person is closer to an overhead view. It gives you a large advantage in the ability to see what's coming all around you and is more similar to watching your character instead of being them.
Look at PUBG: there is a very large portion of the playerbase that would like to be playing in first-person only, but due to the massive advantage conferred by third person in peeking around corners, through windows, over walls, looking around while prone, etc, they're forced to use third person at least some of the time to avoid being at a disadvantage.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/How do you make this as a sales pitch to a gaming company? Hey, I got this idea, that admittedly will bring you less money from cosmetic sales but will more than make up for it with ___________
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
The thing is that people generally prefer third person in fantasy games. particularly ones with tab targetting or autoaim.
Now, a MMO with modern firearms is another matter, if you for instance made a Shadowrun or Delta green MMO with manual aiming first person would be the right way to go. And if you want player skill to help you could add a little autoaim boost if you shoot near enough with a higly skilled character.
In a fantasy MMO it is different, fencing generally don't look as good in first person unless you go virtual realisty where I think third person would loose a lot of the benefits VR actually gives.
As you said, in any case you need to pick one. I seen a MMO or 2 that tried first person for bows and Xbows and aiming for them but not for melee players but that have never worked out so far since you give a huge disadvantage to any ranged players then and if you balance the damage to reflect that a few skilled players will rule the game while everyone else would use melee weapons.
You just need the right kind of MMO if you want a successful firts person game. Preferably one with relatively modern firearms (wild west - sci -fi blaster games). As I said above, Shadowrun would work excellent as first person MMORPG for instance. Wow on the other hand would not.
As for first-person melee combat, I'm keeping a close eye on Kingdom Come: Deliverence, an entirely first-person medieval RPG releasing in a few weels. Hopefully they'll bring some innovation into that area, but you're right that it's exponentially more difficult to design good melee combat systems than firearm/ranged combat systems. Oh, certainly. But it's been my feeling that a lot of people think of shooters as first-person and MMORPGs as third-person, and I usually get a fair bit of hesitance when I bring up the topic of first-person MMORPGs to average players. I remember seeing a forum poll on ESO a while ago where about 80% IIRC said they preferred third-person.
However, you'd also have the possibility of attracting FPS players who happen to like things like persistence but not third-person and the firework shows that often come with that perspective's combat.
And yes, we tend to think on some first person MMOs that weren't that succesful when we here it, like Mortal online and many want to forget them. When people think of first person perspective they usually think of FPS games /(and not without good reasons).
I think the setting in itself is as big problem as the view to get more FPS fans into the genre, a huge percentage of all MMOs are high fantasy (or Forgotten realms/Lord of the rings/Warhammer rip-offs for that matter). It would probably be easier to get FPS fans into the genre if there was more focus on firearms.
That is why I think Shadowrun would work well, it have fantasy elements like magic and elves but also modern firearms and unlike most RPGs missions (or quests) have a planning stage when you gather information and plan your run instead of following simple instructions the entire time. It would feel different from all current MMORPGs and FPS games but still be both a roleplaying game and a FPS game.
You haven't heard about the Mirrors update coming soon? That's when they will catch you.
I don't really care that much how my character looks anymore. In fact, the fewer items that are in a game for me to pick up and upgrade the better I like it usually.
I never really thought about things like this as a kid. I just enjoyed it.
Women archers is not as unlike as you think. In fact did Robert the Bruce have a bunch of female archers at Bannockburn, or so say at least 2 different sources (and since more then a few scottish women at the time hunted small animals with bow for food that makes sense, the Scots needed anyone with any weapon skill when fighting one against 3.
Bodicea was a good warrior with a spear and in fact is the only leader that actually destroyed London.
The vikings had female warriors, both the sagas and archeology agree on that (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full).
The reason we had so few female warriors is that we generally don't allow women to fight, now that they can't. Some strong induviduals have ignore these rules (Jean D'arc comes to mind but more then a few girls dressed up like men in various wars, especially in the American civil war and war for independance).
Anyways, in a gameworld where religion and politics are different there is no reason a lot of warriors shouldn't be female. In our world that might have been rare during most periods but that doesn't mean it would be like that in another world with different religions and customs.
The Vietnam war had a lot of female warriors, especially in the Viet Cong. One of Russias top tank aces from WW2 was a women, and they had 2 female fighter aces as well (12 respectively 11 victories).
So I respectfully disagree.