I think the conflict here is specifically because the change of perspective feels to some players like a betrayal.
CDPR is known for their third person games. Specifically one of, if not the, best third person RPGs ever made. Switching to first person perspective with no option to change was always going to anger some of their core fans, and I'm sure they knew that when they made that decision.
"Betrayal" is a loaded and melodramatic term but you're right in that this particular tempest in this teapot is all about "feels" and feelings are neither wrong nor right.
My only expectation of a gaming studio I follow and whose games I enjoy is that they keep getting better. Changes in IP, style or format only bother me when they produce something I consider inferior to what came before.
From everything I know and have seen about C2077 I don't see that being the case here.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think the conflict here is specifically because the change of perspective feels to some players like a betrayal.
CDPR is known for their third person games. Specifically one of, if not the, best third person RPGs ever made. Switching to first person perspective with no option to change was always going to anger some of their core fans, and I'm sure they knew that when they made that decision.
"Betrayal" is a loaded and melodramatic term but you're right in that this particular tempest in this teapot is all about "feels" and feelings are neither wrong nor right.
My only expectation of a gaming studio I follow and whose games I enjoy is that they keep getting better. Changes in IP, style or format only bother me when they produce something I consider inferior to what came before.
From everything I know and have seen about C2077 I don't see that being the case here.
Loaded and melodramatic is what gamers do. And considering that our free time is dominated by interactive dramas, is it even necessarily difficult to understand why that is so often the case?
Anyway, someone's enjoyment can be diminished by something as small as a single mechanic. As far as changes go, the complete and literal way that you view the game world is not a small change.
I think the conflict here is specifically because the change of perspective feels to some players like a betrayal.
CDPR is known for their third person games. Specifically one of, if not the, best third person RPGs ever made. Switching to first person perspective with no option to change was always going to anger some of their core fans, and I'm sure they knew that when they made that decision.
"Betrayal" is a loaded and melodramatic term but you're right in that this particular tempest in this teapot is all about "feels" and feelings are neither wrong nor right.
My only expectation of a gaming studio I follow and whose games I enjoy is that they keep getting better. Changes in IP, style or format only bother me when they produce something I consider inferior to what came before.
From everything I know and have seen about C2077 I don't see that being the case here.
Loaded and melodramatic is what gamers do. And considering that our free time is dominated by interactive dramas, is it even necessarily difficult to understand why that is so often the case?
Anyway, someone's enjoyment can be diminished by something as small as a single mechanic. As far as changes go, the complete and literal way that you view the game world is not a small change.
It's not a change from anything since this is the first Cyberpunk, except to those people who have unreasonable expectations that CDPR is forever locked in to doing things one way and one way only.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No reason to doubt CDPR at this point so expect an awesome game and looking forward to it.
As for the storefront I believe there was some quotes a while back where they stated it would be available on multiple outlets and again they have never given a reason to doubt that it will be available everywhere.
Will likely buy on GOG myself. Granted the sheer awesome drama and outrage would be if it was an EPIC exclusive I just do not see it.
Epic exclusives are all negotiated deals with an up front cash payment from Epic to the developers of an amount that, in the developers minds, is at least as much as they would earn from having it also available in all the other storefronts.
I happen to have knowledge that even for something like a small indie game the payment is $25 mil +. For something as big as this game to be an Epic exclusive they'd have to cough up megabucks in the hundreds of millions up front.
But GOG is owned by CDPR so I'm sure they'll have it there as well as Steam just like W3.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.
I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person. First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.
What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?
Cut it out.
This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.
Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.
As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).
Try years not months. This debate has been going on with RPGs since the 8-bit computer days. There have always been FPP ones along side the 3rd person ones and gamers who strongly preferred one over the other as well as those, myself included, that enjoy both.
FPP has always had it all over 3rd with respect to enviromental immersion while 3rd has it all over 1st with respect to enviromental awareness. 1st pulls you into the world. 3rd is more gamy with the preternatural perspective it provides.
In the end though I see the choice to go one way or the other for a particular game to be just one of many details that can help or hurt a game and not even one of the big factors.
3rd person allows for a more pulled back view, so you see your surroundings more easily, which makes it easier. It is marginal though, not saying this is a massive difference, just noticeable. 3rd person looks better because you can see your avatar, do you think people would be as keen to buy those cash shops outfits if they could not see their avatar? So it wins out for cash shop/GaaS revenue too. That's why I see 3rd person as an unstoppable design shift.
Personally I like both styles, for what I think of as proper shooters 1st person, for what I think of as more action games like MMOs 3rd person. So no not trying to divide us into factions.
But I am a fan of diversity in gameplay, and history shows us all games going the same way, from view to UI to how to do stealth to how to raise revenue. Different forms of gameplay are the spice of gaming this uniform approach is making for the bland same old.
How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.
I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person. First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.
What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?
Cut it out.
This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.
Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.
As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).
Try years not months. This debate has been going on with RPGs since the 8-bit computer days. There have always been FPP ones along side the 3rd person ones and gamers who strongly preferred one over the other as well as those, myself included, that enjoy both.
FPP has always had it all over 3rd with respect to enviromental immersion while 3rd has it all over 1st with respect to enviromental awareness. 1st pulls you into the world. 3rd is more gamy with the preternatural perspective it provides.
In the end though I see the choice to go one way or the other for a particular game to be just one of many details that can help or hurt a game and not even one of the big factors.
3rd person allows for a more pulled back view, so you see your surroundings more easily, which makes it easier. It is marginal though, not saying this is a massive difference, just noticeable. 3rd person looks better because you can see your avatar, do you think people would be as keen to buy those cash shops outfits if they could not see their avatar? So it wins out for cash shop/GaaS revenue too. That's why I see 3rd person as an unstoppable design shift.
Personally I like both styles, for what I think of as proper shooters 1st person, for what I think of as more action games like MMOs 3rd person. So no not trying to divide us into factions.
But I am a fan of diversity in gameplay, and history shows us all games going the same way, from view to UI to how to do stealth to how to raise revenue. Different forms of gameplay are the spice of gaming this uniform approach is making for the bland same old.
Yeah cosmetic cash shop sales depends on two things the lesser one of which is your ability to see your own cosmetics. But that pales in comparison with the other one: the ability to have a look that others don't have. You need both, multiplayer and exclusivity through game play (the old fashioned way) or these days, low chance RNG devices such as loot crates.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.
I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person. First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.
What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?
Cut it out.
This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.
Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.
As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).
Try years not months. This debate has been going on with RPGs since the 8-bit computer days. There have always been FPP ones along side the 3rd person ones and gamers who strongly preferred one over the other as well as those, myself included, that enjoy both.
FPP has always had it all over 3rd with respect to enviromental immersion while 3rd has it all over 1st with respect to enviromental awareness. 1st pulls you into the world. 3rd is more gamy with the preternatural perspective it provides.
In the end though I see the choice to go one way or the other for a particular game to be just one of many details that can help or hurt a game and not even one of the big factors.
3rd person allows for a more pulled back view, so you see your surroundings more easily, which makes it easier. It is marginal though, not saying this is a massive difference, just noticeable. 3rd person looks better because you can see your avatar, do you think people would be as keen to buy those cash shops outfits if they could not see their avatar? So it wins out for cash shop/GaaS revenue too. That's why I see 3rd person as an unstoppable design shift.
Personally I like both styles, for what I think of as proper shooters 1st person, for what I think of as more action games like MMOs 3rd person. So no not trying to divide us into factions.
But I am a fan of diversity in gameplay, and history shows us all games going the same way, from view to UI to how to do stealth to how to raise revenue. Different forms of gameplay are the spice of gaming this uniform approach is making for the bland same old.
Yeah cosmetic cash shop sales depends on two things the lesser one of which is your ability to see your own cosmetics. But that pales in comparison with the other one: the ability to have a look that others don't have. You need both, multiplayer and exclusivity through game play (the old fashioned way) or these days, low chance RNG devices such as loot crates.
Is having others be able to see your cosmetics truly more important than being able to see them yourself?
For me, it was always the other way around. But maybe that's just because I'm so damn good at fashion wars.
How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.
I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person. First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.
What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?
Cut it out.
This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.
Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.
As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).
Try years not months. This debate has been going on with RPGs since the 8-bit computer days. There have always been FPP ones along side the 3rd person ones and gamers who strongly preferred one over the other as well as those, myself included, that enjoy both.
FPP has always had it all over 3rd with respect to enviromental immersion while 3rd has it all over 1st with respect to enviromental awareness. 1st pulls you into the world. 3rd is more gamy with the preternatural perspective it provides.
In the end though I see the choice to go one way or the other for a particular game to be just one of many details that can help or hurt a game and not even one of the big factors.
3rd person allows for a more pulled back view, so you see your surroundings more easily, which makes it easier. It is marginal though, not saying this is a massive difference, just noticeable. 3rd person looks better because you can see your avatar, do you think people would be as keen to buy those cash shops outfits if they could not see their avatar? So it wins out for cash shop/GaaS revenue too. That's why I see 3rd person as an unstoppable design shift.
Personally I like both styles, for what I think of as proper shooters 1st person, for what I think of as more action games like MMOs 3rd person. So no not trying to divide us into factions.
But I am a fan of diversity in gameplay, and history shows us all games going the same way, from view to UI to how to do stealth to how to raise revenue. Different forms of gameplay are the spice of gaming this uniform approach is making for the bland same old.
Yeah cosmetic cash shop sales depends on two things the lesser one of which is your ability to see your own cosmetics. But that pales in comparison with the other one: the ability to have a look that others don't have. You need both, multiplayer and exclusivity through game play (the old fashioned way) or these days, low chance RNG devices such as loot crates.
Is having others be able to see your cosmetics truly more important than being able to see them yourself?
For me, it was always the other way around. But maybe that's just because I'm so damn good at fashion wars.
Yup it seems to be from all the ego boosting "lookit what I got!" threads I see in games that are heavy into cosmetics (ESO included) but then again, I never buy that shit so I'm just going by what I see others say in forums.
I'm like you, I would want a Ferrari to drive the Ferrari but I suspect the biggest motivation for buying one - specially with the nouveau riche - is more "I got something you don't."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.
I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person. First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.
What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?
Cut it out.
This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.
Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.
As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).
Try years not months. This debate has been going on with RPGs since the 8-bit computer days. There have always been FPP ones along side the 3rd person ones and gamers who strongly preferred one over the other as well as those, myself included, that enjoy both.
FPP has always had it all over 3rd with respect to enviromental immersion while 3rd has it all over 1st with respect to enviromental awareness. 1st pulls you into the world. 3rd is more gamy with the preternatural perspective it provides.
In the end though I see the choice to go one way or the other for a particular game to be just one of many details that can help or hurt a game and not even one of the big factors.
3rd person allows for a more pulled back view, so you see your surroundings more easily, which makes it easier. It is marginal though, not saying this is a massive difference, just noticeable. 3rd person looks better because you can see your avatar, do you think people would be as keen to buy those cash shops outfits if they could not see their avatar? So it wins out for cash shop/GaaS revenue too. That's why I see 3rd person as an unstoppable design shift.
Personally I like both styles, for what I think of as proper shooters 1st person, for what I think of as more action games like MMOs 3rd person. So no not trying to divide us into factions.
But I am a fan of diversity in gameplay, and history shows us all games going the same way, from view to UI to how to do stealth to how to raise revenue. Different forms of gameplay are the spice of gaming this uniform approach is making for the bland same old.
Yeah cosmetic cash shop sales depends on two things the lesser one of which is your ability to see your own cosmetics. But that pales in comparison with the other one: the ability to have a look that others don't have. You need both, multiplayer and exclusivity through game play (the old fashioned way) or these days, low chance RNG devices such as loot crates.
Is having others be able to see your cosmetics truly more important than being able to see them yourself?
For me, it was always the other way around. But maybe that's just because I'm so damn good at fashion wars.
Yup it seems to be from all the ego boosting "lookit what I got!" threads I see in games that are heavy into cosmetics (ESO included) but then again, I never buy that shit so I'm just going by what I see others say in forums.
I'm like you, I would want a Ferrari to drive the Ferrari but I suspect the biggest motivation for buying one - specially with the nouveau riche - is more "I got something you don't."
I mean I'm a bit of both. But my roleplaying roots mostly make cosmetics personal.
(And with cars, I drive a Hyundai and am happy with it.)
I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."
There's actually a question about the Epic Game Store in the interview. If you look at the full article, there's a link to the Spanish site. With Google Translate (right click on the page --> translate), you can read his answer.
As for the interview, he doesn't really say anything lol. He just says that its annoying to have a bunch of stuff to access other stuff.
And by definition, Ubisoft games aren't truly epic exclusive for that reason.
But even ignoring that, the storefronts are different. GOG is a 1st AND 3rd party storefront that sells itself on consumer-friendly non-DRM games. UPlay exists solely to sell Ubisoft first party titles.
I'll be buying on GOG.
I second you.
This is exactly the kind of game you wanna get on GOG: singleplayer games with replayability.
You don't need an externally hosted server provided by devs or pubs to play these kinds of games, so you can truly own it forever if you keep up with the files after you buy it and download.
As far as motion sickness, it's not like games that were solely 1st person never existed. I think, if they allow for a large field of view that should solve that yes? or no?
I don't get motion sickness myself but one thing that I've noticed over the years is that, the Source engine often comes up, for many people it's the only engine that causes motion sickness. So just increasing the FOV might not help, I've always wondered what Source engine does differently?
Geez, what is it with this forum? Every time a game announces a view-perspective, every thread about it ends up back in the same 1st vs 3rd debate.
Some of my favorite games are third-person, but I generally prefer
first-person. But, some games are just better suited to one type over
another.
Ex. 1: Games where you have to "climb" a lot are just much better suited to having a third-person view(Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.) Though, Mirror's Edge and Dying Light did do a solid job with FP in that regard, so there's always exceptions.
Ex. 2: Games in tight areas, such as narrow dungeon tunnels, urban alleyways, etc., are just awkward in third-person due to camera angles and issues. There's a reason ARPGs stick with those isometric views instead of "real" 3D third-person.
I'm personally one of those people who doesn't give a crap about "seeing my character". Even in third-person I hardly look at my character except to check animation states or if I'm just standing around checking out new gear when I first equip it(but that can be done on a turntable in the character window just as easily).
I'm always looking at what's going on around the character on the rest of the screen.
I'm also one of those "first-person is much more immersive" guys. For me, it is.
Though, I agree that it can be limiting due to the lack of tactile information compared to Real Life.
Certain things in RL don't carry over into games and can definitely handicap you in FP view. For example, in the real world, our FP awareness is majorly helped by our other senses(sound, feel, etc.). Most games can't/don't really capture environmental awareness through sound very well. In fact, environmental/actor sound in games is pretty limited overall.
As far as motion sickness, it's not like games that were solely 1st person never existed. I think, if they allow for a large field of view that should solve that yes? or no?
I don't get motion sickness myself but one thing that I've noticed over the years is that, the Source engine often comes up, for many people it's the only engine that causes motion sickness. So just increasing the FOV might not help, I've always wondered what Source engine does differently?
I don't know much about Source engine, but there are quite a lot of things that can contribute to motion sickness, in general. Head-bob, motion blur, turning speed, FOV, monitor ghosting(not so much an issue these days), etc., can all impact some people.
I don't have general motion sickness issues, but I know some badly designed games in VR can make my head spin with jerky, rapid-turning type movement.
Comments
My only expectation of a gaming studio I follow and whose games I enjoy is that they keep getting better. Changes in IP, style or format only bother me when they produce something I consider inferior to what came before.
From everything I know and have seen about C2077 I don't see that being the case here.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Anyway, someone's enjoyment can be diminished by something as small as a single mechanic. As far as changes go, the complete and literal way that you view the game world is not a small change.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I happen to have knowledge that even for something like a small indie game the payment is $25 mil +. For something as big as this game to be an Epic exclusive they'd have to cough up megabucks in the hundreds of millions up front.
But GOG is owned by CDPR so I'm sure they'll have it there as well as Steam just like W3.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Personally I like both styles, for what I think of as proper shooters 1st person, for what I think of as more action games like MMOs 3rd person. So no not trying to divide us into factions.
But I am a fan of diversity in gameplay, and history shows us all games going the same way, from view to UI to how to do stealth to how to raise revenue. Different forms of gameplay are the spice of gaming this uniform approach is making for the bland same old.
And that will hurt the game how?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
For me, it was always the other way around. But maybe that's just because I'm so damn good at fashion wars.
I'm like you, I would want a Ferrari to drive the Ferrari but I suspect the biggest motivation for buying one - specially with the nouveau riche - is more "I got something you don't."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
(And with cars, I drive a Hyundai and am happy with it.)
You don't need an externally hosted server provided by devs or pubs to play these kinds of games, so you can truly own it forever if you keep up with the files after you buy it and download.