First vs Third Person Discussion (Dslyecxi video)

[SMLE 39]

Well at least the movie angle is a creative line of argument. Unfortunately, I'm quite sure that any working cameraman would strongly disagree with your assertion that viewpoint doesn't matter. When you see a 1st person shot in a film rest assured it was done for a very specific reason. Consider the following quotes from the 5 C's of Cinematography, a book that even after nearly 50 years is still considered one of the definitive works on the art. In the following quotes subjective refers to a 1st person view and point-of-view refers to 3rd person.

 

If you read the entire 10 page section discussing these camera angles it is clear that in-terms of the viewer's identification with the protagonist:

Subjective (1st person) > Point-of-View (3rd person) > Objective (3rd person)

It also goes in to why the subjective view doesn't work very well in movies. Hint: You are forced to view events as if you were an active participant, even though you have no control over them and this disconnect is rather uncomfortable.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with DayZ but I'm a movie nerd and its Saturday morning so there you go.

I gave you beans for the stuff about cameras and cinematography very interesting thanks .

cheers

[dgeesio 1034]

If you look at the poll on Reddit, ~90% of current players (at least) will still go ahead and buy the game, even with only first-person perspective.

Not to mention all the other gamers who maybe haven't been paying attention and haven't played DayZ yet - if there are players that won't buy it because they don't get to use the 3rd-person camera to see over/round walls and obstacles, these are the players that wouldn't fare well in a game like DayZ.

DayZ is meant to be hard, it's meant to be brutal, it's meant to be unforgiving - having 3rd-person available in its current state completely detracts from that.

'Oh god, I can hear a guy, is he round the corner!?' *peeks round the corner using 3rd-person* Oh, no he's not and you get to go on your merry way.

The best part of DayZ is the threat of the unknown and how tense it can make things feel, the ability to peek round and over things that your character really couldn't see from a nice safe vantage point ruins it.

Oh, someone has you pinned down and you don't know where they are? Oh don't worry, you can peek over the massive rock and scout them out from your safe little place - that shouldn't happen.

If you want to be rewarded with the knowledge of where the player is you should have to stick your head out and actually risk it.

game sells 1 million for arguements sake

 

10 percent dont buy it cause no 3rd person . 100,000 sales down drain cause of removing it ! have a word with yourself. 100,000 times 20 euros lol. gg third person . that little mistake just cost the BI studios 2,000,000 euros :lol: . so forget what you as a consumer thinks thats probably more than rocket got paid altogether and you think theyll risk losing that amount over 3rd person. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  haha i love internets !

Edited August 31, 2013 by dgeesio

[Ken Bean 174]

Well at least the movie angle is a creative line of argument. Unfortunately, I'm quite sure that any working cameraman would strongly disagree with your assertion that viewpoint doesn't matter. When you see a 1st person shot in a film rest assured it was done for a very specific reason. Consider the following quotes from the 5 C's of Cinematography, a book that even after nearly 50 years is still considered one of the definitive works on the art. In the following quotes subjective refers to a 1st person view and point-of-view refers to 3rd person.

 

If you read the entire 10 page section discussing these camera angles it is clear that in-terms of the viewer's identification with the protagonist:

Subjective (1st person) > Point-of-View (3rd person) > Objective (3rd person)

It also goes in to why the subjective view doesn't work very well in movies. Hint: You are forced to view events as if you were an active participant, even though you have no control over them and this disconnect is rather uncomfortable.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with DayZ but I'm a movie nerd and its Saturday morning so there you go.

Wasn't questioning the importance of a point of view and stuff (movies and camera technics wasnt the fuss about), I was just questioning the whole "1st person = immerson" debate, which went int "only 1st person is immersive". I tried to give other examples and took movies and books, which also have immersive potential and that the 1st person view alone per se is not the holy grail. There are other factors which are importand as well. You backed that in your 2nd part. :thumbsup:

 

If you ever had an "empty game", with only a first person cam, you'll see there's loads of stuff missing to create immersion. Hint: You do not immerse into a person, but into a world.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[terrvik 2409]

game sells 1 million for arguements sake

 

10 percent dont buy it cause no 3rd person . 100,000 sales down drain cause of removing it ! have a word with yourself. 100,000 times 20 euros lol. gg third person . that little mistake just cost the BI studios 2,000,000 euros :lol: . so forget what you as a consumer thinks thats probably more than rocket got paid altogether and you think theyll risk losing that amount over 3rd person. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  haha i love internets !

 

Which would still be considered a major success if they only need to sell 100 000 copies to break even. Why not let the devs bother about sales and us bother about the game, as in whether we are interested in buying it?

 

 

"only 1st person is immersive"

 

Don't think anyone says that though, only that FPV is more immersive. Not that TPV isn't immersive at all.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Terrorviktor

[Ken Bean 174]

Don't think anyone says that though, only that FPV is more immersive. Not that TPV isn't immersive at all.

 

It depends much more on the game world and it's atmosphere. FPV/TPV are two valid views which work and can deliver it. But I wonder how often we could split that hair. I also never said 1st person cant or 3rd person can do better. If a world is deep, interesting and consistent, it will work anyway.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[Ken Bean 174]

If you look at the poll on Reddit, ~90% of current players (at least) will still go ahead and buy the game, even with only first-person perspective.

Not to mention all the other gamers who maybe haven't been paying attention and haven't played DayZ yet - if there are players that won't buy it because they don't get to use the 3rd-person camera to see over/round walls and obstacles, these are the players that wouldn't fare well in a game like DayZ.

DayZ is meant to be hard, it's meant to be brutal, it's meant to be unforgiving - having 3rd-person available in its current state completely detracts from that.

'Oh god, I can hear a guy, is he round the corner!?' *peeks round the corner using 3rd-person* Oh, no he's not and you get to go on your merry way.

The best part of DayZ is the threat of the unknown and how tense it can make things feel, the ability to peek round and over things that your character really couldn't see from a nice safe vantage point ruins it.

Oh, someone has you pinned down and you don't know where they are? Oh don't worry, you can peek over the massive rock and scout them out from your safe little place - that shouldn't happen.

If you want to be rewarded with the knowledge of where the player is you should have to stick your head out and actually risk it.

 

 

3rd person is going to be tweaked a bit, so no worry. You also don't need to use it. I know, using a handy feature sometimes is not easy. But regarding that polls, if they would all stand behind their vote, 1st person server would be many and full of player ...

 

Yes, 1st person feels more tense, but this also can annoy you in the long run.

 

Walking barefoot on nails also feels more tense. ;)

Being constantly thrilled is just stressful. Not everyone wants it. Normal days sometimes are stressful enough. This can get exhausting. In 1st person you just don't see enough. It feels like wearing blinders. It also makes finding loot in grassland to a life task. Somwhere is a point where you just had enough tunnel vision, staring and blury vision. There's nothing wrong with trying to enjoy a game.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[Jamz 253]

 

Don't think anyone says that though, only that FPV is more immersive. Not that TPV isn't immersive at all.

 

This is a good point. The key is to allow people to continue to use the view they prefer without either view impacting on the gameplay of the other. But both views are immersive in different ways - some prefer one, some the other, but one is not better or 'more immersive' than the other as some people allude to, it's simply 'horses for courses'.

They are both viable, one just needs some honing.

[dgeesio 1034]

Which would still be considered a major success if they only need to sell 100 000 copies to break even. Why not let the devs bother about sales and us bother about the game, as in whether we are interested in buying it?

 

 

 

Don't think anyone says that though, only that FPV is more immersive. Not that TPV isn't immersive at all.

it would be a success but the devs wouldnt lose 100,000 customers or sales over third person it would be kept.

 

what some dont seem to grasp is sales first ! then game functions after. you dont lose or risk losing such a massive amount over somethig so small ingame. its doesnt matter how much they need to break profit if someone said to you leave that in thats in for 2 million quid would you or would you take it out to please minority small player base ? you would take the money simple as.

 

its a business. all rest is spin. third person wont go anywhere as said.

 

im not worried about salees its just games are run by how much money they can make not how much the devs want the game to be the purist thing for us lot.

[terrvik 2409]

im not worried about salees its just games are run by how much money they can make not how much the devs want the game to be the purist thing for us lot.

 

And I don't think we as consumers should be fine with that.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Terrorviktor

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

it would be a success but the devs wouldnt lose 100,000 customers or sales over third person it would be kept.

 

what some dont seem to grasp is sales first ! then game functions after. you dont lose or risk losing such a massive amount over somethig so small ingame. its doesnt matter how much they need to break profit if someone said to you leave that in thats in for 2 million quid would you or would you take it out to please minority small player base ? you would take the money simple as.

 

its a business. all rest is spin. third person wont go anywhere as said.

 

im not worried about salees its just games are run by how much money they can make not how much the devs want the game to be the purist thing for us lot.

But there is different business models.

 

Appealing to a mass-market is certainly one of them.  You can go for the quick buck or play the long-game.  I'd argue BIS like playing the long game.

 

When they released Arma2 were they trying to appeal to a mass-market?  Obviously not.  Yet over time it's paid off handsomely.

 

I agree every company essentially is made to make money, but there's many ways of going about it, Rocket is also very keen to have a good reputation in the long-term by releasing a solid game.  A hardcore game too.  In the long-run that will ensure he's set for life even if in the short term it appears he could have made choices that would have reaped him quicker rewards.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Fraggle

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

One thing i'm sure we can all agree upon. Prone should be locked in first person. Thats a slumdunk, gimme, mulligan, guaranteed certainty. An inevitable, inexorable addition to the game and if it isn't any of those things it should be. TPV+prone adds nothing to the game.

 

 

I've already made a post in this thread saying how prone being locked to first person wouldn't be ideal if the rationale to keep third person is for being more aware of the space your body occupies in the virtual world. If i was prone in the bushes, trying to conceal myself from danger, how will I be able to know if my feet are sticking out of the bushes without third person view?

 

I'm not trying to keep third person around. Personally I'd love to just scrap it altogether. But, I also don't want to see it made pointless. If it's going to stay we need to find a solution that removes the exploitation in most situations, without completely screwing over the viewpoint.

 

I think that's the biggest problem with this, anything that will prevent exploits also has the effect of making the camera pointless & probably worse than FPV.

[Jamz 253]

 

 

 

I've already made a post in this thread saying how prone being locked to first person wouldn't be ideal if the rationale to keep third person is for being more aware of the space your body occupies in the virtual world. If i was prone in the bushes, trying to conceal myself from danger, how will I be able to know if my feet are sticking out of the bushes without third person view?

 

I'm not trying to keep third person around. Personally I'd love to just scrap it altogether. But, I also don't want to see it made pointless. If it's going to stay we need to find a solution that removes the exploitation in most situations, without completely screwing over the viewpoint.

 

I think that's the biggest problem with this, anything that will prevent exploits also has the effect of making the camera pointless & probably worse than FPV.

 

 

I'm not sure it's a question of making sure 3rd person view has uses. It will always have the use of making some players feel better using it than first which is most important, whatever happens to it. If any way of exploiting it no longer exists, then what does it matter if it has uses or not?

 

Also, if nobody can see their feet in either view when they hide, then thats another potential 'exploit' done away with. If you want to look at it that way.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

I'm not sure it's a question of making sure 3rd person view has uses. It will always have the use of making some players feel better using it than first which is most important, whatever happens to it. If any way of exploiting it no longer exists, then what does it matter if it has uses or not?

 

Also, if nobody can see their feet in either view when they hide, then thats another potential 'exploit' done away with. If you want to look at it that way.

 

What if the players hate the results. It will all be for nothing. Time & code could have been better spent on useful additions to the game. Just because some players "feel better" using the current third person, doesn't mean jack shit when we're talking about a highly modified version of it.

 

Seeing your feet was just an example of how the justification for the view being in the game in the first place, will be threatened by its restrictions. You don't give a man a Ferrari and then restrict it to 50mph, he might as well have a Ford Fiesta.

[Jamz 253]

What if the players hate the results. It will all be for nothing. Time & code could have been better spent on useful additions to the game. Just because some players "feel better" using the current third person, doesn't mean jack shit when we're talking about a highly modified version of it.

 

Seeing your feet was just an example of how the justification for the view being in the game in the first place, will be threatened by its restrictions. You don't give a man a Ferrari and then restrict it to 50mph, he might as well have a Ford Fiesta.

 

Well, if thats the case and nothing works then cut TPV as a last resort.

 

What if the players love the result of a modded TPV? Then the time and code would have been used successfully. I'm sure that can be applied to DayZ itself, creating the mod was a gamble which fortunately was accepted by players and became successful.

 

And you don't need a 'use' for TPV to keep it in, thats what I mean. It's a preference.

[dgeesio 1034]

But there is different business models.

 

Appealing to a mass-market is certainly one of them.  You can go for the quick buck or play the long-game.  I'd argue BIS like playing the long game.

 

When they released Arma2 were they trying to appeal to a mass-market?  Obviously not.  Yet over time it's paid off handsomely.

 

I agree every company essentially is made to make money, but there's many ways of going about it, Rocket is also very keen to have a good reputation in the long-term by releasing a solid game.  A hardcore game too.  In the long-run that will ensure he's set for life even if in the short term it appears he could have made choices that would have reaped him quicker rewards.

they could play the long game but they wouldnt lose 100,000 sales for having or not having 3rd person. if you believe that as said i dont know what to say.

 

bi arnt money grabbers but they wouldnt risk losing that amount of sales in such a hard period of sales in gaming.

 

for those that dont know retail sales were down 15 percent last year. thats massive many companies struggle to even make games.

[Trizzo 632]

 

how will I be able 

 

Using freelook?

 

1) 3rd person is going to be tweaked a bit, so no worry. You also don't need to use it. I know, using a handy feature sometimes is not easy. But regarding that polls, if they would all stand behind their vote, 1st person server would be many and full of player ...

 

2) Yes, 1st person feels more tense, but this also can annoy you in the long run. Walking barefoot on nails also feels more tense. ;)

 

3) Being constantly thrilled is just stressful. Not everyone wants it. Normal days sometimes are stressful enough. This can get exhausting. In 1st person you just don't see enough. It feels like wearing blinders. It also makes finding loot in grassland to a life task. Somwhere is a point where you just had enough tunnel vision, staring and blury vision. There's nothing wrong with trying to enjoy a game.

I am AMAZED at your ability to continually make poor arguments.

 

1) The current level of players playing on FPV servers only has no connection between the polls. Mosts polls ask would you care if a change was implemeneted which has no connection between current server settings. Most servers are not vanillia DayZ yet what game style is the Stand Alone trending towards? It's vanilla.

 

2) Whether it annoys you or any particular person is irrevlevent. It's about gameplay and fitting in with the antigame theme of DayZ. Infection serves no purpose other than being annoying, as do broken bones, spawning without a map etc...etc...

 

3) For the first part of your last point read the above. For second part you are essentially complaining about the FOV, which is getting changed AND if you were so inclined you could acutally learn how to change it now. So please, please, please shut up about that. It is as bad as complaining about the first person head bob, if you find it annoying fix it. Finally, struggling to pick up or find items in long grass...well i think an inventory system that autodetects makes this complaint irrevlant at least for the stand alone.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Trizzo

[Trizzo 632]

-opps-

Edited September 1, 2013 by Trizzo

[rossums 2190]

game sells 1 million for arguements sake

 

10 percent dont buy it cause no 3rd person . 100,000 sales down drain cause of removing it ! have a word with yourself. 100,000 times 20 euros lol. gg third person . that little mistake just cost the BI studios 2,000,000 euros :lol: . so forget what you as a consumer thinks thats probably more than rocket got paid altogether and you think theyll risk losing that amount over 3rd person. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  haha i love internets !

Okay, assuming those 100,000 people don't purchase the game because they don't get an easy life with a terrible implementation of third person.

How many will purchase BECAUSE the game has first person only? You don't know.

What about those 100,000 that cave and buy the game anyway?

If Rocket wanted to maximise potential sales DayZ standalone wouldn't be DayZ at all, DayZ is meant to be hard, it's meant to be limiting, not fun for all the family like CoD etc. which caters to anyone capable of mashing a controller.

Third person persepective is terribly broken and totally detracts from the experience - like it or not - third-person needs either removed or tweaked to stop providing such a game-breaking advantage.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Rossums

[JESUSARIUS REX (DayZ) 163]

I don't see why it matters. Just make 3rd and 1st person servers. Really not hard.

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

3) For the first part of your last point read the above. For second part you are essentially complaining about the FOV, which is getting changed AND if you were so inclined you could acutally learn how to change it now. So please, please, please shut up about that. It is as bad as complaining about the first person head bob, if you find it annoying fix it. Finally, struggling to pick up or find items in long grass...well i think an inventory system that autodetects makes this complaint irrevlant at least for the stand alone.

That's the thing for me. DayZ SA already addresses most of the complaints about first person view. Looting, (easy) FOV changing, 3D character in inventory screen, smoother, less clunky controls. We'd only need different stances system and something done with the vehicles which are being redesigned from scratch anyway. Perfect opportunity to ditch the TPV altogether.

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

If so many people prefer first over third, then why the hell are none of them playing on first person only servers. Are they bothered at the thought of people playing on servers where it is enabled? I'd like some insight, please :P

[dsi24 227]

If so many people prefer first over third, then why the hell are none of them playing on first person only servers. Are they bothered at the thought of people playing on servers where it is enabled? I'd like some insight, please :P

Because no one else is playing on them because most people will just do what is easier. 

[terrvik 2409]

they could play the long game but they wouldnt lose 100,000 sales for having or not having 3rd person. if you believe that as said i dont know what to say.

 

bi arnt money grabbers but they wouldnt risk losing that amount of sales in such a hard period of sales in gaming.

 

for those that dont know retail sales were down 15 percent last year. thats massive many companies struggle to even make games.

 

I, uh... hm.

 

So you basically want every game developer out there to be EA (publisher, I know)?

 

Please give me a source on your claim there as well. As far as I know physical retail copies sold less while digital and mobile games boomed. Which can also be explained by how every developer is trying to develop copies of other games. It's fatigue. Smaller, creative, original games still sold very well. Which is why DayZ was so succesful to begin with. It was something fresh. The argument that it should follow rules set by other mainstream MMOs isn't a very good one.

 

This is a good point. The key is to allow people to continue to use the view they prefer without either view impacting on the gameplay of the other. But both views are immersive in different ways - some prefer one, some the other, but one is not better or 'more immersive' than the other as some people allude to, it's simply 'horses for courses'.

They are both viable, one just needs some honing.

 

In my opinon both of them do. :)

Edited September 1, 2013 by Terrorviktor

[SmashT 10907]

Sigh.

 

You said that third person works and it makes sales, so leave it in DayZ.

Mr. Wanker replied saying that Call of Duty and Battlefield are in first person only and they make sales, far more than most 3rd person games.

 

Do you understand?

 

Battlefield does have third person, it's just limited to vehicles.

[Inception. 9443]

Battlefield does have third person, it's just limited to vehicles.

 

Ahh, yeah. But primarily most of the combat is done in FPV.