First vs Third Person Discussion (Dslyecxi video)

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Well, as long as you're convinced, I'll leave you to it. :lol:

[Lord Snapcase 30]

Hi all, 1st post on the forum, yay :) been lurking since about a week after dayz mod was first released and have found this to be a most entertaining forum.

 

This is such a devisive topic, and it's a shame 'cause we all have so very much in common, we like snacks, computers, sex, breathing,  video games and THIS video game.

 

I've personally played OFP since the demo version (played it for a week, groundbreaking stuff), Arma1 (not as bad as some may say, I liked it a lot, and Arma2 regularly for about 6 years ( 3-4 days a week, most weekends, amounting to hundreds if not thousands of hours, I know 'get a life' :)

 

Dayz though is something different, I also love survival horror games and so when Dayz came out I was in hog heaven.

 

Intro over, here's where I stand on the issue:

 

I don't care If someone elses experience of the game is more or less 'immersive than' mine, and could not prove that case even if I tried.

 

Even though I will always play in FPV if I get the option I recognize that not everybody is the same and that some people prefer TPV. They should not have to justify their preference and nor should I.

 

I feel though that the following has to be said, some are implying that TPV was 'designed' to give more 'situational awareness' to compensate for our other senses, I'm not sure this is true. From Operation Flashpoint and onwards through the Arma games the player has had the ability to command squads, not only could he go into TPV to do this but also had the option of a 'command' view. ( an extremely high camera like a top down view). This I believe was the reason for the TPV and as such is redundant in Dayz (no squad to command).

 

Since watching the OP video, I've been thinking a lot about a possible solution that we could all live with. At first I thought I'd found a simple solution:

Make a black frame around the limit of what the eyes of the character could see. In TPV as the camera receeds back, the frame becomes visible on the edges of the monitor. If they look left in TPV the frame encroaches on the right hand side of the monitor blocking out any exploititive view, look down and the frame drops down from the top of the monitor, the TPViewer can only ever see what is in sight of the FPV.

I thought this could work, especially if there was a bit of a 'snap' to hold the camera in a position where the frame was centered ( to avoid the TPViewr constantly having to keep the camera centered to avoid unintended 'letterboxing').

Unfortunately there're bad points to this idea, one is that the TPViewer may not like losing screen size by looking about in TPV, the other is that it does not solve his magic ability to see behind him.

 

Another option may be to leave the TPV as it is, but we still have to address the advantage this offers.

So if we assume that in the Dayz world it is possible for people to have the supernatural ability of an 'out of body' experience, then maybe in expending the effort to do so their 'aura' should intensify, maybe glowing brightly, and visible through walls or floors?

This way they could continue to use TPV but if used in combat it would offset the advange gained by their astral adventuring. The problem I have with this idea is having to accept the nonsensical 'mumbo jumbo', but If we did go this route, we could drop the infection stuff and have the 'zombies' be possesed by demons and the churches in Chenaurus would finally have a purpose as places we could all huddle together in the dark whilst waiting for the arrival of the four horsemen.

 

TLDR, Hi I'm new, preferFPV, sad for TPV but it needs fixing.

[Wayze 549]

Since watching the OP video, I've been thinking a lot about a possible solution that we could all live with. At first I thought I'd found a simple solution:

Make a black frame around the limit of what the eyes of the character could see. In TPV as the camera receeds back, the frame becomes visible on the edges of the monitor. If they look left in TPV the frame encroaches on the right hand side of the monitor blocking out any exploititive view, look down and the frame drops down from the top of the monitor, the TPViewer can only ever see what is in sight of the FPV.

I thought this could work, especially if there was a bit of a 'snap' to hold the camera in a position where the frame was centered ( to avoid the TPViewr constantly having to keep the camera centered to avoid unintended 'letterboxing').

Unfortunately there're bad points to this idea, one is that the TPViewer may not like losing screen size by looking about in TPV, the other is that it does not solve his magic ability to see behind him.

 

Another option may be to leave the TPV as it is, but we still have to address the advantage this offers.

So if we assume that in the Dayz world it is possible for people to have the supernatural ability of an 'out of body' experience, then maybe in expending the effort to do so their 'aura' should intensify, maybe glowing brightly, and visible through walls or floors?

This way they could continue to use TPV but if used in combat it would offset the advange gained by their astral adventuring. The problem I have with this idea is having to accept the nonsensical 'mumbo jumbo', but If we did go this route, we could drop the infection stuff and have the 'zombies' be possesed by demons and the churches in Chenaurus would finally have a purpose as places we could all huddle together in the dark whilst waiting for the arrival of the four horsemen.

 

TLDR, Hi I'm new, preferFPV, sad for TPV but it needs fixing.

I think both of these solutions would be way to hard to programm. The first one would make third person totally useless and the second one would turn DayZ in a Sci-Fi game.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

the second one would turn DayZ in a Sci-Fi game.

*cough* Zombie Infection *cough*

[IncognitoNico 71]

I think both of these solutions would be way to hard to programm. The first one would make third person totally useless and the second one would turn DayZ in a Sci-Fi game.

The first one, would basically be impossible, or at least it would delay the game a few years, that is considering the engine allows it, and yeah the second one doesn't really fit the game

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

I wish this argument never came up. Hopefully Rocket doesn't actually listen, otherwise I'll find it hard to enjoy the game. Sucks, but I guess people are more interested in forcing others to play their way instead of giving us options.

[Jamz 253]

Hi all, 1st post on the forum, yay :) been lurking since about a week after dayz mod was first released and have found this to be a most entertaining forum.

 

This is such a devisive topic, and it's a shame 'cause we all have so very much in common, we like snacks, computers, sex, breathing,  video games and THIS video game.

 

I've personally played OFP since the demo version (played it for a week, groundbreaking stuff), Arma1 (not as bad as some may say, I liked it a lot, and Arma2 regularly for about 6 years ( 3-4 days a week, most weekends, amounting to hundreds if not thousands of hours, I know 'get a life' :)

 

Dayz though is something different, I also love survival horror games and so when Dayz came out I was in hog heaven.

 

Intro over, here's where I stand on the issue:

 

I don't care If someone elses experience of the game is more or less 'immersive than' mine, and could not prove that case even if I tried.

 

Even though I will always play in FPV if I get the option I recognize that not everybody is the same and that some people prefer TPV. They should not have to justify their preference and nor should I.

 

I feel though that the following has to be said, some are implying that TPV was 'designed' to give more 'situational awareness' to compensate for our other senses, I'm not sure this is true. From Operation Flashpoint and onwards through the Arma games the player has had the ability to command squads, not only could he go into TPV to do this but also had the option of a 'command' view. ( an extremely high camera like a top down view). This I believe was the reason for the TPV and as such is redundant in Dayz (no squad to command).

 

Since watching the OP video, I've been thinking a lot about a possible solution that we could all live with. At first I thought I'd found a simple solution:

Make a black frame around the limit of what the eyes of the character could see. In TPV as the camera receeds back, the frame becomes visible on the edges of the monitor. If they look left in TPV the frame encroaches on the right hand side of the monitor blocking out any exploititive view, look down and the frame drops down from the top of the monitor, the TPViewer can only ever see what is in sight of the FPV.

I thought this could work, especially if there was a bit of a 'snap' to hold the camera in a position where the frame was centered ( to avoid the TPViewr constantly having to keep the camera centered to avoid unintended 'letterboxing').

Unfortunately there're bad points to this idea, one is that the TPViewer may not like losing screen size by looking about in TPV, the other is that it does not solve his magic ability to see behind him.

 

Another option may be to leave the TPV as it is, but we still have to address the advantage this offers.

So if we assume that in the Dayz world it is possible for people to have the supernatural ability of an 'out of body' experience, then maybe in expending the effort to do so their 'aura' should intensify, maybe glowing brightly, and visible through walls or floors?

This way they could continue to use TPV but if used in combat it would offset the advange gained by their astral adventuring. The problem I have with this idea is having to accept the nonsensical 'mumbo jumbo', but If we did go this route, we could drop the infection stuff and have the 'zombies' be possesed by demons and the churches in Chenaurus would finally have a purpose as places we could all huddle together in the dark whilst waiting for the arrival of the four horsemen.

 

TLDR, Hi I'm new, preferFPV, sad for TPV but it needs fixing.

 Beans for a constructive 1st ever post :thumbsup: :beans:

 

I think the first idea would run into the same problems as seem to be associated with 'blanking out' players outside of direct line of sight, as it's essentially the same but with a black overlay. The second idea would make for an interesting version of the mod, but I think too far from traditional zombie lore for vanilla.

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

Also, the hand models suck ATM. Admit it for once, because no one ever does. Why? Overzealous 1st only fanboys, that's why :P

[Ken Bean 175]

Well, "clicky clicky kill kill mode" will be the obviously the normal behavior in such an apocalypse. I think you forgot that you just got 1 life and not unlimited like in DayZ. Maybe you played the game too much, but there is no second chance. If there is just 1 guy who just wants your food, he will kill you. You would be dead, end of story.

You would like to be far, far away from me? I don't know if you have any idea of human behaviour, but extreme situations are followed by extreme behaviour. So you a hero now? You would be brave, have no fear or whatsoever? Dude, it is not a game. You would probably piss yourself, like myself and every other guy in that forum who was not in a situation like that before. We would not just shake from fear, we would be paralized. In the beginning it would probably be ok, you could find a group etc. and I agree, without a group you a screwed, but there will be people, and I guarantee you that, who will even eat human flesh, because they don't want to starve. You should really watch the movie "The Road", it is really good, maybe not 100% realistic but I think that people would act exactly like in that film. And that film was without f*cking zombies. Zombies would even encourage this behavious more.

 

Ease the stress level a bit? For what? This is DayZ, that what it always was about. Go ask Dean, he even stated in an interview that exactly the behaviour of killing someone for food inspired him to make this game.

 

Go play Battlefield or some other sh*t if you want a shooter. This is a survival game, fear is actually the most essential feature of this game.

 

You are so fixed in your "it's apocalypse, *grabs gun and shots everyone in the face* that you don't see that there could be plenty of food. 10 people could easily take and defend some land to grow some corn and potatos. Animals are also there as well as machines and basically everything you need. 60 people could free, defend and adminster a smaller town with law enforcement and farming for food and so on. The Zombi apocalypse doesn't mean that the land is unfertile. It's all still there and if the remaining survivor would not kill each other but work together, food should be a problem which can be managed.

 

Personally I always loved apocalyptic settings. But since folks more and more seems to think that apocalypse means that they indefinetely clever if they are turning into psycho mass murder, I'm more and more annoyed. It's getting stereotypical. I hope this only is the american way of things and that some just watched too much movies. There always is a choice.

 

Kind of "apocalyptic settings" in certain areas can happen today. A fload may destroy whole landscapes. It would have been very weird if in Fukushima after the catastrophe people would have started to kill each other.

 

I know, this are no global catastrophes. But there also has been lots of war, starving and destruction in europe in the wake of World War 2. The remaining people suffered very badly but did not *grab the gun and shoot everyone in the face* and actually, this was a good thing.

 

This automatism some people seems to expect in my opinion is very creepy.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Ken Bean

[Lord Snapcase 30]

I don't think the first one is impossible, at the moment the TPV camera swivels around using the characters head as a fulcrum, all I'm suggesting is that in front of the head on the same axis you put a black frame open to the limits of the FPV FOV which is only visible to the player and has no collision detection, nor am i suggesting that it would be an 'actual' object, this is just my way of explaining it, in fact it would just be a 'programming mask' on the field of view restricting it to what the FPViewer would see.

I've already discounted this option myself for the reasons given, so I'm not really arguing for it just stating my belief that it 'could' be done.

 

My second suggestion was a little tongue in cheek, I was really making two points...

1) Isn't it a bit 'supernatural' to be able to see from outside 'your' body?

2) If you can see me using your TPV shouldn't I be able to see you while you are using it?

(quick thought, lotsa videos about drones on the net, some only a few inches in size, could this be a pick-up item that gives TPV but could be shot and uses batteries?)

 

The only suggestions I've heard so far are either:

Nerf TPV (TPViewers vehemently dislike)

Remove TPV (as above)

Split the playerbase in two. (never good for community or game)

Keep the exploits. (FPViewers vehemently dislike)

Equalize the advantage (orbs, eyes, aura) (everybody vehemently dislikes)

 

So Rocket watcha gonna do? *bounces up and down expectantly*

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Having characters locked to either 3dp or FPV servers upon creation, or having two seperate hives, WILL stop FPV players being "corner-peeked".

 

If you play solely in FPV-only servers, you are, by definition, voluntarily seperate from 3dp players. The schism exists already, so the playerbase cannot become "split".

[Lord Snapcase 30]

@Chabowski, Yep you're right of course, and of all the options I personally most prefer 'choose on creation' AND seperate hives.

 

As I am a new person here, my beans are fresh, and you Sir shall have them.

[aeinola 25]

Hold on, when did I or anybody else here forced somebody to play on 1st person? We are giving arguments about why we think 1st person only is the way to go to get exactly what rocket planned since the beginning, I don't think any of us hacked into every server and disabled 3rds person did we? We are giving valid points, not forcing anybody to do something. 

Well in other topics 1st person fan boys wants the standalone released without 3rd person option, im sorry if you are not one of them, that one was not for you then.

[Heiduk 265]

None of which holds any water, since the best players making YT vids never complain about 3P, or it giving anybody unequal advantage.

You may not remember, but way back in spring of 2012 there was a series of YouTube videos called The Days Ahead. Some people might even say that they started the whole DayZ frenzy. If you listen really close you might recognize the voice of the guy playing alongside CHKilroy. Yes that's right, its the same guy whose video started this whole thread.

Also, since when is good game design synonymous with what streamers like?

 

[mercules 1290]

*cough* Zombie Infection *cough*

 

Which is plausible if you actually pay attention to such things and read up on virology. At least something approximating the infected we have in game. 

[Heiduk 265]

Why bother making a rest state timer in towns then? If the whole point of making the timer long is to make players not do it, then why not just not let players do it?

 

The only reason you'd say a campfire is a death sentence is if you're planning on setting up camp near a major town and want to use third person to scout the area. A campfire in the midst of the woods would be hard to find

 

 

I'm starting to like the idea of a rest state with additional viewing perspectives, animations, perhaps other mechanics tied to proximity to an active camp fire (or similar 'beacon'). It brings back the whole risk/reward calculation that is currently missing from third person usage. Sure you can check out your cool new green jeans, but somebody might just spot your billowing cloud of smoke. Maybe you want to make your 'safe' zone a little safer so you get all of your buddies to meet at Devil's castle, fill it with fires, and start a third person dance party, weapons bazaar, medical clinic, whatever.

 

The biggest drawback I can envision relates to the Devil's castle scenario. What happens to the party crasher's who want to murder all those happy ravers and steal their precious beans? They are forced to use 1st person while going up against a foe behind solid cover who can take full advantage of 3rd person. An easy fix would be to force everybody within earshot in to 1st person for 15 minutes after a shot is fired.

 

With those two limitations, (X meters from a fire, and Y minutes from an audible gunshot) I don't think there would be a need for any other limits, e.g. stance, view distance, time to initiation, etc. Of course, the effective radius of a fire would need to be set small enough so that it would be difficult for periscope campers to use it as bait, while scouting in 3rd person, but that is probably obvious.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

Which is plausible if you actually pay attention to such things and read up on virology. At least something approximating the infected we have in game. 

Plausible and fictional.

If you knew as much as you seem to think you do, you'd chiggity check yo self.

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

You may not remember, but way back in spring of 2012 there was a series of YouTube videos called The Days Ahead. Some people might even say that they started the whole DayZ frenzy. If you listen really close you might recognize the voice of the guy playing alongside CHKilroy. Yes that's right, its the same guy whose video started this whole thread.

Also, since when is good game design synonymous with what streamers like?

 

oh look another video from the same time frame done in 3rd person..

 

 

lets try not to pretend that 1st person was the "way to play", when 3rd has been around just as long and enjoyed by countless people..

[RooBurger 285]

You are so fixed in your "it's apocalypse, *grabs gun and shots everyone in the face* that you don't see that there could be plenty of food. 10 people could easily take and defend some land to grow some corn and potatos. Animals are also there as well as machines and basically everything you need. 60 people could free, defend and adminster a smaller town with law enforcement and farming for food and so on. The Zombi apocalypse doesn't mean that the land is unfertile. It's all still there and if the remaining survivor would not kill each other but work together, food should be a problem which can be managed.

 

Personally I always loved apocalyptic settings. But since folks more and more seems to think that apocalypse means that they indefinetely clever if they are turning into psycho mass murder, I'm more and more annoyed. It's getting stereotypical. I hope this only is the american way of things and that some just watched too much movies. There always is a choice.

 

Kind of "apocalyptic settings" in certain areas can happen today. A fload may destroy whole landscapes. It would have been very weird if in Fukushima after the catastrophe people would have started to kill each other.

 

I know, this are no global catastrophes. But there also has been lots of war, starving and destruction in europe in the wake of World War 2. The remaining people suffered very badly but did not *grab the gun and shoot everyone in the face* and actually, this was a good thing.

 

This automatism some people seems to expect in my opinion is very creepy.

 

Watch this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

I must admit that I keep coming back to this thread to read the posts by Ken Bean. I'm still not sure if he is trolling, but, his posts are entertaining to say the least.

 

Ken, keep up the fight, it gets people talking.

Edited September 5, 2013 by bad_mojo

[Zombie Jesus 723]

Wow 91 pages on this topic. Amazing since the solution already exists with server options (I know it has been said, but perhaps it needs to be said in all caps). 

 

I get the reason people who prefer 1st person are mad, their option is not popular. There is a reason most servers have 3rd person enabled. I know it is easy to exploit, I am perfectly aware that it can be cheap, and I am also aware that it is harder to play in 1st person. Want to know something else, I could care less about every single argument you make if it boils down to taking away choice. If you are arguing that people should give it a shot more power to you, I enjoy 1st person DayZ servers from time to time. If you are just mad that more people do not populate 1st person only servers and your solution to your self involved problem is forcing a perspective on others I say tough titties. 

 

The day 1st person servers are the most popular is the day I can be bothered to give two flying %#$s about the issue, until that day rage on because no matter how much forum bitching goes on it will never change that simple fact. 

 

Edit: Guess I made it 92 pages of forum rage, score one for the little guy. 

Edited September 5, 2013 by Zombie Jesus

[RooBurger 285]

Wow 91 pages on this topic. Amazing since the solution already exists with server options (I know it has been said, but perhaps it needs to be said in all caps). 

 

I get the reason people who prefer 1st person are mad, their option is not popular. There is a reason most servers have 3rd person enabled. I know it is easy to exploit, I am perfectly aware that it can be cheap, and I am also aware that it is harder to play in 1st person. Want to know something else, I could care less about every single argument you make if it boils down to taking away choice. If you are arguing that people should give it a shot more power to you, I enjoy 1st person DayZ servers from time to time. If you are just mad that more people do not populate 1st person only servers and your solution to your self involved problem is forcing a perspective on others I say tough titties. 

 

The day 1st person servers are the most popular is the day I can be bothered to give two flying %#$s about the issue, until that day rage on because no matter how much forum bitching goes on it will never change that simple fact. 

 

Edit: Guess I made it 92 pages of forum rage, score one for the little guy. 

 

Yep, 92 pages. Did you read any of it?

[Trizzo 632]

1) If I say 3rd person shifts the focus a bit more to something else, I didn't mean that "all first person boils down to is, "run around the corner, seeing sth clicky-clicky-kill-kill-dude"." But you guys need your extremes, don't ya? However, I may regret the "clicky-clicky-kill-kill" thing since this probably is the point my whole argumentation for you boils down.

 

2) That the 3rd person perspective can offer a tactical advantage is a nobrainer and surprises me that it needs to be explained. However the additional overview helps to oversee a situation. It also helps to keep your cool. I really don't want to be constantly thrilled by super-action-immersion-vis-a-vis-survival-fighting against the *whole everything*.

 

3) Yes, and I used the video to illustrate that 3rd person has its advantages. Well, sue me if you can't get along with it. Otherwise, is something wrong with it? Wasn't it 3rd person?

 

4) I'm pretty certain that I said sth like "3rd person helps/supports the role playing" and not that you would be able to make use of it or that you would be interested in. It also is not my case, I didn't make up this topic and try to tell everyone which point of view all player have to play.

 

 

1) "We" need extremes ? Way to try to turn your fail example around onto me. I never suggested any extreme postion YOU DID

 

2) I'm conviced you are a FPV plant when you say things like "i don't want to be stressed out ergo i use TPV" because that's a killer counter argument (<- sarcasm). If anybody is wondering why there is 90 pages of argument it is because of your terrible arguments which we can't move beyond. You get "stressed out" when you can't lean on your TPV crutch and we have to live with all the other issues that come with it. 

 

And the entire point of this topic is pretty much aimed at demonstrating the flaws of the TPV... Most of this thread is various forms of denial by proponents and advocates of TPV...so yeah...

 

3) You are trying to argue in favor of showing TPV gameplay using a video that isn't exactlly third person OR proper or gameplay BUT is a cinematic and cheopgrahped video . If you can't see the problem with using a video that's content, style and intent is entirely different to what is being discussed it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call that stupid thing to use to illustrate your viewpoint. Many games that are first person only have a free look camera for the express puropse of editing cool promotional films. This has zip to do with TPV in the sense that we are speaking of. And even if you show your ideal video whats it going to be?

"Look at me in the grass i can see them but they can't see me"

"Look i've glitched into a building i can see them but they can't see me"

"Look at these people walking around the corner of this building etc...etc..etc.."

Or the new argument! "Phew surviving in DayZ is tough. Lucky for Ken Bean he can put the camera into TPV and make the game more relaxing" :thumbsup:

 

4) This was never even in contention. TPV is astheticlly pleasing in some circumstances and can help do stuff like see your character. Then we balance these pros against the flaws and the flaws far outweight the pros. Thats why compromise is coming. Look forward to it.

 

 

 

 

The day 1st person servers are the most popular is the day I can be bothered to give two flying %#$s about the issue, until that day rage on because no matter how much forum bitching goes on it will never change that simple fact. 

 

 

 

Except Rocket says it pretty much is getting changed in favor of a mix of the two?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Trizzo

[Heiduk 265]

oh look another video from the same time frame done in 3rd person..

 

Way to miss the point entirely.

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Why bother making a rest state timer in towns then? If the whole point of making the timer long is to make players not do it, then why not just not let players do it?

 

The only reason you'd say a campfire is a death sentence is if you're planning on setting up camp near a major town and want to use third person to scout the area. A campfire in the midst of the woods would be hard to find, if you're in a helicopter you can only see the smoke in an area that looks entirely the same, hard to track to and hard to land near, if you're on the ground you can't see the smoke through the trees. Make third person only usable in a 'safe' camp area (as designated by "you thought it was safe enough to light a campfire here") and its fine. If you fucked up and lit a campfire in a town you can eat your mistake, third person lets you know where everyone nearby is, the fire lets everyone nearby know where you are, largely bypassing the asymmetry of information issue that is the whole reason third person needs to go in the first place. (the fire can't tell you how many people are there in the way third person tells you exactly how many are around, so it'd still be better for third person to just go)

 

(PS: its really hilarious how some people are still holding onto "stop forcing them not to exploit the game!")

 

 

Why bother?  Because we can actually clear towns of zombies, even if it's temporary.  As long as that's a challenge, it'll be something more than a few of us would like to show off.  If you doubt that, just wait and see.

 

Why not just a camp fire?  Because not all of us play on 24/7 daylight servers.  Perhaps you forgot there was a dawn, dusk, and dark of night?   

 

Anyway, I sure hope you were using "you're" in a broad general term rather than making an assumption of my playstyle and why I suggested this compromise in the first place..  That would be silly.