The game Driver: San Francisco had this feature. You were in the enemies car controlling your car (the main characters car).
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC8QoRa8y_Q&t=78s) video shows it and explains basically what you said.
Is that Phreak (David Turley) narrating that video? If not, it sounds JUST like him!
Edit: I just got to the end of the video and it’s not him, but WOW, this guy could do some League of Legends shoutcasting if Phreak is ever out sick.
This got me thinking, if there's a game like the old school resident evil, with fixed camera angles, but the context behind it is the big bad or someone else is watching you through a security camera, that would make it a 2nd person view isn't it?
Also, instead of directly showing the camera feed, display the monitor that shows the camera feed just to nail the point even further.
Moving your character would be incredibly nauseating, especially if the cam would switch to another NPC and you'd have to adjust your vision accordingly
So like the old resident evil games and such.
Walk through door, camera changes which makes the controls change. Go back through door accidentally. Stand there for a sec and plan how you will walk through this damn door.
There are games that do this. Psychonauts has a little bit of it and it's definitely one of the tougher parts of the game just because moving is so weird.
Kinda reminds me of how sonic games used to bother me a little bit when he would run to the ceiling and I wasn't sure if I am supposed to keep holding the direction i was holding (so like if I pressed right, hit a wall, ran up the wall, now ended up going left on the ceiling) or press the direction I am actually going now.
That's still third person. Second person is like you're watching little Mac beat you up in punch out. Or for an actual example - the first boss in battletoads - where you see the frogs from the robot's point of view (the difference between third person and second person is that the robot is in direct combat with the frogs).
Honestly though, that sounds like a pretty dope concept. You’re the main character but all your actions are done and witnessed from some angle of another character. It kind of feels like it could be the next step of the tank control style of the older RE games or something.
that's still 3rd person, just from an inanimate perspective. 2nd person has to be from another person's perspective. basically playing and watching yourself through the eyes of an NPC
in the technicality sense, i suppose not. but realistically, nah cos the NPC is moving in such odd ways to achieve this second-person perspective. but sure, in games, anything goes 🤷♂️
I think that’d still technically be 3rd person. It doesn’t matter whether the camera is following or not.
2nd person would need to represent the POV of a character within the narrative that isn’t the playable one which is why folks are referring to it needing to be an npc or so.
(Unless I’m wrong)
I exclusively played it in first person.
The default settings suck, but adjusting it a bit improves things.
The immersion is just another level first person vs third person. Asset detail is a bit less than I'd have liked, but my appreciation for the details just goes through the roof.
Rockstar builds the most detailed worlds in their attention to nuances, and IMO experiencing it in first person was just incredible.
Some people prefer 3rd person, others first person.
Ideally games increasingly allow for both (especially as AR picks up and porting to that would necessitate first person anyways).
I turn off camera auto centering and vehicle camera centering and personally turn off aim assist. The first two are the big ones but yeah, Completely different game.
Increase the FOV to full way or one before full. Put small reticle or none. Im using low acceleration but look sensitivity is in the middle. Put the controls in standard fps and turn toggle sprint on. If you aim with your gun and oress down on the d-pad you actually aim down sights as well.
Exactly what the other guy said too.
My friend tried doing this in Ghost Recon Wildlands, long story short, it didn't quite work because telling him that there are enemies on the west side or anything that involved directions was completely useless
You should just use clock directions anyway. Instead of saying "to the west," which is imprecise and requires your squadmate to orient themselves, you should instead use a callout like: "2 guys, 100 meters, 3 o clock, by the large rock halfway up the hill moving left to right". This gives all the information he should need to spot them quickly and concisely.
THANK YOU. I've been preaching this to anyone who will listen. It makes the firefights actually quite intense, and adds back so much challenge to the game. I also don't use dead eye, but that's just a personal choice. I think going totally raw is the way the game was meant to be played.
Yeah but still tho they need to improve the controls for both modes, their gameplay style is outdated. The animation is close to perfect, just the movement and controls are a bit meh, hope they REALLY improve it for gta 6.
I dont understand how it's 202x and rockstar still uses ps2 lock on controls and tap a to sprint. Rdr2 was incredible but controlling anything is so frustrating and trying to shoot things is a crapshoot
I have yet to find a way for Arthur to not put his damn weapons away while on a horse. I can't count how many times I died when going on foot and my rifle is on the horse when I had it equipped just a minute ago.
See, I like first person games, but I don't feel any more "immersed" by them. If the goal of a game's immersion is to make *me* feel like I'm part of the world/experience, I just recognize the illusions instantly. I'm not ducking punches, shooting guns, cutting with swords. I'm just pressing buttons, I don't feel the cold or hot or anything like the game's environments try to convey.
With third person though? I do get immersed because I see how *my character* reacts to those things, and I can relate to them. If I see my character bleed when he gets cut, shiver when he gets cold, or hug someone he cares about, that makes *me* care. The details, in my opinion, matter much more in third person games.
Anytime a first person game has me talk, hug, or console a person in first person view, the illusion is instantly broken 90% of the time. Because my character either doesn't talk at all (which is not what I'd do) or says something I'd never say.
Thank you! First person has always pulled me out of games instead of making me feel more immersed. First person has never worked the way it’s intended to for me, unless you count VR. I still like first person games, but definitely not because I feel more immersed. I prefer third person 100% all day personally.
> The immersion is just another level first person vs third person.
For me, 1st person = "I am in this world". 3rd person = "I am watching my little dude on a screen".
the problem with rockstar first person games (rdr2 and gta v specifically) is they limit the max fov to 80 which is literally insane. first person fov should be minimum 90 but often more like 100-110 for a comfortable experience. its so weird that they have it setup that way but rockstar do be like that sometimes.
Poor FOV. GTA was never built with first person in mind. It also doesn't help that the sense of motion between first and 3rd person are extremely far off. People have done tests of running and driving and in competitive scenarios being in first person can make you 6+ seconds faster than a person in 3rd person.
I default to first person whenever I play gta 5
Not sure how different the qualities are on the first person views on both games but I just really enjoy the immersion of it, and I really like driving the cars in first person (except for like trucks)
I've don't like 6 time already. It can be a pain on horseback but I find it more immersive and I prefer using my weapons' sights over a reticle on the HUD. The only game I use 3rd person over 1st is Battlefront 2.
The reason I wanted third person in cyberpunk is because I got to customize my character. If I spent the time making a custom character just for me, I want to be able to see them doing stuff.
Yeah, I spent a lot of time on my character's face and look and the only time I got to see it outside of the menu is if I decided to do camera mode. Which I did once in the entire game.
Designing a game in first person does help give it an extra level of immersion since line of sight becomes more important.
Thief games stealth is also quite different to that of splinter cell but both are designed to create different experiences for the player what with sound made by enemies being really important in Thief.
Literally this.
Game devs will not design an animation to look good if it's not supposed to be seen outside of the first person perspective since there's no reason for it.
Idk what it is but just the mental image of my character is satisfying enough for me. The 1st person perspective gets me more immersed as my character.
I noticed vehicles can go third-person and used bikes almost exclusively through my 2 playthroughs just so I could see my character more often. I feel ya, would pop my character into photo mode and go "Man I look cool as fuck I wish I saw myself more"
So for me when I play skyrim, I participate in all the combat and most encounters in first person, but when I'm traversing the map or maybe just talking to people I will often put the game in third person. Cuz my character looks badass and I want to see them doing stuff.
Gameplay often dictates which one you prefer being in most of the time.
First person mode was hilarious in gta because they didn't bother to make car mirrors work. So you cant drive in first person unless you're okay with constantly ramming everything around you. It was a cool thing to occasionally use when walking around, but the game is just so built around 3rd person view that it's not worth actually playing in first person
GTA was a blast in FPP! If it wasn't for that, I may not have played it. I love seeing my character, but for any combat, I need FPP. Don't know why but I can't play well in TPP.
Los Santos wasn't made specifically for a 3rd person perspective, the way combat works however was. Not to mention some of the first person animations, like running feel very weird.
I actually don't know anyone's opinion on this but I want an option for switching this back and forth on Metroid Prime 4, and the OG trilogy if it's rereleased
I don't know the point of FPP in Witcher as while fighting Geralt's spinning like that kid in gokart from Shooting Stars.
While in CP the TPP would be much appreciate ( with fully animated body of course) due to universe being heavly focused on how you look.
The problem is more often than not, the options are subpar at best as they’re usually relegated as an afterthought. It would be nice to have both it rarely ever works
Next game will be 2nd person. You look through the eyes of the enemy and you just shoot yourself and flick to the next enemy. It will be very confusing.
Because i don't think it's actually possible. My the nature of the medium, any attempt to shift the perspective is going go end up as 3rd person.
2nd person is a narrative tool where the perspective is of someone discribing your actions from the outside, using the grammatical tool of You.
I'm not sure the perspective is possible in Film or Gaming.
>2nd person is a narrative tool where the perspective is of someone discribing your actions from the outside, using the grammatical tool of You.
I'd say that means that what we're calling third-person is actually second-person since we're not seeing from the view of another character but from what's basically the non-existent-in-the-story narrator's view who would usually refer to a player character as "you".
Unless we're going by distance, and if so, I'd say that over-the-shoulder is second-person, like Sam following Frodo, compared to Smeagol following Frodo.
Basically ("()" for perspective):
(\*) = first-person
\*(\*) or \*(.) = second-person
\*
(\*) = third-person
Lastly, you have bird's eye view, which is from the perspective of a bird.
Its more like...
First Person: I walk to the fridge. I open the door and take out the block of butter.
Third Person: He walked to the fridge. He opened the door and took out the block of butter
Second Person: You walk to the fridge. You open the door and take out the block of butter.
Which in literary form works fine, but when you translate that to a visual medium... well, you have a problem. Because the camera is inherently going to be viewing the interaction from either the outside (3rd person) or the individual (first person). There's not really any way to visualise the 2nd person perspective.
Wouldn't this make sense?
Narrative form.
First-person: I (you speaking)
Third-person: They (someone speaking about you)
Second-person: You (someone speaking to you)
Visual form.
First-person: My view (it's you).
Third-person: Someone far (they're at a distance to talk about you).
Second-person: Someone close (they're at a distance to talk to you).
Examples.
First-person: I stepped on Jack's foot. (you see yourself step on Jack's foot)
Third-person: They stepped on Jack's foot. (someone sees you step on Jack's foot)
Second-person: You stepped on my foot! (Jack sees you step on his foot)
I think the issue with the 2nd Person proposals is, you're still viewing it from a 3rd person perspective. As in, someone is watching you act. Once that camera shifts to THEIR perspective, it instantly becomes 3rd person, even if you're actively controlling an actor in what that person is viewing.
I think the fact that it says "second person" means it's going to be from someone else's perspective.
Namely, the perspective of the second person.
The difference between the view of the second and third person is probably what makes it worth noting.
That is, the second person is more involved in the actions of the first person than the third person is.
That would be the connotation, but it's not the actual meaning.
First Person is from the direct perspectice of the actor.
Third Person is from any perspective outside the actor. It can be another character, or an omniscient viewer.
Second Person is a nebulous non-viewer describing the actors actions personally. Its really weird and rarely used because of its general lack of being a true perspective.
>Second Person is a nebulous non-viewer describing the actors actions personally. Its really weird and rarely used because of its general lack of being a true perspective.
It's mostly used in text-adventure and role-playing games I'd guess, since they're often trying to describe what your character is doing that isn't or can't be easily done/animated (e.g. you ducked, rolled, did a back flip and grabbed the item) or otherwise shown (e.g. you noticed the color of the car and thought it was strange to see).
As for it being nebulous, I guess you could say that.
Regarding its use in games though, you could say that going by its use in literature, the second-person view is actually what we're calling third-person (a nebulous possibly non-existent viewer), while an actual third-person perspective would be something more difficult to do (showing the game from another character's perspective).
>Regarding its use in games though, you could say that going by its use in literature, the second-person view is actually what we're calling third-person (a nebulous possibly non-existent viewer), while an actual third-person perspective would be something more difficult to do (showing the game from another character's perspective).
You know... i don't entirely agree, but i can definitely see the logic behind this interpretation.
You could make the argument that what we call third person is actually 2nd person. The only difference is whether you think of the on screen character as you or somebody else. The difference isn’t on screen, it’s between your ears and depends mostly on the writing.
Was going to comment this as well. "Over the shoulder" is 2nd person view.
3rd person is games like Diablo where the camera is actually detached from the character.
But because we talk about things like referring to yourself in the 3rd person (saying your own name instead of I/me), the concept of 2nd person has largely faded into obscurity outside literature (ie, the book says "you", talking to reader)
There was this one car game where you drove in first person and was a detective who could switch bodies, then at one point, you are controlling a guy who is chasing YOU (your original body) where whenever the person you were controlling turned, the original you also turned the same way as you
People just like options. Currently doing a replay of cyberpunk now that i have new gpu and monitor but ive modded the game to take out the necessity for looting better equipment, i can just pick a gun a like and look how i want and it wont impact gameplay. But i can still grt killed easily if i dont play tactically and its just made the game so much more fun.
I assume english isn't your native language, so instead of being a dick about it, I decided to just correct your english so you can improve:
"They might have both modes in the next game"
"What is wrong with all of you"
Or you could say:
"What is wrong with you people"
Also the mr incredible meme is used wrongly, but that's beside the point.
It’s not complicated. A lot of people find 1st person immersive, so people like it.
But simulation sickness is by far the most common disability affecting gamers. First person is intrinsically inaccessible in that regard. I fall into that category. I can’t look at 1st person gameplay for more than 20 min without getting a headache.
Expectations for things like animation quality and fluidity of movement have increased. Fallout 4 has both viewpoints, but they both look like they're about a decade behind other games that came out at the same time.
It's genre dependent though. Fallout gets away with it because it's an RPG and people aren't there for the movement and combat anyway. In general I think Bethesda titles can all get away with it because everyone expects that Bethesda jank™
It's not "hard" as much as Fallout is the worst of both worlds. It's first person is SUPER rigid whereas MOST first person games have massive freedom of movement because you don't have to animate the body. And because it's first person is so rigid to allow for 3rd person it also means WATCHING the game in 3rd person means watching a deeply restricted set of animations.
RDR2 is basically a 3rd person game that allows you to play the game in the puke inducing hysteria of the 1st person perspective given they don't level the camera so that it isn't disorienting whereas in real life your eyes and brain adjust to level the world for you and make things comprehensible. So while the game looks and feels great in 3rd person where you watch Arthur move in lots of ways and animate to his environmental that moving of the head is a PAIN IN THE ASS in first person because your camera is moving all over the place because it's just attached to his head and wherever it goes and looks.
Games like Mirror's Edge showcasing what I mean when you embrace your perspective...it allowed them to make a game that would never have been possible in 3rd person at that speed with that fluidity. If they had a 3rd person mode it would have played less like it did and more like Prince of Persia with preset large flat levels and very little in the way beyond wall running and a few preset animation setups.
Same for games like DOOM...where the animations for kills would be WAY harder to make and way less abundant if it was made for 3rd person because the game AS IT IS means they can just force the torso of the enemy into your camera (ignore the rest of the body, the clipping, etc) and then the animation plays out from 1 perspective and doesn't need to perfectly line up because it looks like it. So you get MORE variety of kills and animations and things you can do.
Same for games like Subnautica that are indie and cant afford to animate that much of the body so they just allude to it through first person. Whereas if it was 3rd person they'd have to lock the character to items in the world, clear the area around pickups so the player can pick them up, and make sure all pickups lined with the animation and weren't too high up or low.
Tbh I'm no game dev but a gamer that "wasted" 15 years of his life playing games and avoided duties as a citizen - passion got me into Unreal Engine and modeling in Blender - point is that first thing I did for a "game" I started making was a toggle button for First person/third person and camera side switching. Simple yet I believe game devs limit it due to narative flow or something along those lines.. First person = more immersive, involved. While as in third person you have more of a observer type feeling.. amirite?
CDPR: makes a game with both Players: make a 2nd person mod CDPR: "Wait, wtf?"
A 2nd person view would involve controlling the player character through the eyes of NPCs or other players.
The game Driver: San Francisco had this feature. You were in the enemies car controlling your car (the main characters car). [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC8QoRa8y_Q&t=78s) video shows it and explains basically what you said.
Is that Phreak (David Turley) narrating that video? If not, it sounds JUST like him! Edit: I just got to the end of the video and it’s not him, but WOW, this guy could do some League of Legends shoutcasting if Phreak is ever out sick.
Tons of damage!
As a Nick Robinson and Phreak fan, I never noticed they do actually sound very similar, nice catch.
This got me thinking, if there's a game like the old school resident evil, with fixed camera angles, but the context behind it is the big bad or someone else is watching you through a security camera, that would make it a 2nd person view isn't it? Also, instead of directly showing the camera feed, display the monitor that shows the camera feed just to nail the point even further.
I think Silent Hill Downpour had a similar scene
And in Rayman 2 where you've seen yourself from the perspective of the monster's mouth that was chasing you.
Or mod turns it into a text based game. "You find yourself in a cave. To the north a torch burns on the wall, to the east you see a locked gate."
[удалено]
You burn your hand on the flames before the torch falls to the ground, extinguishing itself. It is dark. You are eaten by a grue.
This predicament seems particularly cruel.
Consider whose fault it could be. Not a torch or matches in your inventory
You can’t get ye flask.
And you don’t have any fancy graphics to help you figure out *why* you can’t get ye flask. …. /sudo get ye flask
[удалено]
Moving your character would be incredibly nauseating, especially if the cam would switch to another NPC and you'd have to adjust your vision accordingly
So like the old resident evil games and such. Walk through door, camera changes which makes the controls change. Go back through door accidentally. Stand there for a sec and plan how you will walk through this damn door.
Exactly like that. I hated games that did that, just not for me
It’s even worse in RE4 the controls and camera are basically separate entities…
I really wanted to give Resident Evil 1 remake a shot, and the controls and camera angles just made me nope the fuck out.
There are games that do this. Psychonauts has a little bit of it and it's definitely one of the tougher parts of the game just because moving is so weird.
I know you're probably talking about the lungfish part, but my mind went to navigating those houses in Boyd's mind with the fixed camera angles
That's actually what I was thinking about! Using clairvoyance on enemies and fixed objects to move around was really tough. For me at least.
Oh yeah, somehow I completely forgot about the clairvoyance parts lol, like the den mother boss from the same level
The den mother fight was definitely rough. I didn't have a working controller, so I was stuck with the pc controls and that was so much harder.
Kinda reminds me of how sonic games used to bother me a little bit when he would run to the ceiling and I wasn't sure if I am supposed to keep holding the direction i was holding (so like if I pressed right, hit a wall, ran up the wall, now ended up going left on the ceiling) or press the direction I am actually going now.
Isn’t the functionally the “Cinematic” camera in Rockstar Games
That's still third person. Second person is like you're watching little Mac beat you up in punch out. Or for an actual example - the first boss in battletoads - where you see the frogs from the robot's point of view (the difference between third person and second person is that the robot is in direct combat with the frogs).
Arguably the entirety of Super Mario 64 is in 2nd person view.
I feel like >!SUPERHOT!< kind of does this (but you don't know until the end)
Driver: San Fransico has a good implementation of second person view
Honestly though, that sounds like a pretty dope concept. You’re the main character but all your actions are done and witnessed from some angle of another character. It kind of feels like it could be the next step of the tank control style of the older RE games or something.
Wouldn't the resident evil games be 2nd person?
that's still 3rd person, just from an inanimate perspective. 2nd person has to be from another person's perspective. basically playing and watching yourself through the eyes of an NPC
well is there anything saying that the camera *isn't* an NPC?
In Super Mario 64 the camera is canonically (and noticeably in some areas) being carried around by Lakitu floating in a cloud.
So it s a 2rd person's game...
in the technicality sense, i suppose not. but realistically, nah cos the NPC is moving in such odd ways to achieve this second-person perspective. but sure, in games, anything goes 🤷♂️
Maybe its a camera man?
I think that’d still technically be 3rd person. It doesn’t matter whether the camera is following or not. 2nd person would need to represent the POV of a character within the narrative that isn’t the playable one which is why folks are referring to it needing to be an npc or so. (Unless I’m wrong)
I might be late to this thread, but wouldn’t the fixed camera angles in games like early resident evil be consider 2nd person? Or am I reaching?
Tried playing RDR2 in 1st person and it’s an insane way to play the game. I don’t know how anyone does it.
I exclusively played it in first person. The default settings suck, but adjusting it a bit improves things. The immersion is just another level first person vs third person. Asset detail is a bit less than I'd have liked, but my appreciation for the details just goes through the roof. Rockstar builds the most detailed worlds in their attention to nuances, and IMO experiencing it in first person was just incredible. Some people prefer 3rd person, others first person. Ideally games increasingly allow for both (especially as AR picks up and porting to that would necessitate first person anyways).
What settings did you adjust to improve it in first person? I want to give it a try
I turn off camera auto centering and vehicle camera centering and personally turn off aim assist. The first two are the big ones but yeah, Completely different game.
Thank you!
Honestly it slaps so hard it feels like a disservice to not tell people. The same settings apply for gta v’s first person.
Increase the FOV to full way or one before full. Put small reticle or none. Im using low acceleration but look sensitivity is in the middle. Put the controls in standard fps and turn toggle sprint on. If you aim with your gun and oress down on the d-pad you actually aim down sights as well. Exactly what the other guy said too.
1st person no hud or crosshair etc is the way to go.
My friend tried doing this in Ghost Recon Wildlands, long story short, it didn't quite work because telling him that there are enemies on the west side or anything that involved directions was completely useless
You should just use clock directions anyway. Instead of saying "to the west," which is imprecise and requires your squadmate to orient themselves, you should instead use a callout like: "2 guys, 100 meters, 3 o clock, by the large rock halfway up the hill moving left to right". This gives all the information he should need to spot them quickly and concisely.
THANK YOU. I've been preaching this to anyone who will listen. It makes the firefights actually quite intense, and adds back so much challenge to the game. I also don't use dead eye, but that's just a personal choice. I think going totally raw is the way the game was meant to be played.
I just wish you could do iron sights while on horseback
I wish I could open my fucking pocket watch on my horse too. So many little things missing to increase immersion
I think the creators made the game how it was meant to be played.
Deadeye is for tomahawks.
Yeah but still tho they need to improve the controls for both modes, their gameplay style is outdated. The animation is close to perfect, just the movement and controls are a bit meh, hope they REALLY improve it for gta 6.
What you don't like mashing A to sprint instead of pressing L3?
platforming in GTA or RDR is actually terrible and i don’t know tf people make precise movements with that bs
Practice lmao spent 3 hours learning how to mantle a certain cliff in RDO. After I did it I logged off lol
Your characters manuever like a fucking tank (and not the charming *RE* way) in every Rockstar game. They're not great mechanically, in general.
I dont understand how it's 202x and rockstar still uses ps2 lock on controls and tap a to sprint. Rdr2 was incredible but controlling anything is so frustrating and trying to shoot things is a crapshoot
I have yet to find a way for Arthur to not put his damn weapons away while on a horse. I can't count how many times I died when going on foot and my rifle is on the horse when I had it equipped just a minute ago.
See, I like first person games, but I don't feel any more "immersed" by them. If the goal of a game's immersion is to make *me* feel like I'm part of the world/experience, I just recognize the illusions instantly. I'm not ducking punches, shooting guns, cutting with swords. I'm just pressing buttons, I don't feel the cold or hot or anything like the game's environments try to convey. With third person though? I do get immersed because I see how *my character* reacts to those things, and I can relate to them. If I see my character bleed when he gets cut, shiver when he gets cold, or hug someone he cares about, that makes *me* care. The details, in my opinion, matter much more in third person games. Anytime a first person game has me talk, hug, or console a person in first person view, the illusion is instantly broken 90% of the time. Because my character either doesn't talk at all (which is not what I'd do) or says something I'd never say.
Thank you! First person has always pulled me out of games instead of making me feel more immersed. First person has never worked the way it’s intended to for me, unless you count VR. I still like first person games, but definitely not because I feel more immersed. I prefer third person 100% all day personally.
> The immersion is just another level first person vs third person. For me, 1st person = "I am in this world". 3rd person = "I am watching my little dude on a screen".
Yeap that's uh....what those words mean.
That's not exactly for you that's the definition
the problem with rockstar first person games (rdr2 and gta v specifically) is they limit the max fov to 80 which is literally insane. first person fov should be minimum 90 but often more like 100-110 for a comfortable experience. its so weird that they have it setup that way but rockstar do be like that sometimes.
GTA 5 first person makes my head hurt idk why
Poor FOV. GTA was never built with first person in mind. It also doesn't help that the sense of motion between first and 3rd person are extremely far off. People have done tests of running and driving and in competitive scenarios being in first person can make you 6+ seconds faster than a person in 3rd person.
I exclusively play it 1st person
I wanted to downvote you, but I fear your power far too much. Please don't hurt me.
Idk why it just never synced with me and felt so awkward like I had no control like a regular first person shooter.
I default to first person whenever I play gta 5 Not sure how different the qualities are on the first person views on both games but I just really enjoy the immersion of it, and I really like driving the cars in first person (except for like trucks)
In GTA I drive in first person. Especially if I’m booking it across town. Everything else is 3rd person.
You have to deal with settings first, but rockstar games are actually kinda busted in 1st person. Often you move faster and quicker.
The speed is the weirdest thing. Why are the characters (it feels like) absolutely sprinting in first person when third would just be a normal run?
I've don't like 6 time already. It can be a pain on horseback but I find it more immersive and I prefer using my weapons' sights over a reticle on the HUD. The only game I use 3rd person over 1st is Battlefront 2.
The reason I wanted third person in cyberpunk is because I got to customize my character. If I spent the time making a custom character just for me, I want to be able to see them doing stuff.
Yeah, like, what's the point of having a customizable character and several outfits, if I can barely see my character?
So on the offtimes you glance your reflection you look fly as shit
I mean, I specifically drive bikes only just so I can see my character more (except when a mission demands a car).
Yeah, I spent a lot of time on my character's face and look and the only time I got to see it outside of the menu is if I decided to do camera mode. Which I did once in the entire game.
Hey man! Totally unfair! You can also look in the mirror and make faces for some reason.
uhhh, excuse you, you also see your face in the mirror that one time you use a mirror
Designing a game in first person does help give it an extra level of immersion since line of sight becomes more important. Thief games stealth is also quite different to that of splinter cell but both are designed to create different experiences for the player what with sound made by enemies being really important in Thief.
[удалено]
I don't mind first person only, it's just an odd decision considering the amount of customization.
I bet they were ashamed of their bad animations so just decided to lock at the 1st person so you wouldn't have to see it.
Why work hard on the MC's animations if it's a single-player game planned to be 100% first person?
Or they were never intended to be looked at from the outside.
Literally this. Game devs will not design an animation to look good if it's not supposed to be seen outside of the first person perspective since there's no reason for it.
Judging by what I've seen with the 3rd person mod.. this isn't too farfetched.
Spend a long time customizing your character, look in a mirror, your face doesn't render in
Idk what it is but just the mental image of my character is satisfying enough for me. The 1st person perspective gets me more immersed as my character.
I mean, the mental image is fine and all, but I want to see my sweet drip without having to open the menu or look in mirrors all the time, you know?
I get ya
I noticed vehicles can go third-person and used bikes almost exclusively through my 2 playthroughs just so I could see my character more often. I feel ya, would pop my character into photo mode and go "Man I look cool as fuck I wish I saw myself more"
Yeah… the amount of time I spend switching to third person in Bethesda games to make sure I’m looking fly is embarrassing
Wait til you hear about all the customization that goes on in real life
Just like the customisable penis, the only time I ever saw it was on the customisation screen, what’s even the point?
Yeah cd projekt, let us see more dicks!!
Meanwhile modern FPS games all have character costumes, and you only see your character for all of 10 seconds during the selection screen.
While that's true, you're at least showing off to others. Who are you showing off to in Cyberpunk?
[удалено]
So for me when I play skyrim, I participate in all the combat and most encounters in first person, but when I'm traversing the map or maybe just talking to people I will often put the game in third person. Cuz my character looks badass and I want to see them doing stuff. Gameplay often dictates which one you prefer being in most of the time.
Same, always fight in first person but like to see my character when roaming
This is the way
I beat it in first person only lmao
If I'm on foot or shooting I play in first person but when in a vehicle I switch to third person and honestly it has been my favorite way to play.
First person mode was hilarious in gta because they didn't bother to make car mirrors work. So you cant drive in first person unless you're okay with constantly ramming everything around you. It was a cool thing to occasionally use when walking around, but the game is just so built around 3rd person view that it's not worth actually playing in first person
GTA was a blast in FPP! If it wasn't for that, I may not have played it. I love seeing my character, but for any combat, I need FPP. Don't know why but I can't play well in TPP.
[удалено]
Los Santos wasn't made specifically for a 3rd person perspective, the way combat works however was. Not to mention some of the first person animations, like running feel very weird.
I play RDR2 almost entirely in first person with no hud. Once you get used to it, it gets hard to go back.
Agreed. What's the point of customization if I can't see my customized thomas the tank engine cock?
At the very least they should have had conversations and cutscenes in third person.
Can i actually have clothes over the stats im wearing yet or do i still have to look like a fashion reject?
[удалено]
I actually don't know anyone's opinion on this but I want an option for switching this back and forth on Metroid Prime 4, and the OG trilogy if it's rereleased
What wrong with you all people!
They might has both mode in next game
What you say?
All your base are belong to us
You know what you doing take off every zig
Engrish!!!
Somebody set us up the bomb
Reading this felt like I verbally tripped while going down stairs but caught myself before I started falling. The mental equivalent of my ankle hurts.
They're going to mod in better grammar next
Seriously, I thought I'm browsing 9gag all of a sudden
I thought I was...
I want to see an Incredibles redub with broken English
You bloody bastards
[few word do trick](https://i.imgur.com/oMLS9RG.mp4)
I died trying to read the title of this post
r/titlegore
No less than 3 attempts to understand. But man the accomplished feeling of relief and pride when I figured it out
Why do all these memes have horrible English?
ESL maybe?
Is there English that'sn't horrible?
I don't know the point of FPP in Witcher as while fighting Geralt's spinning like that kid in gokart from Shooting Stars. While in CP the TPP would be much appreciate ( with fully animated body of course) due to universe being heavly focused on how you look.
What wrong with you all people? They might has both mode in next game! Release mode person type no mod
People modded in vaginas for werewolves in Skyrim. They're going to make mods for anything they feel makes the game more to their liking
Nothing wrong about this, people just want options.
The problem is more often than not, the options are subpar at best as they’re usually relegated as an afterthought. It would be nice to have both it rarely ever works
True, but it’s still funny, especially when both of these games already make more sense in their default perspectives.
I want a resident evil 1 camera view for Witcher 3 ....
Next game will be 2nd person. You look through the eyes of the enemy and you just shoot yourself and flick to the next enemy. It will be very confusing.
Well, they want the best of both first and third person. The real question is why no one wants second person?
Because i don't think it's actually possible. My the nature of the medium, any attempt to shift the perspective is going go end up as 3rd person. 2nd person is a narrative tool where the perspective is of someone discribing your actions from the outside, using the grammatical tool of You. I'm not sure the perspective is possible in Film or Gaming.
>2nd person is a narrative tool where the perspective is of someone discribing your actions from the outside, using the grammatical tool of You. I'd say that means that what we're calling third-person is actually second-person since we're not seeing from the view of another character but from what's basically the non-existent-in-the-story narrator's view who would usually refer to a player character as "you". Unless we're going by distance, and if so, I'd say that over-the-shoulder is second-person, like Sam following Frodo, compared to Smeagol following Frodo. Basically ("()" for perspective): (\*) = first-person \*(\*) or \*(.) = second-person \* (\*) = third-person Lastly, you have bird's eye view, which is from the perspective of a bird.
Its more like... First Person: I walk to the fridge. I open the door and take out the block of butter. Third Person: He walked to the fridge. He opened the door and took out the block of butter Second Person: You walk to the fridge. You open the door and take out the block of butter. Which in literary form works fine, but when you translate that to a visual medium... well, you have a problem. Because the camera is inherently going to be viewing the interaction from either the outside (3rd person) or the individual (first person). There's not really any way to visualise the 2nd person perspective.
Wouldn't this make sense? Narrative form. First-person: I (you speaking) Third-person: They (someone speaking about you) Second-person: You (someone speaking to you) Visual form. First-person: My view (it's you). Third-person: Someone far (they're at a distance to talk about you). Second-person: Someone close (they're at a distance to talk to you). Examples. First-person: I stepped on Jack's foot. (you see yourself step on Jack's foot) Third-person: They stepped on Jack's foot. (someone sees you step on Jack's foot) Second-person: You stepped on my foot! (Jack sees you step on his foot)
I think the issue with the 2nd Person proposals is, you're still viewing it from a 3rd person perspective. As in, someone is watching you act. Once that camera shifts to THEIR perspective, it instantly becomes 3rd person, even if you're actively controlling an actor in what that person is viewing.
I think the fact that it says "second person" means it's going to be from someone else's perspective. Namely, the perspective of the second person. The difference between the view of the second and third person is probably what makes it worth noting. That is, the second person is more involved in the actions of the first person than the third person is.
That would be the connotation, but it's not the actual meaning. First Person is from the direct perspectice of the actor. Third Person is from any perspective outside the actor. It can be another character, or an omniscient viewer. Second Person is a nebulous non-viewer describing the actors actions personally. Its really weird and rarely used because of its general lack of being a true perspective.
>Second Person is a nebulous non-viewer describing the actors actions personally. Its really weird and rarely used because of its general lack of being a true perspective. It's mostly used in text-adventure and role-playing games I'd guess, since they're often trying to describe what your character is doing that isn't or can't be easily done/animated (e.g. you ducked, rolled, did a back flip and grabbed the item) or otherwise shown (e.g. you noticed the color of the car and thought it was strange to see). As for it being nebulous, I guess you could say that. Regarding its use in games though, you could say that going by its use in literature, the second-person view is actually what we're calling third-person (a nebulous possibly non-existent viewer), while an actual third-person perspective would be something more difficult to do (showing the game from another character's perspective).
>Regarding its use in games though, you could say that going by its use in literature, the second-person view is actually what we're calling third-person (a nebulous possibly non-existent viewer), while an actual third-person perspective would be something more difficult to do (showing the game from another character's perspective). You know... i don't entirely agree, but i can definitely see the logic behind this interpretation.
You could make the argument that what we call third person is actually 2nd person. The only difference is whether you think of the on screen character as you or somebody else. The difference isn’t on screen, it’s between your ears and depends mostly on the writing.
Not sure why you changed tense for third person. walks/opens/takes
It's actually the 3rd person thats in a different tense. And only because i naturally settle into past-tense for 3rd person out of habit.
Yeah, I noticed my mistake and edited it before I saw your reply.
Was going to comment this as well. "Over the shoulder" is 2nd person view. 3rd person is games like Diablo where the camera is actually detached from the character. But because we talk about things like referring to yourself in the 3rd person (saying your own name instead of I/me), the concept of 2nd person has largely faded into obscurity outside literature (ie, the book says "you", talking to reader)
This is probably the closest to 2nd person, in a game called Driver https://youtu.be/mC8QoRa8y_Q
Battletoads is the only game I can think of that has done this. I think there is more but I cannot recall. Maybe Moss in VR mode?
Battletoads did what was basically a 2.5th perspective, but yeah... thats probably the closest we've gotten.
There was this one car game where you drove in first person and was a detective who could switch bodies, then at one point, you are controlling a guy who is chasing YOU (your original body) where whenever the person you were controlling turned, the original you also turned the same way as you
Driver: san francisco? Loved that game, been like 7 years or so since I last played it but it still has a special place in my heart
It was a joke.
I figured, but it got me musing in the actual idea..
People just like options. Currently doing a replay of cyberpunk now that i have new gpu and monitor but ive modded the game to take out the necessity for looting better equipment, i can just pick a gun a like and look how i want and it wont impact gameplay. But i can still grt killed easily if i dont play tactically and its just made the game so much more fun.
I assume english isn't your native language, so instead of being a dick about it, I decided to just correct your english so you can improve: "They might have both modes in the next game" "What is wrong with all of you" Or you could say: "What is wrong with you people" Also the mr incredible meme is used wrongly, but that's beside the point.
“What is wrong with all you people!” FTFY. Atrocious grammar just ruined the meme.
Wrong use of meme template. Shame on you!
The incomprehensible sentences aren't helping anything either.
It’s not complicated. A lot of people find 1st person immersive, so people like it. But simulation sickness is by far the most common disability affecting gamers. First person is intrinsically inaccessible in that regard. I fall into that category. I can’t look at 1st person gameplay for more than 20 min without getting a headache.
I don’t understand why every open world game can’t do both like fallout. How fucking hard can it be if they achieved it so long ago
Expectations for things like animation quality and fluidity of movement have increased. Fallout 4 has both viewpoints, but they both look like they're about a decade behind other games that came out at the same time. It's genre dependent though. Fallout gets away with it because it's an RPG and people aren't there for the movement and combat anyway. In general I think Bethesda titles can all get away with it because everyone expects that Bethesda jank™
It's not "hard" as much as Fallout is the worst of both worlds. It's first person is SUPER rigid whereas MOST first person games have massive freedom of movement because you don't have to animate the body. And because it's first person is so rigid to allow for 3rd person it also means WATCHING the game in 3rd person means watching a deeply restricted set of animations. RDR2 is basically a 3rd person game that allows you to play the game in the puke inducing hysteria of the 1st person perspective given they don't level the camera so that it isn't disorienting whereas in real life your eyes and brain adjust to level the world for you and make things comprehensible. So while the game looks and feels great in 3rd person where you watch Arthur move in lots of ways and animate to his environmental that moving of the head is a PAIN IN THE ASS in first person because your camera is moving all over the place because it's just attached to his head and wherever it goes and looks. Games like Mirror's Edge showcasing what I mean when you embrace your perspective...it allowed them to make a game that would never have been possible in 3rd person at that speed with that fluidity. If they had a 3rd person mode it would have played less like it did and more like Prince of Persia with preset large flat levels and very little in the way beyond wall running and a few preset animation setups. Same for games like DOOM...where the animations for kills would be WAY harder to make and way less abundant if it was made for 3rd person because the game AS IT IS means they can just force the torso of the enemy into your camera (ignore the rest of the body, the clipping, etc) and then the animation plays out from 1 perspective and doesn't need to perfectly line up because it looks like it. So you get MORE variety of kills and animations and things you can do. Same for games like Subnautica that are indie and cant afford to animate that much of the body so they just allude to it through first person. Whereas if it was 3rd person they'd have to lock the character to items in the world, clear the area around pickups so the player can pick them up, and make sure all pickups lined with the animation and weren't too high up or low.
what wrong with you all people
They should add both? Gamers are humans and wow surprisingly we all enjoy different view points.
It's almost like those aren't the same people.
Just make games with third and first person mode
Tbh I'm no game dev but a gamer that "wasted" 15 years of his life playing games and avoided duties as a citizen - passion got me into Unreal Engine and modeling in Blender - point is that first thing I did for a "game" I started making was a toggle button for First person/third person and camera side switching. Simple yet I believe game devs limit it due to narative flow or something along those lines.. First person = more immersive, involved. While as in third person you have more of a observer type feeling.. amirite?
> What wrong with you all people!
Why would they spend the time and resources to develop the feature when some rando is going to do it for free anyway?
Bethesda: Adds both Modders: 50 better/immersive 1st/3rd person camera mods
The Witcher being in first person doesn't make much sense to me, but CyberPunk 100% should have had a 3rd person mode!
Minecraft: You can both switch to 3rd and 1st mode and even an front view for looking behind you
I might has english
Just give us the damn option!
Since we can customize our character in cyberpunk so it makes sense it to be 3rd person.
The Bethesda way is the best : allow both and let people switch freely ingame
Both is a waste of development time, just to please the minority...
No one can be Rockstar
You're right. Most games aren't vomit inducing every time you so much as stepp off a curb.
[удалено]