FPV or TPV?

[ZJJ]

Which view do you prefer and why?

[CrowmanUK]

First person with weapon view so my addled brain can see what i'm poking in front of me.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

1st Person with or without weapon in view. With as long as it doesn't interfeir with gameplay (Graw's doesn't seem to or i got use to it)

3rd person camera views can be buggy or allow you to see things you normally would not.

1st person gives more of the feel that you are the soldier, not just watching over someone's back.

[Strapt]

First person with a weapon view.

"feels more realistic" if that makes sense. I'd much rather see a reload animation for the weapon than see a yellow dial filling up. It's nice to see the bullets going in

[KRP 56]

Option to use FPWV and FPV. RVS had it that way and it worked just fine.

[Raw Kryptonite]

First person view with weapon AND LEGS. LOL

If I look down, I see torso, legs and feet. Game should be the same way. Ideally, look down to see how many frags you've still got instead of something on the HUD.

First person w/weapon/legs= immersion into the character and the game. Makes it more personal.

Third person= cinematic

I prefer the immersion to cinematic.

There's nothing worse than just magic floating crosshairs on the screen though. No immersion and it's not cinematic. More like powerpoint or something. LOL

Edited January 3, 2007 by Raw Kryptonite

[=warcloud=]

The option to choose the view has always appealed to me as a great addition in the games settings.

[spm1138]

First person view with weapon. Crosshairs are a bad compromise.

Ideally I'd like to be able to choose between hipped and shouldered modes and I definitely want weapon view for sighted aiming.

I don't think 3pv is that essential if you have a well designed lean system.

[Peace]

Which view do you prefer and why?

I was too quick and voted FPV only but I was too quick and did not notice there was a FPV with weapon option in the list (FPWV)

So, my correct vote should be with FPWV (like GRAW).

An option of 3rd person complicates matter when matching etc as you can normally see more and get unnatural viewing angles that you don't get in FPV (see around corners, over walls etc).

I would not mind an optional 3rd person view though as long as this setting is server controlled that overrides the client setting (eg for laddering), i.e., server setting with the options "let client decide"; "First person only"; "3rd person only".

FYI, I corrected your vote.

Edited February 2, 2007 by ZJJ

[NoQuarter]

FPWV

Options (as stated above) are always nice but I have never quite "got" the appeal for TPV.

Old dog.

[Sup]

OTS has proven it'self to be perfect for the tactical shooter.

It's often overlooked, but knowing your enemy can see around cover actually forces much more tactical play. It's suicide to just charge down an open field, where in a fps you could get by with it.

[Sgt. Atoa]

First person view with weapon and the option to turn off for a more classic [GR] feel

on the side note I did enjoyed the Over the Shoulder view in XBOX GR2

[rookie]

Option to choose between FP with weapon or w/o.

There are games, I totally love playing w/o weaponview, like SWAT 3 or GR but on the other hand I couldn't magine playing them with weaponview or Raven Shield w/o weaponview. Depends on the game.

I don't take 3rd person into consideration, feels unreal and it really is unspectecular, see where your enemies are going while you are in cover. FP is way more intense, gives me more of the "I'm in the game"-feeling. The "Ideal" shooter game would be with weapon in your view and when you reload the animation don't just show a mag going in the weapon, it automatically takes the view down to your vest and let you see how you take the mag out of there. Man that would be awesome.

Edited February 2, 2007 by rookie

[ROCO*AFZ*]

OTS has proven it'self to be perfect for the tactical shooter.

It's often overlooked, but knowing your enemy can see around cover actually forces much more tactical play. It's suicide to just charge down an open field, where in a fps you could get by with it.

Can be or it can lead to a hand nade in your lap as your waiting

[Ick]

OTS has proven it'self to be perfect for the tactical shooter.

It's often overlooked, but knowing your enemy can see around cover actually forces much more tactical play. It's suicide to just charge down an open field, where in a fps you could get by with it.

I agree with Sup.

[5timechamp]

OTS has proven it'self to be perfect for the tactical shooter.

It's often overlooked, but knowing your enemy can see around cover actually forces much more tactical play. It's suicide to just charge down an open field, where in a fps you could get by with it.

i feel the same way about first person view.....not knowing whats around the corner forces more tactical play...not being able to see over a bush or around a wall means every move must be deliberate and calculated....u rely more on your senses and ambient sounds as opposed to abusing the shortcuts a OTS camera provides....

in first person u dive to the prone position and struggle to find your assailant and save your ass...in third person u lay down and use the camera to spot the assailant, that to me is flawed..games should punish u for bad tactics not let u off the hook by showing u where the enemy is.

[Sup]

See, knowing your opponent doesn't know what's around the corner makes me a lot more comfortable 'cheating' by, like, laying prone right around a curve knowing someone will turn and, if it were real life, trip over me.

In a game with OTS that kind of stupidity would get me killed. As for your comment about diving and trying to find your assailant: OTS is both -

1- Farther away from your targets, making it harder to see them

2- Granting situational awareness, compensating for hearing and feel and general sense of direction real people have.

This leads to it being even harder to find a hidden target (as is realistic) and much easier to find out which direction you're being attacked from (as is, again, realistic.)

OTS is one of the perfect examples of suspending reality to better attain a more realistic goal. We do something completely absurd (being able to see your own back) for the purpose of granting all of the depth of perception a human really has. It really works great, when you get over the face that you can see your own avatar.

[Biggs_CV]

Someone mentioned Raven Shields system. That in my opinion was perfect. Server side option for either FPW veiw or without.

[Hatchetforce]

First person view, but altered from what is the norm. There is a challenge to engineer the correct view. First, we have a peripheral vision that a monitor cannot duplicate. SA is one of the keys to survival. This is one place where TPV does a better job.

Also we have two eyes. Remember we see in binocular vision but the monitor is a monocular. This really shows itself when you start to consider reflex shooting in CQB.

If a guy is 10 feet away and I snap a holosight up, I can see the sight over his body, but I can still see his entire body and the world around him. That is because both eyes are open and the brain compensates with your binocular vision. But if I close one eye, I become like a computer monitor or a level of GRAW and then everything is blotted out. I can barely see the guy because the sight appears too large. That isn't realistic. It's in most games and it's BS.

Neither is seeing your weapon out in front of you all the time. Your weapon is at the low ready most of the time unless you are actively engaging or pieing a corner. There are a few other small instances but you don't move around with it pointing aout like a 5.56 erection. I think people will be more than a little pleased.

[Thoramir]

I would have an option to choose a reticle with or without weapon (I hate weapon view myself and I never force it on players who don't like it), however to make long range shots I would make it almost neccesary to go into an iron sight or scope view to have a hope of hitting a target accurately at long range. That way you have a system that allows you to quickly hit that guy who runs out from a rock 10 feet in front of you as still have to take your time aim for those distance shots.

As far as third person I would make it available with the option to disable it in MP games. I never play with it, but I do like to take screenshots with a 3rd person view. To be honest I'm was never really that bothered by other players using 3rd person view in Rogue Spear although it wasn't something I took advantage of myself.

[Hatchetforce]

I would have an option to choose a reticle with or without weapon (I hate weapon view myself and I never force it on players who don't like it), however to make long range shots I would make it almost neccesary to go into an iron sight or scope view to have a hope of hitting a target accurately at long range. That way you have a system that allows you to quickly hit that guy who runs out from a rock 10 feet in front of you as still have to take your time aim for those distance shots.

As far as third person I would make it available with the option to disable it in MP games. I never play with it, but I do like to take screenshots with a 3rd person view. To be honest I'm was never really that bothered by other players using 3rd person view in Rogue Spear although it wasn't something I took advantage of myself.

One of the reasons some hate the weapon view is in the past it has been poorly implemented. Too large, and too slow.

[Raw Kryptonite]

First person view, but altered from what is the norm. There is a challenge to engineer the correct view. First, we have a peripheral vision that a monitor cannot duplicate. SA is one of the keys to survival. This is one place where TPV does a better job.

Also we have two eyes. Remember we see in binocular vision but the monitor is a monocular. This really shows itself when you start to consider reflex shooting in CQB.

If a guy is 10 feet away and I snap a holosight up, I can see the sight over his body, but I can still see his entire body and the world around him. That is because both eyes are open and the brain compensates with your binocular vision. But if I close one eye, I become like a computer monitor or a level of GRAW and then everything is blotted out. I can barely see the guy because the sight appears too large. That isn't realistic. It's in most games and it's BS.

Neither is seeing your weapon out in front of you all the time. Your weapon is at the low ready most of the time unless you are actively engaging or pieing a corner. There are a few other small instances but you don't move around with it pointing aout like a 5.56 erection. I think people will be more than a little pleased.

That's something else I really liked about America's Army on the xbox. It did lower your weapon according to your movement, obstacles in front of you or a teammate crossing in front. No crosshairs, so you have to raise the gun to fire accurately, although you could fire blind while holding it low--you just weren't too likely to hit anything.

Another problem with first person weapon view is that in most games when you look down you see ground. No torso/legs. I want to look down to see my status (bleeding) or # of magazines or grenades if I lose count.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Raw Kryptonite

[Ryan243]

I've never played America's Army. But provided the gun comes up quickly enough, that system sounds like it would be my first choice.

However, I don't want to have to wait forever for my gun to come up. Knowing programmers, slow computers and fans who like to say "That's not realistic" even when they have no idea what they're talking about, my guess is that if the AA sighting system caught on most games would have a really slow reaction time built in. And I just won't tolerate that.

If FPV with FPWV while shooting can't/won't be implemented properly, I'll take regular FPV. FPWV is barely acceptable and TPV is just crap.

[Raw Kryptonite]

If you've played COD2/3 using the left trigger to pull the gun up, it's about like that. Plenty fast, it's not frustrating. The shooting is nice, every bullet counts. Other than the automatic rifleman & the M4 in close quaters, you spend most time on single shot. There is absolutely no aiming assistance. You actually have to get to be a good shot in the game, which is nice. The guns rise and kick and the gun sounds were taken from recordings of the actual guns. It's a well thought out game, just not a great port to the Xbox. No word on a 360 version, which is very unfortunate.

[jsonedecker]

If you've played COD2/3 using the left trigger to pull the gun up, it's about like that. Plenty fast, it's not frustrating. The shooting is nice, every bullet counts. Other than the automatic rifleman & the M4 in close quaters, you spend most time on single shot. There is absolutely no aiming assistance. You actually have to get to be a good shot in the game, which is nice. The guns rise and kick and the gun sounds were taken from recordings of the actual guns. It's a well thought out game, just not a great port to the Xbox. No word on a 360 version, which is very unfortunate.

Do you know if it's backward compatible on the 360? I saw it cheap locally and might pick it up if it is. I'm talking about AA:Rise of a soldier.