External View [A definitive discussion]

[Jack Booted Thug]

Not ignoring it at all, I just disagree with it! Plenty of games offer multiple views as a way to play - the fact that Frontier choose to restrict you to one view because they see it as the best experience is of no concern to me as a point of discussion. They're ignoring the fact that their view is not "correct", it's just another view. Of course, they have the power (and right) to do so, they evidently don't mind that it will upset a bunch of people in the process... and they don't need to care because they've always said they'd make the game they want to play and that's fine.

As it happens I hate 3rd person view for playing games but I'd still like to see it in just because so many other people would like it and it would affect me not a jot! Unlike Frontier who seem keen to force their vision on us whether we like it or not I'd prefer people to be able to customise that vision to suit themselves to a reasonable degree... hell, we can't even change that horrible orange colour in the cockpit!

The competitive aspect of 3rd person is not a red herring because people who don't want 3rd person bring it up as much as the "grand vision" argument so why wouldn't people present opposing arguments along the same lines?

What they appear to not be doing is dumbing down the experience for popularity sake. The first person only aspect is but one aspect of what they are trying to do.

I can really relate to it because of my experience in Tribes 2. Tribes 2 was a game with a very high learning curve which contained an extraordinary amount of depth. Many new players would be initially put off by the game because they could not simply pick it up and dominate. They had to learn how to "ski," "use a jetpack" and "manage energy" as well as all the game options (armours, deployables, base assets and backpacks).

The developers of both sequels (Tribes Vengeance and Tribes Ascend) dumbed it down for mass appeal in order to increase the initial pick-up draw. In doing so they lost a lot of the underlying magic.

Elite: Dangerous is a little different in that it introduces the new player more gradually to the game mechanics (as it is not competitive PvP off the bat) and the player is allowed to push those mechanics more and more as they become more familiar with it.

A reading of the Design Discussion Archive combined with Alpha Access convinces me of the depth that this game is going to have. The unique flavour of First Person Only appears to be a very essential aspect to this depth in my opinion.

Time will reveal whether it succeeds or now. I am glad I backed the project.

 

[jabokai]

I played Elite back in the 80's - while sitting at your keyboard you really felt as if you were really inside your space ship. A 3rd person view would destroy that powerful feeling.

And for yourself, that's true. The 3rd person view may destroy that feeling for you, but for others it may completely MAKE the game. Try and see the other side. As much as I don't like 3rd person, I'd be happier playing the game knowing that other people are getting as much out of it as me, albeit with different views, colours and settings. I don't understand why prohibiting an alternative, and knowing it creates a lesser experience for others, can possibly make the game better for you? That's just weird!

 

[Bounder]

1st person = this is me, in my ship

3rd person = that is me, in my ship

No immersion break implied IMHO.... :S

 

[Tinman]

As it happens I hate 3rd person view for playing games but I'd still like to see it in just because so many other people would like it and it would affect me not a jot! Unlike Frontier who seem keen to force their vision on us whether we like it or not I'd prefer people to be able to customise that vision to suit themselves to a reasonable degree... hell, we can't even change that horrible orange colour in the cockpit!

But "forcing a vision" upon people whether they like it or not is precisely what artists do. Imagine telling a famous painter that you really like his red painting, but you would like to have the option to buy a blue version instead. Imagine telling a composer that you would like the option of listening to his symphony at half tempo. Imagine telling a film maker that you would like an option of a happy ending where there was none. I mean, that would only affect you right? So what's the harm? What do you think the answer would be?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Options isn't always a good thing. If Mirrors Edge had given the players the option to play the game in 3rd person you would have lost a lot of what made that experience unique. The developers would also have lost focus in making the first person view as polished of an experience as it was since now they had to balance these two types of viewpoints against each other.

Personally I'm glad that FD has a clear idea of what it is they want to achieve and are sticking to their vision.

 

[jabokai]

But "forcing a vision" upon people whether they like it or not is precisely what artists do. Imagine telling a famous painter that you really like his red painting, but you would like to have the option to buy a blue version instead. Imagine telling a composer that you would like the option of listening to his symphony at half tempo. Imagine telling a film maker that you would like an option of a happy ending where there was none. I mean, that would only affect you right? So what's the harm? What do you think the answer would be?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Options isn't always a good thing. If Mirrors Edge had given the players the option to play the game in 3rd person you would have lost a lot of what made that experience unique. The developers would also have lost focus in making the first person view as polished of an experience as it was since now they had to balance these two types of viewpoints against each other.

Personally I'm glad that FD has a clear idea of what it is they want to achieve and are sticking to their vision.

What, you mean like the 4 versions of The Scream? Or having an acoustic version of an album? Or having an extended version of a film with alternate endings?

Anyway, it's an absolutely terrible analogy as I'm sure you'd agree in your more sober moments, none of those are interactive experiences. Here's a better analogy of an interactive experience... How happy would you be if your car came with non adjustable seats, mirrors, a CD player with one CD sealed inside, and a lurid orange paint job, etc? Sure that might be how the designer envisioned it for his comfort but it doesn't do you any good.

And no, that's not a good analogy either, just posting it to show how ridiculous yours was. Games are not pure art, they're mostly entertainment (or should be); an interactive experience where the methods of interaction are crucial.

You say that game would have lost a lot of what made the experience unique... Yeah, for yourself. Who's to say whether playing it third person wouldn't have made it even better for many other people? Why do you get to speak for them too? I'm not saying every game should include every option, obviously that is too much. But things like this, that already exist in the engine? Why deny those who would enjoy that more?

 

[NeoRacer]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view. Its just expected of a modern game whether it aids gameplay or not, people will find it very odd that this feature is lacking and will request it. Your gonna just have to concede on that, its gonna happen once the game goes wide.

But "forcing a vision" upon people whether they like it or not is precisely what artists do. Imagine telling a famous painter that you really like his red painting, but you would like to have the option to buy a blue version instead. Imagine telling a composer that you would like the option of listening to his symphony at half tempo. Imagine telling a film maker that you would like an option of a happy ending where there was none. I mean, that would only affect you right? So what's the harm? What do you think the answer would be?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Options isn't always a good thing. If Mirrors Edge had given the players the option to play the game in 3rd person you would have lost a lot of what made that experience unique. The developers would also have lost focus in making the first person view as polished of an experience as it was since now they had to balance these two types of viewpoints against each other.

Personally I'm glad that FD has a clear idea of what it is they want to achieve and are sticking to their vision.

 

[Cosmo Bozo]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view. Its just expected of a modern game whether it aids gameplay or not, people will find it very odd that this feature is lacking and will request it. Your gonna just have to concede on that, its gonna happen once the game goes wide.

Having read quite a few game forums over the past few years, I can confidently state that people requesting a feature doesn't mean "it's gonna happen"... even when it's large numbers of people.
Also there are also a lot of very successful games that force a viewpoint on you.





I do wanna see my ship though......
(I don't mind too much to be honest as I can see it in the hangar and I'll eventually be able to get out and look at it)

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view. Its just expected of a modern game whether it aids gameplay or not, people will find it very odd that this feature is lacking and will request it. Your gonna just have to concede on that, its gonna happen once the game goes wide.

Some kind o f 3rd person view may happen but it does not mean your theory is true. How do you explain Iracing?

 

[Memnoch]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view.

I don't see why they will be force to at all. It's not our game, it is theirs. And it is doubtful that a number of polls set up requesting it is likely to change their mind on this. When the game goes wide, as you put it, it will always be a minority of people requesting this feature and I think you know that already. It's unlikely they will shift opinions to satisfy a shouty minority.

 

[Tinman]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view. Its just expected of a modern game whether it aids gameplay or not, people will find it very odd that this feature is lacking and will request it. Your gonna just have to concede on that, its gonna happen once the game goes wide.

You mean like how the developers of, let's say, FarCry was forced to eventually put in a 3rd person view?
.
.
.
Oh yeah...that's right...that didn't happen...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You mean like how the developers of, let's say, FarCry was forced to eventually put in a 3rd person view?
.
.
.
Oh yeah...that's right...that didn't happen...

Indeed and no a mount of asking got cockpits added to grid 2 either. Did freelancer have one ? Its been so long I can't remember.

 

[Perseus]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view. Its just expected of a modern game whether it aids gameplay or not, people will find it very odd that this feature is lacking and will request it. Your gonna just have to concede on that, its gonna happen once the game goes wide.

Can you elaborate on 'backlash' and being 'forced'? Are you talking about people refusing to buy the game or more along the lines of an angry mob marching down to FD offices and lynching staff until they add 3rd person views?
The quality of the Alpha and it's anticipated evolution into Beta and beyond are going to generate a continued interest in ED in addition to the planned expansions.
As people have said, it's their game, their vision and their masterpiece.

 

[NeilF]

Sorry for 'you guys' when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to be forced to put in a 3p view. Its just expected of a modern game whether it aids gameplay or not, people will find it very odd that this feature is lacking and will request it. Your gonna just have to concede on that, its gonna happen once the game goes wide.

If there's no external view, I suspect a lot of people will be upset. But I also suspect if there's not an external view there will be a good reason for it...

 

[Tinman]

What, you mean like the 4 versions of The Scream? Or having an acoustic version of an album? Or having an extended version of a film with alternate endings?

All of which was made because the creators themselves decided to make them. (Or because their production company forced them to release something they didn't want which usually is terrible! )

Anyway, it's an absolutely terrible analogy as I'm sure you'd agree in your more sober moments, none of those are interactive experiences. Here's a better analogy of an interactive experience... How happy would you be if your car came with non adjustable seats, mirrors, a CD player with one CD sealed inside, and a lurid orange paint job, etc? Sure that might be how the designer envisioned it for his comfort but it doesn't do you any good.

And yet cars with undesirable features do exist all over the place...I just choose not to buy them.

And no, that's not a good analogy either, just posting it to show how ridiculous yours was. Games are not pure art, they're mostly entertainment (or should be); an interactive experience where the methods of interaction are crucial.

I really don't want to get into a discussion about the "difference" between "art" and "entertainment". To me games can be just as much art as any other form of media. Art can be entertaining and entertainment can be art. These are not two separate concepts that are disconnected from one another. Instead they are deeply intertwined. And what is this "pure art" you are talking about? This thread is already going in circles as it is...I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole too!

You say that game would have lost a lot of what made the experience unique... Yeah, for yourself. Who's to say whether playing it third person wouldn't have made it even better for many other people? Why do you get to speak for them too? I'm not saying every game should include every option, obviously that is too much. But things like this, that already exist in the engine? Why deny those who would enjoy that more?

I can most definitively say that if Mirrors Edge had been made in third person it would have been less unique. Simply because at its core Mirrors Edge is a platformer and a third person view is the standard way of playing these.

If a third person version would have been better and enjoyed by a lot of other people instead is another question all together...

My point is that what "other people" and me personally think about this is kind of irrelevant. Both approaches can be valid in its own way. The only thing that matters is what the creator of any type of media wants since that will dictate how the "product" is put together.

I strongly suspect that Mirrors Edge came about when some developer thought: "Let's make a freerunner platforming game BUT let's make it in first person only!" Without that vision the game wouldn't even have existed in the first place. Maybe a different game would have been made instead. Maybe that game would also have been good, but it wouldn't have been Mirrors Edge. That original vision shaped the entire game during it's development and they built all their gameplay around that.

Now, just to be clear, a strong vision about something doesn't necessarily mean that the game will be popular or even good for that matter. It might be an utter disaster! What it DOES mean is that the creator will put a lot of energy into making their vision come to life and that passion will hopefully lead to something good.

 

[-o-]

Pretty much. The experience is the main issue and the reason we did it. The fact it has implications for multiplayer (those implications being that everything is conveniently fair) is a bonus really.

"The experience"

In much of the promotional material from FD themselves, you will see screenshots/videos of external views. In the PBF Peek of the Week thread, there are about 20 FD released and authorised screenshots of ED in action (I am not including the non-gameplay shots). Only 2 of those are cockpit view whilst the rest are external view.

If you were so keen on us experiencing your cockpit experience, you do you often promote the game in external views?

Not only can this mislead the public, but it verifies that even FD understand that from a visual perspective, the game looks better from an external viewpoint.

Take a look at http://elite.frontier.co.uk/media/

There you have 2 sections - Screenshots and Wallpapers.

Every shot in the Screenshot section is from the cockpit view, and every shot from the Wallpaper section is free from any cockpit view. Yes, I know the Wallpaper pics are concept, but that changes nothing because the artist had a choice to include a cockpit shell and decided not to.

Most/all shots in that Screenshot section are combat based, whilst most shots in that Wallpaper section are not combat based. This in itself shows that a cockpit view is best for a combat situation, and an external view is best for a non-combat situation. As most of your gametime in ED will be free of combat situations, you can start to understand why so many want an external view.

The Wallpaper section shows the beauty of the game, and although most/all shots there are concept, they are very close to what the game can deliver .... if it had the simple function of an external view.

Now be honest, and tell me which shots actually look better. This is exactly what an "external view" ability is about - to improve one's visual appreciation of the game.

Give us the choice.

 

[Markjamesonbrien]

Nail on head

 

[TerranAmbassador]

Nail on head

With tremendous force, I might add.

 

[Rog]

Nail on head

Hear, hear.

 

[jabokai]

All of which was made because the creators themselves decided to make them. (Or because their production company forced them to release something they didn't want which usually is terrible! )

My point was that there is not necessarily one, static vision of a piece of art - anyone can have their favourite Scream depending on their preference. You, as a purveyor of art, have been given that choice by the artist.

And yet cars with undesirable features do exist all over the place...I just choose not to buy them.

Indeed, and I'm damn sure you wouldn't buy the one I described! I'm certain yours would have adjustable seats, and allow you to change the CD (or whatever music source it uses)!

I really don't want to get into a discussion about the "difference" between "art" and "entertainment". To me games can be just as much art as any other form of media. Art can be entertaining and entertainment can be art. These are not two separate concepts that are disconnected from one another. Instead they are deeply intertwined. And what is this "pure art" you are talking about? This thread is already going in circles as it is...I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole too!

Well, if we get to that level almost everything created can be called art - architecture is art, cars are art, cheeseburgers are art! I'm talking about the primary purpose of something, not a secondary aesthetic value. The primary purpose of most games is interactive entertainment, if they fail on that score then, no matter how pretty, or how great the sound, they fail as games. It's right there in there word even - game!

All of which is to say that the method of interaction is a crucial component of any game, and plenty of them let you choose various ways to interact. Even ED has a bunch of options already, catering to keyboard and mouse, joysticks, TrackIR and Oculus Rift. Which of those is the designer's true vision for how to play his game? And why bother with the rest if one of those is considered "ideal"? I see no real difference between giving people some software choices as well as those hardware choices - if they get a better (for them) game out of it then I'd consider that a success, not a failure of design vision!

 

[Adept]

External, disembodied promotional pics to showcase graphics and assets has nothing to do with whether or not the game will have (or should have) a 3rd person view. They are just graphics pics.