External View [A definitive discussion]

[Barns]

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.

They're graphics pics which are giving a false sense of what the game will look, feel and play like to unwary consumers. I find it hard to believe FD can seriously think "The ideal way to experience ED is cockpit-only! And it looks the best too!" and then also produce 3rd person shots and movies to promote it, which will be unobtainable in the game. Pretty disingenuous of them. If they truly believed cockpit-only shows the game at its best, why not use that view for all promo material?

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!

Jabokai, will you marry me?

 

[TerranAmbassador]

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.

But they showcase the reasoning behind why we're so adamant about getting some way to see our ships, and they also show that FD understand that reasoning:

We want to appreciate the beauty of the game and, most importantly, our own ships.

 

[Barns]

We want to appreciate the beauty of the game and, most importantly, our own ships.

Important, if FD ever want to flog us custom paint jobs and the like for real cash I don't suppose many will pay up if you only get to admire them when in the garage.

 

[Tinman]

"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.

At a first glance this reasoning might make sense, but it actually falls apart if you think about it.

You can't PLAY a picture or a video. These are different kinds of media with their own rules how to best convey an "experience" to the consumer. Making something look good in picture form is quite different from making something feel good as a game experience. Books are quite often changed in a lot if ways when adapted for film since these two different types if media have different requirements. The same thing applies here. Look at the trailers for EVE on YouTube (or pretty much any game really). They look beautiful and cinematic but have very little to do with how the game actually plays. Promotional material like this is more about telling a story about the general feel if the game world rather than giving an accurate representation about the gameplay mechanics. That's what let's play videos are for...

 

[NeilF]

At a first glance this reasoning might make sense, but it actually falls apart if you think about it.

You can't PLAY a picture or a video. These are different kinds of media with their own rules how to best convey an "experience" to the consumer. Making something look good in picture form is quite different from making something feel good as a game experience. Books are quite often changed in a lot if ways when adapted for film since these two different types if media have different requirements. The same thing applies here. Look at the trailers for EVE on YouTube (or pretty much any game really). They look beautiful and cinematic but have very little to do with how the game actually plays. Promotional material like this is more about telling a story about the general feel if the game world rather than giving an accurate representation about the gameplay mechanics. That's what let's play videos are for...

I think we're hitting a brick wall here...

People want different things out of games. Indeed sometimes out of the same game.

Personally I'm fairly sure periodically I'll want to enjoy a location/event to the maximum. I'm also fairly sure this might be better done from a nice clear flexible external view, than the cockpit. eg: I might want to watch my ship coming into land in a station (on auto pilot?), and pan around enjoying the scenery and seeing my ship and the ED universe going about its business around me; Seeing that other lovely ship flying along side me and also coming into land etc etc. Something that couldn't necessarily be done from the cockpit most likely.

Others - for their own reasons - may not want to utilitise this view. They may feel the cockpit view 24/7 is the best way to experience the game. Fine...

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

They're graphics pics which are giving a false sense of what the game will look, feel and play like to unwary consumers. I find it hard to believe FD can seriously think "The ideal way to experience ED is cockpit-only! And it looks the best too!" and then also produce 3rd person shots and movies to promote it, which will be unobtainable in the game. Pretty disingenuous of them. If they truly believed cockpit-only shows the game at its best, why not use that view for all promo material?



Jabokai, will you marry me?

if it is true that adverts only show genuine representations of the final product, then...... Can anyone tell me where the "giant transformer robot conversion button" is in my Citroen. Thanks

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/transformercitroen2.jpg




(I do actually think you have a point to be fair, but it is all about balance and time, IF 3rd person imbalances the game it simply must not be in the online part of the game imo - and thankfully the devs agree)

the issue then becomes, how much time will it take to completely balance it with cockpit users and will this have an effect on time spent on the core aim of the devs.

(if the option is there I will be using the 3rd person as well for eye candy shots but it does not mean it should be in there)

 

[Theodrid]

They're graphics pics which are giving a false sense of what the game will look, feel and play like to unwary consumers. I find it hard to believe FD can seriously think "The ideal way to experience ED is cockpit-only! And it looks the best too!" and then also produce 3rd person shots and movies to promote it, which will be unobtainable in the game. Pretty disingenuous of them. If they truly believed cockpit-only shows the game at its best, why not use that view for all promo material?

Not this one again, this has been round the houses 3 or 4 times already. Tell me one game released recently that doesn't use non gameplay footage in their promotional stuff?

Can you walk down the street in real life and have a big robot following you in Titanfall? - No? - well that's what the advert suggested.

Does SWTOR look like this and play like this :-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ToztqqDcaY? No? - well Bioware/EA produced three very expensive trailers like this. (the others are called 'Deceived' and 'Return' btw if you want to look them up).

Does virtually every advert for modern games on TV and Internet sites have 'NOT GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE' plastered at the bottom of the screen for 80, 90, 100% of the advert?

They all do, it is the way games are advertised today and the argument that 'you are not getting what the ad/trailer depicts' doesn't cut it any more.

EDIT - lol Mike, beat me to it

 

[Tinman]

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!

I fail to see how different input/output methods have anything to do with which point of view the game is played from. It doesn't matter if you play the game with a monitor, Oculus Rift, TrackIR or if you are controlling it with a gamepad, joystick or keyboard and mouse. All of these are played from first person.

This discussion is about from which point of view this game will be played from not how that view will be controlled. The design goal for controls is to have as many options to play the game as possible, even if joysticks naturally will be most suited. The design goal for how the game will be experienced is from the eyes if the commander. Different things.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that any type of viewpoint is "better" than the other. Sure, me personally would prefer first person and it just happens to align with what the devs them self want.

I do however think that ED will be more unique if the stick strictly to first person view all the way. I mean...how many space/flight sims have dared to do that all the way? This doesn't necessarily mean they will be more popular for it, but at least they are trying a fresh approach. Hopefully that will pay off!

 

[Tinman]

I think we're hitting a brick wall here...

You think!!!

We have been hitting this wall for many many many pages of this thread already!

 

[jabokai]

Different things.

Ha ha, hypocrisy! It's okay for you you to compare a game vision to that of a painting, or a film, or a piece of music but not okay to compare hardware control mechanisms to software ones within a game? :S Weird.

 

[Mephane]

Important, if FD ever want to flog us custom paint jobs and the like for real cash I don't suppose many will pay up if you only get to admire them when in the garage.

Yepp, if/when they sell exterior ship customization, I expect the interest in a third person view to skyrocket.

 

[Memnoch]

how many space/flight sims have dared to do that all the way? This doesn't necessarily mean they will be more popular for it...

Freespace 1/2
Independance War 1/2 (From memory)

These games were and are very highly regarded.

 

[NeilF]

I do however think that ED will be more unique if the stick strictly to first person view all the way. I mean...how many space/flight sims have dared to do that all the way? This doesn't necessarily mean they will be more popular for it, but at least they are trying a fresh approach. Hopefully that will pay off!

I am concerned when people seem to be arguing against external view solely out of principle? I apologise if this isn't the case, but that's how it sometimes comes across. I don't want it, so let's not have it!

Surely it comes down to:-
1) Can it be offered without screwing up game play?
2) Is there's enough merit/interest in the feature?

FD will surely be weighing these up, and out of it we either will/won't get an external view.

I wouldn't like to think, they'll decide not to give a feature which they've (1) worked out can be offered, and (2) realise does have merit and is of interest, just to be different


Anyway, we'll see what they make of (1) and (2) I guess in the coming months.

 

[Theodrid]

I am concerned when people seem to be arguing against external view solely out of principle? I apologise if this isn't the case, but that's how it sometimes comes across. I don't want it, so let's not have it!

Surely it comes down to:-
1) Can it be offered without screwing up game play?
2) Is there's enough merit/interest in the feature?

FD will surely be weighing these up, and out of it we either will/won't get an external view.

I wouldn't like to think, they'll decide not to give a feature which they've (1) worked out can be offered, and (2) realise does have merit and is of interest, just to be different

It also comes down to whether or not FD want it in their game Neil

 

[NeilF]

You think!!!

We have been hitting this wall for many many many pages of this thread already!

Maybe... But some folks seem dead keen to keep building them up

Let's just agree to disagree. Some like the idea of the feature, others don't.

By all means explain merits/problems with an external view, but anything beyond that is fruitless.

FD will either give it to us or not.

 

[Memnoch]

It should be rather telling that of all the subjects that have appeared in the DDF, where FD really want our input on things such as how travelling will work and what happens when you shoot someone you shouldn't etc, not once has the subject of a third person view arisen. People should think on that....

 

[NeilF]

It also comes down to whether or not FD want it in their game Neil

True. But you'd think there'd obviously be reasoning being that choice Theodrid

ie: We don't want to have it because of X and/or Y.

 

[NeilF]

It should be rather telling that of all the subjects that have appeared in the DDF, where FD really want our input on things such as how travelling will work and what happens when you shoot someone you shouldn't etc, not once has the subject of a third person view arisen. People should think on that....

I've considered that before.

My take on that is they obviously know there is some interest in having the feature, but at the end of the day they need to work out if it can even be implemented without scuppering game play.

Personally I have a feeling - given the almost total lack of official talk on it as you point - that it isn't going to happen and we won't get it. But I'm hoping they've just put it on the back burner until the game is more complete to make a final decision. ie: The game play is in place before deciding if it breaks it or not.

We'll see hopefully later this year

 

[Theodrid]

True. But you're think they're obviously be reasoning being that choice Theodrid

Okay mate, and I do see your point here, but surely, if FDev had wanted to garner opinion, via a poll or whichever method, on a 3rdppov in their game, wouldn't they have done it by now?

We are approaching Alpha 4, the time for implementing and testing 3rdppov, (if Fdev wanted it or felt compelled from forum users to implement it), is running out.

Now, some of you may say, 'it's not a problem', 'it's fairly easy to implement' etc, but I would counter with the fact that the multi-player combat Alpha stage was the time if that was going to happen.

That is of course not to say that it 'won't' or 'can't' happen in the future but if it was to be in from launch then surely, by now, it would have been implemented and be under testing.

 

[NeilF]

Okay mate, and I do see your point here, but surely, if FDev had wanted to garner opinion, via a poll or whichever method, on a 3rdppov in their game, wouldn't they have done it by now?

True... But I suspect the desire/interest for an external view would be fairly obvious? It's a safe assumption to make that if it can be offered, players might enjoy using it?

We are approaching Alpha 4, the time for implementing and testing 3rdppov, (if Fdev wanted it or felt compelled from forum users to implement it), is running out.

I concur... So I'm getting worried personally.

Now, some of you may say, 'it's not a problem', 'it's fairly easy to implement' etc, but I would counter with the fact that the multi-player combat Alpha stage was the time if that was going to happen.

That is of course not to say that it 'won't' or 'can't' happen in the future but if it was to be in from launch then surely, by now, it would have been implemented and be under testing.

I don't see it as a difficult feature to have in the game myself. The difficulty (IMHO) clearly comes from if/how it sits with other game mechanics. And we've discussed this over and over, which maybe shows what a delicate matter it is.

This is why I think it FD may make the final decision to have an external view close to Beta time, when the game play mechanics are all (mostly) there, and they can see if an external view screws up anything.

It may well be at the moment they think it's a go'er, but in a few months when a few more game play elements are put in place, it becomes clear it isn't.

Maybe this is why they're so quiet on the matter, because at this time they simply don't know?

Alternatively, it's because they've already made their minds up. ie: No external view.


Personally I fear it's the latter. But I hope they simply haven't decided yet.