Yup. We wouldn't have gotten the debug cam if not for the community's demands. Hopefully, FD will cave regarding 3rd person too.
Why no 3rd person?
- Thread starter Victim
- Start date
- Status
Yup. We wouldn't have gotten the debug cam if not for the community's demands. Hopefully, FD will cave regarding 3rd person too.
The bizzare logical fallacy against this is typical of the neuroticism smothering this title.
Please, let's just throw a little clarity on the issue and lay bare the facts:
- switching to 3rd person view does not invoke the player impression that "i am now outside of my vehicle"; on the contrary, it further re-inforces the impression that "that is my vehicle which i am inside"
The freedom to view one's vehicle - or even avatar - in the 3rd person increases the player's identification with their in-game representation. It facillitates, obliges and encourages our imaginative inclination towards deeper engagement and thus 'immersion'.
I use scare quotes around that word to emphasise the dual-usage of the term, because it's context dependent - a crossword or book can be highly immersive in terms of imaginative engagement; ie. something engrossing, yet in the real world. But we also use the term to describe how 'complete' a VR experience is, the logical conclusion of which is full neural integration a la The Matrix, or perhaps Star Trek's holodecks etc.
These are two different definitions of "immersion" and they're at odds with eachother if we don't clearly differentiate our goals. Elite is a game in the real world, most of us don't yet have the option of personal VR portals to insert ourselves into the virtual world, and so immersion simply means compliance with the natural workarounds we apply when projecting our imaginations into an in-game presence on a screen.
Remember playing with toy cars as a kid? Or the first time you played Driver on the PSX? We automatically connect with and project an imaginative attachment to on-screen toys precisely because they're pliable and inviting and yeilding in the ways we want to manipulate them in order to connect with them. Viewing your ship externally pokes your imaginative curiosity - you want to see what your landing gear looks like as it operates, what your weapons bays look like, what damage and scuffs and wear on your ship looks like, what your thrusters look like as they fire. What your turning inertia looks like from a fixed position. All examples of better, and more immersion in the gameworld you're physically seperated from by a 2D screen and keyboard etc.
Obviously, in a 1st person VR experience you wouldn't want to be forced to use an inappropriate view, but ED already leads the way in VR integration so i see no fundamental reason why VR players couldn't also enjoy 3rd person views..
Please, let's just throw a little clarity on the issue and lay bare the facts:
- switching to 3rd person view does not invoke the player impression that "i am now outside of my vehicle"; on the contrary, it further re-inforces the impression that "that is my vehicle which i am inside"
The freedom to view one's vehicle - or even avatar - in the 3rd person increases the player's identification with their in-game representation. It facillitates, obliges and encourages our imaginative inclination towards deeper engagement and thus 'immersion'.
I use scare quotes around that word to emphasise the dual-usage of the term, because it's context dependent - a crossword or book can be highly immersive in terms of imaginative engagement; ie. something engrossing, yet in the real world. But we also use the term to describe how 'complete' a VR experience is, the logical conclusion of which is full neural integration a la The Matrix, or perhaps Star Trek's holodecks etc.
These are two different definitions of "immersion" and they're at odds with eachother if we don't clearly differentiate our goals. Elite is a game in the real world, most of us don't yet have the option of personal VR portals to insert ourselves into the virtual world, and so immersion simply means compliance with the natural workarounds we apply when projecting our imaginations into an in-game presence on a screen.
Remember playing with toy cars as a kid? Or the first time you played Driver on the PSX? We automatically connect with and project an imaginative attachment to on-screen toys precisely because they're pliable and inviting and yeilding in the ways we want to manipulate them in order to connect with them. Viewing your ship externally pokes your imaginative curiosity - you want to see what your landing gear looks like as it operates, what your weapons bays look like, what damage and scuffs and wear on your ship looks like, what your thrusters look like as they fire. What your turning inertia looks like from a fixed position. All examples of better, and more immersion in the gameworld you're physically seperated from by a 2D screen and keyboard etc.
Obviously, in a 1st person VR experience you wouldn't want to be forced to use an inappropriate view, but ED already leads the way in VR integration so i see no fundamental reason why VR players couldn't also enjoy 3rd person views..
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I somehow doubt it.
No, you probably don't.
skurvenyzmrd
Banned
so what, plenty of stuff in game that is unrealistic and anti-sim. dont see any issues having this enabled in solo only so the PvP crowd doesnt go bananas over some silly advantage in combat....
Precisely.
Many here seems to argue about breaking immersion and realism when the game as it is now does just that. Many things break the immersion already and even more things are unrealistic, not even plausible. So third person wouldn't do much difference there.
Also there is this great thread by NeilF:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=12464
Mike Evans:
...
Michael Brookes:
...
Sandro Sammarco:
...
PS
Again, I am not saying you shouldn't discuss about 3rd person (you should read the thread I linked above though), just stop making stuff up pleases
Thanks. I wasn't aware that they had made these specific comments before, but it is reassuring to know that they have and that I play this game for some of the right reasons. [up]
It's also kind of funny (in a good way) that the notion of "drone probes" came up too by the devs themselves and is still a possibility in the future.
This is well written, and I thoroughly agree.
Eloquent.
Why is that if I may ask?
Exceptionally well said sir!
As I mentioned in another thread, the biggest reason is because it would eliminate blind spots behind ships. This would take away the tactical advantage of sitting on the tail of your opponent (if you're being attacked from behind you can just see where the enemy is firing and apply a bit of lateral thrust, as opposed to trying to guess), so all fights would degenerate into jousting matches. It would also make it exponentially harder for pilots of small ships fighting large ones, because the large ship would be able to apply just the correct sideways or vertical thrust and smash the small ship trying to attack it. The small ship would be forced to joust the big one, and get easily picked off at range. External cameras work in atmospheric sims because airplanes have to keep moving forwards, they don't have six degrees of freedom like spacecraft.
Last edited:
As someone has already stated, if you can make proper use of your sensor. You are able to get the info needed to outmaneuver your opponent. Not to mention, there is a little hologram of your target to the left of the sensor that displays the current direction of the ship.
All the means are there to play the game from 1p with the 3p advantage. The sensor would not be displayed during 3p, of course. That should eliminate a few of these arguments.
I keep telling people about the 3d radar in the middle of their cockpit but nobody is listening
- Status