TES V: Skyrim *'*'BEARDS CONFIRMED'*'*

[flowerthief]

That still turns arguments for what counts as good controls on its head for all but the most hardcore gamers. My examples from above still apply; if, for instance, you play enough of a game in which the button inputs are ridiculously complex, it will make you better at games where you have to push buttons fast. But I think most players find button inputs that are not ridiculously complex to better facilitate their enjoyment of the game.

As for mouse vs. joystick, I think, if anything, joystick is harder to get used to.

Btw, here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia page on 3rd person shooters (which also applies to 3rd person games generally):

This difference in perspective also has an impact on gameplay. Third-person shooters allow players to see the area surrounding the avatar more clearly. This viewpoint facilitates more interaction between the character and their surrounding environment, such as the use of tactical cover in Gears of War, or navigating tight quarters. As such, the third-person perspective is better for interacting with objects in the game world, such as jumping on platforms, engaging in close combat, or driving a vehicle. However, the third-person perspective can interfere with tasks that require fine aiming.

I suppose that article has it all wrong because it didn't take spatial reasoning into account?

I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how a series such as Uncharted with all of its ledge-hopping and ledge-climbing could possibly have been as much fun as it was had it all been in 1st person.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

I suppose that article has it all wrong because it didn't take spatial reasoning into account?

Umm, yes? Is it really that hard to believe a wikipedia article could be wrong? It wouldn't be the first time.

As far as a controller vs a mouse I can guarantee you, if you have two skilled players, one with controller one with mouse, playing something like a shooter against each other, the one with the mouse and keyboard will win every time. It has nothing to do with getting used to controls, it has to do with the controls themselves. You might think one or the other is more "fun", but in terms of winning a game, one is definitely better than the other.

First vs third person is a similar story, although you may think one is more fun, first person view lets a skilled player do more.

 

[Venetia]

LOL

It's REALLY AND HONESTLY a PREFERENCE thing, when comparing a NICELY RIPENED APPLE to a NICELY RIPENED ORANGE.

 

[So fist]

NO 1ST PERSON IS SUPERIOR THAT IS WHY IT IS 1ST.

 

[So fist]

APPLES ARE BETTER THAN ORANGES

 

[flowerthief]

DeM0nFiRe:
I wouldn't argue that a mouse isn't better than a joystick for aiming any more than I would argue that 1st person isn't better than 3rd person for aiming. What I find stunning is that you won't acknowledge any control advantage that 3rd person could ever have over 1st. Taken to its logical conclusion, such a position implies that any developer incorporating 3rd person view into a game is committing a design blunder, or wasting their time at best. It implies that every 3D game which uses any amount of 3rd person view would have been better had it used 1st person view exclusively. God of War, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Infamous, etc, all fundamentally flawed.

And those are just Western examples for starters. The Japanese, obviously, hardly ever bother with 1st person view. So nearly every Japanese 3D game that has ever been made is fundamentally flawed, huh? Except the Metroid Prime series, I suppose; one of the few prominent Japan-made 1st person games I can think of off the top of my head. But wait, Metroid Prime uses some 3rd person view, iirc. I guess it's flawed too. Why did they bother to do such a silly thing?

Well, if that's your position, so be it. Me, I'm glad the gaming world does have both apples and oranges.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

DeM0nFiRe:
I wouldn't argue that a mouse isn't better than a joystick for aiming any more than I would argue that 1st person isn't better than 3rd person for aiming. What I find stunning is that you won't acknowledge any control advantage that 3rd person could ever have over 1st. Taken to its logical conclusion, such a position implies that any developer incorporating 3rd person view into a game is committing a design blunder, or wasting their time at best. It implies that every 3D game which uses any amount of 3rd person view would have been better had it used 1st person view exclusively. God of War, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Infamous, etc, all fundamentally flawed.

And those are just Western examples for starters. The Japanese, obviously, hardly ever bother with 1st person view. So nearly every Japanese 3D game that has ever been made is fundamentally flawed, huh? Except the Metroid Prime series, I suppose; one of the few prominent Japan-made 1st person games I can think of off the top of my head. But wait, Metroid Prime uses some 3rd person view, iirc. I guess it's flawed too. Why did they bother to do such a silly thing?

Well, if that's your position, so be it. Me, I'm glad the gaming world does have both apples and oranges.

No, you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. You were talking about how you COULDN'T UNDERSTAND how anyone could use first person. Well, I showed you a scientific study showing how first person can quite easily be considered better than third. I feel that the majority of games should include both first and third person, because obviously which one you actually use is up to you. I was just trying to illustrate how someone could quite easily find ground to say first person is better than third person.

Oh, also all of those games you listed are flawed, but not because of 3rd person :P How can you really use GRAND THEFT AUTO for your example of a game that COULDNT POSSIBLY BE FLAWED.

 

[seven]

guys don't be angry

Look at this russian oblivion mod:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTchuHwzULg

 

[flowerthief]

No, you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. You were talking about how you COULDN'T UNDERSTAND how anyone could use first person. Well, I showed you a scientific study showing how first person can quite easily be considered better than third. I feel that the majority of games should include both first and third person, because obviously which one you actually use is up to you. I was just trying to illustrate how someone could quite easily find ground to say first person is better than third person.

I couldn't understand how anyone could use 1st person exclusively (or 3rd person exclusively for that matter). It seems obvious to me that they both have their advantages in different situations. If you don't agree with that, then about the only reason you would want games to include both would be so that players at least have the freedom to play from an inferior point of view if they really want to, wouldn't it? If 1st person is simply better _period_, as you've insisted, then no developers should be saying to themselves, "What pov setup would be appropriate here?" They should instead be saying, "We better put 3rd person in just to please the players who don't know what's best."

Thankfully, developers do ask the former question. They sometimes work both povs into a game in such a way as to capitalize on the respective strengths of each. That is, not allowing players to use the pov they choose, but deliberately forcing them into different povs at different times as appropriate for the situation.

For instance, I believe Metroid Prime switches to 3rd person automatically when Samus is in ball form (correct me if I'm wrong). Resident Evil 4 & 5, Gears of War, Uncharted, and the like default to 3rd person but go into a kind of 1st person automatically when the player lifts his gun. I and many others thought that was an important breakthrough when it was first done, but I suppose to you it would have been utterly pointless. There's no reason to make design decisions such as these if you think that one pov is always better than the other.

Oh, also all of those games you listed are flawed, but not because of 3rd person :P How can you really use GRAND THEFT AUTO for your example of a game that COULDNT POSSIBLY BE FLAWED.

From the context, I think it was clear that I meant flawed because of the use of 3rd person view. I wouldn't dream of claiming that any of the games I listed "COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE FLAWED". All games have flaws. (However, I did deliberately mention Uncharted first, as that is a series held by most critics to have done pretty much everything right, the gameplay of which is built around 3rd person)

 

[Jason]

... Don't listen to DeM0nFiRe lol, he thought consoles couldn't go higher than 30FPS...

 

[Spoo]

Another collector's edition I won't be buying.

$150 for a 12" plastic dragon, a DVD, and a map. Totally not worth it, IMO.

 

[Mega Flare]

i might get the collectors edition... that dragon looks awesome :x

 

[psiclone]

and people like you are the reason companies get away with these kinds of things..

in comparison:

 

[Spoo]

:x

were you referring to me or mega, psiclone?

Anyways, I'm still a little disappointed that mysticism is gone; moving stuff via telekinesis was a cool feature. Of course, soul trap is returning in another spell category, so it's reasonable to assume telekinesis could be back, too.

 

[psiclone]

whoops, was referring to mega

my point about that post was that collector editions of games are a 100% waste of money a huge majority of the time. in the case of the witcher 2, though, it looks like a really good deal. however, i will never, ever, ever, ever buy a collector's edition because they're such a complete waste of money, as is highly evident in the skyrim pack. ESPECIALLY compared to witcher 2's.

people are just so gullible and spend all that money on those worthless things.

"oh. my. god. becky, look at this stuff. it's.. a map. OH MY GOD!!!!"

yeah.. no ty.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Well, the Fallout 3 Collector's edition was pretty bad ass, I think it was only like $70 and came with a lot of cool stuff. If I had money at the time I probably would have got it.

 

[Mega Flare]

whoops, was referring to mega

my point about that post was that collector editions of games are a 100% waste of money a huge majority of the time. in the case of the witcher 2, though, it looks like a really good deal. however, i will never, ever, ever, ever buy a collector's edition because they're such a complete waste of money, as is highly evident in the skyrim pack. ESPECIALLY compared to witcher 2's.

people are just so gullible and spend all that money on those worthless things.

"oh. my. god. becky, look at this stuff. it's.. a map. OH MY GOD!!!!"

yeah.. no ty.

well some of us like wasting money... look at everyone who bought a 3DS lawl

 

[Venetia]

dude what
i still BETTER get the map if i get the regular version.

i have the maps from every game as posters

they better not fucking gyp me b/c i don't feel like paying $100 extra for a dragon thing

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

I think I remember them saying that the game will still come with the gloss paper map, but the collector's will have a larger, cloth map.

 

[Spoo]

find it on ebay post-release. it po's me too; i was actually going to frame my maps and put them on my wall and sort of design my gaming space around those.