About the perspective

[Beowulf1990]

Well what the hell shall we call 1st person then? Iron mask view? Horse blinds view?

[ProjectAngel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural

It basically refers to somebody who uses the term "we" instead of "I" to refer to themselves. In your case I believe you are trying to imply you are representing the known worlds population on this forum.

As for wonder woman view, I think its an appropriate term for a mode that gives one a view only a superhero could have in a way that would astound medieval soldiers. That is unless the third person camera is going to sit right behind the soldiers head thereby restricting view and defeating the point of being wonder woman.

To speak in terms you use... "we" do not like the idea of floating behind the action rather than in it.

P.S. I should put a disclaimer on this though. Wishing to express that all of this banter is of course in good fun rather than being mean spirited.

If you knew what a "royal pro-noun" was then why did you ask me? At first I thought it might have been a dig at me, but when I checked back through the thread I realised at no point had I said "we" instead of "I", I realised it can't of been... Unless of course you used it completely out of context.

Funny thing is though, according to the people I have asked the vast majority want 3rd person and not 1st person so if I was to say, "we want third person over first person," then that would be a fair comment to make.

As for Wonder Woman view I still don't get it... Yes she flew around, but surely that would mean this term you have coined would be better suited to Birds-Eye View... (Oh wait, they already gave that one a suitible name. )

All that being said the big question is; Why do you keep going on about it? You know they are using first person in some instances, (you have been told as much on these forums before,) and there may even be a first person view you can use all the time, (granted we don't know this for sure just yet but we will in time.) So what's the problem?

[Robin.]

Isn't "wonder woman view" because she could see through the walls of the cockpit because her plane was invisible rather than that she was flying? you kinda tend to fly in most flight sims anyway

[MeryGamer]

If you knew what a "royal pro-noun" was then why did you ask me? At first I thought it might have been a dig at me, but when I checked back through the thread I realised at no point had I said "we" instead of "I", I realised it can't of been... Unless of course you used it completely out of context.

Great post. Now if we could just get Destraex to read it...

Of course it was obvious you were refering to scullyy in the "we", but I'm assuming Destreax was attempting humor and no one laughed. If read in the right mental tone, it sounds like a funny royal "we".

[Destraex]

Of course it was obvious you were refering to scullyy in the "we", but I'm assuming Destreax was attempting humor and no one laughed. If read in the right mental tone, it sounds like a funny royal "we".

Correct Merygamer, it was an attempt at humor. I assumed because of the British avatar he had that he would immediately notice he had said "we" and with a Royal Family in Britain, I assumed he would be familiar with the term "royal pronoun".

In a recent post here you see a few of us were discussing how we hated when some members of the community assumed they spoke for everybody. For this is what "we" essentially means when one uses it on a forum. Since the forum is the only "group" here this is the logical representation of we where another group is not otherwise stated.

Its not obvious on a 30 page thread who somebody means when they say "we". One can only assume they mean everybody. Having the assumed support of the entire community is a patently unfare advantage

Robin you are correct about the "original" meaning of wonder woman view. However in the flight simulator communities I have been a member of (I have been a member of several clans and am a member of a more universal clan presently that plays FPS games among other things) the term is increasingly being used as more representing my other "wonder woman" points above.
No matter though as I consider it an appropriate term because essentially "third person" means that you not only have an invisible aircraft allowing you to be a super hero, but you can float like some kind of spectre behind your body, allowing all round views. Now if you put the view right behind the players head, then you may aswell be in FPS mode.

[ProjectAngel]

Correct Merygamer, it was an attempt at humor. I assumed because of the British avatar he had that he would immediately notice he had said "we" and with a Royal Family in Britain, I assumed he would be familiar with the term "royal pronoun".

In a recent post here you see a few of us were discussing how we hated when some members of the community assumed they spoke for everybody. For this is what "we" essentially means when one uses it on a forum. Since the forum is the only "group" here this is the logical representation of we where another group is not otherwise stated.

Its not obvious on a 30 page thread who somebody means when they say "we". One can only assume they mean everybody. Having the assumed support of the entire community is a patently unfare advantage

Robin you are correct about the "original" meaning of wonder woman view. However in the flight simulator communities I have been a member of (I have been a member of several clans and am a member of a more universal clan presently that plays FPS games among other things) the term is increasingly being used as more representing my other "wonder woman" points above.
No matter though as I consider it an appropriate term because essentially "third person" means that you not only have an invisible aircraft allowing you to be a super hero, but you can float like some kind of spectre behind your body, allowing all round views. Now if you put the view right behind the players head, then you may aswell be in FPS mode.

I'm sorry but to be fair you are the only person on these forums who keeps complaining about third person. Everyone else seems to be happy to have an option for both first and third.

Just to clear it up as well, yes I used the word "we" and it was appropriate to do so as I am not the only one here who shares my view. At no point did I say the full community supported anything I said, I simply made it clear that I am not the only one who is bored of coming to these forums to read another one of your posts about Wonder Woman. (Much easier to say "we" rather than compile a list of names...)

[Kator Viridian]

I'm sorry but to be fair you are the only person on these forums who keeps complaining about third person. Everyone else seems to be happy to have an option for both first and third.

Just to clear it up as well, yes I used the word "we" and it was appropriate to do so as I am not the only one here who shares my view. At no point did I say the full community supported anything I said, I simply made it clear that I am not the only one who is bored of coming to these forums to read another one of your posts about Wonder Woman. (Much easier to say "we" rather than compile a list of names...)

+1

The approval of the word We.

Wonder woman view? Surely he must of meant Birdseye view ... or am I just repeating? ... Yep I think I am.

[Siegbert85]

+1

The approval of the word We.

+1

[ProjectAngel]

Make it like mount and blade that you yourself choose between 1st and 3rd person please.

This should be the issue in this thread and I think it is something we all, (,) can agree on. Give us the choice to play in both first or third person please.

[Destraex]

much better But I think we need one step further for full realism servers. An option to turn off third person all together.
Just remember that when I am coming for you, I will be screaming "You Wonder Woman!!!", just before I die. :P

Also the +1 is a much more appropriate way to count peoples agreement than "we".

so say we all.

[Beowulf1990]

much better But I think we need one step further for full realism servers. An option to turn off third person all together.
Just remember that when I am coming for you, I will be screaming "You Wonder Woman!!!", just before I die. :P

Also the +1 is a much more appropriate way to count peoples agreement than "we".

so say we all.

I still don't agree that 1st person is any more realistic than 3rd and neither do a lot of other people here.

You annoying bastard

EDIT

My post count is now in HD, aaaawwww yeahhhh!!!

[Comrade Chaos]

I'd do first person with a Track IR. If not, I'm going third-person.

[Digu21]

If you stand and try to watch where the character possibly couldnt. Like a wall corner, make it blurry or something, like fog of war in strategy games..

An idea, but I like the game now as it is.. Choosing 1st person and 3rd person, is somewhat bothering.

[captain lust]

The whole wonderwoman argument is totally moot anyway. In flight simulators, you're not facing against anyone... you have to create your own "hard mode".

In multiplayer games, you have the same information available to you as your enemy so it doesn't matter what you can see as long as there's reasonable scope for players to develop their abilities and improve beyond each other. There is no "hard" or "easy" mode.

[Destraex]

The whole wonderwoman argument is totally moot anyway. In flight simulators, you're not facing against anyone... you have to create your own "hard mode".

In multiplayer games, you have the same information available to you as your enemy so it doesn't matter what you can see as long as there's reasonable scope for players to develop their abilities and improve beyond each other. There is no "hard" or "easy" mode.

?? In flight simulators you are either facing AI or real players. Being able to see below by looking through your aircraft is a big advantage. If the server allows some people can and will turn off the cockpit and fly "naked" like a superhero.

In multiplayer games of war of the roses I assume that unless close in radars are developed for the interface not everybody will have the same view information.

From what you are saying I think you are assuming that people will always be facing each other face to face, nose to nose, direct front. If that was the case their would be no need for third person view at all. I am assuming that the devs are using third person view simply because you can use your peripheral vision. and you can see that stab coming from the left or right.

I am simply saying this takes away from realism and immersion when their must be a better way to impliment a peripheral vision system. In addition I am saying that third person partially blocks your view of what your own weapon is doing and and allows a much better peripheral vision than any human would ever have.

A better peripheral vision system may involve a series of "glimpses" which momentarily showed you what you might feel when somebody runs into you or hits you from behind. Or the sound of an axe coming down to the left. That sort of thing. Even just showing the peripheral from first person, so you can see to your shoulders on the first person screen. like one of those cameras that takes a photo of a semi cirlce of people and the result is a flat line of people.

[Beowulf1990]

That would just be annoyon as fark, the way I'm picturing it at least.

[Alex_C]

?? In flight simulators you are either facing AI or real players. Being able to see below by looking through your aircraft is a big advantage. If the server allows some people can and will turn off the cockpit and fly "naked" like a superhero.

What exactly is the issue with them doing that if it's the best strategic choice then?

In multiplayer games of war of the roses I assume that unless close in radars are developed for the interface not everybody will have the same view information.

From what you are saying I think you are assuming that people will always be facing each other face to face, nose to nose, direct front. If that was the case their would be no need for third person view at all. I am assuming that the devs are using third person view simply because you can use your peripheral vision. and you can see that stab coming from the left or right.

Every player will have the same ability to have the same information. If you manage to miss someone, it's your fault; you had the capacity to see them. Hence "you have the same information available to you as your enemy", rather than "you have the same information as your enemy."

I am simply saying this takes away from realism and immersion when their must be a better way to impliment a peripheral vision system. In addition I am saying that third person partially blocks your view of what your own weapon is doing and and allows a much better peripheral vision than any human would ever have.

Unless the melee system is radically different from Warband's, it's not possible to effectively fight in first person. Whilst it does partially block your view of the weapon, that doesn't actually matter, as long as each of the animations is distinctive enough, you don't need to be seeing the whole of your weapon in order to know which attack/block you're performing.

Not gonna argue with the whole realism/immersion thing since I really don't see that as very important in a multiplayer game.

[Destraex]

What exactly is the issue with them doing that if it's the best strategic choice then?
(i) the issues is that it is not only unmanly and unchivalrous, it is also akin to cheating because it is such a huge unrealistic advantage. This on top of the fact that the game is supposed to represent its subject matter and
cannot do this by giving somebody a view that does not even exist for modern pilots yet. Apart from that it ruins immersion. You may as well just not have the combat flight simulator and call it "fantasy flight" or "flight of fancy". Do what
ever you like however you like becomes the aim of the game. Pointless really. But good for people without skill. You could call it a learning mode for newbs I guess.


Every player will have the same ability to have the same information. If you manage to miss someone, it's your fault; you had the capacity to see them. Hence "you have the same information available to you as your enemy", rather than "you have the same information as your enemy."
(ii) Games that even the playing field thus turn people into one man armies with no need for their companions. Everybody should see what they would see standing and holding a weapon in armour. Nothing more and nothing less. Get your buddies to protect your back just like the real deal. Much more interesting than "hero mode".



Unless the melee system is radically different from Warband's, it's not possible to effectively fight in first person. Whilst it does partially block your view of the weapon, that doesn't actually matter, as long as each of the animations is distinctive enough, you don't need to be seeing the whole of your weapon in order to know which attack/block you're performing.
(iii) This does not address the whole "I have a third eye" view point. It does not change the fact that you will see much more than you are supposed to with third person view. If you do not then their you may as well be first person.
I agree it is a smaller less important point that you cannot see through your own body.

Not gonna argue with the whole realism/immersion thing since I really don't see that as very important in a multiplayer game.
(iv) Well I cannot convince you if you think a multiplayer game should not need to immerse the player or suspend his or her disbelief.....
me, I like to think that a game like this can be fun but also teach and show you as near as possible what it would be like to be a medieval soldier.
What was possible and what was not. How different tactics and teamwork were used and the art of war. Not just a standard simple hack and slash fantasy dungeon romp

Answered above.

[Alex_C]

(i) the issues is that it is not only unmanly and unchivalrous, it is also akin to cheating because it is such a huge unrealistic advantage. This on top of the fact that the game is supposed to represent its subject matter and
cannot do this by giving somebody a view that does not even exist for modern pilots yet. Apart from that it ruins immersion. You may as well just not have the combat flight simulator and call it "fantasy flight" or "flight of fancy". Do what
ever you like however you like becomes the aim of the game. Pointless really. But good for people without skill. You could call it a learning mode for newbs I guess.

lol at the supermanlyhonour rules. If every player has access to it, and it's a well-recognised and intentional part of the game, it's most certainly not akin to cheating. If more experienced players are choosing to handicap themselves by not taking advantage of one particular aspect of the game, that's their choice, but they have no room to complain if they get beaten by someone making the smart choice.

(ii) Games that even the playing field thus turn people into one man armies with no need for their companions. Everybody should see what they would see standing and holding a weapon in armour. Nothing more and nothing less. Get your buddies to protect your back just like the real deal. Much more interesting than "hero mode".

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'games that even the playing field'. In what way do you want the playing field to be uneven? The fact that you have the capacity to have access to the same visual information as your enemies/friends does not by necessity turn the game into one in which only individual skill is required, so I'm not really sure how you're coming to that conclusion.

(iii) This does not address the whole "I have a third eye" view point. It does not change the fact that you will see much more than you are supposed to with third person view. If you do not then their you may as well be first person.
I agree it is a smaller less important point that you cannot see through your own body.

Who is supposing how much I should be able to see in third-person mode?

(iv) Well I cannot convince you if you think a multiplayer game should not need to immerse the player or suspend his or her disbelief.....
me, I like to think that a game like this can be fun but also teach and show you as near as possible what it would be like to be a medieval soldier.
What was possible and what was not. How different tactics and teamwork were used and the art of war. Not just a standard simple hack and slash fantasy dungeon romp

I guess being a medieval soldier was awfully similar to pressing a load of buttons in order to kill people then. With that attitude, I hope you never play GTA.

[Destraex]

lol at the supermanlyhonour rules. If every player has access to it, and it's a well-recognised and intentional part of the game, it's most certainly not akin to cheating. If more experienced players are choosing to handicap themselves by not taking advantage of one particular aspect of the game, that's their choice, but they have no room to complain if they get beaten by someone making the smart choice.



I'm not really sure what you mean by 'games that even the playing field'. In what way do you want the playing field to be uneven? The fact that you have the capacity to have access to the same visual information as your enemies/friends does not by necessity turn the game into one in which only individual skill is required, so I'm not really sure how you're coming to that conclusion.

Would you perhaps prefer rocket jumping swords?


Who is supposing how much I should be able to see in third-person mode?



I guess being a medieval soldier was awfully similar to pressing a load of buttons in order to kill people then. With that attitude, I hope you never play GTA.

Mr Alex. You seem to have intentionally ignored the spirit of everything in my post, the reasoning behind them also completely eludes you.
I will not explain further at this time except to say... a lot more people than me enjoy simulators and all the games in between that create an ambiance of realism and fun.

In fact this game aims to be relatively real when it comes to medieval combat. Its just mashing keys but they want it to seem as real as you can get. That much is obvious just
by looking at the system they are putting in place to allow better combat than M&B.

With that last reference to GTA, what say you to the medieval re-enactors we have here? They go a few steps further than mashing keys and study the art of medieval combat
fairly seriously? What are you saying to them? Are you saying they are blood thirsty maniacs that want to kill people for fun?