• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Jon Nathaniel

Recruit
Jan 25, 2020
4
3
This is not a thread about removing first-person options or about the merits of a full third-person option. I would definitely like a full third-person option. Yet, it appears time and budget makes a full third-person option not currently viable.

Therefore, this is a thread about working within those time and budget limitations. I understand how first-person games can be uncomfortable and headache inducing. So I pondered what could be a possible solution that may not take too much time or budget to add.

Note these possible options may only be available outside combat.

"Static Camera" option
The camera would be static.

Hot Spots - When players click "hot spots," like talking to a character, the camera cuts to the conversation. This bypasses the first-person walking camera.

Looking - Camera defaults to forward looking static camera.
Looking left, cuts to left camera.
Looking right, cuts to right camera.
Looking back (down), cuts to back camera.
Looking up, cuts to up angle camera.

So you can still see 360 degrees around (just without all the camera movement). Letting go (of left, right, up, down) cuts to default forward looking camera.

Moving - To bypass the first-person walking camera, camera cuts to X feet/meters ahead. If not clicking on a "hot spot," the optimal number would need to be tested.

"Cinematic Camera" option
Like the "static camera" option with some little extra touches. It may not need to bypass walking, it just handles it differently. While the character is heading X feet/meters ahead, a cinematic camera is active.

A traditional full third-person option usually requires animations for the full character. A cinematic approach could reduce all this work with extreme camera closeups.

For example...
Player exits a building.
Default front camera: dark alley.
Player presses button to move.
Camera cut: extreme closeup of the character's eyes. Character footsteps are heard.

If a sound effect happens, like a bottle breaking: cut to ears.
Else if a character is hungry: cut to mouth.
Else if a character has Auspex or near smoke: cut to nose.
Else if a character is in a Frenzy or has low Humanity: cut to fist.

Additional camera cuts could be to the environment, like nearby NPCs. Could also cut to other triggers like those mentioned above (broken bottle, smoke, etc.).

Character finishes walking, camera cuts to default front camera.

During the character closeups, we see the character moving in third-person. A gentle bob of the camera can give the impression of a fully animated walking character without all the work required to animate a full traditional third-person character.

These techniques could apply to combat as well. A second option could be a "cinematic combat" option. Maybe somewhere between a "quicktime event" to "Batman: Arkham" style auto-lock. I usually don't play games for the combat, but the story, so the option to make the combat less "twitch" response can work.

These cinematic options could feel more immersive, have a cinematic look and feel, and not be headache inducing.

Any alternative options or ways to refine these options (that would fall within the time and budget constraints)?
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
There is absolutely no chance that this is going to change, not with development finalizing and release approaching every day.

At this point the ship has long since sailed, Bloodlines 2 is not going to have consistent third-person gameplay.

I feel for those who strongly prefer it but y'all need to either adapt to it or vote with your wallets and buy some other game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand how first-person games can be uncomfortable and headache inducing.

I have played both first and third person games and i don't ask this to insult anybody, but where the problem would be? o_O

One could say 1P is more immersive, other can say that 3P give you a better perspective, but i for one don't see why one should be better than the other. Also i don't see where the uncomfortable and headache inducing thing would be :confused:
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
To clarify why some may find first-person uncomfortable and even headache inducing, its the camera zoom level and the related speed/motion of the entire field of vision.

For some, this causes different levels of motion sickness (mild to severe).

If one finds it uncomfortable to watch action movies late at night because there is too much action, that may be a related feeling.

Third-person is more zoomed out and the related speed/motion is slower (even though the characters are walking at the same speed).

The above suggested options are ways to minimize the speed/motion of the entire field of vision. These options could be useful to consider for now, post-launch, for the sequel, by the developers or even the modding community.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just out of curiosity, do people that get sick from FPS camera angles also get sick from the super ghetto approach games like oblivion and fallout 3 used to implement 3rd person play?

In other words is it the camera shaking or purely the perspective that causes nausea?

If it's just perspective, I would have thought that, a really basic over the shoulder angle seems like a realistic mod possibility. I mean it would look like shit unless the individual knew a fair bit about animation, but it's better than nothing right?
 
An over-the-shoulder camera may slightly help since less of the field of vision is moving (as the character is occupying some of it). Though I'm not sure if, by itself, it would significantly help or not.

If I recall correctly, Fallout 3 allowed the camera in third-person to be adjusted and could be zoomed out really far. The more zoomed out the camera is, the less likely it is to cause motion sickness.

I don't know if there is a magic number or formula. So I did a quick search and found this...

Every 3D game has a field of view angle. If the field of view is significantly different to what the eye/brain expects to see, it can result in motion sickness. This can be extreme, resulting in nausea and disorientation strong enough that play duration in excess of a few minutes can become impossible.

An appropriate viewing angle is usually 60 degrees for TV, 90 degrees for monitor.

Video explanation:

 
Last edited:
To clarify why some may find first-person uncomfortable and even headache inducing, its the camera zoom level and the related speed/motion of the entire field of vision.

For some, this causes different levels of motion sickness (mild to severe).

In Pillars of Eternity is the option to correct the colors for daltonic people, a good idea but not one mandatory on the industry. No offense, but this is the first time i heard of people getting sick from the perspective of a game. Which option the devs choose is their own decision, not many people will choose a perspective based on the health of other people. But now the only thing that can be done is to wait and see, when the game is out, if it's that bad and if there would be a patch or not. But these topic should have been started early not now a month after game leave alpha :(
 
I admit I don't understand. Why give us the opportunity to personalize our character if we never see him? (Sorry for my English, I'm French)
Because you do sometimes see them.

From What We Know So Far thread:
First-person with contextual third-person actions just like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Mankind Divided.
For example the camera briefly zips to third-person for particularly fast and elaborate maneuvers, like vaulting over an enemy and delivering a blow to their side.

In the gameplay videos we also saw that you see your character when they are dancing and when they climb up the side of a building.

It wouldn't surprise me if you also see yourself during other special situations, like perhaps a few cutscenes, but that's just a guess.
 
What is the logic of having skin variations if the game will be first person view?

I admit I don't understand. Why give us the opportunity to personalize our character if we never see him? (Sorry for my English, I'm French)

Maybe because many of the skins are for the weapons, and maybe, just maybe because as @Detective Malloy said that the game is in first person doesn't mean it will be that way all the game. This isn't Bioshock where the protagonist was just two hands :rolleyes:
 
In fact, the only option we lose is that we cannot admire the beauty of our avatar as it crosses the street in complete peace.
Which makes me ... and feel free to judge me ... quite sorry.

//edit:
Just forgot to say ...
For OT ... i dont like this idea. Sorry man, but i dont ... 3th person is great thing, and i believe it should be in any game today (meaning we have technology) at last as option, simmilar as in Bloodlines1 ...
But theese half maked compromises things seem just odd to me. :(
 
Last edited:
Which makes me ... and feel free to judge me ... quite sorry.
I am judging you.

....

Sympathetically.

(not all judgement is negative ;))
 
hmm, I didn't realize there wouldn't be third person. Guess I can't get this game then. My eyesight is too poor and first person headaches cause nausea and headaches. Was looking forward to this one.
 
hmm, I didn't realize there wouldn't be third person. Guess I can't get this game then. My eyesight is too poor and first person headaches cause nausea and headaches. Was looking forward to this one.

Sadly, I can't play either. To my eternal dismay, both 1st person games and IMAX theaters make me quite nauseous very quickly. :-(

It was awesome that both of the previous Vampire the Masquerade games included the 3rd person perspective because I really love the extensive Vampire Lore behind them and being able to immerse myself in the experience, without getting a throbbing headache, was always a treat! Holding out hope that the wonderful community we have will be able to create a 3rd person mod for Bloodlines 2 so people like us will eventually be able to enjoy it as well! <3
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
In Pillars of Eternity is the option to correct the colors for daltonic people, a good idea but not one mandatory on the industry. No offense, but this is the first time i heard of people getting sick from the perspective of a game. Which option the devs choose is their own decision, not many people will choose a perspective based on the health of other people. But now the only thing that can be done is to wait and see, when the game is out, if it's that bad and if there would be a patch or not. But these topic should have been started early not now a month after game leave alpha :(
They been going since the game was announced.