In SWBF, the main reason I like 3rd person is that I can see precisely where I am, when to jump, when I'm backed up against a wall. Thing's I'd normally see IRL in peripheral vision but can't in 1st person view in the game.

When the camera goes to the side too much it totally messes that up, because while i may see where my feet are, or maybe not even, They don't go straight ahead, and it makes it hard to aim. I'm constantly sweeping left and right just trying to walk or shoot straight.

Marth8880 wrote:Ugh. I have always hated the direct-rear camera in SWBF(2), I feel like I can't see a single thing in front of me.

That is an interesting perception and it didn't sync with my experience, so I did a quick comparison.

Four source images: Overlaid comparison areas: You'll notice that the best chance you have to see in front of you is when you're in the standard SWBF2 third-person, because you have the greatest "close" field-of-view as well as the greatest side-to-side range (note that the diagram isn't 1:1 - anything closer to you uses noticeably more screen real estate, a la a "fisheye" lens). The advantage that first-person and skewed-third-person offers is similar, which is the exchange of close and broad FOV for an extended height in your FOV. It's also likely that it's marginally better at long-range, which is lent credence by the (vanilla) game using the skewed-third-person as an alternate zoom. Personally, I can't see why that's ever a worthwhile tradeoff (unless you are perhaps in a game where you're doing a lot of moving up).

I think the reason the skewed-third-person is so popular has to do with its hybridization of first- and third-person. It gives the "immersive" feel of the first person (the camera's a lot tighter to the player) while still giving the opportunity to show a player model up-close. From an artistic point-of-view, that's completely valid. I, as a player, don't care for it, because it reduces my sheer mechanical advantage. Not to mention it asks me to bear the brunt of the dissonance between what the game says is directly in front of me (i.e. my reticle) and what the camera says is in front of me (i.e. anything in front of the player model).

You'll notice that the only time you're ever going to "not see a single thing in front of you" is if it's within about three meters of you (<10') and skinnier than your player model. I've never been in a situation in this game where things are popping into view at that distance.

I appreciate you taking the time to show us the comparisons.

What it really comes down to is what it feels like to us. Despite not needing to see something direction in front of the player on a regular basis, the screen feels awkward to us when the camera is looking down at the player, rather than looking behind the player. The only way to allow the camera to be close to the player's height, is to offset it to the side. We enjoy the camera being a lot tighter to the player.

I started playing 1st/3rd games with JKA, and the JKA manual might say this, but I think 3rd was meant for agility and knowing where you are in your environment, which works great for saber duels and is fine for most shooting, and 1st is for precision shooting, but loses out on agility and awareness. Therefore if I want a tight camera at a loss of awareness, I'll go 1st person. I won't like a 3rd person that doesn't have the camera centered because it loses that bit of awareness and agility that I'm using 3rd to gain in the first place.

Illustration of my thoughts on cameras: Oh also, at what distance is the reticule accurate? Not that convergence is hard set in SWBF, cannons on the wings of fighters and on tanks generally compensate dynamically for whatever the reticule is pointed at, but what about leading shots? Those won't adjust for the target, but for what's behind it. In space, that's infinity. Shots won't converge on target on a deflection shot, so if you made an AI for an ARC 170 that always perfectly calculates lead shots on a fast moving Tri-droid, it'll never hit unless directly behind a droid that flies straight, because the guns are too far away from the camera. Translate that to a trooper firing at a running enemy 10m away with a camera 1m to his right, but his reticule rests on a wall 50m away past the enemy. SWBF would adjust to hit the wall at the reticule, rendering the reticule useless and the shooter must spray until he can get a manual compensation by watching his tracers and therefore has even less precise firing.

Honestly, every time I've played a mod with side camera, I've immediately attempted to go to first person. But it's never there to use, so I don't like the mod as much as I might.

THEWULFMAN wrote:I appreciate you taking the time to show us the comparisons.

What it really comes down to is what it feels like to us. Despite not needing to see something direction in front of the player on a regular basis, the screen feels awkward to us when the camera is looking down at the player, rather than looking behind the player. The only way to allow the camera to be close to the player's height, is to offset it to the side. We enjoy the camera being a lot tighter to the player.

There's another way to put the camera close to the player's height - it's called "first-person." The point I was trying to make above is that a skewed-third-person is trying to have your cake and eat it too (and failing at it, mechanically). This off-center third-person is third-person-in-name-only, because it offers none of the mechanical advantages of third-person views. It's an entirely artistic choice - which is fine - but the notion that people would like it because it "feels better" seems like an attempt to justify something that one has become accustomed to.

I mean, on one hand, who am I to argue with subjective experience, but on the other hand, you're (objectively) a little crazy to say an artistic choice feels mechanically superior.

Edit: Kinetosimpetus - hilarious, and way more concise than the point I was going to try to make about innate bilateral symmetry.

I've never really ever had a single problem aiming my shots with (specifically) the Mass Effect camera in SWBF2 - but then, I've also played my mod literally thousands of times and the shot behavior is probably hard-coded into my mind by this point.

Semi-off-topic: Has anybody ever gotten a full set of custom FPM animations working before in SWBF2? Specifically reload and fire_secondary animations? Also, what's the deal exactly with ironsights? Wasn't the problem being with odd camera views due to different players having different aspect ratios or something, or was it purely display resolution, or what?

i dont care about the views. I think it would be like in the other swbf games, so they dont loose old fans. the most important thing is for me that the game has the following (noMatts wishlist)

- Realistic Graphics (so i hope that they dont do a fast development)
- Cutscenes/fast gameplay in Campaign (but it should stay star wars like)
- Jedi's and sith (Heros vs Villians would be AWESOME)
- Modtools (i know, already announced that they wont be there, but maybe comunity made )
- Principal Gameplay like in SWBF: Conquest, assault, space battles usw
- Something that makes a diffrence between Star Wars: Battlefront and the old SWBFs

What, you don't want physics?

Also, DICE doesn't really do fast developments; it knows what it's doing.

Marth8880 wrote:What, you don't want physics?

SWBF1 and 2 have physics, but some may argue that it could use some new animations for tumbling and the like.

noMatt wrote:- Cutscenes/fast gameplay in Campaign (but it should stay star wars like)

I hope there's not too many cutscenes. I liked how SWBF2 did it; a quick, short movie of what happened and what you were about to face.

noMatt wrote:- Modtools (i know, already announced that they wont be there, but maybe comunity made )

Well hey, be my guest! Someone will probably find out how to mod the Frostbite engine but it's a matter of how difficult it would be for everyone else to use.

Noobasaurus wrote:

Marth8880 wrote:What, you don't want physics?

SWBF1 and 2 have physics, but some may argue that it could use some new animations for tumbling and the like.

Basic velocity and fake gravity is hardly anything - the most realistic (or at least most customizable) physics are in hover and walker vehicles.

@Marth

Yeah, the problem with iron-sights is it's a hackish workaround adding the msh to the HUD instead of as an animation or even as a scope texture, which was attempted first, but we couldn't access or override the 4-way symmetric scope HUD element, and yeah, i made a few iron-sights on a 4:3 resolution debugger and then they don't look good in the 16:9 regular game on my screen.

Maveritchell wrote:There's another way to put the camera close to the player's height - it's called "first-person." The point I was trying to make above is that a skewed-third-person is trying to have your cake and eat it too (and failing at it, mechanically). This off-center third-person is third-person-in-name-only, because it offers none of the mechanical advantages of third-person views. It's an entirely artistic choice - which is fine - but the notion that people would like it because it "feels better" seems like an attempt to justify something that one has become accustomed to.

I mean, on one hand, who am I to argue with subjective experience, but on the other hand, you're (objectively) a little crazy to say an artistic choice feels mechanically superior.

I don't know where I messed up, but there's a miscommunication here.

THEWULFMAN wrote:What it really comes down to is what it feels like to us.

What I'm trying to saw is that it feels like this way to Marth and me. I'm not most people, my opinions and points of view are often odd and the minority. I never said it was mechanically superior or that other people would/should like it because it "feels better". I'm saying that it's the only way 3rd person feels right to Marth and me, and we enjoy it that way. Centered 3rd-person might be the best mechanically, but it feels awkward to us.

I rarely ever enjoy 1st-person in games because it's done so poorly. SWBF2 is one of the worst offenders. Mirror's Edge is the only game I've played so far that captured the feeling of motion and immersion that 1st-person should have. Thus I rarely use 1st-person in SWBF2.

I've only really played two shooters (and I only one one ): Cod and the SWBFs and from my very limited experience from shooters is that (for me) 3rd person is far superior to 1st (except minecraft ) because of the reasons stated above: I actually can tell where I am, as opposed to a rough guesstemate (such as if your by a ledge you want to jump over) and I can usually see if theres someone next to me. This is why I hope they have full 3rd person. Theres my two cents I guess

Hmm... That was one of those strange posts where the two parties "agree to disagree" but then continue posting about it.
Anyway, I'm 100% behind the straight third-person camera.





(See what I did there?! Hahahaha.... ha.)


EDIT: Ninja'd by Cleb!

While I agree with marth/wulf that I enjoy the feeling of the off-center 3rd person much more than the over-the-head stock SWBFII version, I can't really argue that it gives you a mechanical advantage (and I don't think anyone has). Either way, I think the most important thing to get out of this "third person component" is that DICE is listening to what fans are asking for, and at the least considering them.
Also, we could get the best of both worlds, switchable 1st/3rd person, and custom camera settings for 3rd person (which I find unlikely). Personally, I'm more worried about an instant action feature than 1st/3rd person anyhow.

Here is another player perspective on 1st and 3rd person--I get motion sick when playing as 1st person--and I am not the only one. The 3rd person keeps me "grounded" somehow that 1st doesn't. So I hope there is an option for both in the new release.

As far as physics goes, I prefer BF2's tumble animations over most ragdolls. In particular, if you get launched by a giant in Skyrim the ragdoll mechanics force you into a T-pose. Tumbling animations are nice enough.

That said, Frostbite 3. So you're probably going to get physics on as much as humanly possible.

I prefer 3rd person because I find it easier to use. Like what people said above I can really see where I am. And it lets you take in the nice environments.

3rd person and instant action will be the deciding factor if I'm going to spend $60 on a game. I got SWBFII for $5 so...


JUST IN!

{PLA}gdh92 at SWBFgamers.com wrote: There's a long wait if this stories' accurate. http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/01/star-wars ... 5-3907565/

It makes sense as a date.

I think this is good news! It gives them plenty of time to create a good game. But hey, SWBFI and II were both developed in a years time so this better be amazing!

kitfisto15678 wrote:JUST IN!

{PLA}gdh92 at SWBFgamers.com wrote: There's a long wait if this stories' accurate. http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/01/star-wars ... 5-3907565/

It makes sense as a date.

I think this is good news! It gives them plenty of time to create a good game. But hey, SWBFI and II were both developed in a years time so this better be amazing!

This is mixed for me because on one hand, I can't stand waiting and it will probably have VII stuff in it which will probably be not that great but on the other hand the game will be a lot better.

Cleb wrote:it will probably have VII stuff in it which will probably be not that great

I would just like to point out that SWBF2 had stuff from Episode III right around the time it came out which were, arguably, some of the more popular maps, units, and vehicles. And even from the community perspective, I'd say more mods were created surrounding the Prequel Trilogy than for the Original. See: the numerous legion skin mods, multiple planets introduced in the Prequels turned into maps, the bountiful amounts of Geonosis mods, etc etc etc.

Tl;dr give Episode VII a fair chance before judging it.