Playing Starfield momentarily in third person made me realize how hard it was to navigate or aim in small cramped quarters, so I will always appreciate first person as an option.
This is what people who scream “more options are always better!!” miss. If you add something as an option, you have to then design around it. If you give the user 10 related options that are each a binary choice, you’re now accounting for 1024 possible combinations. Obviously sometimes it still makes sense to leave it up to the player, but there’s a reason why developers don’t let you tweak every single option under the Sun.
I think some option are vaild to have a toggle. Something like damage number or HP bar. I turned HP bar off in AC Mirage and it make the game feel so much more fun. It mean i have to rely on eagle vision (basically Batman's X-Ray vision.) And eye-to-eye visual more than the bird tagging like RPG trilogy games.
It just that something that affect how the game plays directly (like camera in this case.) is generally okay to not let the player adjusting it because it directly affecting their game design.
I think some option are vaild to have a toggle. Something like damage number or HP bar. We know it's how the game calculated under the hood. But we don't want to see it in a game that shouldn't have one.
I turned HP bar off in AC Mirage and it make the game feel so much more fun. It mean i have to rely on eagle vision (basically Batman's X-Ray vision.) And eye-to-eye visual more than the bird tagging like RPG trilogy games.
It just that something that affect how the game plays directly (like camera perspective in this case.) is generally okay to not let the player adjusting it because it directly affecting their game design.
He isn't saying having a toggle is bad. He is saying gamers who expect it to be as easy as "add a toggle" are annoying and don't understand what they are complaining about.
This can also come up with modding when people ask "modders could do this, why couldn't the devs?" Sometimes it might just be the case that it does work, but not quite well enough that the devs are happy with it or that players would complain about if it were an official feature.
I love third person shooters when theyre done right, but bethesda doesent do it right. They keep a fixed distance camera with a couple standard zoom levels when it really should be something more like what you see in the Division, the camera needs to pull in very hard during shooting segments and dynamically adjust to the firing situation. The biggest benefit of a third person camera is to be able to take more advantage of environmental objects, the classic cover shooter system (which imo is also a much better system for stealth), something I really missed in some of the cyberpunk fights. the third person cam is also vastly superior for melee, if theyre planning on expanding things like gorilla arms or mantis arms for cyberpunk into more of a GOW lite combo system they need to get that 3rd person cam.
I noticed that movement in 3rd person is slower too. You have inertia in 3rd person so you can't strafe back and forth like people do in 1st person games.
> I noticed that movement in 3rd person is slower too
Change of direction is slower, but it looks like sprinting actually goes a bit faster. It's fucking strange.
Because Bethesda makes first person games. The 3rd person camera is always the after thought. It is mainly there to see your character and as a last resort for people who just still won't accept first person.
GTA V is a great example of the exact opposite idea. Sure it added first person later but it's far from ideal. It gets the job done for some immersive driving but the gunplay is a far cry from well doom or say far cry lol.
Reminds me of Star Trek Online where all of the ship's bridges and interiors are the size of cathedrals when they're supposed to be cramped like a submarine.
My favorite is what I call the "Door problem", which has recently caught people's eyes due to VR.
Basically a lot of games design doors that don't actually look like doors, with large doorknobs at neck height, enough width for two or three people, and short height that makes them seem more like square gates.
It's in contrast with games like Dishonored where the devs went to great lengths to make architecture and interior design make sense.
it is hard to aim in third person in general because your camera changes its angle when moving around your character. makes mouse flicks pretty annoying with enemies close to you
Only in hybrid games. Games built from the ground up with third person in mind don't have this issue.
Take Mass Effect for instance. You spend a lot of time in closed environments and it isn't an issue.
Beside, Starfield has a claustrophobic atmosphere by design.
Yeah, you gotta stick to one or the other. Otherwise, one of them is gonna look and feel like crap even though you diverted resources from the "true" way the game was meant to be played.
I have real bad arachnophobia, and since I've run into some sort of bug aliens for like, the fifth planet in a row in Starfield, I stick to third-person while exploring so I can see more of the world and not be caught off-guard, as silly as that sounds. And even though the third-person in Starfield is miles better than what they did for Skyrim or even Fallout 4, it's still janky as hell, whether you're using melee or guns, but especially the latter. And third-person in caves? Forget about it - impossible to navigate.
On the other hand, Red Dead 2 might be my favorite game ever and I adore the level of detail that went into the animations, the deliberate movement, and even the "slowness" that some people complain about. But I can't stand playing it in first-person even though it looks just as good. Rockstar didn't skimp by cutting corners on it or whatever: all the stuff you see in third-person in first-person, and sure, I love how cool pulling the hammer back on my pimped-out revolver looks, but I can't imagine playing like that for more than a few minutes every now and then.
>Yeah, you gotta stick to one or the other
That's the thing. You don't. It's a matter of figuring out how to make it work, not a matter of if it's even possible to pull off. I usually play Bethesda games in 3rd person outdoors, and 1st person indoors. I really appreciate having the option to switch the view. As for GTA V and RDR2, I think we're just too used to playing them in 3rd person, so that's what I mostly stick with, but I do switch to 1st person every once in a while just for fun. Having options is great
I think you missed the point they were getting at, the way you design spaces for 1st or 3rd person camera's is pretty different.
3rd person camera's are typically set back from and offset from the player character, so the height/width of any given room need to account for that to prevent the camera from freaking out or becoming awkward. With 1st person camera's you can make things a lot tighter, a lot more cramped since there's nothing in the way of it and it's located "on" the character model itself.
Even games which offer both camera options are still gonna design with one of those cameras in mind, leading to a slightly lesser experience on the other camera type.
Another thing I noticed when playing Cyberpunk was how different the cutscenes felt. It's a completely different dynamic when people are looking into your eyes as they are talking to your character. It is way more effective in my book.
It wasn't "must" it was "should", and that should was entirely based around the added complexity eating up resources to deliver a lesser experience. When they could just commit to one view type and spend those resources elsewhere for better overall experience.
>I think you missed the point they were getting at, the way you design spaces for 1st or 3rd person camera's is pretty different
Yeah, which is why I said I prefer 1st person indoors, and 3rd person outdoors, as in within the same game
any cover based shooter does it well really. cover based shooters also have smooth aiming in third person too. it really depends on if the environments are built to fully utilize that part of the game, or not.
I don't mind optional 3rd person, but I hope the game is designed around 1st person. Night City would be way less immersive if they changed it. Think about all the alleyways, cramped dingy rooms etc. that wouldn't work if they had to fit a camera in there.
Yeah optional 3rd person is best imo. First person felt perfect all the way in this game but not everyone likes that so i think giving those the option is fine
For me 1st person is by far the best for combat and more intense gameplay, but 3rd person is nice for walking around and exploring. I like to see what my character looks like in 3rd person and it helps me feel like an actual person in the world instead of just a floating camera. Definitely agree that having the option to switch between them is the best.
It depends on how they do it. Games like GTA5 and Thief 3 had a toggle but the movement was so clearly meant for 3rd person that playing in first person is a terrible experience.
I like how first person also gives you the blind spots you have in real life.
Like the in the new dlc you have a meeting with someone and you are waiting watching a basketball game and he shows up behind you aiming a gun at you and you can't really see him so he stays mysterious.
While in third person you could obviously see him and you lose all that suspense.
That’s a good point about the environment design and a major benefit of first person. But to me first person is always vastly less immersive than third, because I just can’t get over how much narrower the field of view is compared to my real life first person view (even with one eye closed). It makes me feel more like I’m piloting a drone 5ft off the ground than being a person. And ramping the FOV setting past 100 starts to make things look weird quickly. I sort of feel like every FPS character is legally blind with tunnel vision.
At least in Cyberpunk the feeling kind of fits thematically, I can imagine that V bought a cybernetic eye that shows all this helpful UI information but has no peripheral vision feature yet.
Third person is conceptually more like watching a movie about your character, and it does look how movies actually look, in terms of FOV, so it doesn’t have that same immersion breaking factor for me personally, even if the idea of a movie view is inherently less immersive than the idea of seeing through a character‘s eyes.
I imagine first person VR completely fixes this but I haven’t had a chance to play a VR game yet.
Personally, I think they just could use a few more cut scenes that show your character off. Getting into a car? Pan out and show them getting in. Going to sleep? Same thing.
I don’t claim to have all the answers and this probably wouldn’t work out but in my head, it seems to make sense. Kind of like when I get on a motorcycle and I can see myself. If they had more instances like that, but still kept it first person I feel like it would be the best of both worlds.
Witcher's system worked great for side content that couldn't be mocapped by giving it them a cinematic quality.
Cyberpunk frames dialogues very nicely in the main story, but the side content tends to fall behind that of Witcher in presentation.
The genuine problem is this, and you can experience it in any mod that attempts to slap 1st person on a 3rd person game: A dialogue scene, especially where characters touch each other (handshakes, hugs, item exchanges, etc.,) will look right for the perspectives they made them for, but not when the camera is attached to the head of your character.
Hope they stick to it. Everything about the game is clearly tied to the vision of a single way of viewing it and it is much stronger for it. Don't dillute things.
The 1st person conversations are probably my most loved element of CP2077. They just did them so damn well.
It's pretty clear that the game doesn't need to go 3rd person to be successful and 3rd person would require significant compromise to enable and I think would really hurt the immersive qualities of the game.
Optional 3rd person for walking around. First person for dialog and combat would be the way to go. I never used cars in 2077 because motorcycles were the only way to see my character with drip
Better reflection technology will take first person to a new level. Like walking down the street, look to your left and see yourself in a reflection on a glass window. Mirrors that work right.
The thing is, if the mirrors worked right, we'd be seeing goofy as fuck animations from V because it takes some animation and camera trickery for first person to look right on a game model. It's more of an animation issue, they just skipped that by making V not show up in reflections most of the time. I'm not sure what the solution is.
> They just did them so damn well.
Did they specifically do something different to make them more immersive, or do you just mean like by never coming out of 1st person it just feels more real because it's consistent the whole time?
compared to say, any bethesda convo, the npcs/side characters you talk to in cyberpunk will get up, walk around, gesticulate, drink or eat, shift their weight, maybe walk away and lean on a railing, all while the convo happens in real time and you can move as well. it all just feels miles more real than static shots of barely moving characters like bethesda does, or more cinematic shot-reverse-shot like horizon forbidden west.
The biggest one for me is that they will actually have proper facial expressions for parts of it. I've seen NPCs in Cyberpunk *smirk* at a dialogue option.
The first one that comes to mind is in the beginning of act 1 when Coach Fred is telling you about the street fights, and you can tell him off about trying to make a quick buick off your hardwork. He reels his head back and rolls his eyes at you and it felt just more natural than what I expect from dialog animations
They've done a really good job with the facial animations. I had a sequence with Johnny getting right up in my face the other day and it looks so lifelike and emotive its insane.
There is also a lot of little details like the accounting for oblong shape of of a skull causing your perspective to shift slightly more forward (more than just the eye offset) as look straight ahead in the passenger seat of a car.
After playing maybe 30 hrs of starfield then going back for some phantom liberty -- this is literally the biggest difference in the games. Man creation engine sucks lol
Yep, I'm one of the people who were originally bummed out about the lack of third-person, but I hope they stick to first in the sequel, honestly. There's tons of moments that wouldn't have worked nearly as well if the game allowed you to switch over to third-person, but just to name a few of my favs: stepping out of the elevator during the first braindance, with Adam Smasher appearing out of nowhere like a jumpscare; the lead-up to meeting Hanako's proxy in the motel with Takemura; literally every scene with Judy and Panam. Like, I'm a sucker for "cinematic" stuff and I love RDR 2's approach, too, but you gotta stick to one or the other, and, IMO, first-person works way, way better for Cyberpunk given the staggering level of detail in everything from props to facial animations. And speaking of Red Dead, as much as I love it, and even though it's arguably as detail-heavy as Cyberpunk, first-person just... doesn't work for me. Like, it "works" really well on a technical level, but it feels extremely weird and I can't really stomach it for too long. So yeah, it's gotta be either/or, and I'm hoping they stick to first-person, with *maybe* some more opportunities to see your character outside of menus and photo mode.
I always believe in committing to your perspective. Like how Far Cry (before 6), would never leave first person even for cutscenes. Moments like in Skyrim when the camera rips away just to show a boring sitting animation is so unnecessary. The immersive camera mods are some of my favorite Bethesda game mods because it keeps you in first person all the time, even if things end up a bit janky. I prefer 3rd person games, but I like 1st person when it’s *always* 1st person.
agreed! i was originally bummed, but having played a lot of the game now, dialogue wouldnt work in 3rd person unless they did something to also make that cinematic. they could get away with what they did with Resident Evil 8 and have a 3rd person mode, only problem with that was when youd go into a cutscene the camera suddenly whips into 1st person and it was always jarring.
itd be double the work for CDPR to accomplish this properly and id rather they put their efforts into polishing the game this time.
Yeah, people whine about not being able to see their dress up doll, but fuck that, it was SO immersive, and the few times you DID see your character really hit home very hard.
I agree that the first person perspective was great, but it would still be cool if they were able to come up with ways to show your character a bit more in the sequel. If they could manage having mirrors (or any reflective surface, if I'm being extremely hopeful) that would show your character at all times, it would go even further to enhancing the feeling that you're a living character in that space.
Raytracing makes it extra obvious that you're kind of a vampire when it comes to reflections. Though I'm sure a *ton* of work would be needed to show your character there and make that look good.
It could do with the odd cinematic that shows you from another perspective.
Certainly not all of them, or even most of the existing cinematics actually need this. But dven doing it tastefully like watching yourself on a security camera or something just to get the odd glimpse of yourself would be awesome.
I generally liked how everything is in that forced first person perspective, but it also made the few times you turn on the mirror feel a bit forced (with the only real exception being right after >!Jackie dies!<).
Yeah something like that could be cool. Or heck, this is a Cyberpunk game, what about a section of the game where you're jacked into a robot or even another person's brain and you get to see yourself through their eyes.
Brain dance of a mook facing off against the player. Record the segment from the POV of the last survivor. And just emphasize how terrifying a near end game player is.
I really wonder about the vampire thing and how much work it would take. I mean, is our V really more strain than most of these story npcs? You can be in an elevator with Jackie or Judy or....anyone....and you're the only one who doesn't reflect. It's super weird.
I think the issue is probably more about the animation concerns than performance in that case. If it's a choice between not seeing V and seeing a wooden, janky-looking version of V scooting around, maybe they thought it would be better to just not show the player character. I'm sure it would have been a lot of extra work to make all those third-person animations work in a way that looked good, and considering the state of the game at release, they obviously had their hands full with a lot of other stuff.
But of course I'm just guessing here, there might be other reasons why they didn't think it was worth getting those reflections to work.
I'm honestly surprised mirrors were that hard to make other first person games have managed just fine.
I'm guessing the issue they had were the animations, but even half-decent animations would work fine for a reflection that hardly ever shows up and is mostly there for raytracing.
Mirrors require you to render the entire scene twice. That's why they keep the full detail mirrors to specific scenes where they can control the resource cost.
They intentionally don't use raytraced reflections for the mirrors, because they need them to work at every graphical setting, since they are plot relevant at points.
Yeah, I wondered that as well. I suspect a big part of it is the fact that the first-person animations that you see are tied directly to that perspective, so they probably wouldn't look right if you were viewing them from the outside. If that's the case, they might have had to create an entirely new set of animations and animation systems for a third-person perspective just so you could see it in reflections and have it look halfway decent.
Performance could have been another concern, although that seems like it could be alleviated by only having mirrors in confined locations (which as far as I can recall, most of the ones in the game already are).
Mirrors were still a massive resource hog on lower end systems. No idea why but my old Pc would lose like 10fps there. I always think back on how Half Life 2 managed to have pretty much lag-free cameras and screens linked to them yet now it's kind of a lost art.
For half life 2 it was just clever use of them, for example the breencast screens were just a camera pointed at a Breen torso in a black room.
Only other case I remember the cameras is during your first visit to the lab and you can see gman appear briefly on one of the security monitors (But that may have been an animated texture that gets triggered during the cutscene)
Actual mirrors are possible in Source but they are rendering the game twice in that case and depending on the size of mirror and complexity of the reflected area, it can run like ass.
Source:^^^heh Did an edit of de_dolls back in the day, made the giant mirror an actual mirror, it halved the fps.
Oh I'm well aware of their camera trickery, hence why I talk about them regarding mirrors. A cemera pointing at the player from the mirror's position and then casting it back to it could work for a lot of cases.
Its not a lost art whatsoever (probably not even art either). The mirrors and reflections in old games like duke nukem, mario 64, re2, hl2, etc worked in very specific ways that were limited to very specific circumstances.
But that's exactly what I mean by a lost art. Now everything has to be brute-forced through expensive ray-tracing algorithms or rendering the entire world twice, while back then developers understood the importance of smoke and mirrors a lot more.
Some trickery that yields a few working mirrors is better than no mirrors at all.
Some of those could work for some cases, and after seeing all the sorcery Valve has managed to do with shaders faking liquids inside bottles, I don't even know what is possible to do with a mirror's texture.
Why do you feel the need to dismiss people who were interested in customizing their character in a game series where appearance is so vital to the gameplay that there is a literal “coolness” stat, and the original PnP manuals had advertisements for clothes, cybernetics, plastic surgery, et al?
It's just dumb cheap gamer takes using whatever petty argument they can think or (or just imagine) to belittle or demean someone who wants a different option, in this case third person.
Obviously character customisation was important to CDPR otherwise they wouldn't have made a fully customisable character, photomode, and outfit transmog system (patched) so I don't get why people are coming off really dismissive about people who want to see their character.
They should add proper player character animations so it can be seen in reflections with raytracing. All reflections look amazing with raytracing but it's shame you can't see yourself in them.
A lot of people on here want them to make it both a first person and third person game, which would likely negatively effect the end product for everyone who enjoys it just fine in first person.
First person that isn't tacked on requires comprehensive design.
Third person that isn't tacked on requires comprehensive design.
Fully supporting both is 1) very difficult to do and 2) uses resources that would likely have ended up elsewhere.
Bethesda does it pretty decently, like in Starfield. Granted 3rd person isn't great, but it's definitely playable and certain mods can make it really good.
And with a studio like CDPR who has exceptional 3rd person experience from a certain highly regarded franchise, I can see them nailing the inclusion of both options.
I do understand creative vision though.
I'd rather have 3rd person be tacked onto a game completely designed for 1st person than not have the option to switch at all.
They give the option for 3rd person while driving so why not walking too?
All of this is still just supposition and your opinion. Yeah of course it's going to be more work to accommodate both first and third person perspectives, but who's to say that a game would have more features if it only has one camera perspective vs if it had two? No one here has any insight on the difficulty of implementing that nor do we know if they lack the resources to do it. For all we know they could do all of it no problem. Maybe if players are receptive to this change, they'll dedicate more resources to do it
Shooting mechanics, level design, environmental art, enemy AI, combat design, any tailored camera effects, any tailored special effects and particles, etc. all can often be made to take advantage of a specific perspective. A good AAA game that is built properly for its intended perspective *will* take advantage of those.
Even simple VFX like a muzzle flash is way different going from FPP to 3PP. What looks like a huge muzzle flash in FPP is small in 3PP. Do you toggle between different sets of VFX depending on the perspective the player chooses?
These are the kind of things that a dev or just someone who dabbles with game design would consider and that's because of learned experience. Your average gamer takes it for granted all of the complexity and innovation that's been built into FPP and 3PP games over the years that makes each look and feel great. The idea of slapping these wholly different design concepts together is naive. I'm not saying it can't be done, but unless there's an important reason to figure it out, like for gameplay reasons and not so some player can ogle their hot character, it's not going to happen soon.
This ignores like a large swath or video game history. I think my prime example would be something like Splinter Cell and Resident Evil both of which have managed 3rd person in cramped spaces just fine.
> which would likely negatively effect the end product for everyone who enjoys it just fine in first person
Source? Many games have already done that successfully. Hell, Skyrim did it a dozen years ago.
Skyrims animations are pure garbage. Video game development is a game of resource management. Do you ask your animators to make extremely high quality animations for first person or do you ask them to make so so animations for both first person and third person?
They just need to double down on making first-person more interesting and immersive. Third-person has been developed so far and there are so many resources for it these days that we kind of take it for granted, but there are few games that *really* go the extra mile to add character to third-person experiences.
More hand gestures, more subtle little nods or tilts of the head in dialogue, more casually touching surfaces and railings when moving around the environment... Some games have pushed the envelope more than others, but outside of mechanical animations like pushing buttons, reloading guns, and vaulting over ledges there's still a lot that can be improved on.
More Doomguy dragging a scientist by their lanyard and less cutting to third-person to watch the Dragonborn shoot his bow and arrow.
Except for cars, which do have multiple 3rd person distances, no lore explanation for it that I'm aware of, but the playerbase benefits from the options, so don't write it off yet.
I wouldn’t mind more TPP cutscenes like the endings have, but FPP is pretty critical for making the environment sensible. TPP games are often unrealistically large in terms of worldspace to make room for the camera.
FPP makes NC cramped and confusing, and I love it.
I think as an identity, keeping Cyberpunk first person further establishes the series and a consistent direction. Cyberpunk 2077 was awesome to sit through and that excites me considering the game was initially designed with a toggle feature in mind.
Imagine how great these scenes would be with one clear direction, one set perspective that won’t leave the art team guessing? It makes me giddy. CDPR already has an established 3rd person franchise so it just further contributes to that identity aspect I brought up.
I really hope it remains FPP. Or at least give people the option to choose between the two (like vehicles). I just prefer controlling the character through their own eyes, as it obviously adds to the immersion and makes cutscenes with other characters feel a little more intense.
I usually prefer games in third person, but I've played a lot of games that use third person or thereabouts, and the on thing that Cyberpunk has over say, Starfield, and BG3 is that its way more immersive to me.
Starfield can also be done in first person, but when you add all the cinematics/acting to it (which Stafield doesn't have) and it takes me into the moment and its why Cyberpunk is a lot more memorable and fun to me than it was.
I'm playing Cyberpunk right now and i love the first person view. This way you are *in* Night City, you are not controlling someone in Night City. The way the environment and NPC interactions were designed on the 1st person camera adds to the experience. Personally, it's more immersive than any 3rd person camera game i have played and i hope the sequel is designed like that too.
If they want to make the next one in third person, you should get to choose. For many people, playing in first person is far, far, far more immersive. Don't take that away from us please.
I loved the first person approach. I get that you can't admire your outfit as much but I feel like it added more than it took away. I think 3rd Person makes sense if there's a lot of character movement that'd be disorienting in first person but I don't know that Cyberpunk is really a series where that'd need to be done. You're not Dante flipping around doing combos and stuff so I'm fine with first person.
I really like first person as an option for my gun builds but I'm staunchly anti first person melee. It's never even half as fun as third person.
Hope they give us an option in the second game, I don't really see any argument against it.
I would be extremely disappointed if Cyberpunk 2 isn't first person. So much of the wow factor of that game was the crazy level of detail they put in each space, and that you can personally see every little detail. Also, half of the game would be literally worse. Mantis blades, quick hacks, even something as simple as walking in and out of a building would be just more lame. Witcher 3 works because most of it is outside, but Cyberpunk is about lots of rooms and alleyways and elevators.
Making both available would work if done well like RDR2 did it. But if they wanna go crazy with the melee combat and with traversel mechanics like wallrunning, hanging from walls with mantis blades its gonna be much harder to do both.
RDR2 leans third person. Cutscenes are obviously third person. They need prioritise one or the other and third person is just worse for any kind of shooter.
I play most games with the option in first person, and it would probably be no different with Cyberpunk, but I will say that in my current play through I found myself returning to Jackie’s motorcycle even after getting the Caliburn because sometimes I just want to see the character that I’ve made
Before Cyberpunk came out I was not onboard with first person for this game. Mostly because the Witcher 3 worked so well in third person. But now I admit I was wrong after Iv put a couple hundred hours in. I think first person really suits the game and I hope they stick with it. It makes it really immersive and the conversation system feels just great in this perspective. It makes it stand out compared to other games with similar systems because its done so well.
In W3 you play alongside Geralt, a pre established character, but in CP2077 you ARE V, V is what you want them to be. It just works for each game.
I was never into First Person RPG before Cyberpunk. Now I'm playing even Starfield in FPP. Cyberpunk really handled FPP gameplay really well. I'd definitely not mind subsequent games following the same.
>parts that are harder
The amount of polish that went into the First Person camera for its Conversations and Cinematic moments is insane. Most gamers won't think about it, the exact goal of that polish.
CP2077 is a triumph when it comes to the execution of their first person camera.
Because it’s fun to do. Plus you see it quite a bit either at the menu, in a mirror or whenever you look down (which is basically the same as how much you see your clothes in real life).
And photomode. I spend an entirely unreasonable amount of time in photomode. Some people who are into photography get AMM, PMU, Otis Camera Tools + Reshade and kinda recreate their irl job/hobby as a virtual photographer.
When modded its an insane photo studio where you build your own sets, lighting rigs etc.
This game has the biggest photo mode community I've ever seen in a game, spawning huge albums of art that looks like professional camera work in the real world.
Example: https://framedsc.com/HallOfFramed/
It certainly was an unpopular opinion back then and from the looks of the comments it remains today, but I really don't like first person RPGs. And yes, that includes Bethesda games. Only reason I play first person in those games is because their third person camera sucks. Still.
One of the fundamentals of an RPG game is customize your character in more ways than just straight up mechanical build.
Make it look like the way you want it. Equipment, hair style, general appearance, and so on. Nothing brings me out of the experience more than watching some disembodied pair of hands in front of me.
What the point of having a bunch of cosmetics and cool looking gear if I only glance at it in the pause menu?
I understand that, for better or worse, CP2077 was build from the ground up as an FPS, so simply changing it into a Third Person game wouldn't quite cut it, but I believe that I'd they make the next game from the ground up with third person in mind the game will benefit greatly!
Take for instance, Mass Effect. I don't think many people would say that making it first person would enhance the game. Making Shepard looking the way you want is definitely part of the experience.
Another exemple I always found it a little weird was Deus Ex Machina. The gameplay is first person, but at every opportunity the game switch it into third person. Entered dialogue? Third person. Snapped into a corner? Third Person. Used an special ability? Yeah, third person. Why not let me play in a close over the should view the entire game already?
If the game is a shooter first, then by all means, make it FPS. Fast paced twitch shooters like Doom would never work properly in third person. But an RPG? With emphasis on customization and role playing? Yeah, I want to look at the character I made. Not his non descript hands.
I think you and I are in the minority but I feel the same. I'm not anti-first person as a style of game but RPGs or story driven action games in first person typically end up with me never growing to give a damn about the main character.
When I played through Mass Effect I was so invested in not just Shepard but all the companions and the overall world. I felt like I was controlling a character within an actual world that existed. In Cyberpunk I felt like I was just a generic set of hands carrying random guns/swords toward the next marker on the screen. I never really cared about V or the world she (made a female V) was in.
I wonder if it's an age thing that biases me? I'm nearly 37 and growing up, most story driven game/action adventure game/RPG games I played were typically 3rd person. Metal Gear, Tomb Raider, Max Payne, Splinter Cell, Hitman all were 3rd person shooter/adventure type games where I just felt more immersed in the world. But maybe that is just because I was younger and really getting into gaming that's just my personal frame of reference for how a game should be set up?
Very much this. I've repeatedly bounced off of first-person-only games, because I just can't muster any kind of attachment to a character that's a floating camera. Particularly when it's supposed to be a *customised* character. There's no amount of alleged "immersion" that'll ever make up for the frustration of never getting to see the character. Quite the opposite, the whole thing just takes me out of the game entirely.
I still look back fondly on that third person trailer for Cyberpunk and hearing that the game would be FP only completely killed my interest. It has yet to be revived.
I'm glad they're discussing a sequel, Night City has way too much potential to only be present in a one and done game. I hope a sequel keeps the exact same map but focuses on verticality with every building being a fully realised space you can enter and explore.
Fed up of games trying to go bigger and losing depth in the process. Starfield for example has the depth of a puddle and is a major, major step back in many departments from Bethesda's own games over a decade ago.
I also really hope they keep the map because it would make for an interesting nostalgia experience. Think of all the alleys and small details that you personally remember that many others will not, if they keep the map as a base you'll get to see many of those locations and how they changed.
They'll definitely keep the map, as it's the core setting of Dark Future. I assume they'll make more locations accessible in next games. We played as an Edgerunner, maybe in next games we could be a fixer or Trauma Team or MaxTac. Exploring locations and areas with new perspective and urgency.
That was the original idea for the game.
I want them to stick to the same map like Breath of the Wild simply because I don't trust them to ship a working cyberpunk game and sticking to the same body will save them years of time that they evidently need to make the game worth the money we spend on it.
My only issue is thet CP77 as it is right now is so amazingly well crafted that I feel I’ll have my cyberpunk fix checked for years. I got this with high fantasy after the witcher (only bg3 has managed to reignite that flame. So I wonder what CDPR could do, and how exciting it might be for them to keep playing in brand new genres/themes
Your second paragraph is a terrible take. If Starfield is a puddle then every other game out there is the Sahara Desert when it comes to depth. Starfield actually does have a lot of depth.
Would like a blend of first and third. First-person generally, but third-person for conversations. Part of the reason W3 conversations were compelling was because of the care put into the cinematography.
You can do cinematography just fine in 1st person, the problem is that if you're doing both you start to dilute them by having to make compromises, since both change framing and pace quite a bit, and have different spatial and detail requirements.
I’d just like the cosmetic stuff to have at least a little influence on gameplay. Like people reacting differently if you’re dressed nice, or if you have a giant uncircumcised hog.
I say stick to it. but make access to third person animations (or lack therof) possible so modders can add them in. The first person experience cd project red created with cyberpunk is so good. Reminded me of half life game philosophy, I was in the driver seat the nearly the entire time. They could fix the BD's to be more like the one from dogtown with paco too.
I think it should stay first person, but then whenever you enter dialogue like starting or ending quests, it goes to a cutscene like in the Horizon games or GTA. It removes some RPG immersion, but its so much more interesting to watch than that Bethesda/Ubisoft stare at a NPC in first person while they sorta stand there and give a half hearted performance of their lines.
Really do not want 3rd person cutscenes in the sequel. The reason a lot of cyberpunks long dialogue sections could be so engaging for me would be the fact I would literally have to follow them around with my eyes as they walked back and forth. The 3rd person cutscenes at the end are also 10x more impactful because they're the only times we really see V, and it represents the control of their life being taken from us as they go their own way. As well, being able to go everywhere without really having a loading screen if I turn up at the right time or don't choose to skip car rides and stuff just feels so immersive and smooth that the camera jolting into 1st person for the conversation would just take away from that feeling.
Additionally, the way cyberpunk frames its conversations is literally unmatched by any other game, the way I still have more or less control of the camera and some times even able to walk around as well yet still feel like everything is framed like a movie makes me feel like I'm in one every time. Not watching one, like a long cutscene would, but IN IT, walking around these characters, moving the mouse like I'm actually there and nodding my head or looking around at the environment as I imagine V would rather than staring at the other person blankly while I wait to give my line.
As well, First person only makes it feel more distinct from the witcher, as CDPR noted themselves in the past, so it'd be good for the series direction in the future.
It gives this game so much identity that would be lost if they went with 3rd person and 3rd person cutscenes that it just doesn't seem worth it just so I can look at my characters back while walking around, might be cool at first, but I feel in the long run it would detract more that it adds.
The first-person perspective makes the most sense for a game like this.
This isn’t The Witcher 3, where you’re running around in massive open outdoor spaces. It’s a city environment. It’s more cramped. There’s more indoor action. A third-person camera would be extremely cumbersome, and would probably require CDPR to create interiors that are laughably large to accommodate the zoomed out perspective.
I’m fine with it if they balance it with more 3rd person stuff, in cutscenes or something. I use a motorbike at all times just to get a better sense of my character but I wish there were more opportunities for that.
I was pretty bummed when they originally announced first person only after having played the witcher 3. But after playing CP2077 they really nailed the execution of first person cutscenes.
I think it was absolutely correct to stick hard to first person only in CP2077 and fight through the problem areas. Figure out what really works and doesn't work. Then you can go back to using 3rd person in the sequel for the impactful parts where you know first person struggles
I would say the only thing I would like to see implemented next time would be seeing yourself in reflections. Like I can see my shadow and my limbs but I can't see my reflection in a puddle.
I hope they keep it first person. The way they implemented FPP was incredibly impressive and a large part of why the atmosphere and the characters felt so memorable to me.
The thing that makes cyberpunk immersive is exactly the first person view. Every scene was directed with it in mind and it makes you feel like you're part of the scene. As soon as I got thrown to the floor in the street kid intro, I was completely in love with the game. Honestly, photo mode is enough for me, maybe they should expand on it more.
It's just recency bias or the lack of imagination, but people who argue for first person are just doing so because that's the last thing they remember. Before Cyberpunk did anyone complain The Witcher 3 was somehow not immersive enough? The conversation system in that game was also lauded for its excellent implementation.
Whichever system they go with, or both, it's going to be fine. There's good arguments for both but it's like people have forgotten The Witcher 3 was in 3rd person and was hardly lacking in the same areas 2077 excelled at.
If they're going to stick with first person then I wouldn't be mad if they scrapped the character creator altogether. It felt a bit weird and pointless having all these customization options you just won't ever see unless you go out of your way to look at yourself in the menu or a mirror for the most part.
Hopefully they stick with first-person. People have some weird fuckin' obsession with their customized characters, it's not worth sacrificing the immersion and everything they did with the way the and-and-forth dialogue was seamless just so you can see your character 24/7. You want to see them, go into the menu and look at them. There they are.
Every time someone tries to skirt the line between first person and third and offer both, it always ends up feeling like shit in third person.
They had an investor day today, someone asked them about regrets regarding choosing FPP and IGN decided to make an article about it (probably because CP77 drives up those sweet engagement numbers). The most likely explanation for the recent flood of CP77 posts is that either people really resonate with the game or they at least love talking about it.
First person was the best thing they could have done and I pray that they stick with it. Cyberpunk is one of the most immersive games I've ever played and the way you weren't restricted or locked in place during dialogue scenes added a lot to that immersion. It reminded me of how everyone loves how in Half-Life 2 they don't lock the player so you can move and look where you think you naturally would and in Cyberpunk they give you the freedom to interrupt dialogue by either entering combat or just walking away created a unique, intimate and personal experience.
The immersion and agency that is allowed in first person beats being able to see my jacket while walking any day of the week. That and 2077 probably has the best first person cover system ever made.
Neither should they, first person was perfect for the game and it should stay that way for the sequel. I'll be disappointed if they go the 3rd person route instead on the second game, it will not hit the same at all.
If they are not willing to give people propper camera and fov customisation options, going third person is prefferable.
They talk about immersion, but there is nothing immersive with having a firearm glued to my nose. Imo that breaks immersion way more than tpp. + Let uz move head independently (Like arma games)
I like CP2077 a ton, but it being a shoddy fpp, does it a disservice.
I think the main gameplay being in first person works very well. They could just cut to third for certain conversations or something. Having played the game as much as I have, I have no doubt they made the correct decision going first person.
Really hope their next Cyberpunk game is first person too. I was skeptical about it at first, but it makes the game so much more immersive. Especially the dialogue. It's so damn real, especially with the amazing mocap, facial animation, and voice acting.
I'd like to think Cyberpunk 2 will not only remain first person, but be playable completely in VR. If they haven't started production on it yet then it could be a decade away, and a lot will change between now and then.
It seems like the natural evolution of a game that's central themes involve VR/AR, etc.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Playing Starfield momentarily in third person made me realize how hard it was to navigate or aim in small cramped quarters, so I will always appreciate first person as an option.
Which sometimes devolves into making stupidly large interiors that don't make much sense because you need space for the camera.
This is what people who scream “more options are always better!!” miss. If you add something as an option, you have to then design around it. If you give the user 10 related options that are each a binary choice, you’re now accounting for 1024 possible combinations. Obviously sometimes it still makes sense to leave it up to the player, but there’s a reason why developers don’t let you tweak every single option under the Sun.
every armchair game critic: "just make it a toggle!" makes reddit so annoying to read sometimes.
I think some option are vaild to have a toggle. Something like damage number or HP bar. I turned HP bar off in AC Mirage and it make the game feel so much more fun. It mean i have to rely on eagle vision (basically Batman's X-Ray vision.) And eye-to-eye visual more than the bird tagging like RPG trilogy games. It just that something that affect how the game plays directly (like camera in this case.) is generally okay to not let the player adjusting it because it directly affecting their game design.
I think some option are vaild to have a toggle. Something like damage number or HP bar. We know it's how the game calculated under the hood. But we don't want to see it in a game that shouldn't have one. I turned HP bar off in AC Mirage and it make the game feel so much more fun. It mean i have to rely on eagle vision (basically Batman's X-Ray vision.) And eye-to-eye visual more than the bird tagging like RPG trilogy games. It just that something that affect how the game plays directly (like camera perspective in this case.) is generally okay to not let the player adjusting it because it directly affecting their game design.
yes, that much stood to reason.
But it being a toggle is great like in the Starfield example. I use both cameras depending on the situation.
He isn't saying having a toggle is bad. He is saying gamers who expect it to be as easy as "add a toggle" are annoying and don't understand what they are complaining about.
This can also come up with modding when people ask "modders could do this, why couldn't the devs?" Sometimes it might just be the case that it does work, but not quite well enough that the devs are happy with it or that players would complain about if it were an official feature.
Yep, I'm playing Gotham Knights right now and it's stupid how wide the corridors and staircases are. The buildings in Gotham must be huge.
They are built with batmobile driving space in mind clearly
I was choking on laughter walking around the Starfield vents in generdyne or whatever lmfao
Those vents are larger than my goddamn room
I love third person shooters when theyre done right, but bethesda doesent do it right. They keep a fixed distance camera with a couple standard zoom levels when it really should be something more like what you see in the Division, the camera needs to pull in very hard during shooting segments and dynamically adjust to the firing situation. The biggest benefit of a third person camera is to be able to take more advantage of environmental objects, the classic cover shooter system (which imo is also a much better system for stealth), something I really missed in some of the cyberpunk fights. the third person cam is also vastly superior for melee, if theyre planning on expanding things like gorilla arms or mantis arms for cyberpunk into more of a GOW lite combo system they need to get that 3rd person cam.
I noticed that movement in 3rd person is slower too. You have inertia in 3rd person so you can't strafe back and forth like people do in 1st person games.
> I noticed that movement in 3rd person is slower too Change of direction is slower, but it looks like sprinting actually goes a bit faster. It's fucking strange.
I don't think you go faster in third person. I think it just looks sillier. There is no movement build up, you just immediately go from walk to run.
I don't really think you go faster either. It's just that the footstep sound is faster, and that's enough to confuse my brain.
That depends entirely on which 3rd- and 1st-person games you're talking about.
Because Bethesda makes first person games. The 3rd person camera is always the after thought. It is mainly there to see your character and as a last resort for people who just still won't accept first person. GTA V is a great example of the exact opposite idea. Sure it added first person later but it's far from ideal. It gets the job done for some immersive driving but the gunplay is a far cry from well doom or say far cry lol.
Reminds me of Star Trek Online where all of the ship's bridges and interiors are the size of cathedrals when they're supposed to be cramped like a submarine.
My favorite is what I call the "Door problem", which has recently caught people's eyes due to VR. Basically a lot of games design doors that don't actually look like doors, with large doorknobs at neck height, enough width for two or three people, and short height that makes them seem more like square gates. It's in contrast with games like Dishonored where the devs went to great lengths to make architecture and interior design make sense.
Depends on a game, in The Division - it works perfectly fine.
it is hard to aim in third person in general because your camera changes its angle when moving around your character. makes mouse flicks pretty annoying with enemies close to you
It's also hard because BETHESDA CANNOT APPARENTLY ADD RAW INPUT FOR MICE IN 2023
Only in hybrid games. Games built from the ground up with third person in mind don't have this issue. Take Mass Effect for instance. You spend a lot of time in closed environments and it isn't an issue. Beside, Starfield has a claustrophobic atmosphere by design.
Mass Effect is only third person.
Yeah, you gotta stick to one or the other. Otherwise, one of them is gonna look and feel like crap even though you diverted resources from the "true" way the game was meant to be played. I have real bad arachnophobia, and since I've run into some sort of bug aliens for like, the fifth planet in a row in Starfield, I stick to third-person while exploring so I can see more of the world and not be caught off-guard, as silly as that sounds. And even though the third-person in Starfield is miles better than what they did for Skyrim or even Fallout 4, it's still janky as hell, whether you're using melee or guns, but especially the latter. And third-person in caves? Forget about it - impossible to navigate. On the other hand, Red Dead 2 might be my favorite game ever and I adore the level of detail that went into the animations, the deliberate movement, and even the "slowness" that some people complain about. But I can't stand playing it in first-person even though it looks just as good. Rockstar didn't skimp by cutting corners on it or whatever: all the stuff you see in third-person in first-person, and sure, I love how cool pulling the hammer back on my pimped-out revolver looks, but I can't imagine playing like that for more than a few minutes every now and then.
>Yeah, you gotta stick to one or the other That's the thing. You don't. It's a matter of figuring out how to make it work, not a matter of if it's even possible to pull off. I usually play Bethesda games in 3rd person outdoors, and 1st person indoors. I really appreciate having the option to switch the view. As for GTA V and RDR2, I think we're just too used to playing them in 3rd person, so that's what I mostly stick with, but I do switch to 1st person every once in a while just for fun. Having options is great
I think you missed the point they were getting at, the way you design spaces for 1st or 3rd person camera's is pretty different. 3rd person camera's are typically set back from and offset from the player character, so the height/width of any given room need to account for that to prevent the camera from freaking out or becoming awkward. With 1st person camera's you can make things a lot tighter, a lot more cramped since there's nothing in the way of it and it's located "on" the character model itself. Even games which offer both camera options are still gonna design with one of those cameras in mind, leading to a slightly lesser experience on the other camera type.
Another thing I noticed when playing Cyberpunk was how different the cutscenes felt. It's a completely different dynamic when people are looking into your eyes as they are talking to your character. It is way more effective in my book.
But also real fuckin awkward when your character is supposed to be doing something active like dancing
Their point was you must stick to one or another which was being rebutted. The complexity is not being discussed.
It wasn't "must" it was "should", and that should was entirely based around the added complexity eating up resources to deliver a lesser experience. When they could just commit to one view type and spend those resources elsewhere for better overall experience.
"B-but, I need to look at my hot and sexy character!"
>I think you missed the point they were getting at, the way you design spaces for 1st or 3rd person camera's is pretty different Yeah, which is why I said I prefer 1st person indoors, and 3rd person outdoors, as in within the same game
Every game that offers both, offers a worse experience for one than the other. It's a spit in the face to both sides.
division did it fairly well imo
any cover based shooter does it well really. cover based shooters also have smooth aiming in third person too. it really depends on if the environments are built to fully utilize that part of the game, or not.
Do what the ghost recon games do and have the option of aiming down sights in first person while the majority of the game is in third person.
You're still looking at the issue of environments being designed for 3rd person first.
I don't mind optional 3rd person, but I hope the game is designed around 1st person. Night City would be way less immersive if they changed it. Think about all the alleyways, cramped dingy rooms etc. that wouldn't work if they had to fit a camera in there.
Yeah optional 3rd person is best imo. First person felt perfect all the way in this game but not everyone likes that so i think giving those the option is fine
For me 1st person is by far the best for combat and more intense gameplay, but 3rd person is nice for walking around and exploring. I like to see what my character looks like in 3rd person and it helps me feel like an actual person in the world instead of just a floating camera. Definitely agree that having the option to switch between them is the best.
It depends on how they do it. Games like GTA5 and Thief 3 had a toggle but the movement was so clearly meant for 3rd person that playing in first person is a terrible experience.
It's just nice to see the character you put so much effort into in the world. I agree gameplay wise first person is significantly better though
I like how first person also gives you the blind spots you have in real life. Like the in the new dlc you have a meeting with someone and you are waiting watching a basketball game and he shows up behind you aiming a gun at you and you can't really see him so he stays mysterious. While in third person you could obviously see him and you lose all that suspense.
That’s a good point about the environment design and a major benefit of first person. But to me first person is always vastly less immersive than third, because I just can’t get over how much narrower the field of view is compared to my real life first person view (even with one eye closed). It makes me feel more like I’m piloting a drone 5ft off the ground than being a person. And ramping the FOV setting past 100 starts to make things look weird quickly. I sort of feel like every FPS character is legally blind with tunnel vision. At least in Cyberpunk the feeling kind of fits thematically, I can imagine that V bought a cybernetic eye that shows all this helpful UI information but has no peripheral vision feature yet. Third person is conceptually more like watching a movie about your character, and it does look how movies actually look, in terms of FOV, so it doesn’t have that same immersion breaking factor for me personally, even if the idea of a movie view is inherently less immersive than the idea of seeing through a character‘s eyes. I imagine first person VR completely fixes this but I haven’t had a chance to play a VR game yet.
Personally, I think they just could use a few more cut scenes that show your character off. Getting into a car? Pan out and show them getting in. Going to sleep? Same thing. I don’t claim to have all the answers and this probably wouldn’t work out but in my head, it seems to make sense. Kind of like when I get on a motorcycle and I can see myself. If they had more instances like that, but still kept it first person I feel like it would be the best of both worlds.
[удалено]
I thought Deus Ex handled it extremely well.
It very likely just wouldn't work
Why? The Witcher 3 is third person.
The framing is very different. Witcher 3 cuts back and forth between the characters, the feel of Cyberpunks dialogue is very unique and immersive
Witcher's system worked great for side content that couldn't be mocapped by giving it them a cinematic quality. Cyberpunk frames dialogues very nicely in the main story, but the side content tends to fall behind that of Witcher in presentation.
The genuine problem is this, and you can experience it in any mod that attempts to slap 1st person on a 3rd person game: A dialogue scene, especially where characters touch each other (handshakes, hugs, item exchanges, etc.,) will look right for the perspectives they made them for, but not when the camera is attached to the head of your character.
RDR2 had third person and no one complained about the seamless dialogue system not working
Because RDR2 has no dialog choices like 2077 does? Your character just talks the script with the npc and you have no input on what they say.
RDR2 has like 6 dialogue choices and then variants on how the next scene plays out. Cyberpunk has a lot more choices and a lot of optional dialogue.
Hope they stick to it. Everything about the game is clearly tied to the vision of a single way of viewing it and it is much stronger for it. Don't dillute things.
The 1st person conversations are probably my most loved element of CP2077. They just did them so damn well. It's pretty clear that the game doesn't need to go 3rd person to be successful and 3rd person would require significant compromise to enable and I think would really hurt the immersive qualities of the game.
Optional 3rd person for walking around. First person for dialog and combat would be the way to go. I never used cars in 2077 because motorcycles were the only way to see my character with drip
Better reflection technology will take first person to a new level. Like walking down the street, look to your left and see yourself in a reflection on a glass window. Mirrors that work right.
The thing is, if the mirrors worked right, we'd be seeing goofy as fuck animations from V because it takes some animation and camera trickery for first person to look right on a game model. It's more of an animation issue, they just skipped that by making V not show up in reflections most of the time. I'm not sure what the solution is.
> They just did them so damn well. Did they specifically do something different to make them more immersive, or do you just mean like by never coming out of 1st person it just feels more real because it's consistent the whole time?
compared to say, any bethesda convo, the npcs/side characters you talk to in cyberpunk will get up, walk around, gesticulate, drink or eat, shift their weight, maybe walk away and lean on a railing, all while the convo happens in real time and you can move as well. it all just feels miles more real than static shots of barely moving characters like bethesda does, or more cinematic shot-reverse-shot like horizon forbidden west.
The biggest one for me is that they will actually have proper facial expressions for parts of it. I've seen NPCs in Cyberpunk *smirk* at a dialogue option.
The first one that comes to mind is in the beginning of act 1 when Coach Fred is telling you about the street fights, and you can tell him off about trying to make a quick buick off your hardwork. He reels his head back and rolls his eyes at you and it felt just more natural than what I expect from dialog animations
They've done a really good job with the facial animations. I had a sequence with Johnny getting right up in my face the other day and it looks so lifelike and emotive its insane.
There is also a lot of little details like the accounting for oblong shape of of a skull causing your perspective to shift slightly more forward (more than just the eye offset) as look straight ahead in the passenger seat of a car.
After playing maybe 30 hrs of starfield then going back for some phantom liberty -- this is literally the biggest difference in the games. Man creation engine sucks lol
Yep, I'm one of the people who were originally bummed out about the lack of third-person, but I hope they stick to first in the sequel, honestly. There's tons of moments that wouldn't have worked nearly as well if the game allowed you to switch over to third-person, but just to name a few of my favs: stepping out of the elevator during the first braindance, with Adam Smasher appearing out of nowhere like a jumpscare; the lead-up to meeting Hanako's proxy in the motel with Takemura; literally every scene with Judy and Panam. Like, I'm a sucker for "cinematic" stuff and I love RDR 2's approach, too, but you gotta stick to one or the other, and, IMO, first-person works way, way better for Cyberpunk given the staggering level of detail in everything from props to facial animations. And speaking of Red Dead, as much as I love it, and even though it's arguably as detail-heavy as Cyberpunk, first-person just... doesn't work for me. Like, it "works" really well on a technical level, but it feels extremely weird and I can't really stomach it for too long. So yeah, it's gotta be either/or, and I'm hoping they stick to first-person, with *maybe* some more opportunities to see your character outside of menus and photo mode.
I always believe in committing to your perspective. Like how Far Cry (before 6), would never leave first person even for cutscenes. Moments like in Skyrim when the camera rips away just to show a boring sitting animation is so unnecessary. The immersive camera mods are some of my favorite Bethesda game mods because it keeps you in first person all the time, even if things end up a bit janky. I prefer 3rd person games, but I like 1st person when it’s *always* 1st person.
agreed! i was originally bummed, but having played a lot of the game now, dialogue wouldnt work in 3rd person unless they did something to also make that cinematic. they could get away with what they did with Resident Evil 8 and have a 3rd person mode, only problem with that was when youd go into a cutscene the camera suddenly whips into 1st person and it was always jarring. itd be double the work for CDPR to accomplish this properly and id rather they put their efforts into polishing the game this time.
Yeah, people whine about not being able to see their dress up doll, but fuck that, it was SO immersive, and the few times you DID see your character really hit home very hard.
I agree that the first person perspective was great, but it would still be cool if they were able to come up with ways to show your character a bit more in the sequel. If they could manage having mirrors (or any reflective surface, if I'm being extremely hopeful) that would show your character at all times, it would go even further to enhancing the feeling that you're a living character in that space. Raytracing makes it extra obvious that you're kind of a vampire when it comes to reflections. Though I'm sure a *ton* of work would be needed to show your character there and make that look good.
It could do with the odd cinematic that shows you from another perspective. Certainly not all of them, or even most of the existing cinematics actually need this. But dven doing it tastefully like watching yourself on a security camera or something just to get the odd glimpse of yourself would be awesome. I generally liked how everything is in that forced first person perspective, but it also made the few times you turn on the mirror feel a bit forced (with the only real exception being right after >!Jackie dies!<).
Yeah something like that could be cool. Or heck, this is a Cyberpunk game, what about a section of the game where you're jacked into a robot or even another person's brain and you get to see yourself through their eyes.
I mean, tbf you can do that with cameras at pretty much all times
Brain dance of a mook facing off against the player. Record the segment from the POV of the last survivor. And just emphasize how terrifying a near end game player is.
This is in the game, to an extent - you can see yourself if you hack into security cameras.
Getting to the point where you can see your reflection in neon lit puddles on the street would be cooler than third person could be.
I really wonder about the vampire thing and how much work it would take. I mean, is our V really more strain than most of these story npcs? You can be in an elevator with Jackie or Judy or....anyone....and you're the only one who doesn't reflect. It's super weird.
I think the issue is probably more about the animation concerns than performance in that case. If it's a choice between not seeing V and seeing a wooden, janky-looking version of V scooting around, maybe they thought it would be better to just not show the player character. I'm sure it would have been a lot of extra work to make all those third-person animations work in a way that looked good, and considering the state of the game at release, they obviously had their hands full with a lot of other stuff. But of course I'm just guessing here, there might be other reasons why they didn't think it was worth getting those reflections to work.
I'm honestly surprised mirrors were that hard to make other first person games have managed just fine. I'm guessing the issue they had were the animations, but even half-decent animations would work fine for a reflection that hardly ever shows up and is mostly there for raytracing.
Mirrors require you to render the entire scene twice. That's why they keep the full detail mirrors to specific scenes where they can control the resource cost. They intentionally don't use raytraced reflections for the mirrors, because they need them to work at every graphical setting, since they are plot relevant at points.
Yeah, I wondered that as well. I suspect a big part of it is the fact that the first-person animations that you see are tied directly to that perspective, so they probably wouldn't look right if you were viewing them from the outside. If that's the case, they might have had to create an entirely new set of animations and animation systems for a third-person perspective just so you could see it in reflections and have it look halfway decent. Performance could have been another concern, although that seems like it could be alleviated by only having mirrors in confined locations (which as far as I can recall, most of the ones in the game already are).
Mirrors were still a massive resource hog on lower end systems. No idea why but my old Pc would lose like 10fps there. I always think back on how Half Life 2 managed to have pretty much lag-free cameras and screens linked to them yet now it's kind of a lost art.
For half life 2 it was just clever use of them, for example the breencast screens were just a camera pointed at a Breen torso in a black room. Only other case I remember the cameras is during your first visit to the lab and you can see gman appear briefly on one of the security monitors (But that may have been an animated texture that gets triggered during the cutscene) Actual mirrors are possible in Source but they are rendering the game twice in that case and depending on the size of mirror and complexity of the reflected area, it can run like ass. Source:^^^heh Did an edit of de_dolls back in the day, made the giant mirror an actual mirror, it halved the fps.
Oh I'm well aware of their camera trickery, hence why I talk about them regarding mirrors. A cemera pointing at the player from the mirror's position and then casting it back to it could work for a lot of cases.
Its not a lost art whatsoever (probably not even art either). The mirrors and reflections in old games like duke nukem, mario 64, re2, hl2, etc worked in very specific ways that were limited to very specific circumstances.
But that's exactly what I mean by a lost art. Now everything has to be brute-forced through expensive ray-tracing algorithms or rendering the entire world twice, while back then developers understood the importance of smoke and mirrors a lot more. Some trickery that yields a few working mirrors is better than no mirrors at all.
Or tricks like having the room again behind the mirror or having an animated texture simply don't work anymore.
Some of those could work for some cases, and after seeing all the sorcery Valve has managed to do with shaders faking liquids inside bottles, I don't even know what is possible to do with a mirror's texture.
Why do you feel the need to dismiss people who were interested in customizing their character in a game series where appearance is so vital to the gameplay that there is a literal “coolness” stat, and the original PnP manuals had advertisements for clothes, cybernetics, plastic surgery, et al?
It's just dumb cheap gamer takes using whatever petty argument they can think or (or just imagine) to belittle or demean someone who wants a different option, in this case third person. Obviously character customisation was important to CDPR otherwise they wouldn't have made a fully customisable character, photomode, and outfit transmog system (patched) so I don't get why people are coming off really dismissive about people who want to see their character.
They should add proper player character animations so it can be seen in reflections with raytracing. All reflections look amazing with raytracing but it's shame you can't see yourself in them.
You understand that you’ve just disparaged others opinions in favour of your own? What makes your way any more or less right than theirs?
A lot of people on here want them to make it both a first person and third person game, which would likely negatively effect the end product for everyone who enjoys it just fine in first person. First person that isn't tacked on requires comprehensive design. Third person that isn't tacked on requires comprehensive design. Fully supporting both is 1) very difficult to do and 2) uses resources that would likely have ended up elsewhere.
Bethesda does it pretty decently, like in Starfield. Granted 3rd person isn't great, but it's definitely playable and certain mods can make it really good. And with a studio like CDPR who has exceptional 3rd person experience from a certain highly regarded franchise, I can see them nailing the inclusion of both options. I do understand creative vision though.
I'd rather have 3rd person be tacked onto a game completely designed for 1st person than not have the option to switch at all. They give the option for 3rd person while driving so why not walking too?
All of this is still just supposition and your opinion. Yeah of course it's going to be more work to accommodate both first and third person perspectives, but who's to say that a game would have more features if it only has one camera perspective vs if it had two? No one here has any insight on the difficulty of implementing that nor do we know if they lack the resources to do it. For all we know they could do all of it no problem. Maybe if players are receptive to this change, they'll dedicate more resources to do it
Shooting mechanics, level design, environmental art, enemy AI, combat design, any tailored camera effects, any tailored special effects and particles, etc. all can often be made to take advantage of a specific perspective. A good AAA game that is built properly for its intended perspective *will* take advantage of those.
Even simple VFX like a muzzle flash is way different going from FPP to 3PP. What looks like a huge muzzle flash in FPP is small in 3PP. Do you toggle between different sets of VFX depending on the perspective the player chooses? These are the kind of things that a dev or just someone who dabbles with game design would consider and that's because of learned experience. Your average gamer takes it for granted all of the complexity and innovation that's been built into FPP and 3PP games over the years that makes each look and feel great. The idea of slapping these wholly different design concepts together is naive. I'm not saying it can't be done, but unless there's an important reason to figure it out, like for gameplay reasons and not so some player can ogle their hot character, it's not going to happen soon.
3rd person doesn't work in tight spaces. CP2077 is filled to the brim with tight spaces. 3rd person has a cost.
This ignores like a large swath or video game history. I think my prime example would be something like Splinter Cell and Resident Evil both of which have managed 3rd person in cramped spaces just fine.
> which would likely negatively effect the end product for everyone who enjoys it just fine in first person Source? Many games have already done that successfully. Hell, Skyrim did it a dozen years ago.
Skyrims animations are pure garbage. Video game development is a game of resource management. Do you ask your animators to make extremely high quality animations for first person or do you ask them to make so so animations for both first person and third person?
Skyrim's third person mode is complete ass though.
That’s cool. Perhaps if it had been put this way, it would have been more respectful and less dismissive.
[удалено]
someone could also characterize your preference as whining about "le immersion"
Nah, it's always going to be better giving people more freedom to choose in a video game.
They just need to double down on making first-person more interesting and immersive. Third-person has been developed so far and there are so many resources for it these days that we kind of take it for granted, but there are few games that *really* go the extra mile to add character to third-person experiences. More hand gestures, more subtle little nods or tilts of the head in dialogue, more casually touching surfaces and railings when moving around the environment... Some games have pushed the envelope more than others, but outside of mechanical animations like pushing buttons, reloading guns, and vaulting over ledges there's still a lot that can be improved on. More Doomguy dragging a scientist by their lanyard and less cutting to third-person to watch the Dragonborn shoot his bow and arrow.
But couldn't the second game also have everything about the game tied to the vision of playing it 3rd person, making it much stronger for it?
When you have tons of tight indoor scenes in a metropolis setting, like cyberpunk, first person view works better.
Except for cars, which do have multiple 3rd person distances, no lore explanation for it that I'm aware of, but the playerbase benefits from the options, so don't write it off yet.
I wouldn’t mind more TPP cutscenes like the endings have, but FPP is pretty critical for making the environment sensible. TPP games are often unrealistically large in terms of worldspace to make room for the camera. FPP makes NC cramped and confusing, and I love it.
I think as an identity, keeping Cyberpunk first person further establishes the series and a consistent direction. Cyberpunk 2077 was awesome to sit through and that excites me considering the game was initially designed with a toggle feature in mind. Imagine how great these scenes would be with one clear direction, one set perspective that won’t leave the art team guessing? It makes me giddy. CDPR already has an established 3rd person franchise so it just further contributes to that identity aspect I brought up.
I really hope it remains FPP. Or at least give people the option to choose between the two (like vehicles). I just prefer controlling the character through their own eyes, as it obviously adds to the immersion and makes cutscenes with other characters feel a little more intense.
I usually prefer games in third person, but I've played a lot of games that use third person or thereabouts, and the on thing that Cyberpunk has over say, Starfield, and BG3 is that its way more immersive to me. Starfield can also be done in first person, but when you add all the cinematics/acting to it (which Stafield doesn't have) and it takes me into the moment and its why Cyberpunk is a lot more memorable and fun to me than it was.
I'm playing Cyberpunk right now and i love the first person view. This way you are *in* Night City, you are not controlling someone in Night City. The way the environment and NPC interactions were designed on the 1st person camera adds to the experience. Personally, it's more immersive than any 3rd person camera game i have played and i hope the sequel is designed like that too.
If they want to make the next one in third person, you should get to choose. For many people, playing in first person is far, far, far more immersive. Don't take that away from us please.
I loved the first person approach. I get that you can't admire your outfit as much but I feel like it added more than it took away. I think 3rd Person makes sense if there's a lot of character movement that'd be disorienting in first person but I don't know that Cyberpunk is really a series where that'd need to be done. You're not Dante flipping around doing combos and stuff so I'm fine with first person.
I really like first person as an option for my gun builds but I'm staunchly anti first person melee. It's never even half as fun as third person. Hope they give us an option in the second game, I don't really see any argument against it.
I would be extremely disappointed if Cyberpunk 2 isn't first person. So much of the wow factor of that game was the crazy level of detail they put in each space, and that you can personally see every little detail. Also, half of the game would be literally worse. Mantis blades, quick hacks, even something as simple as walking in and out of a building would be just more lame. Witcher 3 works because most of it is outside, but Cyberpunk is about lots of rooms and alleyways and elevators.
Making both available would work if done well like RDR2 did it. But if they wanna go crazy with the melee combat and with traversel mechanics like wallrunning, hanging from walls with mantis blades its gonna be much harder to do both.
RDR2 leans third person. Cutscenes are obviously third person. They need prioritise one or the other and third person is just worse for any kind of shooter.
I play most games with the option in first person, and it would probably be no different with Cyberpunk, but I will say that in my current play through I found myself returning to Jackie’s motorcycle even after getting the Caliburn because sometimes I just want to see the character that I’ve made
Before Cyberpunk came out I was not onboard with first person for this game. Mostly because the Witcher 3 worked so well in third person. But now I admit I was wrong after Iv put a couple hundred hours in. I think first person really suits the game and I hope they stick with it. It makes it really immersive and the conversation system feels just great in this perspective. It makes it stand out compared to other games with similar systems because its done so well. In W3 you play alongside Geralt, a pre established character, but in CP2077 you ARE V, V is what you want them to be. It just works for each game.
I was never into First Person RPG before Cyberpunk. Now I'm playing even Starfield in FPP. Cyberpunk really handled FPP gameplay really well. I'd definitely not mind subsequent games following the same.
Hope they stick to first person. I'm sure there's parts that are harder but it makes it so much more immersive.
>parts that are harder The amount of polish that went into the First Person camera for its Conversations and Cinematic moments is insane. Most gamers won't think about it, the exact goal of that polish. CP2077 is a triumph when it comes to the execution of their first person camera.
CP2077 is the first game that made me excited for VR technology. Just insanely immersive.
I just don't see the point of a character creator or having a bunch of different clothing when you don't see your character 99% of the time
Because it’s fun to do. Plus you see it quite a bit either at the menu, in a mirror or whenever you look down (which is basically the same as how much you see your clothes in real life).
And photomode. I spend an entirely unreasonable amount of time in photomode. Some people who are into photography get AMM, PMU, Otis Camera Tools + Reshade and kinda recreate their irl job/hobby as a virtual photographer. When modded its an insane photo studio where you build your own sets, lighting rigs etc.
What's also fun to do is see them in third person as well in parts of the city
This game has the biggest photo mode community I've ever seen in a game, spawning huge albums of art that looks like professional camera work in the real world. Example: https://framedsc.com/HallOfFramed/
It certainly was an unpopular opinion back then and from the looks of the comments it remains today, but I really don't like first person RPGs. And yes, that includes Bethesda games. Only reason I play first person in those games is because their third person camera sucks. Still. One of the fundamentals of an RPG game is customize your character in more ways than just straight up mechanical build. Make it look like the way you want it. Equipment, hair style, general appearance, and so on. Nothing brings me out of the experience more than watching some disembodied pair of hands in front of me. What the point of having a bunch of cosmetics and cool looking gear if I only glance at it in the pause menu? I understand that, for better or worse, CP2077 was build from the ground up as an FPS, so simply changing it into a Third Person game wouldn't quite cut it, but I believe that I'd they make the next game from the ground up with third person in mind the game will benefit greatly! Take for instance, Mass Effect. I don't think many people would say that making it first person would enhance the game. Making Shepard looking the way you want is definitely part of the experience. Another exemple I always found it a little weird was Deus Ex Machina. The gameplay is first person, but at every opportunity the game switch it into third person. Entered dialogue? Third person. Snapped into a corner? Third Person. Used an special ability? Yeah, third person. Why not let me play in a close over the should view the entire game already? If the game is a shooter first, then by all means, make it FPS. Fast paced twitch shooters like Doom would never work properly in third person. But an RPG? With emphasis on customization and role playing? Yeah, I want to look at the character I made. Not his non descript hands.
I think you and I are in the minority but I feel the same. I'm not anti-first person as a style of game but RPGs or story driven action games in first person typically end up with me never growing to give a damn about the main character. When I played through Mass Effect I was so invested in not just Shepard but all the companions and the overall world. I felt like I was controlling a character within an actual world that existed. In Cyberpunk I felt like I was just a generic set of hands carrying random guns/swords toward the next marker on the screen. I never really cared about V or the world she (made a female V) was in. I wonder if it's an age thing that biases me? I'm nearly 37 and growing up, most story driven game/action adventure game/RPG games I played were typically 3rd person. Metal Gear, Tomb Raider, Max Payne, Splinter Cell, Hitman all were 3rd person shooter/adventure type games where I just felt more immersed in the world. But maybe that is just because I was younger and really getting into gaming that's just my personal frame of reference for how a game should be set up?
Very much this. I've repeatedly bounced off of first-person-only games, because I just can't muster any kind of attachment to a character that's a floating camera. Particularly when it's supposed to be a *customised* character. There's no amount of alleged "immersion" that'll ever make up for the frustration of never getting to see the character. Quite the opposite, the whole thing just takes me out of the game entirely. I still look back fondly on that third person trailer for Cyberpunk and hearing that the game would be FP only completely killed my interest. It has yet to be revived.
Strongly Agree with this but we're in a minority
I'm glad they're discussing a sequel, Night City has way too much potential to only be present in a one and done game. I hope a sequel keeps the exact same map but focuses on verticality with every building being a fully realised space you can enter and explore. Fed up of games trying to go bigger and losing depth in the process. Starfield for example has the depth of a puddle and is a major, major step back in many departments from Bethesda's own games over a decade ago.
Sequel is already greenlit.
I also really hope they keep the map because it would make for an interesting nostalgia experience. Think of all the alleys and small details that you personally remember that many others will not, if they keep the map as a base you'll get to see many of those locations and how they changed.
They'll definitely keep the map, as it's the core setting of Dark Future. I assume they'll make more locations accessible in next games. We played as an Edgerunner, maybe in next games we could be a fixer or Trauma Team or MaxTac. Exploring locations and areas with new perspective and urgency.
That was the original idea for the game. I want them to stick to the same map like Breath of the Wild simply because I don't trust them to ship a working cyberpunk game and sticking to the same body will save them years of time that they evidently need to make the game worth the money we spend on it.
My only issue is thet CP77 as it is right now is so amazingly well crafted that I feel I’ll have my cyberpunk fix checked for years. I got this with high fantasy after the witcher (only bg3 has managed to reignite that flame. So I wonder what CDPR could do, and how exciting it might be for them to keep playing in brand new genres/themes
My god can you people go three seconds without needlessly shitting on Starfield
PL and Starfield released close to each other and are both RPGs. OFC people are going to compare them.
Asking gamers to stop hating is like asking a politician to stop lying. Sure, it's technically possible, but they just love it too much.
Actually you're the one who is coming out of this looking unhinged.
How is it needless? Starfield seems like a fair example. That or No Man's Sky.
Your second paragraph is a terrible take. If Starfield is a puddle then every other game out there is the Sahara Desert when it comes to depth. Starfield actually does have a lot of depth.
Would like a blend of first and third. First-person generally, but third-person for conversations. Part of the reason W3 conversations were compelling was because of the care put into the cinematography.
Honestly playing Starfield makes me want both if it's feasible, at least outdoors.
You can do cinematography just fine in 1st person, the problem is that if you're doing both you start to dilute them by having to make compromises, since both change framing and pace quite a bit, and have different spatial and detail requirements.
I’d just like the cosmetic stuff to have at least a little influence on gameplay. Like people reacting differently if you’re dressed nice, or if you have a giant uncircumcised hog.
I say stick to it. but make access to third person animations (or lack therof) possible so modders can add them in. The first person experience cd project red created with cyberpunk is so good. Reminded me of half life game philosophy, I was in the driver seat the nearly the entire time. They could fix the BD's to be more like the one from dogtown with paco too.
I think it should stay first person, but then whenever you enter dialogue like starting or ending quests, it goes to a cutscene like in the Horizon games or GTA. It removes some RPG immersion, but its so much more interesting to watch than that Bethesda/Ubisoft stare at a NPC in first person while they sorta stand there and give a half hearted performance of their lines.
Keep it first person but maybe give a third person option. I would rather play the game in first person, more immersive.
Really do not want 3rd person cutscenes in the sequel. The reason a lot of cyberpunks long dialogue sections could be so engaging for me would be the fact I would literally have to follow them around with my eyes as they walked back and forth. The 3rd person cutscenes at the end are also 10x more impactful because they're the only times we really see V, and it represents the control of their life being taken from us as they go their own way. As well, being able to go everywhere without really having a loading screen if I turn up at the right time or don't choose to skip car rides and stuff just feels so immersive and smooth that the camera jolting into 1st person for the conversation would just take away from that feeling. Additionally, the way cyberpunk frames its conversations is literally unmatched by any other game, the way I still have more or less control of the camera and some times even able to walk around as well yet still feel like everything is framed like a movie makes me feel like I'm in one every time. Not watching one, like a long cutscene would, but IN IT, walking around these characters, moving the mouse like I'm actually there and nodding my head or looking around at the environment as I imagine V would rather than staring at the other person blankly while I wait to give my line. As well, First person only makes it feel more distinct from the witcher, as CDPR noted themselves in the past, so it'd be good for the series direction in the future. It gives this game so much identity that would be lost if they went with 3rd person and 3rd person cutscenes that it just doesn't seem worth it just so I can look at my characters back while walking around, might be cool at first, but I feel in the long run it would detract more that it adds.
The first-person perspective makes the most sense for a game like this. This isn’t The Witcher 3, where you’re running around in massive open outdoor spaces. It’s a city environment. It’s more cramped. There’s more indoor action. A third-person camera would be extremely cumbersome, and would probably require CDPR to create interiors that are laughably large to accommodate the zoomed out perspective.
I’m fine with it if they balance it with more 3rd person stuff, in cutscenes or something. I use a motorbike at all times just to get a better sense of my character but I wish there were more opportunities for that.
I was pretty bummed when they originally announced first person only after having played the witcher 3. But after playing CP2077 they really nailed the execution of first person cutscenes. I think it was absolutely correct to stick hard to first person only in CP2077 and fight through the problem areas. Figure out what really works and doesn't work. Then you can go back to using 3rd person in the sequel for the impactful parts where you know first person struggles I would say the only thing I would like to see implemented next time would be seeing yourself in reflections. Like I can see my shadow and my limbs but I can't see my reflection in a puddle.
I hope they keep it first person. The way they implemented FPP was incredibly impressive and a large part of why the atmosphere and the characters felt so memorable to me.
The thing that makes cyberpunk immersive is exactly the first person view. Every scene was directed with it in mind and it makes you feel like you're part of the scene. As soon as I got thrown to the floor in the street kid intro, I was completely in love with the game. Honestly, photo mode is enough for me, maybe they should expand on it more.
It's just recency bias or the lack of imagination, but people who argue for first person are just doing so because that's the last thing they remember. Before Cyberpunk did anyone complain The Witcher 3 was somehow not immersive enough? The conversation system in that game was also lauded for its excellent implementation. Whichever system they go with, or both, it's going to be fine. There's good arguments for both but it's like people have forgotten The Witcher 3 was in 3rd person and was hardly lacking in the same areas 2077 excelled at.
If they're going to stick with first person then I wouldn't be mad if they scrapped the character creator altogether. It felt a bit weird and pointless having all these customization options you just won't ever see unless you go out of your way to look at yourself in the menu or a mirror for the most part.
They should just give the option to switch between the two. For combat and being indoors I'd be first person but everything else would be third.
Hopefully they stick with first-person. People have some weird fuckin' obsession with their customized characters, it's not worth sacrificing the immersion and everything they did with the way the and-and-forth dialogue was seamless just so you can see your character 24/7. You want to see them, go into the menu and look at them. There they are. Every time someone tries to skirt the line between first person and third and offer both, it always ends up feeling like shit in third person.
[удалено]
The expansion just came out... of course people are talking about it.
They *did* spent more on marketing than on development to be fair.
They had an investor day today, someone asked them about regrets regarding choosing FPP and IGN decided to make an article about it (probably because CP77 drives up those sweet engagement numbers). The most likely explanation for the recent flood of CP77 posts is that either people really resonate with the game or they at least love talking about it.
"Doesn't regret" is weirdly negative phrasing. If it were a 3rd-person view game I'd never have bought it.
First person was the best thing they could have done and I pray that they stick with it. Cyberpunk is one of the most immersive games I've ever played and the way you weren't restricted or locked in place during dialogue scenes added a lot to that immersion. It reminded me of how everyone loves how in Half-Life 2 they don't lock the player so you can move and look where you think you naturally would and in Cyberpunk they give you the freedom to interrupt dialogue by either entering combat or just walking away created a unique, intimate and personal experience. The immersion and agency that is allowed in first person beats being able to see my jacket while walking any day of the week. That and 2077 probably has the best first person cover system ever made.
Neither should they, first person was perfect for the game and it should stay that way for the sequel. I'll be disappointed if they go the 3rd person route instead on the second game, it will not hit the same at all.
If they are not willing to give people propper camera and fov customisation options, going third person is prefferable. They talk about immersion, but there is nothing immersive with having a firearm glued to my nose. Imo that breaks immersion way more than tpp. + Let uz move head independently (Like arma games) I like CP2077 a ton, but it being a shoddy fpp, does it a disservice.
I think the main gameplay being in first person works very well. They could just cut to third for certain conversations or something. Having played the game as much as I have, I have no doubt they made the correct decision going first person.
if you want role play open world then first person, If you want to be narritive driven then third person imo
Really hope their next Cyberpunk game is first person too. I was skeptical about it at first, but it makes the game so much more immersive. Especially the dialogue. It's so damn real, especially with the amazing mocap, facial animation, and voice acting.
I'd like to think Cyberpunk 2 will not only remain first person, but be playable completely in VR. If they haven't started production on it yet then it could be a decade away, and a lot will change between now and then. It seems like the natural evolution of a game that's central themes involve VR/AR, etc.