BRINK suggestions forum

[H0RSE]

In UT2003 and 2004 the third person view was part of the cheat set and not possible in multiplayer.

Still doesn’t change that SW: Battlefront had it…yes, for multiplayer as well. I know they are not going to add a third person camera option, I’m just saying it is possible, AND it really wouldn’t mess with the FOV that badly. It would all depend on how far zoomed out the view was. And I play my PC shooters with 110 or higher FOV whenever I can.

[alias]

I know Rahdo didn’t say it but why even implement a camera mode that would imbalance an online First Person Shooter.

thanks for further clarification on the topic, and that’s an understandable point of view.

yet how about a third person game mode “includes all players” as an payed DLC, TU, patch,etc…
could that be an possibility for the long run…?

ps:
really like gears for that.

[alias]

I know Rahdo didn’t say it but why even implement a camera mode that would imbalance an online First Person Shooter.

thanks for further clarification on the topic, and that’s an understandable point of view.

yet how about a third person game mode “includes all players” as an payed DLC, TU, patch,etc…
could that be an possibility for the long run…?

ps:
I really like me Gears because of that fact…

[SockDog]

[quote=alias;205596]thanks for further clarification on the topic, and that’s an understandable point of view.

yet how about a third person game mode “includes all players” as an payed DLC, TU, patch,etc…
could that be an possibility for the long run…?

ps:
I really like me Gears because of that fact…[/quote]

To be clear I’m not trying to put words in SD’s mouth, just my opinion as to why they may not do it.

A 3rd person game mode is an interesting suggestion though. Best of both worlds (or perspectives). I guess it would come back to Rahdo’s statement on getting the camera system working well with the level designs.

Guess the more popular Brink is the more likely SD will work on DLC, expansions and sequels.

As I mentioned earlier, other First Person Shooters had this option. I use to play UT 2003/2004 and Star Wars Battlefront in third person view.

But why is it necessary beyond you looking at your character while playing?

I’d argue it does offer large FOV perks over a FP perspective. You can see who is behind you, to your sides, around corners, on higher structures.

I expect you’ll disagree as it’s quite a sweeping statement but any FPS game that offers 3rd person mode that isn’t cheat protected is a poor FPS.

[H0RSE]

but if it was an option in a game accessible to all players, how is it cheating?

[SockDog]

but if it was an option in a game accessible to all players, how is it cheating?

Because if it offers an advantage then it’s no longer optional. I like Alias’s idea of making it a separate mode entirely.

Likewise, I’m all for enabling mouse and keyboard support on the PS3 (still suggesting this BTW) but would expect the game to have a way to separate both player groups to keep things fair.

[tokamak]

Gotta agree here. Not all limitations are a bad thing. Limitations are there for a reason, they create scarcity and force players to make choices that decide the game. A first person offers less vision than a third person view, but that’s what makes it so interesting for a shooter.

[H0RSE]

Limitations are there for a reason, they create scarcity and force players to make choices that decide the game.

Just the thing I’m looking for…scarcity and forcing me to do things…like the monetary system. Woo hoo, sign me up. /sarcasm

A first person offers less vision than a third person view, but that’s what makes it so interesting for a shooter.

Real life is in first person, and most shooters are first person. To me, this makes third person MUCH more interesting.

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=H0RSE;205611]Just the thing I’m looking for…scarcity and forcing me to do things…like the monetary system. Woo hoo, sign me up. /sarcasm
[/QUOTE]

So you rather want all classes together, unlimited ammo, no reload, and all mixed into one bland mass?

[BioSnark]

Likewise, I’m all for enabling mouse and keyboard support on the PS3 (still suggesting this BTW) but would expect the game to have a way to separate both player groups to keep things fair.

Very much agree. I don’t know anyone who prefers the console controller to the mouse with regard to first person shooters on the PS3. If people have a mouse and keyboard, let them use it!

I assume SD doesn’t want to split the PS3 community because they aren’t confident about their sales on that platform.

[SockDog]

[quote=BioSnark;205614]Very much agree. I don’t know anyone who prefers the console controller to the mouse with regard to first person shooters on the PS3. If people have a mouse and keyboard, let them use it!

I assume SD doesn’t want to split the PS3 community because they aren’t confident about their sales on that platform.[/quote]

It’s a tough decision for sure. Some random thoughts I’ve had on this

I only see the community being split substantially if there is a large proportion of gamers who do want to use M+KB.

I would think balancing etc was already done for the PC version so a port to the PS3 may not take substantial work.

Games and servers could presumably filter whether you are using a controller or M+KB to keep things fair.

One of the reasons I bought a PS3 was the hope of out of the box M+KB support taking off. Surely I’m not alone there.

M+KB support (or better than controller support) will never take off unless developers start putting it in the games. Many console gamers have never even tried it.

Some gamers already use hacked M+KB solutions under the table and such things are promoted as viable alternative. Personally I see this as cheating.

I bought KZ2 to see what a tip top console FPS was like. I enjoyed it but still found the controls frustrating and distracting at times. I’d be less inclined to buy a FPS game on a console because of this.

M+KB support would mean Devs no longer needed to nuff the nuts of every FPS to make it playable.

In short. If you can include it as an option on the PS3 please do.

[Metal-Geo]

I bought KZ2 to see what a tip top console FPS was like. I enjoyed it but still found the controls frustrating and distracting at times. I’d be less inclined to buy a FPS game on a console because of this.

You picked a hell of a game to try. Killzone 2 is known for having quite frustrating aiming controls. (lag/delay, acceleration, and such) So… yeah… :stroggbanana:

[SockDog]

You picked a hell of a game to try. Killzone 2 is known for having quite frustrating aiming controls. (lag/delay, acceleration, and such) So… yeah… :stroggbanana:

Funny because every preview/review I read said the controls were so much better than the sloppy mess. I have to say I preferred them to Bad Company or the Resistance demo. I still feel the game would have been so much better if designed and released on the PC and not needed so many compromises to make it work on a console platform.

[signofzeta]

dude, dude, dude, you know what be a cool thing? If the melee attacks was the trusty fist, and the trusty boot as well.

Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh, and when you do the slide move onto an opponent, it knocks them down or something like that.

Also, if splash damage were to make a dedicated hand to hand combat class, that is, no weapons, just fists and boots, and be able to pick up opponents who are of a smaller body size just to throw them, for the next class based shooter/beater, I’d bet there would be a lot of conservative people in the group who want the class removed. Would that be the case?

With the sliding, and the smart system, I think for future games, a class dedicated to hand to hand combat isn’t that of a bad idea.

I wonder what would happen if someone made a class based objective game in first or third person POV where each faction had no guns, just beating people up. The classes would be based on body type which decides strength, movement speed, attack speed, and jumping height, and also you can pick which tools you want, something like that. Also guns would be laying around the ground as weapons, but when people attack you, you drop it, something like that.

I wonder, has any developer done something like that?

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=signofzeta;205630]I wonder what would happen if someone made a class based objective game in first or third person POV where each faction had no guns, just beating people up. The classes would be based on body type which decides strength, movement speed, attack speed, and jumping height, and also you can pick which tools you want, something like that. Also guns would be laying around the ground as weapons, but when people attack you, you drop it, something like that.

I wonder, has any developer done something like that?[/QUOTE]

The closest would be Rune http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh7zwurCicI

Hack’n Slash with fps mechanics.

[SockDog]

[quote=tokamak;205634]The closest would be Rune http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh7zwurCicI

Hack’n Slash with fps mechanics.[/quote]

<cough> Zeno Clash <cough>

[tokamak]

That’s first person but yeah.

[Rahdo]

[QUOTE=alias;205596]
I really like me Gears because of that fact…[/QUOTE]
Yup, but only because they’ve got a pretty good 3rd person camera system, which they put a lot of work into…

[tokamak]

Which the entire game has been balanced around as well, it really suited their cover system.

[alias]

Yup, but only because they’ve got a pretty good 3rd person camera system, which they put a lot of work into…

well i dunno about how much work they put in too that, i thought it was a mere camera constraint attached to the skeleton.:rolleyes:
gow 1 pc probarly tells more…

but i do know that being more than a FPS and allow 3PS would expand its consumer base.
i know people that only play FPS and visa versa
just a hunch.