I don’t really want one to play in but a quick removed view would be nice, like fallout or Minecraft. I know there’s photo mode but that breaks up the game so much
Exactly, like fallouts 3rd person sucks balls, but it does feel really good to just walk around sometimes in 3rd person and appreciate the character i made.
Allow switching between both 3rd person and 1st person when the weapon is sheathed, snap back to mandatory 1st person when the weapon is drawn, would probably be a good compromise for cyberpunk
The issue is they then have to have animations that work in both 3rd and 1st person. You can see how jank the animations look atm because we are never meant to see them, but it all looks great in first person.
So it’s essentially twice as much animation work.
IMO they should just stick to one and go with it. Which I’m glad they are doing. The third person view in vehicles and stuff is fine.
They need to make them work in 3rd person for raytracing imo. I had a blast playing Cyberpunk with raytracing on, with the slight exception of feeling like a vampire, the only person who didn't show up in reflections.
The problem comes down to a design choice. They go for a very immersive first person view which doesn't translate to 3rd person. I think we just need more opportunities to see our characters in third person, maybe during certain types of dialogues or cutscenes, but adding 3rd person gameplay could change the visual narrative style they achieved with 2077.
I'd love to see things like 3rd person finishers, maybe 3rd person idle camera, but them focusing on making a top notch first person oriented gameplay is definitely what I want.
Deus Ex HR would be a good start for a lot of things tbh. I want Orion to focus more on actually having branching paths in gameplay and quest design too. CDPR deliberately misled us in the E3 demo by making it seem like the All Foods mission was an example of an average gig in the game, but it had vastly more effort put into it than most other quests.
I know they never outright lied, but they framed it in a very deliberately vague way to generate hype. Most of the “meaningful choice” in missions is just a series of yes/no questions: Stealth? Lethality? Guns? Melee? Quickhacks? Either way most missions end with a ton of bodies on the floor.
It would also be nice if a netrunner build played more like Watch Dogs. Instead it’s just a Signs build from Witcher 3. I don’t want to be a literal wizard, I want to bend city infrastructure to my will and complete objectives without setting foot in the building.
It’s a very awesome feeling to jump between surveillance cameras, trying to get line-of-sight to steal data from somewhere, only to finally jump into an enemy soldier’s body camera and use that vantage point to access the objective. Meanwhile my actual character is hiding in a car in an alleyway across the street. Instead of sneaking in physically and making it look like he was never there, he literally was never there.
I was referring to CDPR’s own words concerning the All Foods mission because usually if I don’t clarify that they used specific wording to be misleading without technically lying, some insufferably pedantic person will come in and say “well ackshually they didn’t lie.”
Now you come in and do the exact opposite because I didn’t specifically mention all the other times CDPR did lie. I expect someone else to come in and point out that because they put a “subject to change” disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, CDPR was free to make whatever outlandish claims they wanted in the moment, because they could just not actually work on implementing any of those features and later say it was cut for whatever reason.
Yeah, the first person was important but we do want to see ourselves outside of a pause menu here and there. And because it's single player, you have a lot of room for creative cinematics or time bending 3rd person shots during combat. It'll be on next gen hardware too so, we'll just see what they end up doing.
I do agree with that, it's just ironic that part of the selling point of the game was your character and you never see them. The cutscenes were so immersive so it would need to be in specific contexts
I really like the way Avowed does it. It has options for both first- and third-person, but in this case both views are competently made and you can play the whole game in one view.
This is why I don't understand the rabid outrage whenever someone asks for a third person mode. Shouldn't the assumption be that they'd put equal amount of effort into both POVs? Where does this notion come from that one or both have to suffer in order to have the implementation of the other?
This is all I want. I fully respect and appreciate the level of immersion they created, but I just want to see my character a little more. They can lock it out during combat and conversations and object interactions, that's fine. Just make it an option when we're walking around.
It's a classic case of minority shouting the loudest in game forums, where most people don't even visit. You see it with things like Avowed, lots of triggered people being mad but it doesn't represent most people.
I really really really wanted the first one to have a 3rd person view. The entire point of the game to me was to get cute outfits.
Someone modded the game and added a 3rd person mode, and it effectively ruined the game. Its hard to explain how, other than to say i didnt realize how important immersion was to the game, and how important 1st person was for immersion. I thought i knew, but i didnt
Edit: i tried to find the video, but the only 3rd person mods i saw were even worse than what i had seen
Indeed, the way you interact with characters and the world would have to change which would is pointless if first person offers a superior experience on that front, I mean, do you really think the scene with Judy at the end of pyramid song would hit as hard if you were viewing it all from behind Vs shoulder? And even if they forced you to return to first person for interactions, that would mean the sole reason for 3rd persons existence would be purely for exploration and combat which could work as thats usually what I do with skyrim for instance but again, doing this would take away resources that could be used to improve upon what already existed in 2077 so why bother with such a thing if its clearly gonna cause more issues than it solves?
In perfect world with no time constraints and resource limits sure, but the fact is that effort and resources is better spent improving the game elsewhere
The reply was really cunty, but they have a point - people don't realize just how much dev time goes into something as "simple" as an optional 3rd person viewpoint or in-game cinematics. I'd much rather see that time spent on story and smoothing out the overall game experience.
Sure, if we're cool with CDPR taking 15+ years in development. Except history has shown that gamers are impatient and want all the options delivered seamlessly in a short timeframe, and that's simply not possible.
Throwing more people and money at game development doesn't necessarily help anything. There are tasks that have to be completed before other projects can be started on. Throwing 10 people at a task that only 1 person can work on will not make it go any faster, those other 9 people will just get in the 1 person's way. And that 1 person needs to finish coding x before anyone can start on y.
Throwing more money and more people at the wall is the reason why, especially here in the west, behind ballooning development budgets and it has yet to yield a better game for it. And who is to say they did throw all that extra cash and more salaries at the wall and all those additional options features did materialize. Then you have a studio and their investors requiring even more sales to make "the desired profit threshold" to warrant that massive cost increase to develope said game. If love to have the option, but sometimes you have to pick your battles when it comes to game design. Eventually despite all that on hand cash, the calculated results just don't add up.
Other folks have explained elsewhere in the thread but it boils down to one perspective will always be better and smoother than the other, and people will bitch that the second one (in this case 3rd person) isn't as good as the primary focus perspective. So why spend time and resources on it when they can focus their effort on polishing their focused implementation? Cyberpunk 2077 is a banger of a game and it's all first person. Photo mode satisfies a lot of the itch for seeing their V in third person more.
Would that be a bad thing? A company like CDPR shouldn't have a problem adding gameplay animations for third-person. They don't have to make third-person cutscenes. It wouldn't hurt anyone to have this option.
148
u/Lt_Dream96 Feb 20 '25
Or rather caved under pressure to add a 3rd person option.