Should you be able to see what your character cannot see in a third person shooter?

I like TPS games but I have always thought the FOV never made a whole lot of sense either. What you suggest sounds interesting but it could also be pretty annoying. Good question.

I think it depends on the game. Having some games where vision is obscured would be interesting, but the concept of showing everything isn't inherently bad or inferior. They both have a place in third person games.

How about they just jerk your reticle a bit when you pop out of cover since your character is moving? Obscuring the players vision doesn't seem fun to me.

I'm not sure how it's a problem. It's a videogame.

@hunter5024 said:

How would you feel if a grenade was tossed at you from a person that was behind cover and you couldn't even see that person? It's not fun.

Restricting the player's ability is not always inherently bad. You can't shoot diagonally in Megaman. You can't shoot a gun forever, you need to reload. If the player's third person camera is restricted to what the character can see, the player will simply have to rely on other information like sound or teamwork.

I want to like third person shooters, but I find the concept largely flawed. Currently, third person shooters are camping oriented because movement incurs risk of being seen by someone you can't see.

If you want a "true view" of only being able to see what your character sees you should well... be playing first person games.

I don't think third person shooters are camping oriented because of the risk of being seen, they're camping oriented because games like gears of war have made the camping concept so prevalent in the genre. Also I don't see how restricting the players vision would help your problem of being killed by players you can't see, it would exacerbate it.

That might be true, but it's oversimplifying it. Why do third person shooters exist? Because you like looking at your character. Because melee attacks make more sense in third person than they do in first person. Because you feel more grounded looking at your character when you can visibly see which shots miss, and how high cover is compared to your character. Because having your back against a low wall makes your profile smaller, but this isn't possible in a first person shooter (imagine an FPS requiring you to have your back turned when you take cover!).

These are all GREAT reasons to play a third person shooter. But it's marred by the all-seeing camera.

I would argue that third person shooters are actually more realistic in terms of giving you (the player) all the awareness your character would have in reality. First person shooters are a poor approximation of our vision and environmental awareness as human beings. Looking at a flat screen is far more restrictive than the human eye. Not to mention 360 degree hearing (5.1 headphones can come close, but not quite) and that indefinable "sense" we have just moving through the world (like when you can "feel" someone behind you).

Until virtual reality becomes ubiquitous (we'll see about the oculus rift), third person games do a better job of approximating a human's ability to perceive the world by using an enhanced field of view to make up for the aspects of our perception that video games can't yet replicate.

"If you can see the enemy, the enemy can see you. Oh, except in Third Person Shooters."

On the contrary, if you restrict a player's vision, it WOULD help because stealth would matter. Frankly, in most TPS games you can't even see where your opponent has his camera turned. You can sneak up on someone in an FPS game, but if you tried this in a TPS, the opponent might already have his camera on you, and you wouldn't know it! Remember MGS2? You actually had to peek out the corner in a few spots of that game. The game even told you to use shadows as an indicator. Maybe these mechanics were underutilized, but I appreciated them. Splinter Cell's multiplayer had a unique twist where one side had to play in first person grunts, and the other played as third person operatives. While the grunts had superior firepower, the operatives had stealth and enemy position information, so it was a great tradeoff.

It's hard to justify why you'd want players to be able to see their enemies from behind complete cover, so help me out here. Maybe you could have it as a sort of temporary buff?

How is this even a question?

To say you should only see what your character sees is literally just saying the game should be an FPS. =(

K, let's play our favorite third person games in first person.

Metal Gear Solid. No, you cannot see what camoflauge you are wearing.
Tomb Raider. And no, if you look down, you will not see your chest, because in almost all games except Trespasser, you have no feet in first person.
Vanquish or Max Payne. Hope you have fun dodging bullets in first person.
Resident Evil 4. Oh, if you want to do a roundhouse kick, your camera is going to spin really fast, k?
Killswitch Engage. I'm going to let you blind fire, but you have to be staring completely at the wall.
Mass Effect. Have fun commanding your troops in first person, oh wait, you can't see them. (while I think it's bad for you to see enemies in full cover, allies can be a good thing, depending on the situation)
Uncharted. Make your jumps in first person. (Yes, Mirrors Edge did this, but FPS parkour and TPS parkour feel extremely different)
Dead Space: Uhh actually... I guess this could be cool because Isaac has a little hud on his chest that he himself stares at.
Mario. Yes, Let's play MARIO64 in First Person.

There are a TON of reasons why third person shooters are cool. They let you see the character you control, your movement, and your surroundings. But the camera lets you see what your character cannot. So please don't tell me to just go play an FPS instead. Give me a good reason why you want players to be able to see each other from full cover.

Be more reasonable! Fundamentally speaking, TPS will always let you see things your character will not. Yes this includes being able to see opponents from behind cover.. but you act like this is an exception.

What do you want devs to do? Make a cone of vision in the center of the screen, and all enemies outside that circle turn invisible? So like a "fog of war" applied to third person camera? At that point you might as well play an FPS and/or demand that a first person viewpoint be included. As the saying goes, the simplest solution to a problem is usually the best.

That's kinda the point of a third person shooter. That's basically all what Rainbow Six Vegas was, and I played the shit out of that game, and it was fun as hell. If you were good, you could still move forward even with people camping. The game basically taught you to expect someone around literally every corner. You also had nades and C4 to counter it all.

So glad you asked!
Generally, we can introduce a desaturated fog of war outside of your character's line of sight. Things are blurrier, the colors are more grayed, and you can't see your enemies.

We can apply this in a few ways...
-The fog of war only applies if your character cannot see the target from any angle he's currently at (in a 360 degree fashion)
-Or, it applies directly to your character's field of vision. You can only see enemies and tracers in his direct field of vision. This might seem too realistic for you, but this actually might make a realistic TPS Tom Clancy possible (and even better than its FPS equivalent). I think the SOCOM series could have benefited from this.
-Apply it to an FPS instead! FPS players can now take cover and they'll switch to third person, but they still can't see past the fog of war.
-Make it an actual buff to turn off the fog of war. Imagine a class that had superior awareness, coupled with a microphone and teamwork.

" At that point you might as well play an FPS"

Careful there Egg, I might be able to name even more third person shooters for you to play in first person.

As the saying goes, the simplest solution to a problem is usually the best.

I freely admit that this is whole fog of war camera is too complex for the COD crowd. A game like Tomb Raider does not need this solution. If you're seeing people popping out of cover and instantly getting headshots however, I can't think of a better or more natural solution.

@hencook said:

It just kind of feels like you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. The idea of encouraging stealth sounds like a nightmare to me, because I can't think of anything less fun than being killed in a multiplayer game by someone you didn't even know was there. Your idea might work for something like the games you listed, because Splinter Cell and MGS are all about stealth. If they did something like that in Uncharted or Gears of War though, it would drive me insane, because it would just make them play more like First Person Shooters and I'd rather have a different experience.

I'm glad you found the hallways of death so fun. I especially liked running down an empty hallway, and suddenly receiving a shotgun slug into my head from a player who one shot me with his shotgun... with blind fire. His character never saw me. Only his camera did. Wait, isn't Rainbow Six suppose to be tactical and realistic? The first R6 games were marketed as being realistic. Oh well, what happens in R6Vegas stays in R6Vegas.

So you want Third Person shooters to obscure vision like Mark of the Ninja?

I think I got you to sort of agree with me here! First off, stealth is only one of the benefits of having character restricted awareness (The other being no cheap corner shots!). And that's fine with me, I'll take your self proclaimed "sort of" agreement. I'll meet you halfway too! I think the unsophisticated, (COD equivalent of TPS) Entry level third person shooters should not have "character restricted awareness". Too difficult to wrap their walmart heads around. But for those of us that enjoy a healthy third person diet (don't picture that), we could stand to benefit a lot from "character restricted awareness".

Reloading isn't risk free. Peeking around a corner shouldn't be risk free either. You should might get shot.

Meh, I don't need a game to be "realistic" to be fun. And to be fair the blind fire was never that accurate/good.

Oh crap, /thread.

Awww c'mon Oscar, join the debate. And uhh... lemme go look that game up.

In case you might not get my point just by looking the game up in 'Ninja' the character has to actually be looking or be in the field of sight in order to know where the enemies are at despite being in 2D. As soon as he stops looking all of the area/room that isn't in the field of sight is greyed out. Your explanation of what you would like in Third person shooters reminded me of this mechanic.

At the same time while some of you folks are saying that that TPS's are "suffering" from this need to remember one thing though: you can do it too.

By that I mean the idea of using the camera from behind cover to see things that are happening that your character cannot see. It is a fundamental part of the game, nay the genre, that players can do this. It is your job as the player to be vigilant about this, to be aware that people can hide behind corners to get the drop on you running by. I understand sometimes you have to play fast and loose but that's the risk you take by running down that empty hallway without throwing a grenade down it or paying attention to radar to see what enemies are close by. My point it, all the powers that people are having a hard time with, also have them, the playing field is level in that regard.

Furthermore, if you are that person who is sitting at the end of the hallway waiting to blast people, you have to remember one thing: your situational awareness is pretty much gone at that point. All you can see is really just down that hallway and maybe a little on either side of you if you are twisting the camera around and if you that, you lose sight of the hallway, the main reason you are there.

Also, while people are saying that it is "unrealistic" to able to do that, remember that when you stacked up against the wall someone can come from what is directly in front of your character but you cannot see them as your camera is facing down wherever you are going. Someone is essentially sneaking up on you while your character is directly facing them. Now tell me that ain't goofy.

I don't see the point in having a third person game if you don't get the benefit of the camera being third person. Most of them don't give the character enough design to make them look consistently interesting for 8 hours or so. The only other major benefit is being able to move the camera around the level before returning to the player, which never happens in FPS' because it would take you out of the character and seem jarring.

What? But this isn't a balance thread. Actually, sure, since you like talking about balance so much, let's talk about it from a balance perspective. (as ridiculous as it is to argue about balancing a whole genre, I am here to entertain)

My point it, all the powers that people are having a hard time with, also have them, the playing field is level in that regard.

The "but anybody can do it, and you can do it too, so it's balanced" point is moot. If a fighter had a light punch that did 100% damage, and everybody could choose him, I GUESS it would be balanced, but it would also be broken, wouldn't it? That's why some fighting games have characters that are banned. They're just no fun. Hallway camping isn't fun, and to the person being dealt the insta-headshot, it's pretty OP. Spare me your "Play to Win" mantra, I'd rather play to win in a game that's fun to play first.

If you're playing a team game, you're likely have a battle line. A sniper for instance, would have the assurance that he can snipe from a tall forward position, given that he knows his teammates are at the correct positions as well, forming a line in which the enemy is unlikely to be able to flank without directly engaging your allies. This doesn't happen in COD because you respawn in random areas of the map, mind you, but otherwise I see this occurring a lot in games.

So far, this is fine in either FPS or TPS. The problem with TPS however, is that snipers are formed in these battle lines from simple hallways... without even requiring a sniper rifle. You're arguing that your situational awareness is lower when you're camping a hallway, but with good teamwork, you can effectively eliminate the enemy's movement into one area (your hallway), risk free. Let's not forget how long these hallways can get! With the right hallway length, a hallway camper could probably just keep one eye out for his next catch to come by, and pop out whenever he wants. A hallway camper gets about 4 seconds to react, a hallway runner gets a fraction of a second until he is headshotted. Theoretically, you cannot take out the hallway camper risk-free. If you try to throw a grenade, not only is he at option to shoot you first, you've also risked a whole grenade on the fact that he might not even be there. This paragraph is hard to argue concretely, seeing that many different variations of the theoretical hallway could exist. He could be sitting next to a laundry chute that an enemy could drop a grenade in, or he could have his back completely walled off. So wait, maybe it is the mapmaker's responsiblity to ensure that no hallway is OP. And generally, every TPS has its hallways and campers.

I just don't see how you can argue hallway camping to have large disadvantages. What's better? Camping in a first person shooter, which is likely in the corner of a room, or camping in a third person shooter, against a hallway where you can peek risk-free? Which one do YOU think has better situational awareness?

you have to remember one thing: your situational awareness is pretty much gone at that point. All you can see is really just down that hallway and maybe a little on either side of you if you are twisting the camera around

Now I might be a big meanie by taking your quote quite possibly out of context here, but my opinion stands that hallway camping is an unholy artifact created by TPS's that FPS's do not have. All forms of camping inherently have their disadvantages, but hallway camping has more advantages than regular forms of camping.

Sure, the playing field is level, but it still sucks that peeking over corners is a risk-free action. I'm not claiming that it's imbalanced. I'm saying it's lame. You say it's a fundamental part of the game, I say games can change.

Also, while people are saying that it is "unrealistic" to able to do that, remember that when you stacked up against the wall someone can come from what is directly in front of your character but you cannot see them as your camera is facing down wherever you are going. Someone is essentially sneaking up on you while your character is directly facing them. Now tell me that ain't goofy.

It sure is goofy now that you mention it, but it ain't a broken tactic. It's a third person shooter issue that I can concede on and do not care to argue about. It seems that you were trying to use the "If Goofy X is OK, then Goofy Y must also be OK!" argument, but it doesn't hold here because it has little relevance. You can fix third person camera awareness, with character-restricted awareness, but you can't so easily fix it the other way around.

There are many benefits to third person. Hallway camping, aligning crosshairs before attacking a target and...

K, let's play our favorite third person games in first person.

Metal Gear Solid. No, you cannot see what camoflauge you are wearing.
Tomb Raider. And no, if you look down, you will not see your chest, because in almost all games except Trespasser, you have no feet in first person.
Vanquish or Max Payne. Hope you have fun dodging bullets in first person.
Resident Evil 4. Oh, if you want to do a roundhouse kick, your camera is going to spin really fast, k?
Killswitch Engage. I'm going to let you blind fire, but you have to be staring completely at the wall.
Mass Effect. Have fun commanding your troops in first person, oh wait, you can't see them. (while I think it's bad for you to see enemies in full cover, allies can be a good thing, depending on the situation)
Uncharted. Make your jumps in first person. (Yes, Mirrors Edge did this, but FPS parkour and TPS parkour feel extremely different)
Dead Space: Uhh actually... I guess this could be cool because Isaac has a little hud on his chest that he himself stares at.
Mario. Yes, Let's play MARIO64 in First Person.

Most of them don't give the character enough design to make them look consistently interesting for 8 hours or so.

Spoken so matter-of-factly, but I bet people playing Tomb Raider would disagree with you. Maybe you created a lame Shepard. People love character designs.

There really is no issue with 3rd person games. The basics irrefutable fact is in the real world people have five senses to know their environment. In even the best 'first person' game you have two and those two are muted because no game can provide the sights and sounds of the real world as well as the real world. In a 3rd person game seeing around you even behind and slightly above is not really a huge advantage is merely giving you the situational awareness that is robbed from you by not having your five sense.

And as other have said 'it's a game'. Seeing around corners, seeing what is behind you is not really a huge deal even in shooters. If everyone has the same advantages then everyone is on the same play field. Having played many of 3rd person shooters you know doorways and alleys are to be checked first, players know the angles and thus avoid the obvious traps or problem areas without thinking.

Pretty much this.

Yes, and the third person camera lets you see things that the character cannot by virtue of it being a third person camera. This is inherent, and if you consider it a flaw then you must accept it as an inherent flaw or simply not play third person shooters. This is something that even the CoD and Gears of War people can, in your words, "wrap their Wal-Mart heads around". As if enjoying CoD and Gears and buying games at Wal-Mart somehow makes somebody a neanderthal.

And don't give me that realism shit. Even your ARMA's have something game-y about them. It's a video game!

For the record, Killswitch Engage is a metalcore band. Kill.switch is the game you're talking about.

Be careful with absolute statements. I must accept it or simply not play? If I made my own TPS, then that would technically be an option outside the ones you're giving me, right?

How's this?

You cannot go past the speed of light. This is inherent and if you consider it a flaw then you must accept it as an inherent flaw or simply not go past the speed of light. (or someone can link me to that thing where they sped an atom past the speed of light)

You can see people while your character doesn't have line of sight. This is an inherent flaw of TPS's, but it can be fixed to where you can no longer see them due to line of sight.

Fog of War. This was an invented mechanic for the RTS genre. Could there have ever been an RTS game without Fog of War? The Fog of War idea didn't meet too much resistance with RTS games, what is it about TPS's inherent flaws that don't allow for its own style of Fog of War?

Do you think Chess could ever have fog of war? Does that sound ridiculous to you? Because if it does, there's a variant for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_(chess) ...So Chess can have it, but it's too ridiculous for TPS's to have it? Mark of the Ninja has third person character restricted awareness. Gears Of War has a compromise that makes peaking around corners difficult...Gears of War actually tried to address the issue with that compromise, so apparently I'm not alone on this. 13% of this poll agrees with me, crappy number but I'll take it. Valkyria Chronicles is a hybrid RTS/TPS game. Each time you move, you exhaust movement points. Would it make sense to let this TPS have character dependent line of sight? Absolutely. You might not prefer it because you prefer the current style of TPS's, and that's fine. I'm not asking you to prefer it my way, I'm simply asking you to understand how it's possible for this to be a good game mechanic in certain games. Understand?

1. Killswitch Engage

2.wrap their Wal-Mart heads around

3. And don't give me that realism shit.

1. My bad, sorry. 2.Sorry if you were offended, was just trying to be edgy 3. Realism is thrown around an awful lot in this thread. I think I suggested it could possibly be used as a good game mechanic to enhance realism, but it's not the basis of my argument. I am no longer giving it to you.

I have no opinion on this debate, but cheers for making me aware of Kriegspiel. That sounds like a blast.

@hencook:

Be careful with absolute statements. I must accept it or simply not play? If I made my own TPS, then that would technically be an option outside the ones you're giving me, right?

If you make a third person shooter then you are not seeing what the character you are playing as is seeing. You are seeing his back. You can see all of the animations that he is doing (like grabbing a gun off of your back in Gears of War). Most pertinent to this argument, though, is that you have a wider field of vision than he does so it's only natural, and inherent to the genre, that you can see around corners that he couldn't. You're assuming that a third person shooter should make strides to greatly restrict something inherent to it. You're suggesting that the fog of war in RTS should be applied to a person sitting behind cover, and frankly that just screams terrible game design to me. It doesn't sound "fun" or "balanced" or "interesting", it's a terrible idea because it's a restriction that would get on player's nerves. It's like saying that Final Fantasy shouldn't include Phoenix Downs anymore because it gets in the way of the story (i.e. Aeris's death), when in fact removing them would cause great frustration to the player and you'd do it for no real reason.

God I love R6V

Also, I feel games should be made to be fun, so developers should make the choices they do with that in mind, and if they decide to try this, sure why not, but I don't see what makes it more fun.

While you're at it, how about suggesting getting hit with bullets will cause (if not instant death) serious movement penalties if shot in non-lethal parts of the body?

Kidding aside, how about they make a game where the camera behind a character's back is literally in the fiction and used to guide the character. Something similar was done in ACIII when Desmond was doing a "stealth" mission out in the real world.

I like video games so they should keep being video games.

It's magic. Now leave it be.

In gears its easy to just stay in cover and be able to use the third person to see upcoming enemies and such. so i idk

You're assuming that a third person shooter should make strides to greatly restrict something inherent to it.

Yes, I am. I'll give some good examples of where this has been done before.
You can't move while aiming in RE4 and 5, even though it's inherent that you should be able to move at all times. Why did the devs do this? Perhaps to raise tension, to make aiming a weapon a risky move.
Street Fighter use to have strength sensitive buttons. The move that came out was dependent on how hard you pressed the button. Strength is inherent to fighting games, yet it was restricted.
Portal is a first person shooter that doesn't really allow the player to shoot.
And the nice Chess Fog of War example I posted above.

A restriction is not inherently bad game design. Health, reloading, and field of view are all restrictions.

when in fact removing them would cause great frustration to the player and you'd do it for no real reason.

I agree with you, it would cause great frustration to some players, but on the contrary being killed indirectly by an all-seeing camera is even more frustrating! At least for me. Is that a real reason? I also believe the mechanic would be better suited for a hardcore/competitive audience. It would probably frustrate them a lot less, at least compared to the average gamer, right? And it would probably make gameplay more interesting, seeing as it would be the first TPS without the all-seeing camera. This might not be popular, but it is at least a real reason that you're asking for. Imagine that, a competitive TPS with the advantages of the TPS, combined with the LOS restrictions of the FPS. If a player can no longer rely on his camera to see, he might have to rely on his teammates to relay their locations. GOW restricts camera movement.

It's like saying that Final Fantasy shouldn't include Phoenix Downs anymore because it gets in the way of the story (i.e. Aeris's death), when in fact removing them would cause great frustration to the player and you'd do it for no real reason.

I think we can do better than no phoenix downs. How about we play a TPS where you're simply BLIND the entire game? (okay, I think that's a FPS at that point, bare with me here)... That's a pretty crazy restriction right? I mean...being able to SEE is inherent to shooting games right? Would this frustrate players? Undoubtedly at first. But it's imaginable that you could actually make an experience out of it.

Yes, the fog of war idea is terrible game design for some TPS games, you know what, probably a majority of TPS games. But all TPS games? Are you sure, even with the reasons I've provided, that it would still be absolutely terrible for every single instance? Can't even be bothered to entertain one of my examples where it might be good? Just because the mechanic would be frustrating, doesn't mean the resulting game would be terrible. Combos are frustrating. Dying is frustrating. Hard mode is frustrating.... They're frustrating but they don't make the game terrible. I would rather best my foes with superior teamwork and my own situational awareness, not with something the TPS camera gives me.

@hencook:

You must be missing what I meant by "inherent". By that, I mean something that comes with being a third person shooter, and that something was being able to see things that the character cannot. Not being able to move and shoot in RE4 and 5 is not inherent to the genre, it's a design decision made by the developers. Being able to see things that the character you are playing as cannot is something inherent to the third person camera. If you want to only see precisely what the character can see, then first person is where you go. I know that pisses you off but it isn't wrong to suggest it.

but on the contrary being killed indirectly by an all-seeing camera is even more frustrating!

It's not an all-seeing camera. When you hide behind a piece of cover and look down a hallway in Gears of War, you cannot see to your right or left unless you move the camera around. You can never see everything at once, and so putting yourself at the end of a hallway just to camp is a great way to get killed by a good player. Toss a grenade down there, walk around, etc.

"But how am I supposed to know he's there?" Move slowly and carefully around, keep the high ground, stay with your teammates, etc. In a well-designed multiplayer like Gears, good teamwork dominates and playing smart means that you won't get one-shotted from around every corner.

You are ranting about a problem that's only a problem if you don't play good TPS games well.

Video game is video game. Video game is mechanics dressed up in easily understood imagery. Video game is not true life murder simulator.

yeah and in 2d platformers you shouldnt be allowed to see behind you or under you! cus clearly your character cant see there!

in RPG's you shouldnt see stats on weapons, why would you know that information?! why would my modest hero know which is better between "Dragon Sword of Heavenly Fire" and the "Demon Blade of Hell Fire"

ect. ect. ect.

snarky ass comments ect.

@clonedzero said:

No no, having a 360 degree field of view of your surroundings is fine, it's the cover stuff that makes it dumb.

OP, do you think it's possible that you simply don't like the genre in general, and it's not that the genre is flawed but that you're just not into it? I haven't played a single TPS where I really enjoyed the combat (ME3 got close thanks to trying to throw fireballs over enemy cover though!) but I'm not trying to 'fix' it.

Sorry, but seeing only what your character sees is called an FPS. By listing TPS games that wouldn't work as an FPS you're only refuting your own argument. Yeah, maybe Vanquish wouldn't work if you could only see what the character was seeing. Isn't that counter to what you were saying here?

Now, if you wanted to suggest that someone should try making a TPS which has a mechanic for the environment blocking your vision as you describe, I'm all for that! Don't think that I'm against your idea as a whole, but it looks like you're in the minority wanting it in every TPS.

@believer258 said:

@hencook:

You must be missing what I meant by "inherent". By that, I mean something that comes with being a third person shooter, and that something was being able to see things that the character cannot. Not being able to move and shoot in RE4 and 5 is not inherent to the genre, it's a design decision made by the developers. Being able to see things that the character you are playing as cannot is something inherent to the third person camera. If you want to only see precisely what the character can see, then first person is where you go. I know that pisses you off but it isn't wrong to suggest it.

but on the contrary being killed indirectly by an all-seeing camera is even more frustrating!

It's not an all-seeing camera. When you hide behind a piece of cover and look down a hallway in Gears of War, you cannot see to your right or left unless you move the camera around. You can never see everything at once, and so putting yourself at the end of a hallway just to camp is a great way to get killed by a good player. Toss a grenade down there, walk around, etc.

"But how am I supposed to know he's there?" Move slowly and carefully around, keep the high ground, stay with your teammates, etc. In a well-designed multiplayer like Gears, good teamwork dominates and playing smart means that you won't get one-shotted from around every corner.

You are ranting about a problem that's only a problem if you don't play good TPS games well.

It's not an all-seeing camera.

Come on now. You know what I meant, I said all-seeing camera so that we could get on with the argument rather than me saying "standard third person shooter camera without fog of war".

You are ranting about a problem that's only a problem if you don't play good TPS games well.

Wow, great argument, attacking my ability to play games. Thanks for the pro-tips by the way. I made it clear: I don't want to get killed from someone I can't see, and I don't want to kill someone that can't see me. I do not derive pleasure from 3rd person corner peeking. It IS an issue, and it CAN be solved with the fog of war.

If you want to only see precisely what the character can see, then first person is where you go. I know that pisses you off but it isn't wrong to suggest it.

And we're going in circles, like I said, Third Person Shooting has a lot of cool advantages that FPS does not.

You keep dodging all my statements, so I'm going to end this with my super special platinum arts move:

Field of Questions!

Section Inherent

1. If not being able to shoot and move at the same time is a legitimate design decision, can blocking the player's vision ever be a legitimate design decision as well? (if you answered to something along the lines that it would frustrate the player, please answer Section Frustration and return here)

2. Which is more important to a third person shooter, Character Movement or Camera movement? Aren't they just as important as each other? (Note: If you answered camera movement is more inherent because vision is the subject matter of the third person perspective, please answer Section Definition and then return here)

3. Is being able to know where your opponents pieces are in chess inherent to playing chess?

3A. If so, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_(chess) . If NOT so, then what's the difference between vision (or piece location knowledge) being inherent to chess, and vision being inherent to third person shooting?

4. Is it possible that an FPS game where you are completely blind to be enjoyable?

4A. If so, isn't the ability to see inherent to first person shooting?

4B. Wouldn't being blind the whole game frustrate the player?

4C. Would it frustrate ALL players, or would some, even if just the least a few, consider it challenging and enjoyable?

Section Frustration

1. Who would find a fog of war mechanic more frustrating? A noob or a pro gamer?

2. If you answered "Noob", then would the pro gamer be frustrated with the fog of war?

3. If you answered yes, is it possible that the pro gamer would learn to overcome this frustration with skill?

4. If you answered yes, is it possible that this pro gamer in particular would gain skill to the point that he no longer had frustrations with this camera scheme, or basically disadvantages from it?

5. If you answered yes, and if the pro gamer had no disadvantages, and only advantages, would this pro gamer see this mechanic as a legitimate design decision?

Section Definition

1. Do you accept Wikipedia's definition of TPS-

"A third person shooter is a game structured around shooting, and in which the player can see the avatar on-screen in a third person view"?

2. If so, does having fog of war in a third person shooter make it no longer a third person shooter?

3. If fog of war is merely a PARTIAL restriction of how the player is able to view with his camera in TPS, and the movement restrictions from RE5 are also only partial, what exactly about vision being inherent to TPS invalidates a partial vision restriction as a valid design decision if you can still partially see?

Section Issue Validation

1. Let's say you were playing your favorite FPS, for example's sake we'll say Counter-Strike. Would you rather A) Play standard Counter-Strike, or B) Play Counter-Strike where if you stood next to a corner, you could see through the wall and line up your shots on your enemy?

2. Would you consider scenario B from the previous question to be any of the following: No fun, cheap, frustrating if you get hit by it, not rewarding if you kill someone with it?

3. If you answered the previous question with something along the lines of "Just deal with it and play better", would you consider scenario B to be more, equal, or less skillful to play in than scenario A?

4. If you answered the previous question with "B is more or equal", then is peeking out of a corner more difficult in standard first person shooting, or standard third person shooting? Which one requires more risk to perform?

5. Is it possible that you could find gamers that preferred either scenario A or B, or would the majority of gamers prefer strictly only one scenario being A or B?

6. Is it possible that some people would consider being able to be killed by someone you can't see, or being able to kill someone that can't see you, as an issue?

Section Terrible:

1. A casual TPS game would not highly benefit from Fog of War TPS. Is it possible a competitive TPS game could benefit from Fog of War TPS, or are you SURE it would be terrible (or otherwise be ruined by the mechanic)?

2. If fog of war was set to ON in competitive TPS play, would teamwork be more, less ,or equally emphasized than a regular TPS game?

3. If fog of war was set to ON in competitive TPS play, would skill be more, less, or equally required than a regular TPS game?

4. Could you imagine a hybrid RTS/TPS benefiting from Fog of War when the TPS section is being played, or are you SURE it would be terrible?

5. Consider the following: Seeing your costume/character, taking cover, making difficult jumps, doing melee animations. Are these considered advantages of TPS?

6. Is the first person shooter's quality of being only able to see what your character can see a distinct flavor of FPS?

Final Question: If you combined the advantages of the TPS and the distinct flavor of FPS cameras being only able to see what their characters can see, and removed the frustration disadvantage from pro players, and these players preferred being able to only shoot what their characters were not obscured by (as in cover), is it possible that these players would derive pleasure from this type of game design?

Disclaimer: Regardless of whether or not believer chooses to answer these questions, I had a lot of fun creating these questions, so please don't assume I'll be all disappointed otherwise. If he doesn't answer these questions, then it's a default for me (unless he chooses to counter with his own field of questions). If he answer them, but fails to answer them favorably, then good for me, but if he answers them and replies in a way that's favorable to his argument, then I will also be pleased, and intrigued.

WHY is this disclaimer here? Because look at this freaking post. I'm bound to get ridiculed for it.

Stop dodging my statements. Ball is in your court.

I like TPS. It's a bit flawed like a moldy cheesecake, but I'll still eat the cheesecake and enjoy it.

Sorry, but seeing only what your character sees is called an FPS. By listing TPS games that wouldn't work as an FPS you're only refuting your own argument. Yeah, maybe Vanquish wouldn't work if you could only see what the character was seeing. Isn't that counter to what you were saying here?

No, allow me to explain. I like how in FPS's, you can't see enemies outside the character's field of vision. I also like a lot of TPS games, like Uncharted. When I said "I want Fog of War for Third Person Shooters", people told me to go play FPS games. So my counter to that is, but you can't have Uncharted as a FPS. It's not nearly as good. Can't I have Fog of War and Third Person at the same time, so I can have the best of both worlds?

I am indeed in the minority of wanting it in every TPS. Well, let's be clear here... While I deep inside I want it in every fps, I freely admit it would be a horrible thing if EVERY fps had it. If COD was a TPS and it had this vision blocking mechanic, it wouldn't sell as well, and we would have less gamers buying games, and finally we'd get less games as a result of that. I guess that would be bad (although not all too bad, hehehe).

@hencook: The ball's not in my court because I've either answered these or they're sidestepping the main argument. I think that obscuring the field of vision while in cover in a third person shooter is a bad idea. I've explained why I think it's a bad idea in a few different ways. You keep circling around what I've said by either misunderstanding it ("inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute") or just plain sidestepping it. When you are using a third person camera and you stand with your character's face against the wall, you can turn the camera in such a way that you can see around the corner. Suggesting that what's around the corner stay foggy until your character actually turns around that corner is nothing like good game design, it's a cheap and unnatural solution to a problem that only you seem to have with these sorts of games. No, I didn't miss that tiny percentage of people who clicked the "yeah, all right" button, but I did miss the part where anyone other than you wrote much of anything about agreeing with you.

People in this thread keep bringing up first person games because this problem does not exist in first person and so your issue is solved in that genre.

@believer258: Well there's nothing we can do then. While you think they're sidestepping the main argument (and you are entitled to that), I believe my questions reinforce my argument. I wish you'd answer them because I believe in front of our peers, you would fail to answer in your favor and lose the argument BUT, it is understandable, that one would refuse to grant me the pleasure of those answers. I know it can be a pain to reanswer something I've asked, but from my point of view, the questions are designed to actually address the answers you made into my favor instead.

Note that I understand your point of view thoroughly (I must since I did write a massive wall to address it), I simply wish mine to be as well, if just for acknowledgement's sake. I think you do get what I'm trying to say believer, and for that you have my respect. Oh well, I've gained a lot of XP from this encounter, so it was a pleasure arguing with you.

The only way I can think of it working is if you had this weird tunnel vision all the time which probably wouldn't be any fun. I keep thinking of games like Mark of the Ninja where you have that line of sight which cuts off almost like a cast shadow whenever it meets an obstacle - but with a 3D rotatable camera? The person who would come up with a system like that and make it fun to play would certainly be onto something.

I dunno something like this I suppose

I actually think an obscured vision could be a really interesting thing to add to a third person game. I don't think it necessarily needs to be in all third person games, but when done right it could add tons of tension and a whole new dynamic to the action.

I think adding it just to make it harder to line up shots while hiding in cover would be a bad application of it though. It has so much more potential then that.

@hencook said:

I think the thread title and poll could've used some work, because FoW in TPS is entirely different from what they're describing (which I must repeat is FPS). My point is, no-one wants Uncharted as an FPS (except me) and that's not what anyone is saying. They're responding to the title and poll in the first post, you've cleared up the suggestion in the following posts but the first one still muddles the issue.

I'll try to answer some of your questions though not directed at me

2. Depends on the game, sweeping statements aren't good which is why I disagree with you saying that this is a flaw in all TPS that needs to be fixed.

3. Yes.

3A. I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding what he's talking about, as believer already said, but I'll try to explain. A third person camera is located away from the character, which means you're seeing the character. That is what's inherent to a third person camera. A person can't see themselves in third person, thus a third person camera inherently displays something the character cannot see. I think that's all he's saying, and he's right.

4. Nonsense questions, imo. But yes, A) no, B) depends, C) probably would frustrate most

Section Frustration's just trying to lead me into saying it can be a legit design decision which I already said in question 1.

Section Definition is way too confusing for me, sorry. I don't get what you're trying to say. I think it's about the 'inherent to TPS' misunderstanding of 3A again.

Validation's nonsense, let's turn your favorite game into something else would you like it if not I'm right.

Answer to Terrible questions 1-4: Dunno. These aren't things that can be confirmed by just thinking about it. The only real way to find out how a design decision, especially relating to gameplay, works out is to try it.

5. I don't think so, but I think they're considered to be.

6. Yes?

Final: As I've been trying to say, 'seeing only what your character sees' is entirely different from what you're actually describing. The character can't see 360 degrees around him, or himself. You're not combining FPS and TPS, you're adding a mechanic to TPS that doesn't really have anything to do with FPS. God this post is long with the quote I'm trying to put it into a spoiler block or something

@chibithor: thank you for playing chibithor, and yes the final question was flawed in that I meant to say "360 vision" instead of limited to exactly what the character can see, sorry. Hope you had fun! And thank you for being a mediator in an argument as well.

Also, good explanation of what he means by inherent. Thanks to you, I understand now.

Here's what I'm guessing what would happen if that mechanic(fog of war) was actually implemented. No one would use cover ever, because there wouldn't be a point. You would either be blind looking down a hallway or your character would be flanked, negating the point of cover in the first place.