With the roll out of 1st person perspective I've been watching a lot of the more popular streamers/pro-players test it out. The feedback they're providing the community and that is echoed in the chats is that first person is better, it's more hardcore, and should be used for competitive play. The idea is that third person is for "casual" play and not how the game should be played at a high level.

As I've watched these streamers play in first person I'm not seeing anything that really sets Battlegrounds apart from any of the other FPS offerings out there. They're effectively playing COD, Battlefield, or Counter-Strike with a unique circle mechanic and random loot. The thing that initially brought me to Battlegrounds is that the third person perspective creates a slower paced, more methodical approach to the game. It becomes more about positioning, cover, and observation that it is about running and gunning and being the quickest aim in the game.

Am I missing something? When I've asked what sets the game apart in this mode I've simply been told "it's way different" or "it's more hardcore" because you can't hide in a building and peek outside and around corners.

What are your thoughts?

I've wanted First Person only servers since the game first came out. I played the first few days in strictly First Person, as it amps up the tension significantly, but switched to 3rd person due to the distinct advantage it offers. I really enjoy how 1st Person makes you pay more attention to your surroundings, makes you learn to shoot down sights/scopes better, and makes the game less about abusing the camera to scout.

To answer your question, the thing that sets it apart from CoD, Battlefield or other FPS games is and has always been the perma-death, one life and you are out. I would argue that 3rd person games are the faster, more reckless way to play due to your increased awareness and ability to scan the battlefield and immediately adjust. You have to be so much more careful and strategic to stay alive in 1st person only games. I've seen many people say they think 1st person only will turn it into run and gun CoD style matches, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

I mostly play solo so I'll only be doing 1st person those ways. I do think in squads 3rd person is the way to play just to be aware of your teammates though.

The other games to which you said PUBG in FPS is 'effectively' identical are all completely different games from one another, that all happen to be played from a first-person perspective. The part you hand-waved away, the "unique circle mechanic and random loot", is the game, in much the same way that "site A and site B" is CS and "kill everyone and respawn quickly" is COD.

It's the same exact game in first-person and third-person. The only difference is visibility and any strategies limited/afforded by it. If you can't see anything past the first-person perspective, maybe the real problem is you generally don't like competitive FPS games.

I mean, that's the long and short of the difference, yes. I'll be playing first person exclusively from here on out because it removes the absurd advantage that third person gives, with the person you're trying to push having information on your whereabouts for free. First person forces players to expose themselves in order to see their surroundings, which leads to much fairer encounters. If you can't see this then I don't know what to say.

As for 'now it's just another FPS': the perspective change doesn't suddenly eliminate every other mechanic in the game, as @takayamasama and @kcin already said. It sounds like you just don't want to like the first person mode.

FOV is king

In a related note, they need to make it easier to crouch-aim out of windows in 1st person. As it stands right now, whenever I crouch in front of a window, it oscillates rapidly between gun-up and gun-out, meaning I have to stand to snipe. I play the female character, maybe she's a bit shorter, who knows. Game's starting to wear thin for me, they really need to get the jank and lag under control if they want some longevity.

Also, these "pro" vs "casual" arguments will always be pointless. It's just two different game experiences, and while it's good that they serve both crowds, looking down on one set of players over what amounts to personal preference it silly.

@ajamafalous said:

Yeah pretty much this; it gives campers more of an advantage. If there's a dude behind a corner indoors with a S12K looking at you as you run up there's very little you can do to not die when he just leans and dumps 5 wave of pellets at you in a matter of seconds. Which is fine, I've learned to avoid certain encounters but I'd rather have those encounters be available to me again at a more even playing field.

@lanechanger: I'm not sold on there being much of a difference. A diligent camper will hear you coming anyway, and while you'll have a slightly better chance because reaction time will be more important, I honestly don't expect most encounters to change.

I guess I'm just looking forward to the time when those other games add in a "circle/battle royale" mode. Battlefield and COD have differences in scale of map, bullet drop/shooting mechanics and so on. The shooting in PUBG doesn't seem to be enough of it's own flavor to set it apart. When "Battlefield Battle Royale" mode is eventually released, what will PUBG have that sets it apart?

I LOVE competitive FPS games. I've been clapping on fools since the original CS, I think that the problem is because I've seen so many of them, like I said, I'm not sure what will make PUBG stand out once the other franchises introduce this style of game mode.

It isn't about people camping in houses (although those do still change drastically: as @lanechanger said, you can now freely rush hallways without it being a surefire death); it's more about gunfights behind rocks/trees/defilade. In third person, a guy can stay completely hidden behind a rock, watch which side of the tree you poke out of, pre-aim and then instantly peek that side and shoot you, all without exposing himself up until the point that he's shooting at you. In first person, he has to expose himself just to see whether or not you're poking out of either side of the tree or whether you've changed positions entirely. It also changes which areas of the map are good to play in at endgame: good third person areas with lots of shallow hills that you can prone in but still survey your entire surroundings without exposing yourself are no longer king in first person. Field endings change because people can't stay prone in the wheat but fire at someone standing up/running with the third person aiming. Dropshots also function entirely differently.

Something like that is potentially years away though, if it ever happens at all. What bearing does that have on the state of PUBG now?

I dream of this game made in a more cohesive fashion, on a game engine designed for this kind of play. I dream of this game made in Frostbite, or in Fox Engine (especially Fox Engine). I don't like the feel of PUBG's mechanics, and I, frankly, hope for it to be usurped by a better-engineered and better-playing game one day, or for it to completely revamp itself.

Whatever game best offers the core game loop of the circle mechanic and random loot drops across a massive play area while maintaining the serious aesthetic, I will play. At this point, PUBG is a proof-of-concept in the gaming industry, and I think everyone recognizes that, PLAYERUNKNOWN included.

When a AAA studio comes along and tries to steal their thunder with their hundreds-strong international superteam of developers and a war chest of billions with which to develop their PUBG-killer, I won't feel sorry for Bluehole, as they made their tens of millions. I will lament capitalism, though.

I have not encountered a single person putting it like that at all.

One of the SoloMid guys was talking about it earlier on Twitch, for instance.

@ajamafalous: This all seems to be assuming asymmetric play (that only one of the players is in 3rd person). Everything the other player is doing, you yourself can do. Why poke your head out for him to"pre-aim" at, when you can look in 3rd person?

I just think the differences are way overblown, though not non-existent. The big thing is just that everyone in the game is locked into the same camera mode for a level playing field.

From my point of view, the only reason "hardcore" players think this is the mode to play is because it superficially ups the difficulty. I say superficially because this game is built as a third person shooter. Though it's strong to say the first person toggle is a shoe horned feature it kind of feels that way. The only reason it exists is to help aim in certain situations. the game wasn't built to be played in the first person and it feels that way.

That is the main thing that sets this mode apart from other FPS's. It wasn't made to be an FPS, It doesn't feel good and doesn't play well but it takes a game those players have already mastered and adds a level of play that they haven't mastered yet so that's the only way for them to play it now. That's what it seems like to me anyway. More power to them but I'm not interested.

A 3rd person camera in a shooter where battles are primarily fought from behind cover is fundamentally flawed. However, there's quite a bit of polishing to do to when it comes to animations and feel to make FPP great.

No, it does not assume only one player is in 3rd person. It does assume that the function of the 1st and 3rd person camera is essentially identical when in an open field, which is the truth. This is not so when behind cover.

So, in 3rd person when a fight occurs between a player in a field, and a player behind cover (a large deal of them, maybe even a majority), the gameplay is asymmetric. The camera for each player is technically the same, but the function and information they provide is vastly different; the ability for one player to see another when the other can't see them is essentially a superpower. The reason it is so "overblown" is because the game revolves around these cover-based fights, and the person behind cover has enough of an advantage (you know, the cover) without also having an added superpower.

@freedom4556 said:

Yeah maybe not, but I think having the peace of mind of being able to run up to anything whether it be a block of houses or a forest and knowing that what I see is what I get and that I don't have to second guess that an enemy could potentially be behind every window, wall, or tree without me seeing them is good enough for me to prefer first person mode. And I know they could just chill out behind cover and never peek out and just wait for me to run past them, but I'm ok with that, I just have to get better and alt looking around cover as I run past them to catch those cases asap but either way, they can't see me without me being able to see them.

Yeah this is a great way of putting it and is what I mean by the fact that it gives campers more of an advantage. And that's fine and it just means that positioning will be more in play for the third person server's meta; if you got a premo location like camping people out on the bridge or a sweet wizard tower overlooking a field or just a group of trees and rocks that are closeby, you are rewarded for such positioning with this magic vision over anyone that has to approach you.

@lanechanger: @thavralex: Superpower is a bit much. They still have to stick their heads out to actually shoot at you, even in 3rd person. But if it makes you feel better that the guy who just sniped you out of one of thirty different windows definitely poked his head out for however many extra seconds it took to aim, then more power to you. The option is now there, at least.

I just tried the 1PP mode. The camera height must be way off? Feels like I'm less than 3 feet tall (<1m) or something.

The camera height is correct (if you stand next to somebody, you see eye to eye), but I read somewhere that apparently when they started developing the game they scaled down all of the player models so that the world would seem bigger (lol), which is why everybody feels like they're 4 feet tall and barely stands higher than the doorknobs. It's a complaint that nearly everybody has, though, so hopefully they can manage to do something about it that doesn't require a huge overhaul.

I am thinking about switching to first person, there is a lot of bullshit that comes along with the third person camera.

This is a fairly common thing in games, to have the world be slightly larger scale than reality, especially indoor spaces and doors, and even more so in 3rd person games. A 1:1 scale doesn't always translate in a game setting.

In 3PP in PUBG, being indoors is already kind of a hassle as the game's houses have a lot of small rooms and narrow corridors, so if the scale is shifted too dramatically the indoor spaces could easily become unmanageable in 3PP. Some things may just be impossible to balance perfectly when they are shared between two different modes with different needs.

Of course, but not being able to peek through windows in 1PP is a pretty big deal when you can do so easily in 3PP mode.

Also the problem with scale and balance could probably be solved by simply not allowing 1PP in 3PP mode? Have them be exclusive game modes entirely.

I've been playing in first person the past couple days. I'll say that the game feels a lot different. Most notably I've gotten more kills than I have yet, seems like if I get the drop on someone across a field or something they aren't able to figure out where I am. So in that sense it's easier. Driving in first person only is a pain in the ass, although I see why they have to do it so that people don't just hang out in a vehicle and use third person.

Haven't made up my mind yet, although I still have more fun with third person at the moment.

somehow, First person mode runs WAY better for me than the 3rd person.

@corpsemachine: So what I don't get is why would using the third person camera to look around and scout be considered unfair or cheating and not just as part of the meta.

It's been there since the servers went live, a fundamental component of the game being third person.

Reading through the above replies my only real takeaway was that certain people just, on a fundamental level, will just always consider FPS style games to be superior. It doesn't matter the specifics, if you are shooting a gun it's FPS or bad.

For example there's really no reason why tactically using the camera to view the environment from behind cover in a videogame would be a bad thing. You're using the tools available to you to succeed. Unless of course you're talking about a competitive FPS. It'd break Counterstrike for instance. Thing is, Battlegrounds was never that game. The very fact that it is third person is evidence enough that it's not a competitive FPS. The same way that being a dog is proof enough your not a cat. But because it can be played as a FPS a certain subset will always hold it to a different set of standards then most people.

Which is fine. That's why they made FPS only servers.

So I would say the answer to your question in simply that. It's not more "hardcore". It's not objectively better. It's just different. And there's an audience for whom that specific difference makes a huge difference. They only want their shooters to be one specific way and anything outside that isn't "different" it's "worse". Human nature rearing it's ugly head yet again.

Another way to look at it is to think of Smash Brothers tournaments! :P

Those people straight up ban 90% of the games designed content then afix their own house rules as to how it's played. This has become the standard and is also looked upon as the "real" and "hardcore" way of playing these games. Instead of adapting to the games meta they believe their way is better and enforced their own fan-built meta. Instead of learning to utilize the third person camera as a powerful tool they just call it out as bad.

Player Unknowns Battle Grounds: No Items, FPS only, Final Destination. Ban Diddy Kong.

Since my regular group and I started playing in first person, we haven't played a single third person match at all. First person just feels a lot more fair and definitely caters to our play style more. The games have been more fun overall and I can't see myself ever going back to third person now. If you favor hiding and camping the entire match until someone approaches your cover and you can just watch them the entire time they are walking up to you until you pop out and blast them, then third person is probably the better mode for you.

Third person feels so bad when you're not the one behind cover and camping. Oh the other big difference with first person games is that a lot more players die faster, probably because it doesn't encourage camping as much as in third person. Players can't just sit proned out on a roof or in a house somewhere and still see everything, if they want to see enemies to shoot then they have to make themselves visible, too.

A prime example of how frustratingly unfair third person can be is in 1v1 situations near the final circles. If both players are behind trees looking in one another's direction, then it turns into a waiting game to see which player the next circle will favor. The person who gets the lucky side of the circle can just sit and wait behind their tree, in full cover, with full view of their enemy - all they have to do is wait for the other player to leave cover and start running for the circle, and then shoot. In first person, both of these players have to actually peek to see what is going on, then the result of the final 1v1 is much more skill-based than luck. You can actually PUSH the other player and actually outshoot them and win - staying behind cover and doing nothing is no longer really viable. This type of third person camera situation happens in the final circles in grassy fields, too. In third person you can simply lay down in the grass and be virtually invisible while using your camera to see above you - if anyone else is unlucky enough to not have grass in their area to lay down in, that slug in the grass can simply shoot them with impunity and the other play will likely never even see where the fire is coming from.

So no, there is nothing "wrong" with third person and people aren't wrong for liking it, but hopefully I've given people some things to think about on why you might want to give first person a try.

Something about First Person just feels better. I like it far more than 3rd person

This is my main groups experience too. Once FPP came out we even segregated into groups of 2 so we could do FPP Duos before Squad came out. Third Person is great in the beginning of the game. Really the first circle or two. With that camera a lot more players enter 'late game' geared. However, FPP is so so much better when it gets down to the last few circles just as you said. Having to expose yourself to attempt to kill the last few players make it so much more tense. If there are 12 people left (3 of teams of 4) all in the last circle the second someone shows themselves they will probably get shot. In TPP that just doesn't happen because there isn't any real incentive to show yourself when the camera is there.

On a side note, I don't think this game would be nearly as successful as it is if it started First Person. By the time FPP hit I already knew how to play the game. I knew what to do, what the locations were, etc. Being "forced" into playing third person so much has made my group and I enjoy FPP so much more. I don't think we will play anymore third person at all. Now for the new maps!

Has BlueHole given any stats on the divide between TPP and FPP in terms of player base?

The other thing you can do in third person is if you bust out windows and then stand next to the wall, you can actually rotate your view so your camera goes outside the house you're in - allowing you to see completely outside the building in all directions without revealing yourself. That is pretty dumb.

Nothing against people who prefer third person, but man, that is just gross. I never want to play third person again now.

Before they introduced first person I was pretty unsure about whether I would like it. Then when it came out I tried a game, and I haven't played a single third person game since.

It's just a far superior experience in my book. It fits better with the survival aspect of the game, and in a general sense I've always preferred my shooters in first person. Also, the balance of the game feels fairer without using the third person camera to see around obstacles and the like.

That's pretty clearly just a bug. Normal third-person cameras should never let geometry occlude the player character. That's why you see instances in some games where the camera zooms in way tight if you back into a corner or get something between you and the camera (like Mario Sunshine). Where the balancing act comes in is keeping the player model in view while still showing enough of the world to be useful.

Does no one else here get nauseous when playing in first person (not just PUBG, but first person games in general).

I always have, and it's the reason I rarely play FPS games. I've seen quite a few streamers mention it, too (Will Smith, for example, and some of the people on the Awful Squad from Polygon, but also Anthony Khongphan mentioned he can't play 1st person for too long due to it). I, personally, have no desire to try 1st person simply because I know it'll make me nauseous/sick/give me a headache.

I've only encountered one 3rd person game that made me nauseous, and that was Guild Wars 2 at launch. The FOV was just so tight. I couldn't play more than 30 minutes without getting a headache. Then someone released a "hack" or "mod" to allow changing the FOV and distance from the character, and headaches went away. Not long after, the GW team added something similar to the game proper.

I don't tend to have a problem with FPS games, but this one absolutely makes me feel motion sick. It's probably the result of a combination of its general jankiness and uneven frame rate, the head bobbing, and the fact that there's no aiming reticle on screen when you run to focus on (also the weapon takes up very little space on the screen). As a result I haven't been touching FPS mode very much. Also I think it just looks pretty terrible in first-person? Like, the scale seems wildly fucked up to me, or something, as if you're 75% of the size you should be.

I like TPP more but I want to give you a non-bias opinion on it. The market is completely taken over by FPP games, there are very little TPP that are competitive, not because the perspective is "casual" but because the game does not nurture competitiveness like Gta 5, Max payne. Only other TPP game that is semi competitive is Gears of War, but that is an arena shooter really.

There are hardly any differences, I really don't know why people care so much. What bothers me though is that one has to be chosen, and both can't play competitively together. People who say its about realism are ignorant because you drink an energy drink to get your health back after getting domed with a helmet on from a 50 cal, its a game not a simulator. Next, people talk about peaking on the other sides of walls, this is also lame. One doesn't promote camping more than the other. TPP you can hide behind a wall and watch people from a window, but you're moving to see more out of the window (so you hear them). FPP, you can sit in a corner and not move at all, you will be lacking information of where they are (except sound), but its even a worse part of camping.

Also, in TPP if you are being watched he still has to peak too shoot, which is the same in FPP, but in FPP you are waiting for footsteps to get closer rather than watching him with a camera. Both, require reaction time and expect it to happen. One also doesn't require more awareness, because in FPP, you can land and be completely ignorant to your surroundings when buildings are around you only to react to sound. In TPP, you have to be completely active with the camera to see if anyone is, can, or might be camping a house near you because you can't see them but you need to check. Only time when FPP awareness increases is in the field because you are only looking one direction in a cone fashion. But third person you are trying to look 360, which is much easier.

Imo, there are features they are missing out to make TPP competitive friendly, but I also feel the matchmaking system and the map is not designed for FPP. I find it completely wrong to accept FPP in a map this size, because a map this size with crests and hills are usually counter acted by good 360 camera play. TPP is more about collecting information and making a move before shit hits the fan, a lot of times in FPP its about shit hitting the fan and then making a move, unless you are the team who spotted someone first.

On a side note, if they had a game where you actually dropped in a complete downtown district like New york city, I would agree we should have first person. But the way the windows are made, the hills are dipped, and the vehicles are made. It was for TPP and should be refined on that note.

Only played it for about a week now and most of the matches in FPP. I have a feeling that in general the players in FPP are better than in TPP mode. Probably because newer players just play TPP (as it is the default mode)? (Read as: I get killed way earlier in FPP mode)

I play all matches in FPP. The game is way better in this prespective imo.

First person games make me play slower, not more recklessly generally. If I can't see around a corner without exposing myself I will take more time to "slice the pie" etc. Plus it puts more emphasis on hearing because again your ability to observe without exposing yourself is limited. The nice benefit of this is the enemy has the same handicap. They can't sit around a corner and tweak the camera around to know exactly when you'll be in their sights for an ambush, etc.

I'm also a big immersion junky so first person is preferred in pretty much every case for me. I was the jerk who disabled third person for my ArmA crew as the server admin and laughed at the babies that occasionally complained. Even our squad leader would occasionally squawk when he got used to third person being enabled and then played without it. First person or bust baby!

I can understand why people would feel like you can't gather the information and play slowly but I think a lot of that has to do with not knowing how to compensate for that with tactics and techniques.

I really like the dynamic of squad gameplay with first person as well. Room clearing goes from busting a door, clearing the area opposite, and using the camera to clear the room vs busting the door and storming through with appropriate tactics. Pulling off delta style room clearing is pretty fun. Plus you rely more on communication at a finer level and you can coordinate your team members to extend the situational awareness of the entire team.

What is the appeal of TPP at this point? There appears to be way more people still playing on TPP servers.

I don't know. I find FPP is 9000000000% less frustrating in the areas where TPP (in general) is uniquely terrible, like corner-look. When FPP became available, I never looked back. I chalk this up to just having preferred 1P camera games to 3P ones. I've tried working through all the reasons for a preference and most of them just fall apart except comfort. (and that there are almost no cheaters in FPP servers, it's been months since I've encountered one)