PDA

View Full Version : ots view vs. fpwv?



b.savage
05-18-2005, 04:00 PM
does anyone have an idea as to what views will be incorporated into the new gr3? i'm a huge fan of the gr2 because of how you can see the character. the video clips i've seen seem to show a different view of the famous ots but can't see any reticle like you can on the fpwv. anyways, looking forward to the new gr3 and gr2 expansion pack. this game rocks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

b.savage
05-18-2005, 04:00 PM
does anyone have an idea as to what views will be incorporated into the new gr3? i'm a huge fan of the gr2 because of how you can see the character. the video clips i've seen seem to show a different view of the famous ots but can't see any reticle like you can on the fpwv. anyways, looking forward to the new gr3 and gr2 expansion pack. this game rocks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ghost_op2005
05-19-2005, 07:21 PM
i prefer the OTS view because u have more environmental awareness and if ur in FP u r at a disadvantage

SplinterCell_37
05-20-2005, 02:54 AM
OTS and FPS, I'd say, considering IGN's clips.

XyZspineZyX
05-20-2005, 05:26 AM
Here again we will have the orginal GR fans coming out of the woodwork and expressing there opinion wholeheartedly on this one which is fine, but most cannot accept the fact that they can just play it in FP as well and not complain aboutthe default OTS view. I personaly like the OTS view .

TAW_Biggy
05-20-2005, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here again we will have the orginal GR fans coming out of the woodwork and expressing there opinion wholeheartedly on this one which is fine, but most cannot accept the fact that they can just play it in FP as well and not complain aboutthe default OTS view. I personaly like the OTS view . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The problem is, when you have the option, some will use OTS, which gives them the advantage over FP because they see more.

So in public servers or ladder matches, it's simply NOT FAIR http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

So if I prefer FP, I can't use it because I am at a disadvantage so I get killed more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I really don't see the problem of using the formula that made GR such a success.

The only thing I would add to the GR1 FP, is the weapon like we have seen in the trailers released up to now. Because in real life, it's in your field of view.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3291043913/m/9071094223

Kurtz_
05-20-2005, 08:27 AM
I like the OTS, but, I like the classic view, so as long as you can toggle the FPWV, that's fine. Weapon view is not a deal breaker.

For MP, you play the way the server is set up, that's their choice, or you host yourself.

TAW_Biggy
05-20-2005, 08:30 AM
Have you played GR2 Xbox????

What have you seen in 99% of the servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

MIA Philly
05-20-2005, 11:25 AM
OTS is the way to go.. i love that perspective.

WhiteKnight77
05-20-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurtz_:
I like the OTS, but, I like the classic view, so as long as you can toggle the FPWV, that's fine. Weapon view is not a deal breaker.

For MP, you play the way the server is set up, that's their choice, or you host yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forcing someone to play the game the same way you do is uncool really. Forcing a view on you that you do not want is assinine. If a feature is an option, let the player make that choice himself.

TAW_Biggy
05-20-2005, 12:09 PM
In theory, I agree,

But in Xbox GR2, we do have the choice, but because OTS has an unrelasitic advantage over FPWV, I have no chocie to use OTS if I want to play and not be killed...

jchung
05-20-2005, 12:24 PM
I wonder if you could program OTS, so that you couldn't see over objects and around corners. Also, GR2 had some glitches where you could shoot ever objects without your rifle even clearing the object. I often used OTS just because it was easier. Although, I do prefer FPV, or FPVW.http://img261.echo.cx/img261/7804/coke5nj.jpg

TAW_Biggy
05-20-2005, 12:56 PM
Vote here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=3291043913&m=5291058223&r=4771078223#4771078223

striker_2k5
05-21-2005, 11:35 PM
I love OTS, It's different from all the other shooters I play, and I prefer GR2 because of OTS view. I've played the original GR games on Xbox and if they go back to only FPS then I'll be really disapointed.

FN57
05-22-2005, 11:07 AM
I prefer FPSV but I don't mind the Third person perspective. As long as they have both, it wont bother me.

Kurtz_
05-23-2005, 12:09 PM
Now I'm confused, in Xbox, can the server force the view or is it an option?

XyZspineZyX
05-23-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurtz_:
Now I'm confused, in Xbox, can the server force the view or is it an option? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The default game view is 3rd person, you can preset your profile to 1st so the default becomes 1st person (both single player and multiplayer).
The host/server can set the server to lock out 3rd person meaning everyone in game is playing in 1st only or leave it as it is with everyone in the room able to use 1st or 3rd as they choose
hope that explains it better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jakethejake
05-23-2005, 07:06 PM
When GR2 came out, I didn't know if I would like the OTS view. I liked the FPWV and strongly disliked the reticule only view of OGR. Now I like the OTS view the best because it shows off the character's gear as well as the weapon. Is there an advantage to this? I don't really know. I mean I guess I can see around rocks, etc. At that point it's either kill or be killed anyway. I've never really had it affect my game on LMS or sharpshooter. most kills are from further away. I say play with whatever makes you happy!

I think that all three views would be cool. If the host says that OTS is cheating or whatever, then FPWV should be cool enough for ots players. Reticule only is classic GR. And since that's where this games roots are, they should keep it as well.

jchung
05-23-2005, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jakethejake:
When GR2 came out, I didn't know if I would like the OTS view. I liked the FPWV and strongly disliked the reticule only view of OGR. Now I like the OTS view the best because it shows off the character's gear as well as the weapon. Is there an advantage to this? I don't really know. I mean I guess I can see around rocks, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a huge advantage to this. I used the OTS view a number of times to shoot over walls and rocks that my gun was not even clearing. I shot plenty of NKs that could not shoot me.

The GR2 campaign was a breeze in the OTS view. I just hid behind hills, rocks, etc... and if there were no enemies near by then I would come out into the open and see them spawn in the distance through my scope and snipe them all.

I often used the OTS view and found it to be much easier.

To be frank, I don't like any of the views. All of them are very unrealistic. There should never be a reticle on the screen in any of the views. You should only be able to move about when you are not aiming your firearm. Then hitting the right stick would bring up the iron sights, hitting it again would bring up the view through the optics, then the left stick would allow you to toggle back.

The no reticle view could only be used to move about, as the view through sights or optics would move about too violently in real life.

buddhiraja
05-25-2005, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jchung:
To be frank, I don't like any of the views. All of them are very unrealistic. There should never be a reticle on the screen in any of the views. You should only be able to move about when you are not aiming your firearm. Then hitting the right stick would bring up the iron sights, hitting it again would bring up the view through the optics, then the left stick would allow you to toggle back.

The no reticle view could only be used to move about, as the view through sights or optics would move about too violently in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I AGREE. Plus we should have the specific reticle for each optical sight rather than a generic one. e.g- red arrow for trijicon acog. There should be no 'reticle bloom'.

Jakethejake
05-25-2005, 09:31 AM
Hi jchung,

Having all three views would allow the host to eliminate the OTS view and guys like myself who like the FPWV could play nicely with classic players without any advantage. I like to see the different weapon models and mods. Is it totally realistic? Probably not. I think it is cool though. I think that most tactical players would find that this is a decent compromise. Those who don't like to play without the OTS view could go to another server, where there are always going to be plenty of OTS players. My point is that having more options IMO is better for the whole community. It gives you a much larger group of players to game with.

jchung
05-25-2005, 10:22 AM
Hey Jake,

What I propose is that all three views are available, but there is just no reticle on the screen. You just have to hit the right stick to bring up your iron sights to shoot, then hitting it again would bring up optics, and then hitting the left stick would allow you to toggle back. This would also allow getting rid of the pips, as the sights could move a bit mimicing the natural movement of a perons hands.

I'm not saying get rid of OTS. I'm just saying lets make all of the views more realistic. Face it, no matter what view you support, having a reticle hanging in the air is plain lame. What I propose would also eliminate all run and gunning too.

I agree that all three views will make the gaming community larger, and I have no problem with that. I just want to see more realism WITH all three views.

The primary views would only be used when moving from location to location, as having your sights up would cause the view screen to shake too much. Just like real life. Realism is all I am proposing here, not getting rid of the OTS view.

Jakethejake
05-25-2005, 10:41 AM
Hi jchung,

Yeah, I agree that the reticule should go. One thing that I dislike about pretty much all FPS and tactical shooters is that you can usually fire pretty accurately without sighting the weapon. I hear that Rise of a Soldier will change this, but who knows. Hopefully the trend will be to force the players to use their sights when firing.

XyZspineZyX
05-25-2005, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jakethejake:
Hopefully the trend will be to force the players to use their sights when firing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not sure i like the sound of that, why should anyone be forced to use a view they dont like ?

I dont like weapon view, but i do like the traditional GR view with reticle. I dont see why i (or others like me) should be forced to use iron sights just because someone else thinks its better.

jchung
05-25-2005, 11:51 AM
@Klean

You are not the first to express that, Kurtz in another thread has expressed the same feelings. I guess we are looking at how we would like to see this game progress, but this is what the forum is for correct?

The game cannot please everyone, so in one way or another everyone will be disappointed with some aspect of the game.

My primary concern still is the gameplay. The view of the gun is secondary. Tactical gameplay can make or break a game, unlike the weapon view. I still like OGR despite the weapon view, but gameplay is something that I cannot sacrifice, and I think that is something that all tactical lovers of OGR can agree on.

I don't want the weapons view to side track us from the issue of gameplay. This is just a side topic. My primary concern is still tactical vs. run and gun.

Jakethejake
05-25-2005, 11:59 AM
Hi Klean,

I didn't mean use iron sights. I may have been a bit unclear. What I meant is that the physics of the game should make it so that the weapon is much less accurate if firing from the hip, or if the player is not "sighted or scoped up" As it stands right now, the only advantage to using a scope is that you get a better view of the enemy. I believe that this is the reason for running and gunning. If the weapon is less accurate when not sighted, players would have to go slower and actually raise thier weapon and target their enemy rather than merely ptting the reticule on them. The views in the game could stay the same, but I would be much less likely to hit my target if I am not sighted.

XyZspineZyX
05-25-2005, 12:05 PM
Ahh im with you now, yep makes sense. I just thought you meant iron sights combined with the word forced and got scared lol

WhiteKnight77
05-25-2005, 12:23 PM
Why do you think I asked this question and Serellan asked if I had asked it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Me:
Will we be stuck with that god awful FPWV? If it is kept as an option, will the player have a setting to override a servers setting of FPWV so it cannot be forced on a player? That is one thing I could not stand about Raven Shield and it ruined the times I played the MP demo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

jchung
05-26-2005, 07:22 AM
Whatever the view, more realism is a benefit over less realism.

Even if we still have the tired old pips, I would like to see the game go the direction of not having the hanging reticle. You could still have the FPV but just require that a gun would have to be drawn before firing.

Even this would be a better option than the current system. The current system allows you to run about with the gun essentially always drawn and this promotes the whole run and gun phenomenon.

A move to iron sights that account for natural movement is a move toward more realism, and I for one would like to see this. IMO any move that adds an element of realism is what I want to see, not elements that would move away from realism.

All the futuristic equipment is probably more unrealistic as half or more of it will probably never make it into service, so if things like this are accepted, then as far as I can see most GR players do not really want realism in every respect.

WhiteKnight77
05-26-2005, 10:11 AM
Now at least for the XBox, all the people who wanted a FPWV, are finally getting it. I noticed something in the game insanely high quality trailer CR6 posted at GR.net that is highly disturbing with the FPWV. I saw a teammember disappear less than 10 yards from where Mitchell was standing. Less than 10 yards and poof, gone. People asked for it now it's there and will get you killed. Take a look around at military photo sites and at Military.com, you do not see anyone holding a weapon so it can be seen unless they are directly looking through the sights. Just the other day on Military.com, they had an article about some training going on in Iraq, the accompanying picture showed US Solider and at least 1 Iraqi Soldier and the US Soldier actually was holding his weapon under his chin. I don't know about anyone else, but my eyes don't pop out to look at something directly under my chin.

jchung
05-26-2005, 10:50 AM
@WhiteKnight

You bring up some good points in regards to the FPWV, and I have to agree with you that there are some issues with it in regard to logistics, and realism.

How about the current pip system? Are you in favor of keeping it? Would you rather see actual sights with drift accounted for in targeting?

WhiteKnight77
05-26-2005, 02:15 PM
First off, here is the article I was refering to with the accompanying picture.

http://images.military.com/pics/FL_squeeze_052305.jpg

From U.S., Iraq Troops Launch Offensive (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_squeeze_052305,00.html)

As I said, my eyeballs just don't pop out to view something there. I don't know about anyone else, but I imagine it to be the same. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Let me state that I do agree that just a reticule for infantry and special forces operatives is unrealistic, I knew that from when I first bought Rainbow Six 5 years ago (the whole reason why I wanted a PC to begin with, I wanted that game and no other). Now I had played Duke Nukem a time or 2 on my then GF son's PC with the FPWV and I really didn't like it. It reminded me of Rambo firing the M60 from the hip at the end of First Blood. The thing is, there are still aiming pips or reticle even if they aren't that large. All FPS games have to have them as do 3rd person shooters elsewise, a person won't hit the broad side of a barn (just as in real life if you try and shoot a weapon holding it that way). RSE games removed it and opened up the view of the screen.

That said, the only people who actually get an aiming reticule are Snake and Apache gunners, with the helment or monocle they use to sight with. The helmets are attached mechanically or electronically to the nose gun or chain gun as the case may be. When the gunner turns his head, the barrels point where he looks. Putting his ret on a target is how he knows what is gonna get hit when he pulls the trigger. Now for ground troops it isn't realistic, but neither is FPWV. If there was a way to use a smaller reticle or set of pips and have to push a button for iron sights or optics view, then maybe, but weapons in views as done by all the other myraid of games already on the market makes for an arcadish looking game. The weapon view in RvS actually made me seasick sitting in my chair. With the weapon bobbing up and down and the view bobbing up and down as you moved forward it just wasn't conducive to me keeping my dinner down.

If someone could come up with a better system that the previous aiming systems that R6/RS and GR had, I would like to see it, even if just to try it. That said, I think it would be hard to actually replicate realistic shooting in a game. There are to many variables that come into play to do so to be accuratly represented.

jchung
05-26-2005, 02:26 PM
@WhiteKnight

I agree with what you are saying about the FPWV, you raise good points in regard to that.

The only other suggestion would be what you have already indicated that you do not like, and that is a sight accounting for the natural motion of the human hand. What other option is there?

Essentially what you are saying is keep the pips, because there are no other solutions. A truly realistic aiming system is an iron sight, or optic with a bit of motion. Anything other than that would be worse than the current pip system we have today.

WhiteKnight77
05-26-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jchung:
@WhiteKnight

I agree with what you are saying about the FPWV, you raise good points in regard to that.

The only other suggestion would be what you have already indicated that you do not like, and that is a sight accounting for the natural motion of the human hand. What other option is there?

Essentially what you are saying is keep the pips, because there are no other solutions. A truly realistic aiming system is an iron sight, or optic with a bit of motion. Anything other than that would be worse than the current pip system we have today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the motion was just enough to know it was there and didn't make me (or anyone else for that matter) seasick I could try it. Have you played SC? When you have to use the scope, you have to hold the right mouse button down to stop breathing so it doesn't affect hitting a target, and you only have a few seconds before you have to take another breath, I think that is fine actually (and that doesn't make me sick). It is a weapon bobbing up and down in view that does. The SC scope view even has recoil to go along with it IIRC.

If something like that could be incorperated I can see it being popular and even I would use it if I could chose a sniper weapon (my prefered weapons of choice). For CQB or medium range, iron sights or optics would be OK if they could get it accurately portray it, but no weapon in view until you actually have to fire in any case. BIA had some pretty decent iron sights that I recall seeing in early screens.

Game devs have a tendency to overdo the motion of weapons in view in my opinion. Unfortunately I believe, most ways are not gonna be able to reproduce a truly accurate way of aiming. Just my opinion.

jchung
05-26-2005, 05:45 PM
@WhiteKnight

The sighting system in BIA and SC is exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps I was not representing the system properly. The only thing I do not like in the SC system is that the sight moves too much. I personally would love to see something like that implemented in GR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I agree that the motion is often overdone. The one complaint I have of the existing games that use this system.

WhiteKnight77
05-26-2005, 05:59 PM
LOL, Ok that works, but as far as the weapon motion I was refering to is that in 1st person. That makes me seasick.

The only think I see wrong with it in SP games or even Coop in MP is getting wacked by the AI while we take the time in to sight and hold the sight picture. I have that happen in SC all to much.

jchung
05-26-2005, 06:19 PM
LOL, I rarely use the guns in SC. I think choking the guys is my favorite thing. I like all of the funny things they say. I just sold my copy of SCCT. It was a bit too linear for my taste. It was still a good game, but IMO it was not worth keeping.

Anyway, the motion in SC is seriously overdone, and I know for a fact that when I am shooting, my rifle does not move that much. They need to seriously tone down the motion, and I think the system would be perfect IMO.

I did not know that you thought I was referring to motion in the standard FPV. Yeah, I agree, if there was always motion, it would be annoying.

buddhiraja
05-28-2005, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:

As I said, my eyeballs just don't pop out to view something there. I don't know about anyone else, but I imagine it to be the same. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the picture that you have posted, it looks like the soldiers are in a semi-alert state. When we are playing GR, we are alert and searching for enemies. In such a case the gun position should be different from what has been shown in the picture ( stock at the chest, the gun somewhat perpendicular to the body ).

If we want to be very realistic , we should only see the tip of the barrel while we are not aiming but alertly searching for enemies. These are my thoughts, correct me if I am wrong.

buddhiraja
05-28-2005, 02:23 PM
I have always been interested in knowing how the special forces use an assault rifle fitted with a magnifying optical sight ( say 4x ), when they become involved in CQB. They obviously cannot aim using the sight, then their view would be too restricted.

In GR, we very often faced this situation i.e we were involved in CQB while being equipped with a magnifying optic. The reticle only system gave us an unfair advantage over what real soldiers have to face, as we could use the reticle to aim in CQBs.

I want this problem addressed in a realistic manner, when GR3 is released.

jchung
05-29-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by buddhiraja:
I have always been interested in knowing how the special forces use an assault rifle fitted with a magnifying optical sight ( say 4x ), when they become involved in CQB. They obviously cannot aim using the sight, then their view would be too restricted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Other than sniper rifles, all of my rifles that use either an ACOG, or nightvision 3X or 4X sight, are all secured to a mount that has a channel through them allows the use of iron sights. I think this is what you are asking about. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is a pic. It looks like it would be difficult to see through, but that is only because the shot is not zoomed in. I wanted to show the broad picture of how it functions.

http://www.picturevillage.com/photo/data/bfba8a0b8904bb41f21794e7c676a06a/full_20637_p290869.jpg

buddhiraja
05-29-2005, 01:45 PM
Thanks jchung. So, in GR3, we should have the option of using both the sights. Those players , who do not like the iron sights, will simply not use them.

lonewolfer2004
02-02-2006, 10:22 PM
Wow, so i do rember when these forums didnt suck, when i waz bigtony and didnt post anything, could i be an enabler.... nahhh, oh well so ppl predicted you GR classic fans would come out of the wood work, and guess what they did, and these forums went
---------------------------------Down
-------------------------------------Down
-----------------------------------------Down
--------------------------------------------Down
-----------------------------------------------Down