Indiana Jones and the Great Circle "showcase" pretty cringey, no?

@Litchie: You heard me. First person is a shit perspective.

Indiana's VA is bad. Facial expressions on him are also very wooden and weird. As for cringe, the original trilogy WAS cringe, and that's not a problem. But from what's shown, the game looks like a very average 7/10. Nothing shown seemed to me like a quality AAA title.

I think it looks ok ... i like the Harrison Ford model, i do agree that some of the dialogue is cringy, especially at 3:00 but yeah, doesn't look that bad, my biggest complain is that Bethesda is in charge.

i'm surprised they gave away the battleship in the frozen mountain thing. that discovery could've been a very cool moment in the game. the rest just felt idiana jonesy. low interest in this at the minute, don't think it will work well in first person. be pleased if im proven wrong

They showed a lot with the story but it may just be the beginning.

Looks pretty good and faithful to Indiana Jones.

The MCU and modern movies being heavily influenced by the tone of Indiana Jones is not Indiana Jones' fault.

7/10 means game is good.

not every game is 9/10 or 10/10 masterpiece.

I like many game I gave 7/10.

7/10 means its Starfield quality. Is Starfield good to you? I would've expected at least an 8 from this developer, but this looks very mediocre, and the only positive i am seeing is that the game seem to preserve the goofiness/charm of the movies, but even then, its ruined by Indiana's VA.

never played Starfield.

Many games get 7 is good. plus many games get 9s are just 7/10 games. ok but very overrated.

recently beat Ghost of tshusima. its one and done. 7/10 game. it has flaws but good.

GoT is an action game, it has gameplay. This has none.

Your take is a shit perspective.

Starfield is an 85/100. Great news for gamers.

I love Indiana Jones, but I haven't seen anything to get me excited for this game. This could be a flop incoming. I hope it turns out good though.

Its 7/10 shovelware that is so forgotten even dabear isn't hyped for the DLC, and he has like 700h in the core game.

At least the other guy tried.

Me: Wrong perspective/camera, probably woke, overused voice actor; wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Him: First person perspective is fine. They've been making first person games for years, why should 200+ people stop what they are doing because you want yet another boring third person Indiana Jones game, of which there are already boatloads?

Me: First-person perspective sucks ass because it's like controlling a walking tripod on tank treads with weapon always rigidly up and forward. Can only run forward, sideways running disabled in almost every first-person game, so can't see shit but what's ahead when running, whereas in third-person the character can run and you can look in any direction. No awareness of where your feet are in first-person, and although third-person does not have a sense of touch and real peripheral vision either, it makes up for that by letting you see around your character, including where their feet are. If Machinegames are too incompetent to do third-person, they should not have taken this IP. Screw them. We haven't had a big Indiana Jones game for many years; what are you talking about? New Tomb Raider sucks and Uncharted went for something different and is in the wrong time period for discovery of ancient cities.

Him: As someone who is playing Alien Isolation and Resident Evil 7 right now that is a bold faced lie.

Unless you're still gaming on a 8" CRT from the 80s: how is this even a problem? FOV hasn't been a problem on 16:9 or 21:9 screens at all.

Nah you see less in a 3P game because you always have your character on screen.

You truly sound like a manbaby called Karen that just wants to whine and whine and talk shit about things he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Me: Ripley in Alien: Isolation can only run forward. She can't look to the side while running, as if her head and eyes are in a vise. If she is holding a weapon or the scanner, her whole upper body turns as she looks around. It's extremely robotic. Resident Evil 7 is bad.

Lol, how does the aspect ratio of your screen fix this issue? You still are aware of too little, no matter how you slice it, because the camera is so zoomed in and you can't feel your body/legs. Kind of important in an action-adventure game where you are jumping and climbing platforms and fighting people hand to hand, like Indiana Jones.

Third-person clearly has more visibility, even if I use a game where the character takes up significant space, like MGS5. Look at how much closer the fence becomes.

With shoulder swapping, the character will never be in the way. But there is no way to fix the small field of view in a first person game or remove the big tool/weapon on the screen.

I promise they are standing in the same spot, but how can you be sure if you CAN'T FEEL/SEE HIS FREAKING LEGS.

Him: You need to see his legs in order to feel like you're standing on the ground?

Brother, how do you even drive a car, do you exit the car every 5 seconds to see if the tires are still touching the ground?

Me: Oh, I get it. You want invisible walls at precipices, for your character to never fall. Makes sense, with you preferring first-person where you can't see shit. If I was standing there, I could also tell the incline of the hill from how my feet are positioned. In real life, I can take a quick glance down without lowering my weapon. In third-person, you can see there anyway. First-person games can't do either.

Him: There's a couple of games I play where you can look down and you can see your characters waist and legs: Alien Isolation, Battlefield V...

But I've been playing first person games since the 90s and I never had any problem with a floating body. First person perspective is fine and has been since forever.

Having a personal opinion on which you find more immersive: 1P or 3P or which you find subjectively better is fine.

But calling developers incompetent because they stick to what they know best is idiotic on a biblical level.

Me: You understood nothing of what I said. Seeing your legs in Alien: Isolation and Battlefield V doesn't fix the issue at all, since you still have to look down, tilting the whole weapon/tool down with the vise between your upper body/arms and your head/eyes. You bump into walls as you move sideways and backwards and are only aware that there are walls because your character stops moving. In real life, you would feel it and could take quick glances separate of how your body and arms are oriented that would prevent you from bumping into the wall in the first place. Oh, and you could look there without stopping the run. Can't do that in the vast majority of first-person games where you can only run forward. In a third-person game, the camera moves farther up or to the side as you approach the wall or the wall becomes slightly invisible with the bottom or side edge clearly defined and you can look in that direction while continuing to run.

Him: Show me one other person that has ever expressed these concerns and I'll know it's a genre issue and not a user issue.

Alternatively showcase a video demonstrating this issue in a first person game.

Because games like Mirror's Edge and Battlefield V have insane maneuverability and people love them for it.

Are they as good as third person games? Maybe not, but I never claimed they are. I will claim they are more immersive though, time and time again.

Me: "More immersive," he says. Clearly not with all the ways I just explained in which the movement is robotic.

Why would I need to show you a video? Are you trying to tell me something about your reading comprehension? You've experienced all of what I talked about many times yourself.

I would rather play Mirror's Edge in third-person view, as long as the animations and camera were well done. You as Faith would have been able to look around as you ran.

@warm_gun: You have some strange takes, no doubt. First person is highly immersive due to giving you the sense that you are walking and looking around from your own perspective or the perspective of the character. Third person just looks like a camera following a character around. So, first person is more immersive and third person is more cinematic.

That MGS comparison is just silly. Not only is the game camera not in the same position, but the third person camera has a higher FOV. Games are shown through a camera. How much you see all comes down to the positioning and FOV of that camera. It doesn't matter if it is a third person or first person game, it is all about the camera.

I am so glad that its now you that has to deal with his takes and not me. Please enjoy.

Doesn't work because of everything that I talked about. Objectively shit. Robot/tank shit. Only anti-immersion because of how the character moves. I remember that I'm a puppeteer anyway because of the controller or mouse and keyboard and where I am physically in real life, so any benefit in cam is lost. Want to hamper yourself for really nothing. Third person movement and awareness far more realistic.

VR gets around some of those first person limitations, but too much hassle to set up.

Don't understand what you mean with second part, but doesn't have to be MGS5, can demonstrate it with any game that has third and first person views.

Some games allow you to decouple aiming from the direction you are moving (head swivel). Then there is VR that takes it to another level. Regardless of limitations, first person leads to a more immersive experience than third person purely because the perspective is from the eyes and not as a third person observer.

What don't you understand about how game cameras work?

I don't understand how game cams work? You don't understand what I'm talking about. Can't be immersive because the tripod on tank treads is unable to look in one direction while running in another and always holds gun up like a machine. Older shooters let you fully run sideways, now only mediocre Doom and a few indies. Can't be immersive because don't know where your character is, can't feel or see body.

Okay, so decouple aiming from direction (head swivel) is more hand work for something you could have just done in third person, wonderful.

Mentioned VR in my edit before you posted. Too much work to set up, not widely supported, weight on your head, inferior picture quality, Warm Gun gonna steal all your belongings while you sit there blind from the world.

Game cameras are just like real life cameras. What you see is based on the camera's placement in the environment and the FOV adjustment of a lens. The rest is just objects placed in front of the camera. A gun placed close to it creates first person and a character placed further from it creates third person. A camera placed in the exact same spot with the same FOV will capture the same amount of the environment regardless if it is first person or third person. It's pretty basic shit.

I am not debating the limitations that you mentioned before. There are even more that can be mentioned. Each game will have different limitations. However, regardless of limitations, first person is still more immersive due to the perspective itself. You are the character instead of watching and controlling the character. Not sure how that is not registering with you, but then again, you struggle with the concept of how a game camera works...

You're not saying anything. Can't be fixed with wider field of view, because being in first person will always make it inferior to third in terms of environmental awareness. Congrats, you pulled the cam back so far that you've created an ugly fish-eye effect with very long arms, and still don't know where your legs are, still only aware that there is a wall because your character stopped moving. You're not the character, you're the puppeteer and aware of it, because of how the game plays. Third person is not only far more immersive thanks to awareness, separated cam (analogues to turning neck/eyes) and movement, but also more honest for not pretending and failing.

Japanese barely do first person view aside from driving, only super popular among western devs because it's easier/cheaper and they can't into gameplay, vast majority of best console games of all time Japanese.

@warm_gun: Of course you can see more information about the character and its relation to the environment in third person because you are not the character! You are a third person camera following the character. Basically like a flying drone. That is not immersion. Being able to see enemies around corners with a third person camera is the complete opposite of immersion. Don't confuse game readability with immersion.

You exaggerate the limitations of first person. You can look around your environment in first person games to see boundaries and obstacles just like you have to look around in real life. Also, the majority of time you walk around in real life, you are walking forward and turning direction as needed. That is exactly what you do in first person games.

Indiana jones movies are action adventure movies with scripted set pieces. so I don't mind game having what movies have since game is based on movie.

if it was other game I would discard. but indy game? nope.

looks ok and I will give it go. just another short haired woman following him around making sure he does things right.

woman in that age had long hair. look at every woman indiana been with in the movies. long hair beautiful woman.

@gifford38: You are a fragile man 😂

and you like woman with short hair that looks manly just to make your transness happy. you must look so cute with that dress on pedro. I want a pick. xoxo

Like I said you are a fragile man and you just confirmed it again. Read a book man. Educate yourself. Aren't you tired of being this ignorant?

Someone left a comment on my old video. Ended up watching from that comment timestamp to the end, remembered a bunch of moments that I had forgotten.

52:36, an example of why third person is just better. Could do it in first of course, but would be disorienting as hell because the cam would go all over the place and you don't have the character's equilibrium. World would be on its side.