That would be the point of making such threads. In hopes developers listen and make adjustments... Hence the poll. Not that I'm crying/complaing about it.

Oh, no, sorry. I suppose I should have been more specific than "ugh".

I was expressing my dislike for this forced third person business. Seems like something that would be right at home in an action adventure game.

I'll be more annoyed if they'll be forced finishing moves. If these moves aren't optional, then I would rather the camera automatically go into 3rd person to watch.

But I'd rather both the camera change and the moves themselves be optional.

I'm with you. I love the finishers and don't mind one bit if they force me into third person.

I'm not sure what to think at this stage, the same feature shown in pre-release videos of Dragon Age put me off buying that game. I don't really know why I dislike this sort of thing so much, but hey, I do.

If I do buy Skyrim, I'll do my best to mod it out.

Unfortunately, I don't have the pleasure of stalking the forums all day everyday. :facepalm:

EDIT: I have a feeling that most of those votes are coming from COD and other action game junkies.

Oh, well thank you for the clarification :foodndrink:

But I agree, it's something I would expect in any other game.

maybe he was voicing disapproval at the idea of forced third-person [censored]. in fact it seems he was!

i would be entirely fine with this if it were optional, which i'm going to assume it is because Bethesda isn't stupid and they know there's going to be a lot of people who won't like this. i like finishing moves, i like cinematic [censored] that isn't QTEs, and i like the idea of jumping on a dragon and pulling some HIGH JUMP AXE CHOP [censored] to kill it, but more than those i like consistency and don't very much enjoy the game seizing control and changing the camera angle to show me something it deems cool if i don't particularly want to see something cool.

i don't care about ROLE-PLAYING or whatever, i don't BELIEVE I'M THE CHARACTER - i prefer first-person because i've always preferred first-person. it's a clean, unobstructed view of the game world, without some dude standing in the middle of the screen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIA0w-iqVc8, which as animation systems have improved has become an increasingly irritating problem with third-person games.

if this is optional, awesome. if it's not but it's limited to the final kill in a battle, i wouldn't LIKE IT but i'd probably get used to it depending on how distracting it was. if it's randomly chosen based on how long it's been since i last saw something awesome i'll mod it out myself.

It seems it's about time for me to go to bed... :whistling:

As for your apparent hatred for role-playing, that doesn't mean EVERYONE DOESN'T CARE. TES games to me are the essence of just that... Immersion based role-playing that makes you believe your in another world in which you do things that you normaly can't in the real world.

Roleplaying in TES games has always been pretty damn shallow anyways. 90% of what your character does isn't recognized by the game world. so it's basically just living in your head. Without feedback and reaction RP is pointless.

So because someone thinks something looks cool, everyone should be forced to see it? :confused:

One of the things a lot of people love about TES is it's one of the few first-person RPGs out there, and they prefer to play in first-person for a reason. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Will the game be any worse for you personally if they make finisher moves optional? No. Will the game be any worse for you if you have to switch manually into third-person to see a third-person finisher, or switch into first-person to see a first-person finisher? Hardly, unless you're lazy and need the game to control things for you.

I really wish people would stop being so selfish. I much prefer first-person, but you don't see me complaining about how much they've improved the third-person side of things for people who prefer that view. You don't see me complaining about how interaction with NPCs can occur in third-person now.


Looking at it that way is perfectly fine and logical, however I see things this way:

I'm roleplaying - ie. playing the role of a character. Therefore for the duration of the game, I AM that character - the character is not me. So rather than guiding the character around like a puppet in third-person, I like to see the world through their eyes constantly.

OH MY [censored] GOD. WHAT'S THIS? A LOGICAL WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS THAT DIFFERS FROM YOUR OWN!? ...this, my friend, is why it's good for a game to have options (especially a game built around player freedom). Lots of people will have different opinions on POV, so why not just let the first-person people play in first-person, and the third-person people play in third-person. There is abolutely NOTHING stopping people who want a bit of both to switch between the two.

I can't imagine that they would make such a thing forced and not optional, seeing as they were optional in Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

i don't HATE IT, i just don't see the merit in playing pretend in a game where your choices have very few consequences. TES to me has always been pretty much just an adventure game with RPG bits to add depth, which is why i'm such a big fan of Bethesda implementing more of a simulation element as far as combat goes - i actually don't really like RPGs.

i know that people make up these huge elaborate backstories for characters and i can dig that even though i don't exactly understand the point. my point in making that comment wasn't to say their playing style is any less valid than mine - it was simply to point out that my preference for first-person is more or less purely utilitarian.

True enough, but people who role-play on a gameboard more than likely have enough imagination to transform a bad game into a utopia. Here's to hoping that Skyrim is more immersion than past titles. :foodndrink:

Do you enjoy fiction? Reading books? Watching movies?

90%? Really? I think thats a little bit of exaggeration, wouldn't you agree?

What you are obviously not aware is that finishers have precisely zero to do with RPing and everything with console-style beat-them-up.

not as much as video games, no. not traditional books or movies, anyway.

i get what you're saying but again while i do understand why people do it i don't understand the point. i don't need you to HAMMER IT INTO ME, though!~

It makes you feel like your character is really part of the game world when he caters to your desire for flashiness rather than acting in a way that actually fits into the word?

Finishers are pure and simple beat-them-up fanservice. They have zero to do with actual RP, because going for flashiness rather than effectiveness in combat is only one thing: Suicidal.

It really doesn't help that you finished off your enemy when you gave him all the openings he needed to with his last breath ram his sword through your chest, too. And just because the game restricts him from doing so doesn't make any of it meaningful.

For people who play whole games in first-person, it kinda does.

I find what you just said and your signiture to be very conflicting. :tongue:

But it's not such a hard concept to get... People ENJOY taking up the role of certain other people, particularly in videogames. You can't tell me you've NEVER pretended before... Even as a child? Maybe as a dinosaur.

I don't understand this. Not all finishers in real life guarantee an opening for your opponent. And also, most finishers tend to disable your opponent from even responding. If you slam your axe in between the eyes of your opponent, lodging your blade halfway into his skull, it doesn't even matter what vital spots you've left open. The dude is done.

I don't see how it is counterintuitive to role playing when you are in combat. -shrugs-

And no, its not just for "beat em ups".

I loved Witcher 2 finishers, so I'll enjoy this.

I really hope this is can be toggled off.

If not, my soul will die.

LOL! Overreact much?