Look down, you don't see just your legs, you see your chest and your gut as well. Effectively the camera has to move forward a few inches. Probably easy enough to do badly, come on the view of your legs in Halo looks really weird, admit it, and possibly a nightmare to do well.

no argument, if i want to see my legs or chest i just hit the third person button, bask in my glory and switch back and continue on my quest to kill every NPC possible in the world so i can finally have some quite time to read my damn books lol

I liked the feature in those riddike games and thought it was handy for when I wanted to milk as much as possible out of a jump because I knew exactly how close I was to an edge. It would be nice to see them impliment it but its not likely and it isnt going to affect my enjoyment either way.

I think you need to lighten up.
Can't see your legs? What's the big deal? This isn't The fancy shoes of legviewingland V: The purple pants.

Also, I agree that most reviewers rate games way too high.

Only a timeless classic should get rated 90%+.
How do you know if a new game will become a timeless classic? Experience...

I couldn't possible care less.

I like legs. Lol.

No but seriously it adds for another experience in 1st person. Like when walking near a cliff and looking down. It feels so much... more real and well, just overly enhanced experience of being the character.
I would really really like it. I don't wanna be a floating camera either.

It's not something hard to do either, really. Mods did it half-way for Oblivion (but then gave up and didn't finish). You could pretty much EXPECT something like this today.
It would be a bit embarrassing for the 1st person view to not improve one bit for over 10 years of gaming development from Bethesda's part.

No game should get a 10.

Being able to see your torso in first person as you look down on it, will add a whole new reason to play female characters :wink_smile:

Seeing your legs wouldn't make it more immersive... If you think it feels like a floating camera, with legs it would look like a camera on legs...
Seeing your body wouldn't be that different either...

Couple other games that did it were Call of Juarez ( not sure if boths games did or not) and Dark Messiah. Have to say though, it's never looked all that convincing. Always looks like your sliding around. Oh yeah and way back it was in that Jurassic Park game, Trespasser. (protagonist was female by the way and state of your health was visible via a tattoo on her chest...as a man it felt odd I have to say.)

It'd be good, but it's not vital.

Ha, that's what everyone will want to see if they chose a female character.

No game deserves a perfect 10 because no game is perfect IMO. The second I see a reviewing magazine or website give a game a 10/10 they instantly lose all credibility to me. If you give a game a 10 that means there can be nothing better than that game... which is just plain untrue. Plus every game has problems, glitches, or something flawed with it.

But yeah not being able to see my characters body in first person mode is something I hate the most. It breaks all immersion when you look down and see nothing but a shadow. I don't need the guns or swords hovering infront of my "face" either unless I'm actually aiming it or something. 90% of the FPS games feel like I'm a floating pair of hands. With the camera (my eyes) located in my gut instead of my head where they belong.

I remember playing Far Cry 2 and being amazed at how I'm able to see my entire characters body. Then I step outside of the jeep and my legs and body vanished. Ugh. Mount&Blade is an indie dev game and they got the FPS camera right. Left4Dead gave us legs which was something. Too bad they took them out in Left4Dead 2 as well as turning the FoV into what feels like tunnel vision by zooming it in too much.



Uhh... no. Wrong on so many levels.

Why would you want such a gamebreaking, loreunfriendly feature as legs, they haven't been in any of the other tes games (except hant-to-hand) not seing your own legs is part of the lore.

No, but seriously I want to see my legs.

If that is the case, why do we even use 10? If the best thing a game can ever hope to achieve is 9 (or 90) we don't really need 10 (or 100).

I disagree however, i know many people consider 10 to be perfect but that is not how i look at it. As you said, no game is perfect. Neither is any movie, book, comic etc. You can always find something you don't like about it, or atleast i can. Likewise i can usually also find something i like about games that i hate. What matters is the overall enjoyment of the game. 10 dosn't mean that a game is perfect but it does mean that the game is something truly exceptional, that it succeeds in many ways and that it is a pleasure to play. For example, i would give Super Mario 64 a 10. But the game isn't perfect, the camera is terrible and the story svcks like it always does in Mario games. But that dosn't really change the fact that it truly stands out amoung all the games i have played and that i enjoyed it tremendously.

A truly exceptional game would be 9.8

You don't need 10. 10's there because there has to be a beginning and an end to a scale for it to work. You never see games get rated as a 0. Why should they be rated as a 10?

It's a problem when in a RP game you change armor types, some bigger, some smaller. Plus, they interrupt your vision in some way. So it's different than a game that your character only switches weapons.

why do people always complian about the legs, this compalint can go on forever, the legs are in why cant i see my shoulders, or go crosseyed and stare at my nose,

if they add legs they should also add everything

one thing i would like is the choice to have helmets abstuct your view

Because 0 dosn't exist. The scale goes from 1 to 10 most places i know of. 1 isn't used often however. But it happens.

Actually i don't really think we need 10... or 9,8,7 and 6. People care too much about the number instead of the actual review. If you ask me, they should use a system like this instead.

1 - Abysmal.
2 - Poor
3 - Mediocre
4 - Good
5 - Exceptional

It's because the score is based on several categories. A game should and can get a perfect 10 if it succeeds to answer all the categories straight. There's the category of graphics, plot, combat, AI, new technologies, etc.
So a game doesn't have to be PERFECT to get a 10/10, it just needs to answer all the categories.

Do you really play looking at your feet?

Why add all that hassle to the 3D hardware if it isn't necessary or immersion or anything else.

I can't believe people still buy into that trite nonsense. Only amateurs break things down into several categories and assign arbitrary numbers to each of them (likely pulled out of their own ass). What makes a game isn't it's graphics. Or the music. But how the developers blended them all together to create an enjoyable experience. A game might not have ultra photo realistic graphics. So why punish it even if it was still beautifully done to fit the style and direction the game was aiming for? One game might not even have any music at all. So your focus easily shifts to the atmospheric sound effects of it's world. Etc

This is something I don't care about either way. I'm just wondering if the adoring fan will be there!

Not having a body to look at while in 1st person doesn't bother me.

I would knock the rating down a bit if there are no racial differences, other than appearances.
but, these kind of things can be modded in.

I can't understand what is so hard about implementing the feet there.. Killzone had it too btw.

I know there is bigger issues. I didn't say the only reason the game should not get a perfect score is based off the legs. There could be 100 other reasons Skyrim won't get a perfect score. If there are no legs, then make that 101 reasons. No matter how good the game is, if there are no legs in FP view then it can't ever be perfect.

Lets say I worked at some major video game site, and I was to review Skyrim, and there are no legs in FP, but other than that it is pretty much flawless here would be my scores:
5pt scale: 5/5
10pt scale: 10/10
20pt scale 9.5/10
100pt scale 9.7/10
Letter Grade(Example: D- D D+): A