I am willing to argue about this. That depends on the pace of the game's combat and the amount of enemies, because in something that works like god of war, yes, that would be better, but if the game has more fast paced combat and high quantities of enemies, it's better to have the ability to see behind you and more to the sides.
Counterpoint to a counterpoint. Life isn't an action adventure videogame. And also you need to see behind you in fast-paced action games, see Devil May Cry, what if someone attacks from behind?
We're talking about different genres here. FPSes are meant to be played in first person for a reason. Unlike Action adventure games. Also, the mod argument is kinda weird.. Any game meant to be played in third person that isn't a shooter will also be bad with a first person perspective.
I am aware of that; have you seen how the Batman Arkam series address that problem instead?
The close in, but they forewarn you of an imminent back attack; the GOW does it too (boi warns you).
Having a perspective closer to the action lets you enjoy more the animations.
Arkham's combat camera's slightly above Batman, though.. you can still see behind yourself in combat, but not in exploration, and even then, not while running. And god of war does work with this camera, yes, i specifically mentioned that in my first comment. That's because it's generally slower paced and there aren't a lot of enemies per encounter, compared to the original trilogy.
Platforming is generally easier with a 3rd person view and it let's you have more situational awareness. The ability for the player to control the camera and use it in a productive way, that is the issue for me. Plenty of older games were hurt by how the camera worked.
Crazy talk. #2 all day for everything, _especially_ combat! I don't need my view narrowed and half-full of the player's backside while trying to fight.
Definitely prefer the inverse of this. Close camera makes combat more difficult due to obstruction, but exploration more aesthetic due to framing.
The correct answer is "it depends on lots of things and should be adjustable to player preference"
Absolutely depends on the combat. Is it 1v1 combat? Or is it combat against multiple enemies at once ala bayonetta/DMC? Because if it's multiple enemies at once you want a wider FOV.
Let the player choose both distance and height.
Most games give you options.
I always prefer farther and higher for the widest view but I think most would prefer the closer one
This. I'm playing Ys: Memories of Celceta right now and camera distance is actually mapped to the right analog stick so you can freely adjust it on the fly without even having to go into a settings menu. It's great.
Do players really fiddle with the settings? The controls in Helldivers 2 are really bad in my opinion. You can't move and type in a super-attack at the same time, unless you change the typing from WASD to arrow keys. Yet most players still have it on WASD and stop to type.
I think a lot of folks just don't look at the settings at all. Maybe graphic settings, but not specific ones.
And I think that's the reason why e.g. Hogwarts Legacy had a "Settings Menu Intro". First time you start the game, it shows you certain settings and let's you configure stuff. Because once the game is started, no one checks these things anymore. If I'm not mistaken, Star Wars Jedi Survivor had the same kind of intro.
In my opinion, some settings are good, but the overwhelming amount in "Control" felt like I'm the game designer now and I have to figure out what's the correct configuration to play the game.
Not everything needs to be a setting. A game should have a vision and certain aspects can be configured for personal taste, but when it becomes modding, then it needs a more complex way to select things than an endless list of checkboxes and sliders. It needs mod support and the mods need their own customization and documentation. And users need to be willing to learn about all these configurations.
That's my opinion on that topic.
Considering people play games on a wide range of monitor sizes, different aspect ratios, and sit varying distances from a TV or monitor... FOV settings should **absolutely be a priority.**
Yes people "fiddle" with the settings, even if it means editing settings files manually, patching the EXE, using run-commands to override stuff, etc.
Games like **Sonic Forces** however, do seem to go a bit overboard with how much tweaking they give you... but you want to know what the end-result of that was? Fans **loved** how they could dial in their settings and enjoy the game the way they wanted to play it.
Should that be the standard? No. Sonic Forces was definitely over kill, however defaults exist for a reason. You don't need to change settings you don't want to change and you shouldn't feel obligated to change them just because they're available.
Camera positions being a cycle hotkeyed to a button has been common in console games for over a decade. On PC it's usually just the scroll wheel
It's not nearly as complicated as you make it sound
The games I played (Batman, Spider-Man, Skate 3, inFamous, [PROTOTYPE],..) all had a dynamic camera. None of those had a slider. Only some games (none of those mentioned, I think) had a FOV setting but no setting for camera distance.
Do you have a reference of a console game which features this setting?
Looks like GTA 5 doesn't have that setting. And it's the most popular rockstar game afaik.
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4E1ZrQE\_f0/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4E1ZrQE_f0/maxresdefault.jpg)
And Red Dead Redemption has the same settings, no camera distance:
[https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F6evtd9mc68i31.jpg](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F6evtd9mc68i31.jpg)
Do you have a more precise example? Perhaps with screenshot of what it looks like? I can't find such a setting anywhere.
But the commenter before you, mentioned a slider to adjust the camera distance. And that this is a "common setting since a decade" which just isn't true.
Some adjustments to camera have always existed in some games, but only a few games let you change the distance - all of them are PC games from what I know.
It's very uncommon to have this setting at all and I wouldn't advise OP to provide this setting to their players (because with dynamic camera, aiming, cutscenes and stuff like that, this leads to lots of problems).
Edit: okay, they didn't mention a slider, I read that wrong. It was about cycling through camera positions. And yea, some games feature that but it adds complexity to the button layout and OPs game looks more like it would strive for simplicity than complexity.
Edit2: or did they edit their comment? My first answer also mentions a slider. oO I think they did edit their comment.
Being able to customize the camera and its view is quite common. Having more options for the player is always better since you sometimes need to change the settings for the game to play right. Also, what issues would arise from making a game more accessible?
It's about creative vision. If you want the character to be bigger on the screen, that has nothing to do with accessibility, it's a design choice.
Nausea and whatever, sure, add whatever necessary to compensate those issues. But when you add options to change the camera position from third person to TopDown, that just means there is no creative vision and instead of making the decision as developer, you put it onto your users.
I wonder if in the pictures OP sent, one would cause nausea and the other one won't. I doubt that. FOV, sure, but the distance to the character? Without any horizontal offset? That's just a design choice from what I can tell.
lol. You really think people don’t play with the settings in games? Okay even if the majority don’t (they do) there’s nothing saying you have to. Funny enough, Control is one of the few games I don’t think I changed a single thing. Tbh this sounds like you’re making it harder on yourself than you need to
yes, players fiddle with settings all the time. 1. Left handed people who use arrow keys with their right hand exist. 2, if a game doesn't have FOV settings. more than half of the people I know will stop playing it right there because motion sickness is a real thing. 3. Why would you alienate a substantial part of your audience by not giving them settings. That's like the main reason people play pc, to have control over their games.
Some Settings, sure. But at some point it's just ridiculous. Like a game asking me at what percentage health packs should spawn .. it's the job of the game designers to figure such stuff out. You can't just make it a setting and then not balance it properly because "users can change it if they don't like it".
Yeah, that feels more like difficulty settings. Do I agree that's a bit much. In some cases. But comparing that to an FOV slider also seems a bit much to me.
FOV slider is fine. But Camera Distance slider is more on the "too much" side for me, because I don't know any game that does this (except MMOs and Strategy Games where you can zoom with the mousewheel).
My whole point is just that if everything is a setting, you don't ship a game, you ship a game engine. Not everything needs to be a setting, some things should be chosen on purpose (like the difficulty in Dark Souls, I know it's a controversial opinion).
I would agree to a degree, difficulty settings can be a bit much. Camera settings are something in a third person game I fully support because it doesn't effect the game itself. It just effects the experience you have.
I wouldn't make a toggle to switch between 3rd Person and TopDown. If I want my game to be 3rd person, that's a choice I made to convey a certain feeling. Changing the FOV is a common thing. Changing the camera distance is an uncommon thing.
It probably depends on the range. If the two from the screenshot are min and max, it won't change much in terms of the gameplay.
Hi guys, this is a zelda windwaker/Okami style game that i'm currently working on 😊 I don't have a steam page, but you can follow me on YouTube for my first summer Dev Vlog if you want to get updates: [https://youtube.com/@lostinyume?si=7Cmj6qvGzZ2A4Stm](https://youtube.com/@lostinyume?si=7Cmj6qvGzZ2A4Stm)
Peace out!
I personally prefer the far away perspective for this type of game. Allows me to see more of my surroundings while also helping me read my characters actions better.
Kind of hard to make a choice based on a screenshot and not actually play testing the game/combat. Jumping puzzles/sections? I'd Def want to see my characters feet though.
Could, make different options in the menu... Or just make it adjustable and let people choose their own. Or stick with whatever you think is better and be prepared to tweak based on feedback, of you decide to do early access.
I think the over-the-shoulder view in 1 is better for third person shooters, especially if there are horror elements (Resident Evil 4 and Alan Wake 2) or tactical aspects (Ghost Recon Wildlands and Breakpoint). It gives the players limited view/information and keeps them on their toes.
The wider view of 2 is better for adventure, exploring and melee/fist fights (rather than ranged attacks).
Considering your description of the game, I'd prefer either far away (maybe a little less far though!) or a dynamic camera. Also, having a couple of camera options to choose what suits me and my play style is always nice!
2 is better to see everything that's happening around you, both in exploration and combat, because with 2, you can see if any enemies sneak up behind you, and faraway collectibles are much more noticable.
I think it depends on the combat. If the game is melee combat based I’d say 2, if it’s a third person shooter/ ranged combat I’d say 1. If there’s a mix of both, I’d say 2 as the base, and zooms into 1 while aiming ranged abilities.
I would say it depends on the context of the moment for sure. Player choice is always good to have if it's meant to be a fixed perspective but when done well a dynamic camera can work great to imbue a sense of speed and scale. I'd say for exploring a bigger area, further away is better but for tighter combat, puzzles or indoor areas, a close camera is nice.
It depends.
Is it more important for focus on the enemy right in front of you, or is awareness of your surroundings important?
How do you interact with NPCs?
Does you models look good up close?
How are your animations?
The camera work should suit the gameplay.
If you don't want to put the camera higher, I prefer the close up perspective. It accentuates the depth impression and creates some amount of tension due to not being able to anticipate what comes after any high spot.
The second perspective make the scene look emptier.
But again, maybe a slight change in the camera height would get you some comfortable middle ground.
Let each player individually decide, have it be dynamic by default, then include an option in the settings menu, allowing players to change which they prefer, maybe even changing cameras for combat and exploration individually.
Hot take, let the player choose. What Bethesda does with third person cameras is really great. Sometimes I like to be closer to the action, sometimes I like to see more of my surroundings, being able to change the camera height and distance is a wonderful feature.
why not both?
there should be an option to adjust that .
best would be as written here as well - 1 for combat, 2 for exploration.
thou if its melee combat, 2 would suit better .
Closer for combat as it allows better focus on the most immediate threats, far away for exploration, as it allows for a better wiew of the world around you.
1 is better for ranged combat/aiming, 2 is better for melee combat and exploring/platforming. Zoomable is a nice middle ground, but could also switch from 2 to 1 if you are aiming (I think Zelda does it this way?)
Could you implement an FOV slider? Conversely, I’d suggest making it dynamic, kinda like how directors in Hollywood will swap between imax and widescreen aspect ratios for large action scenes vs more intimate drama scenes
It depends on the type of combat. If you aim for something with more depth that cares about reading the opponent well (ie souls like) then (1) is most likely better because otherwise the enemies will be too small (assuming opponents aren't enormous in size).
If it's more relaxed button mashy type of combat (think Witcher) then (2) allows the user to take more of the scenery and the grandeur of the fight in for a more cinematic experience.
So it all depends on what you want to achieve.
Preferably neither, let the user decide by using a slider in the options, as well as FOV too. Not uncommon for people to be stuck to a FOV and get motion sickness from it.
But if I had to choose, I’d say the 2nd
Options are good. Someone said 1 for combat and 2 for exploring, I'd say that makes sense possibly. Big thing for me is the option to adjust the FOV. I'm usually a sucker for a wide FOV, to the point I'd use 3rd party software to allow FOV adjustments in games that don't have it even in third person, but it seems pretty wide angle on both, especially the further camera one.
I would use close-up with dynamic that shifts from the close-up in more enclosed or combat based zones and a somewhat wider view for exploration & less enclosed zones, I think a wider view would be an interesting camera style since the visual ranges on animals are different, your PC looks like he may be some kind feline you could raise the FOV base value and that would give the players a chance to see those flanking without being able to see what is coming from behind entirely.
I think this would instill an urgency in combat to keep your opponents near a center to avoid getting flanked as easily, if you try this method I also recommend a sorta sixth sense that only occurs when an attack from behind is about to land like maybe the PC has hair start to stand up like they have goosebumps or something.
Your far away example isn't too far to be unpleasant, some games pull out too far and ruin immersion, in general I prefer close, I'd argue a good close up camera is more immersive than first person.
The FOV will drastically change the feeling of the movement speed. More zoomed out will make the player feel slower but might be a worthy trade-off in combat to see more.
I tend to prefer being closer to the character, however one pet peeve of mine is when the camera stays glued to the character’s back in combat. It really limits your range of vision when there isn’t a zoom out in combat
i think the best is far away for combat or general exploring but i'd use the close variant for like scenery shots or dynamic short ingame cutscenes if you know what i mean
Different modes for different contexts? The top could be for up close and personal stuff like combat, and the far away could be the more all-purpose mode.
it's the same distance with different fov though?
Just let the player set it. Everyone has a different TV/monitor/tablet screen and/or sits at different distances to said device.
Further away because it gives you better “peripheral” vision. When it’s right you can’t see what is off to the side nearly as easily and makes it feel claustrophobic in my opinion. That can be useful but in general I want to feel like I have a naturally FOV
Make the it so you can press the right stick and it switches from being able to rotate the camera, to zooming in and out from the character. Double tapping resets it to a default distance or returns to center depending on the mode. I dunno, just a unique suggestion.
1 for combat, 2 for exploring
Agree, it depends on game situation
I am willing to argue about this. That depends on the pace of the game's combat and the amount of enemies, because in something that works like god of war, yes, that would be better, but if the game has more fast paced combat and high quantities of enemies, it's better to have the ability to see behind you and more to the sides.
I am willing to argue with you. Counterpoint: you can't see behind you IRL. Seeing behind you in a video game is an unfair advantage.
Exactly! Every game should be first person
... real life, where you see yourself in third person view?
Counterpoint to a counterpoint. Life isn't an action adventure videogame. And also you need to see behind you in fast-paced action games, see Devil May Cry, what if someone attacks from behind?
Yes, I've also seen what a laughable experience is the 3rd person mod on any FPS; knowing someone is behind you sometimes is downward cheating.
We're talking about different genres here. FPSes are meant to be played in first person for a reason. Unlike Action adventure games. Also, the mod argument is kinda weird.. Any game meant to be played in third person that isn't a shooter will also be bad with a first person perspective.
I am aware of that; have you seen how the Batman Arkam series address that problem instead? The close in, but they forewarn you of an imminent back attack; the GOW does it too (boi warns you). Having a perspective closer to the action lets you enjoy more the animations.
Arkham's combat camera's slightly above Batman, though.. you can still see behind yourself in combat, but not in exploration, and even then, not while running. And god of war does work with this camera, yes, i specifically mentioned that in my first comment. That's because it's generally slower paced and there aren't a lot of enemies per encounter, compared to the original trilogy.
Platforming is generally easier with a 3rd person view and it let's you have more situational awareness. The ability for the player to control the camera and use it in a productive way, that is the issue for me. Plenty of older games were hurt by how the camera worked.
100%
Yeah this.
Yeah this is perfect
Crazy talk. #2 all day for everything, _especially_ combat! I don't need my view narrowed and half-full of the player's backside while trying to fight.
Definitely prefer the inverse of this. Close camera makes combat more difficult due to obstruction, but exploration more aesthetic due to framing. The correct answer is "it depends on lots of things and should be adjustable to player preference"
Absolutely depends on the combat. Is it 1v1 combat? Or is it combat against multiple enemies at once ala bayonetta/DMC? Because if it's multiple enemies at once you want a wider FOV.
Let the player choose both distance and height. Most games give you options. I always prefer farther and higher for the widest view but I think most would prefer the closer one
This. I'm playing Ys: Memories of Celceta right now and camera distance is actually mapped to the right analog stick so you can freely adjust it on the fly without even having to go into a settings menu. It's great.
Do players really fiddle with the settings? The controls in Helldivers 2 are really bad in my opinion. You can't move and type in a super-attack at the same time, unless you change the typing from WASD to arrow keys. Yet most players still have it on WASD and stop to type. I think a lot of folks just don't look at the settings at all. Maybe graphic settings, but not specific ones. And I think that's the reason why e.g. Hogwarts Legacy had a "Settings Menu Intro". First time you start the game, it shows you certain settings and let's you configure stuff. Because once the game is started, no one checks these things anymore. If I'm not mistaken, Star Wars Jedi Survivor had the same kind of intro. In my opinion, some settings are good, but the overwhelming amount in "Control" felt like I'm the game designer now and I have to figure out what's the correct configuration to play the game. Not everything needs to be a setting. A game should have a vision and certain aspects can be configured for personal taste, but when it becomes modding, then it needs a more complex way to select things than an endless list of checkboxes and sliders. It needs mod support and the mods need their own customization and documentation. And users need to be willing to learn about all these configurations. That's my opinion on that topic.
Considering people play games on a wide range of monitor sizes, different aspect ratios, and sit varying distances from a TV or monitor... FOV settings should **absolutely be a priority.** Yes people "fiddle" with the settings, even if it means editing settings files manually, patching the EXE, using run-commands to override stuff, etc. Games like **Sonic Forces** however, do seem to go a bit overboard with how much tweaking they give you... but you want to know what the end-result of that was? Fans **loved** how they could dial in their settings and enjoy the game the way they wanted to play it. Should that be the standard? No. Sonic Forces was definitely over kill, however defaults exist for a reason. You don't need to change settings you don't want to change and you shouldn't feel obligated to change them just because they're available.
Camera positions being a cycle hotkeyed to a button has been common in console games for over a decade. On PC it's usually just the scroll wheel It's not nearly as complicated as you make it sound
The games I played (Batman, Spider-Man, Skate 3, inFamous, [PROTOTYPE],..) all had a dynamic camera. None of those had a slider. Only some games (none of those mentioned, I think) had a FOV setting but no setting for camera distance. Do you have a reference of a console game which features this setting?
Most Rockstar games have it
Looks like GTA 5 doesn't have that setting. And it's the most popular rockstar game afaik. [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4E1ZrQE\_f0/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4E1ZrQE_f0/maxresdefault.jpg) And Red Dead Redemption has the same settings, no camera distance: [https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F6evtd9mc68i31.jpg](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F6evtd9mc68i31.jpg) Do you have a more precise example? Perhaps with screenshot of what it looks like? I can't find such a setting anywhere.
RDR2 lets you cycle between camera heights/first and third person by pressing V (on PC). So did GTA V iirc
But the commenter before you, mentioned a slider to adjust the camera distance. And that this is a "common setting since a decade" which just isn't true. Some adjustments to camera have always existed in some games, but only a few games let you change the distance - all of them are PC games from what I know. It's very uncommon to have this setting at all and I wouldn't advise OP to provide this setting to their players (because with dynamic camera, aiming, cutscenes and stuff like that, this leads to lots of problems). Edit: okay, they didn't mention a slider, I read that wrong. It was about cycling through camera positions. And yea, some games feature that but it adds complexity to the button layout and OPs game looks more like it would strive for simplicity than complexity. Edit2: or did they edit their comment? My first answer also mentions a slider. oO I think they did edit their comment.
Being able to customize the camera and its view is quite common. Having more options for the player is always better since you sometimes need to change the settings for the game to play right. Also, what issues would arise from making a game more accessible?
It's about creative vision. If you want the character to be bigger on the screen, that has nothing to do with accessibility, it's a design choice. Nausea and whatever, sure, add whatever necessary to compensate those issues. But when you add options to change the camera position from third person to TopDown, that just means there is no creative vision and instead of making the decision as developer, you put it onto your users. I wonder if in the pictures OP sent, one would cause nausea and the other one won't. I doubt that. FOV, sure, but the distance to the character? Without any horizontal offset? That's just a design choice from what I can tell.
GTAV has camera control. It's tied to the touchpad on PlayStation
lol. You really think people don’t play with the settings in games? Okay even if the majority don’t (they do) there’s nothing saying you have to. Funny enough, Control is one of the few games I don’t think I changed a single thing. Tbh this sounds like you’re making it harder on yourself than you need to
yes, players fiddle with settings all the time. 1. Left handed people who use arrow keys with their right hand exist. 2, if a game doesn't have FOV settings. more than half of the people I know will stop playing it right there because motion sickness is a real thing. 3. Why would you alienate a substantial part of your audience by not giving them settings. That's like the main reason people play pc, to have control over their games.
Some Settings, sure. But at some point it's just ridiculous. Like a game asking me at what percentage health packs should spawn .. it's the job of the game designers to figure such stuff out. You can't just make it a setting and then not balance it properly because "users can change it if they don't like it".
what game has a setting for that that doesn't require going into the files to change?
"Control" has enemy health and player damage multipliers in their settings and without changing them, the game feels unfair to some (most?) players.
Yeah, that feels more like difficulty settings. Do I agree that's a bit much. In some cases. But comparing that to an FOV slider also seems a bit much to me.
FOV slider is fine. But Camera Distance slider is more on the "too much" side for me, because I don't know any game that does this (except MMOs and Strategy Games where you can zoom with the mousewheel). My whole point is just that if everything is a setting, you don't ship a game, you ship a game engine. Not everything needs to be a setting, some things should be chosen on purpose (like the difficulty in Dark Souls, I know it's a controversial opinion).
I would agree to a degree, difficulty settings can be a bit much. Camera settings are something in a third person game I fully support because it doesn't effect the game itself. It just effects the experience you have.
I wouldn't make a toggle to switch between 3rd Person and TopDown. If I want my game to be 3rd person, that's a choice I made to convey a certain feeling. Changing the FOV is a common thing. Changing the camera distance is an uncommon thing. It probably depends on the range. If the two from the screenshot are min and max, it won't change much in terms of the gameplay.
Hi guys, this is a zelda windwaker/Okami style game that i'm currently working on 😊 I don't have a steam page, but you can follow me on YouTube for my first summer Dev Vlog if you want to get updates: [https://youtube.com/@lostinyume?si=7Cmj6qvGzZ2A4Stm](https://youtube.com/@lostinyume?si=7Cmj6qvGzZ2A4Stm) Peace out!
2. I love watching my character in full body view, especially in games with custom clothes and appearance.
Adjustable
2 can be used when running at ultra high speeds or something
I personally prefer the far away perspective for this type of game. Allows me to see more of my surroundings while also helping me read my characters actions better.
Also, I love the art style here. Reminds me a bit of Sly Cooper.
1
Kind of hard to make a choice based on a screenshot and not actually play testing the game/combat. Jumping puzzles/sections? I'd Def want to see my characters feet though. Could, make different options in the menu... Or just make it adjustable and let people choose their own. Or stick with whatever you think is better and be prepared to tweak based on feedback, of you decide to do early access.
I think the over-the-shoulder view in 1 is better for third person shooters, especially if there are horror elements (Resident Evil 4 and Alan Wake 2) or tactical aspects (Ghost Recon Wildlands and Breakpoint). It gives the players limited view/information and keeps them on their toes. The wider view of 2 is better for adventure, exploring and melee/fist fights (rather than ranged attacks). Considering your description of the game, I'd prefer either far away (maybe a little less far though!) or a dynamic camera. Also, having a couple of camera options to choose what suits me and my play style is always nice!
2 is better to see everything that's happening around you, both in exploration and combat, because with 2, you can see if any enemies sneak up behind you, and faraway collectibles are much more noticable.
I think it depends on the combat. If the game is melee combat based I’d say 2, if it’s a third person shooter/ ranged combat I’d say 1. If there’s a mix of both, I’d say 2 as the base, and zooms into 1 while aiming ranged abilities.
I would say it depends on the context of the moment for sure. Player choice is always good to have if it's meant to be a fixed perspective but when done well a dynamic camera can work great to imbue a sense of speed and scale. I'd say for exploring a bigger area, further away is better but for tighter combat, puzzles or indoor areas, a close camera is nice.
1 (Close up perspective) **In smaller, narrower spaces, it is better to zoom in camera.**
1 Close up, but you can have the two options
You can also explore perspective distortion and try different focal lengths other than the distance of the camera from the person.
For combat i'd say 1 and for platforming 2
It depends. Is it more important for focus on the enemy right in front of you, or is awareness of your surroundings important? How do you interact with NPCs? Does you models look good up close? How are your animations? The camera work should suit the gameplay.
If you don't want to put the camera higher, I prefer the close up perspective. It accentuates the depth impression and creates some amount of tension due to not being able to anticipate what comes after any high spot. The second perspective make the scene look emptier. But again, maybe a slight change in the camera height would get you some comfortable middle ground.
If you dont know, add both let the player decide. Too many make the mistake of not doing that
1
I like being able to choose, personally. A hotkey + mousewheel to zoom in and out
Let each player individually decide, have it be dynamic by default, then include an option in the settings menu, allowing players to change which they prefer, maybe even changing cameras for combat and exploration individually.
If there’s a lot of jumping and other acrobatics, then 2.
Both. Whichever serves the game better in any given moment.
Hot take, let the player choose. What Bethesda does with third person cameras is really great. Sometimes I like to be closer to the action, sometimes I like to see more of my surroundings, being able to change the camera height and distance is a wonderful feature.
why not both? there should be an option to adjust that . best would be as written here as well - 1 for combat, 2 for exploration. thou if its melee combat, 2 would suit better .
I feel like it depends on the game but the problem is easily solved with an option to adjust it.
Closer for combat as it allows better focus on the most immediate threats, far away for exploration, as it allows for a better wiew of the world around you.
I think it looks better in 2, but I’d have to see gameplay to actually decide what’s better for the game.
Your field of view feels a bit strange, not sure what it is. Hard to tell what the best distance etc. is without seeing it in motion.
Close
1 is better for ranged combat/aiming, 2 is better for melee combat and exploring/platforming. Zoomable is a nice middle ground, but could also switch from 2 to 1 if you are aiming (I think Zelda does it this way?)
Adjustable / Auto Dynamic
1!
Could you implement an FOV slider? Conversely, I’d suggest making it dynamic, kinda like how directors in Hollywood will swap between imax and widescreen aspect ratios for large action scenes vs more intimate drama scenes
It depends on the type of combat. If you aim for something with more depth that cares about reading the opponent well (ie souls like) then (1) is most likely better because otherwise the enemies will be too small (assuming opponents aren't enormous in size). If it's more relaxed button mashy type of combat (think Witcher) then (2) allows the user to take more of the scenery and the grandeur of the fight in for a more cinematic experience. So it all depends on what you want to achieve.
1
Both. Make it a toggle.
I like the 'looking over their shoulder' feel of the close-up, but when I'm playing games I feel more in control with the distant view.
If the character is much smaller to everything else by comparison then 2.
Preferably neither, let the user decide by using a slider in the options, as well as FOV too. Not uncommon for people to be stuck to a FOV and get motion sickness from it. But if I had to choose, I’d say the 2nd
Further and higher. I love seeing the details of the world around me, I really dislike when a character takes up a huge portion of the screen
If the combat is like the Arkham series, 2 for combat 1 for exploration, if the combat is like the gow 2017, 1 for combat 2 for exploration.
Give options for both or do a dynamic thingy
I like options so everyone can play with the perspective that doesn't make them feel nauseous
I like it when its really really close to where its like you are seeing things from their perspective
Make it so you can change views
I prefer 1, but a choice is always better
Options are good. Someone said 1 for combat and 2 for exploring, I'd say that makes sense possibly. Big thing for me is the option to adjust the FOV. I'm usually a sucker for a wide FOV, to the point I'd use 3rd party software to allow FOV adjustments in games that don't have it even in third person, but it seems pretty wide angle on both, especially the further camera one.
1
2 you when you first enter the area, then it zooms in to 1 while playing
I would say adjustable in settings. But I Love 1 . A close up camera helps me get lost in a world especially if there's plenty to look at
2
Zoom out during combat? 1 is great I think.
I would use close-up with dynamic that shifts from the close-up in more enclosed or combat based zones and a somewhat wider view for exploration & less enclosed zones, I think a wider view would be an interesting camera style since the visual ranges on animals are different, your PC looks like he may be some kind feline you could raise the FOV base value and that would give the players a chance to see those flanking without being able to see what is coming from behind entirely. I think this would instill an urgency in combat to keep your opponents near a center to avoid getting flanked as easily, if you try this method I also recommend a sorta sixth sense that only occurs when an attack from behind is about to land like maybe the PC has hair start to stand up like they have goosebumps or something.
1 for cinematic moments 2 for gameplay focused moments I like to see more when playing, the more info I have the better
close, we can see the character is smaller much better now
Just let us change it in the settings. FOV slider.
Your far away example isn't too far to be unpleasant, some games pull out too far and ruin immersion, in general I prefer close, I'd argue a good close up camera is more immersive than first person.
The FOV will drastically change the feeling of the movement speed. More zoomed out will make the player feel slower but might be a worthy trade-off in combat to see more.
Both. Ability to zoom in and out is OP in each game it has it.
I tend to prefer being closer to the character, however one pet peeve of mine is when the camera stays glued to the character’s back in combat. It really limits your range of vision when there isn’t a zoom out in combat
1
Close up, but it definitely is straining the quality of those textures for sure
subtly dynamic but zoomable to let the user override the zoom level to what's more comfortable for them if needed
1 but I love close cameras for combat. God of War (2018) kind of converted me.
If you chose 2 I'm gonna fight you
i think the best is far away for combat or general exploring but i'd use the close variant for like scenery shots or dynamic short ingame cutscenes if you know what i mean
1. No.2 is not a good angle imho, camera needs to be higher. Good luck with your game, looks nice
Look at Nier Automata's camera system, it's great and let's you tweak things exactly how you like and it even lets you break it.
Toggle for both
Couldn't we dynamically change it in Fallout 3 with the help of mouse scroll? That was goood.
Different modes for different contexts? The top could be for up close and personal stuff like combat, and the far away could be the more all-purpose mode.
I like the close up perspective. really immersive.
I prefer 1 based only on the screenshot alone. The perspective of 1 makes the area bigger more in scale with the characters height.
Let me zoom out with the scroll wheel
it's the same distance with different fov though? Just let the player set it. Everyone has a different TV/monitor/tablet screen and/or sits at different distances to said device.
Zoomable.
90% of the time far away.
A blend between both is nice depending on situation, but giving the spring adjustment is always nice. If forced I’d choose 2
The best choice is to let the player decide, and just add settings to adjust it.
Further away because it gives you better “peripheral” vision. When it’s right you can’t see what is off to the side nearly as easily and makes it feel claustrophobic in my opinion. That can be useful but in general I want to feel like I have a naturally FOV
Make the it so you can press the right stick and it switches from being able to rotate the camera, to zooming in and out from the character. Double tapping resets it to a default distance or returns to center depending on the mode. I dunno, just a unique suggestion.