We'll have to disagree on this one, then. I don't think guns imply FPP. Saboteur, Spec Ops: The Line, the Fallout games - all played in TPP (the latter by me - I realize you can FPP in those if you want). Many others. Great games without needing FPP. IMO.
*edit* As a caveat, after reading the devs' reasons why they went with FPP, I can see the logic there. I still don't have to like it though. :P
Fair enough. I thought you guys were referring to the commenters in this thread exclusively.

So is it going to be a proper RPG with action elements tacked on or....?

I'm also disappointed about this and it's actually this summer I found out that Kingdom Come was actually first person only as well, so yes I strongly agree. Now this crosses both Cyberpunk and Kingdom Come off my list unless they go on a deep discount a long time after its release. I respect the developer's decision as well but the growing number of first-person/VR games kinda irks me and that is an understatement.

I had no idea third-person perspective can help people play the game better aside from its blind spot advantages so that's another point to include both and I think the option to include both is by far the better option and that was what I thought was being put forth.

Now, we are locked into one perspective with no option to change. Options are always better for a game, especially when they are options that have obvious merit and purpose.

The real reason why people want TPP is so they can start a female character, install the nude mod and spend 150 hours staring at their own ass.

Every reviewer that played the demo said the game is everything an RPG stands for, character customization, modifying your arsenal (weapons and armor), a good story, many side quests, different ways to solve a quest etc.,
but take that with a grain of salt, as an hour of playing the demo isn't nearly as meaningful/expressive as they (reviewer) make it out to be.

I'm still excited for the game though. :)

Presumably it'll be a FPS with RPG elements.

Is it hard to implement both FPP and TPP? I am sure CPR is reading the forums and the feedbacks and we all know they are smart guys who wish the best for players so do not keep your hopes down.

I think that's right.

Still thinking about the view in video games a bit more.

In post #134 I described a couple of different types of views based on my experience because I think of the terms "first person perspective" and "third person perspective" much differently than how the terms are being used for a computer screen in this thread. I know what first person perspective is because I experience that in everyday life, and to me that is not the same as looking at a picture on the side of a box (a computer monitor). Having an avatar represent my position in the projected environment helps provide a substitute of the various senses I don't get to experience firsthand from a cameraman's picture.

I then checked the official game website in hopes that more information had been revealed and found the forums (which are actually at CDPR's website). Best I could figure from links to articles and other talk was that the view likely is (often) presented similar to that of what I've seen in the Terminator movie(s), when how the Terminator sees is revealed. That's my interpreation, I didn't notice anyone relate it to those movies.

In post #146 I considered what it would take to provide the feel of a realistic HUD view, an overlay of additional info or metadata obscurring the view of the world around us. Specifically, broaden the view beyond a cameraman's perspective and without an avatar.

Having given it some more thought since then, I think I could get a simulated feeling from an extra-wide view on a monitor. Just like a widescreen movie on a television screen, often described as having black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Nothing from the scene is actually missing at the top and bottom, it's just a wider view so more can be seen of the scene left to right.

There is talk that the protagonist will be able to shoot in the game. If that is so, and if precise targeting is an option (or required), then I think I'd appreciate the view temporarily becoming narrowed in that instance of aiming. Perhaps narrowed to a squarish view, thereby filling the full screen from top to bottom. Though there might be nothing on the left and right sides, t.i. so-called black bars on left and right sides. Or maybe circular if looking through a scope. But I think technically you're suppose to look with both eyes anyway, so maybe have the circular scope view taking up about half of the focused view (depending on whether I'm holding with left or right hand, important when behind cover). That would represent my focused perspective while aiming. I think a smooth transition from an extra-wide view to a focused view, and back again, would match the first person perspective I'm experiencing in real life (outside the box, outside the picture).

Having given that some thought, I think I would like games in general to have a means for gradually scaling the viewing between an extra-wide view and a narrowed view. If above and below mattered in a game, then also provide scaling top and bottom. In that case, the player's feet and some of the legs might come into view, as well as the arms sometimes, but depending also on the actions of the player in the moment. Obviously changing the amount of focus for the perspective would be separate from changing the direction of view.

Combine that with the overlay of a HUD view integrated with the visual cortex of the brain, or maybe just a cyborgized eyeball, and I think that could work out to give the feel of what I'd expect. I'd say the HUD view would not change to fill the view, it'd stay the same, perhaps central to the view. Probably within the imaginary boundaries of a narrowed view, t.i. the HUD wouldn't shift to the left or right (or top or bottom) when increasing the prespective for a greater peripheral view.

So the HUD would seem to be getting smaller as the perspective is increased, but that's just what is experienced when broadening the view. Though it might be a bit small to read, I think that makes sense. If I'm focusing on the HUD, then obviously I'm not paying as much attention peripherally, so my perspective is naturally going to be narrowed. That corresponds to narrowing my focus in the game to zero in on the HUD more. Likely I'd eventually get accustomed to what the possible readouts would be and wouldn't need to narrow my focus so much or as often. In other words, I'd get use to viewing my HUD in a sort of peripheral manner, only occasionally narrowing my focus to that central area of my view.

Not to say I'd go around in full extra-wide perspective most of the time. I'd say such a full pespective would mostly be for getting my bearings, and I'd likely narrow it a bit for travel. Also, I don't think the capability needs to be panoramic, not completely all the way around. Though the possibility of panoramic would make sense. I think such perspectives would help represent looking all around without having so much disconnected motion on the computer screen (not physically sensed by my body).

Mind you, all of that could be optional. By default a game could just fill the screen like normal.

I don't think I've ever gotten motion sickness from a game. But I don't bother to push myself into experiences that aren't working out well. I mean, typically the pointer directed from a computer mouse is connected with changing the view or movement, and the acceleration of the pointer is just too awkward for me to persist with such an interface.

RPG and first-person shooter has always been an uncomfortable, janky marriage. I mean what are the stats going to even mean? If you have a skill of 10 in Handguns, does that mean you can miss an enemy in combat purely based on RNG, or is aiming going to be purely like regular shooters? No one really liked Morrowind combat, so my guess is it'll just be a standard FPS but with stats like increasing hitpoints.

Frankly some of the reactions have baffled me. First the game was criticised for daylight, the full implications of the day/night cycle apparently remaining elusive to such people. The trailer was clearly intended to make the day/night cycle a big reveal, and no doubt CD Projekt expected fans to be gratified by all the trouble they'd gone to since sticking strictly to nighttime would've saved themselves a lot of work.

Now it's the camera perspective, with backseat designers treating third-person like a must-have feature of convenience with little thought to how it applies to the world CD Projekt have created. Camera perspective is rarely a purely cosmetic feature that is as easily changed as one's pants, games are typically designed around it. Arguably it's not even something that can be assessed on its own, such as the artsyle or music, because the perspective determines how other systems interact.

Other notable first-person RPGs include Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Deus Ex, and Ultima Underworld. All three are immersive sims. If Cyberpunk 2077 goes that route, I may just keep playing until starvation sets in.

I feel sick when I play games with FPP, so even if I like CDRP and want to give them my money, I will pass, and I am not the only to do that, their toy, their rule, but my money will stay.

I just don't see why they feel the need to 'stick to their guns' on the whole perspective thing, if they felt that strongly about making players experience the world in first person, we wouldn't have third person driving or cutscenes.

I just want to be able to play the game without having to grab the vomit bucket.

Does that mean that you never played a RPG first person perspective game? Like System Shock? Deus Ex? Prey? Bioshock? S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? and so on? I