Is this the ideal 3rd-person camera distance...

I never wanted to give props for any Metal Gear game for anything but that does in fact look about right. It looks like the Max Payne camera and that one is perfect. However I haven't played MGSV and I assume that it still has fucking cancer over-the-shoulder aiming which ruins it all

Attached: OTS TPS.webm (960x540, 409K)

Depends on the game. If I could choose, I'd rather go full zoom out twice as much as the current screenshot.

good point, actually. the typical movement speed penalty is often pretty lame.

You don’t want it too far, like breath of the wild, because then the world and scale feels really small. I like GTAV’s distance from the screen

you can switch shoulder sides with one button in mgsv, it's pretty seamless, didn't bother me at all during gameplay

Letting the player decide how far away the camera is, is the best

>Enter a building
>Now the screen is nothing but BB's back with a small exclusion zone to see what's in front of you
This shit makes me motion sick sometimes; it's like perpetually being in TP aim mode while moving. Thank God most of the game is spent in open areas.

When you put the camera in the correct position, you produce no problems, and thus you require no solutions. When the camera is not behind one shoulder, you never need to switch it to being behind the other. I can't believe how many retards actually defend the concept of deliberately implementing a constant problem with a temporary solution.

Attached: 68ACE188-FF71-4E48-B2B8-543B91F928FF.jpg (1280x720, 133K)

It makes sense too, like if you stand up of course you're going to see more of your surroundings than if you were crouched or prone. Literally based.

as with almost every question of this kind it depends on the game
souls games should be somewhat closer since those games have an immersive quality but devil may cry or pure action games should have a camera that's purely meant to serve gameplay and combat

the fov penalty of simultaneously being in a close space (mere tents were considered such) and being crouched was nonsensical

Why was one bullet always missing from all your guns while on the helicopter ride in MGS5? You could reload, well you had to.

many TPS games allow you to switch shoulders, plus many allow you to shoot even if a wall is blocking the camera, and some add an indicator like a small x that indicates when a wall is blocking your shot even though your crosshair is somewhere else, so that the x shows you where your shot would hit
you're retarded
blocking the center of the screen is bad, and being able to switch shoulders allow you to see around corners. I genuinely prefer it to center of the screen since switching shoulders isn't a problem, it's something I take advantage of with no effort

There's pretty much no ideal camera when it comes to 3rd person action games. That camera distance would be fucking garbage in many other games.

You weren't missing a bullet.
It's the +1 in the chamber when you reload before empty.
You usually see that mechanic in tactical games / mil sims. Insurgency, Squad, Arma etc.

I just used an fov mod cause I'm not some autistic console pleb who's okay with 65 CoD fov.

>making an already easy game even easier
>calling anyone else a pleb

This

Attached: C5903EF6-6552-4C94-8389-AAE55AE1DD74.jpg (1280x720, 557K)

Love how we're talking about camera angles here and the fact Rockstar allows the player to choose what they like, unlike the rest listed so far. Yet in order to get your guys shit opinions across, you shit talk other elements of the game completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

The problem I have with just having the far away camera like in MP is that most enemies lower body gets covered by the main protagonist, plus the reticule is pixels away from out own head. I dont think its best to just have that one. Max Payne 3 does both, right? The centered one for hip fire (that is just as accurate) and shoulder for aimed fire. I liked that

Depends on what kind of character I'm playing. If I'm playing a qt I tend to move the camera closer.

I simply dont like how the camera feels so rigidly connected to the player waist, its so noticeable when sprinting, it looks like its a physical elements that the character is carrying instead of just out general view of what he sees. Death Stranding seems to be exactly the same

Max Payne 1 is the ideal 3rd-person camera distance.

switching shoulders shouldn't be a thing in shooters. vision should always be intuitive and automatic. having a button to see behind corners is like having a button to keep your eyes open and blink.

>thinking being inconvenienced by a viewpoint makes the game harder
Nah it's not about difficulty, it's about having a decent time playing. I played DS2:SoTFS without fov changer and it was fine, but MGSV's fov is pure garbo.

No.

The body does not block your vision.
Shooting forward while aiming forward means that nothing blocks you.
The crosshair is never somewhere else.
X doesn't need to mark the spot.
You already see around corners and you don't need to switch manually which side is unobscured.
You never run into a situation where an enemy behind a corner can engage your body before your camera can manually catch up.
Standard classic third person is objectively superior. Don't respond. I'm not arguing, I'm dictating.

>Don't respond. I'm not arguing, I'm dictating.
well fine then dick but I still prefer ots in some cases
I forgot to add that I think both you and I would agree that it should be an option but it sounds like even that would offend you
but I'll go through your points real quick anyways
>The body does not block your vision
I know it's not a shooter but I'm going to use skyrim as an example. while this is more a problem because of the melee combat and the fact that the camera is behind rather than above, but the character still blocks a chunk of the screen space in the center
>Shooting forward while aiming forward means that nothing blocks you.
that is the advantage of your method but nothing blocks you in ots either, at least not your gun, you can still shoot that enemy even though you can't see them
>The crosshair is never somewhere else. X doesn't need to mark the spot.
what I meant by this is your crosshair would be in the middle of the screen but the actual bullet wouldn't hit there, the x that appears in some games only shows up in certain cases when a wall is blocking where the bullet would hit
>You already see around corners and you don't need to switch manually which side is unobscured.
except you can see better with ots
>You never run into a situation where an enemy behind a corner can engage your body before your camera can manually catch up.
neither do you in tps if you switch shoulder which is literally instant and in your control the whole time

and lastly, that angle is still inaccurate, the only accurate angle that makes sure you always see where you shoot is first person shooters. while the above angle causes less problems for people who can't shoulder switch, it can still cause problems if you were on a platform aiming down at someone below, you can make the same case where the enemy is blocked by the camera but can still shoot you
I'm not even arguing that ots is always better, I just think it looks better and has it's own advantages

I wish you could just permanently set one tho. I hate having to click the pad again

DUDE DARKS SOULS IS SO HARDCORE LMAO

that's retarded user
it's instant and in your control the entire time and if you take advantage of it you can see around corners far better

What if someone was right in front of the player? As in, RIGHT in front? They would be obscured and you'd have to aim down into your character to hit them.

MGSV's camera is great. I find Nioh to be a good distance too.

Attached: 20190527003627_1.jpg (1920x1080, 572K)

There is no such thing as an ideal 3rd-person camera, the entire point of a third person camera is to offer optimal or desired view at any given time, the camera should rotate, zoom, pan, etc to meet the situation, or just give the players themselves that control.