The scale, camera position, FOV and animations in FPP are too much hassle to make me very interested in it. I like the gameplay of third person better any ways, personally. I know it's a contentious topic some times, but I like the added thought that goes into playing third person and overcoming enemy positions since it's more difficult to just bull rush into them. I think it slows the pace to a degree and adds an extra layer that I personally find enjoyable.
I like me a standard FPS too, but I think they work best when designed from the bottom up for that purpose. Glad it's an option for those who prefer it though.
The scale, camera position, FOV and animations in FPP are too much hassle to make me very interested in it. I like the gameplay of third person better any ways, personally. I know it's a contentious topic some times, but I like the added thought that goes into playing third person and overcoming enemy positions since it's more difficult to just bull rush into them. I think it slows the pace to a degree and adds an extra layer that I personally find enjoyable.
I like me a standard FPS too, but I think they work best when designed from the bottom up for that purpose. Glad it's an option for those who prefer it though.
Interesting choice of words. Neither mode is more tactical or whatever. They're just different. It's 100% preference.
I think with added information you've got added possibilities to approach a given situation. You can call that whatever you want, it's not meant to diminish FPP. I agree it's all preference.
Third person started to annoy me a lot after a few deaths to randos jumping out of containers or from behind walls with their weapons already trained on me and firing before they even round the corner
I don't place any better in first person, but enjoy the game so much more without the stress of every defilade or object potentially having someone watching me
In first person, if someone wants to gain information on my position, they have to peek me, and that gives me a fighting chance
I also find the stand-offs where you and the other guy are behind each your tree much better in first. If you hit the guy and he has to heal, in third person he'll still see you if you're pushing. But in first, if he's healing, you can take the opportunity to push or flank without him knowing. Standoffs just tend to resolve much more quickly and in a more satisfying way in first
There were six of us in the final field. I did my best to stick to the very outer edge of the circle and just wait for everyone else to make the mistakes. This worked until there were three. As I lay there, as still as the soil beneath me, when I notice movement to my right. My IMMEDIATE right... someone crawled right past me. I set my finger, twitching in anticipation, on the mouse. I fire a short burst, my new companion ceases to move.
Then, the gunfire from across the way. I can't see them, but as I shuffle desperately sideways, I realise, THEY can't see ME. They're shooting at the sound! So I shuffle, the 'THUD, THUD, THUD' of gunfire landing harmlessly in the soil where I lay just moments ago, slowly following me across the field.
Yes, fire some more! Use all of that precious ammunition! I realise that surely I must be coming around to my opponents flank. As I continue my slow crawl, my eyes dart around for any sign of movement. I come around the edge of a bush.
I see him! But... he sees me! Our eyes meet for what must have been a mere second, yet felt like an eternity. The two of us, alone in the wilderness, each of a mind to one another. A level of understanding is established, a perfect understanding of ourselves, and of the other. A level of intimacy exists between us that no one else in the world would ever be able to understand, nay, comprehend! He goes to fire the fatal shots but... doesn't? My mind races back to all of those thuds from a mere minute before. He's out of ammunition! He fumbles for a sidearm, but this is all the time I need to line up the shot and end his life.
Goodbye, my friend. My partner in chaos. But alas, there is only one Chicken Dinner tonight, and I hunger for it!
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I've suddenly gotten really in to this in the past week. Coincidentally right around the time they added FPP.
@Jasconius sorry about not responding to you last night. I was super tired, had just reformatted my PC and played one game with my roommate before I passed out.
I've suddenly gotten really in to this in the past week. Coincidentally right around the time they added FPP.
@Jasconius sorry about not responding to you last night. I was super tired, had just reformatted my PC and played one game with my roommate before I passed out.
np if you want to team up let me know... if you're into first person even better because I think i prefer it
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I am more in to FPP than TPP. It feels less random, more strategic. People can't just find some trolly spot where they can see 360 in third person and wait for people to crest hills and such. They actually have to put themselves at risk to get information. It informs the game play in a way that I think is profound and takes the game from being a passing thing I enjoyed to something I actively want to play.
If there's a spot you can 360 with absolutely 0 risk lemme know about it so I can win every single round.
In 3PV, any rooftop lets you mush your face into the 6 inch high barrier while prone and hold alt for complete 360 degree vision with zero risk.
Which is fine, ya know. If everyone can do it I don't believe it's imbalanced/OP. 3PV has a lot of its own intricacies that FPV doesn't.
That's not actually true though, because there's always another hill/building/position that you can get an angle on them, not to mention the roof top door way of the building itself. Show me an actual spot that you can 360 vision with absolutely 0 risk in this game if people are going to keep saying it.
Someone managed to get a buggy soon after dropping. I dove down into the grass thinking I was going to be the first kill because I've got no gun and am exposed, but the buggy speeds past towards some houses. I book after him hoping to speed the buggy when he hops out to loot the houses.
I arrive at the house to find the buggy stuck on a fence and a dead body next to it, I can't get the buggy out and go about looting the house. Over the next five minutes several people run up and try to steal the buggy, but all it does is make a lot of noise and goes nowhere. I pop out, shoot them, and duck back inside the house. Most kills I've every gotten, and it was first person mode too!
Someone managed to get a buggy soon after dropping. I dove down into the grass thinking I was going to be the first kill because I've got no gun and am exposed, but the buggy speeds past towards some houses. I book after him hoping to speed the buggy when he hops out to loot the houses.
I arrive at the house to find the buggy stuck on a fence and a dead body next to it, I can't get the buggy out and go about looting the house. Over the next five minutes several people run up and try to steal the buggy, but all it does is make a lot of noise and goes nowhere. I pop out, shoot them, and duck back inside the house. Most kills I've every gotten, and it was first person mode too!
You would think that the pile of boxes by the stationary buggy would put people off >_<
Regarding 3rd person invincible spots. While there are not absolutely truly impregnable 360 surround view spots where you can't be shot. There are plenty with close to 360 with no way of people reliably shooting you, or with true 360 with very little in the way of people reliably shooting you. To the point where saying "360 vision with 0 risk" is almost true in 3rd person.
If there's a spot you can 360 with absolutely 0 risk lemme know about it so I can win every single round.
In 3PV, any rooftop lets you mush your face into the 6 inch high barrier while prone and hold alt for complete 360 degree vision with zero risk.
Which is fine, ya know. If everyone can do it I don't believe it's imbalanced/OP. 3PV has a lot of its own intricacies that FPV doesn't.
That's not actually true though, because there's always another hill/building/position that you can get an angle on them, not to mention the roof top door way of the building itself. Show me an actual spot that you can 360 vision with absolutely 0 risk in this game if people are going to keep saying it.
Would you be less nitpicky if they had said "360 vision with 1 risk"?
If there's a spot you can 360 with absolutely 0 risk lemme know about it so I can win every single round.
In 3PV, any rooftop lets you mush your face into the 6 inch high barrier while prone and hold alt for complete 360 degree vision with zero risk.
Which is fine, ya know. If everyone can do it I don't believe it's imbalanced/OP. 3PV has a lot of its own intricacies that FPV doesn't.
That's not actually true though, because there's always another hill/building/position that you can get an angle on them, not to mention the roof top door way of the building itself. Show me an actual spot that you can 360 vision with absolutely 0 risk in this game if people are going to keep saying it.
It's an accurate statement though. 360 degrees is a circle in two dimensions. There are plenty of buildings on top of hills where you can get lines of sight in every direction of the compass without being exposed to observation or fire at all.
Throw in the third dimension and the building itself creates blind spots closer to you, but at such close ranges audio cues take over. The fact of the matter is that you still have safe vision in every cardinal direction without being exposed to fire. You get to pick and choose when to pop up and start shooting.
This is why it's so hard to spot campers in third person view. They're all hiding behind walls or out of sight next to windows and using their magic remote viewing to scan for targets.
It is more risky to approach cover in TPP than it is in FPP, hands down inarguable, because in TPP someone behind that cover can watch you without exposing themselves to you.
FPP forces you to take more risks in order to gain the same amount of information. Usually the additional risk you take is quite significant, especially if you've positioned yourself well in the first place. For instance, if you've put yourself up against a hill that the blue is cutting off, you can be pretty confident nobody is behind you. In TPP, if you're behind a rock right now, you are very safe, exposed from very very few if any angles, and you have great information. In FPP, in this same situation, you are going to be exposed from the front any time you peek for information, which will increase the total danger you're in exponentially.
The amount of additional danger you expose yourself to, relative to the amount of danger you're already in, obviously will depend on the situation. There's a whole spectrum there.
This isn't to say one mode is better than the other. It would be disingenuous to say that one of them is an objectively better game and that the other should not be played or enjoyed. Full stop. But when people complain that TPP allows others to be too safe while still having full or nearly full information, that is a valid complaint. Maybe it's the game you prefer to play, all the time or some of the time, but it doesn't make the statement untrue.
+1
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
It would also help to act a little less like we're attacking you personally by liking FPP more. If you like TPP, that's fine, play it. It's not a competition. We have valid reasons for liking FPP.
Those are invalid reasons. I'm not taking it personal, I like both modes for different reasons (situations), I just don't see the point of using hyperbole to describe why people prefer one thing over another. There's valid reasons to prefer each mode, but making 100% false statements isn't useful and some times has negative consequences. It shows a gross misunderstanding of the game mode, and I've seen that actually influence developers in other games (DayZ) to try to tweak the mode which accomplishes nothing in the long run because it is a failure to understand how the game actually plays. It becomes a dangerous situation when lies have actual impact on development.
The lie is that third person allows you to take 0/no risk to gain information. This game isn't played in a vacuum and there's always other angles on any given position.
If you're prone on a rooftop of a building on a hill, you are safe from fire from all directions. To be assailed, someone must either psychically know that you're there and nail you with a grenade, or climb the building and get on to the roof with you (which invokes the elephant footsteps and alerts you to check the doorway that leads to the roof).
From this perfectly concealed position, you can have a wide view of your surroundings to scan for any nearby player.
The lie is that third person allows you to take 0/no risk to gain information. This game isn't played in a vacuum and there's always other angles on any given position.
There are multiple rooftops in the game that are higher than any surrounding hill or building that also have wall cover. If you are to go prone on those buildings, the only way someone can see you is to also be up there. You can't see in every direction typically, often there's a little hut that'll restrict your sight in one like 10 degree area of the circle. But you get audio for that and can see pretty much everything else without exposing yourself. Unless someone is very close to the building or using some sort of cover to move in, you're probably going to be able to see them.
There really isn't "always other angles on any given position." There's lots of buildings where you can see the only entrance and no one can see you. Or you can see out around the building without being seen and there's no higher angle.
You can see around corners without having to show a person you're there. I was able to hide behind a low wall and see someone coming without them seeing me, then kill them when they came around the corner, because i knew exactly where they were and they had zero chance to ever see me.
third person places the majority of risk on the attacker, who must treat every door and corner like a murdering hole.
That's true of FPP as well. The difference is that in FPP, the defender can not visually observe the attaker without opening himself up to observation.
Particularly he can not calmy observe from complete concealment until the attacker has his back turned.
Some one in this thread once made a statement that armor and meds were pointless because they had a very limited understanding of the game. This whole debate is eerily similar.
Some one in this thread once made a statement that armor and meds were pointless because they had a very limited understanding of the game. This whole debate is eerily similar.
If you think I have a limited understanding of the game after 100 hours you need to explain why. What parts of these posts do you disagree with and why?
like, you say there's always other angles on any given position. I say no, there's plenty of buildings I can sit on top of, be able to see the vast majority of the area around me, without anyone ever being able to see me unless they too climb the same building. If you disagree, I'd like some examples or something.
Some one in this thread once made a statement that armor and meds were pointless because they had a very limited understanding of the game. This whole debate is eerily similar.
If you think I have a limited understanding of the game after 100 hours you need to explain why. What parts of these posts do you disagree with and why?
like, you say there's always other angles on any given position. I say no, there's plenty of buildings I can sit on top of, be able to see the vast majority of the area around me, without anyone ever being able to see me unless they too climb the same building. If you disagree, I'd like some examples or something.
People can't just find some trolly spot where they can see 360 in third person and wait for people to crest hills and such. They actually have to put themselves at risk to get information.
If there's a spot you can 360 with absolutely 0 risk lemme know about it so I can win every single round.
In 3PV, any rooftop lets you mush your face into the 6 inch high barrier while prone and hold alt for complete 360 degree vision with zero risk.
The original statement is that you are at 0 risk in these positions. My argument is there is always another angle. Even if that angle is from the building itself, that is still an angle that puts the player at risk. All of this ignores grenades that also put any position at risk.
If you wanna show me an actual location with no other angles, that is unbreachable, let's see it. Quite frankly, I very much doubt there's even a roof top that exists in this game without a higher angle. The tallest mountains in the game don't have buildings with accessible roofs on them. There also has to exist the basic understanding that you can see onto roofs without actually having your character physically higher than them, by virtue of the camera itself being raised.
So lets see at the very least a specific location that you (or anyone making these wild claims) can name, and preferably 360 video from said location.
Okay but you keep addressing the logical conclusion of the argument instead of the general case.
FPP forces you to take additional risks to gain the same amount of information. Usually the additional risk is quite significant, because it involves the one enemy you know is incoming.
Some one in this thread once made a statement that armor and meds were pointless because they had a very limited understanding of the game. This whole debate is eerily similar.
If you think I have a limited understanding of the game after 100 hours you need to explain why. What parts of these posts do you disagree with and why?
like, you say there's always other angles on any given position. I say no, there's plenty of buildings I can sit on top of, be able to see the vast majority of the area around me, without anyone ever being able to see me unless they too climb the same building. If you disagree, I'd like some examples or something.
People can't just find some trolly spot where they can see 360 in third person and wait for people to crest hills and such. They actually have to put themselves at risk to get information.
If there's a spot you can 360 with absolutely 0 risk lemme know about it so I can win every single round.
In 3PV, any rooftop lets you mush your face into the 6 inch high barrier while prone and hold alt for complete 360 degree vision with zero risk.
The original statement is that you are at 0 risk in these positions. My argument is there is always another angle. Even if that angle is from the building itself, that is still an angle that puts the player at risk. All of this ignores grenades that also put any position at risk.
If you wanna show me an actual location with no other angles, that is unbreachable, let's see it. Quite frankly, I very much doubt there's even a roof top that exists in this game without a higher angle. The tallest mountains in the game don't have buildings with accessible roofs on them. There also has to exist the basic understanding that you can see onto roofs without actually having your character physically higher than them, by virtue of the camera itself being raised.
So lets see at the very least a specific location that you can name, and preferably 360 video from said location.
I mean, if I cram myself into a bathroom and there's a single door, there's still "risk", because duh, anytime you shoot at someone there's risk. But the thing with the roof is people can't see you. You're getting vision and a lot of it, and no one knows you're there.
If you lie prone and mash your nose into the wall behind that little door hut, you can see REALLY FAR, and other than the door hut nothing's blocking you. You'll notice none of the other roofs have a high enough platform, and that hill is too far, plus if you're lying by the wall, no one can see you. Sure, someone can weave around buildings and sneak up to your building, but they likely don't know you're there and aren't gonna try to avoid one specific building in a city full of them. Nothing in this game is zero risk, but it's pretty damn close. At least, until the circle forces you to move.
Sure, someone can come charging up the stairs, but you're in a way better position defensively for that if you hear them coming, which you probably will.
"Unbreachable?" no, no one is claiming that. When we say "zero risk" it means zero risk to look out. In FPP, knowing what's in a field requires you expose yourself. In TPP, you do not have to do that thanks to the camera letting you peek around corners. You certainly can't use your camera to peek over this three story roof, and while sure, there's a mountain or two higher than this in the game, it's not anywhere close enough to actually be useful for that.
edit: I mean hell, being able to look behind you using alt without having to actually turn around is a huge deal all by itself in TPP.
I'm primarily addressing the first quote I responded to earlier in the thread by GnomeTank, and then the second by Konphujun which claim positions exist in this game that give you 360 degrees of vision (and let's not pretend like we don't know they meant full, unobstructed views of the surrounding area) with 0 risk.
Posts
OW is also way too small
I need like, 120 minimum to feel comfortable
I like me a standard FPS too, but I think they work best when designed from the bottom up for that purpose. Glad it's an option for those who prefer it though.
Interesting choice of words. Neither mode is more tactical or whatever. They're just different. It's 100% preference.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
I don't place any better in first person, but enjoy the game so much more without the stress of every defilade or object potentially having someone watching me
In first person, if someone wants to gain information on my position, they have to peek me, and that gives me a fighting chance
I also find the stand-offs where you and the other guy are behind each your tree much better in first. If you hit the guy and he has to heal, in third person he'll still see you if you're pushing. But in first, if he's healing, you can take the opportunity to push or flank without him knowing. Standoffs just tend to resolve much more quickly and in a more satisfying way in first
YEAH! I DID IT!
My first solo FPP Chicken Dinner!
There were six of us in the final field. I did my best to stick to the very outer edge of the circle and just wait for everyone else to make the mistakes. This worked until there were three. As I lay there, as still as the soil beneath me, when I notice movement to my right. My IMMEDIATE right... someone crawled right past me. I set my finger, twitching in anticipation, on the mouse. I fire a short burst, my new companion ceases to move.
Then, the gunfire from across the way. I can't see them, but as I shuffle desperately sideways, I realise, THEY can't see ME. They're shooting at the sound! So I shuffle, the 'THUD, THUD, THUD' of gunfire landing harmlessly in the soil where I lay just moments ago, slowly following me across the field.
Yes, fire some more! Use all of that precious ammunition! I realise that surely I must be coming around to my opponents flank. As I continue my slow crawl, my eyes dart around for any sign of movement. I come around the edge of a bush.
I see him! But... he sees me! Our eyes meet for what must have been a mere second, yet felt like an eternity. The two of us, alone in the wilderness, each of a mind to one another. A level of understanding is established, a perfect understanding of ourselves, and of the other. A level of intimacy exists between us that no one else in the world would ever be able to understand, nay, comprehend! He goes to fire the fatal shots but... doesn't? My mind races back to all of those thuds from a mere minute before. He's out of ammunition! He fumbles for a sidearm, but this is all the time I need to line up the shot and end his life.
Goodbye, my friend. My partner in chaos. But alas, there is only one Chicken Dinner tonight, and I hunger for it!
PSN: TheBrayster_92
but boy does it make it sting a lot more when you misclick F while driving a vehicle at full speed
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
https://streamable.com/xy62q
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
@Jasconius sorry about not responding to you last night. I was super tired, had just reformatted my PC and played one game with my roommate before I passed out.
np if you want to team up let me know... if you're into first person even better because I think i prefer it
In 3PV, any rooftop lets you mush your face into the 6 inch high barrier while prone and hold alt for complete 360 degree vision with zero risk.
Which is fine, ya know. If everyone can do it I don't believe it's imbalanced/OP. 3PV has a lot of its own intricacies that FPV doesn't.
That's not actually true though, because there's always another hill/building/position that you can get an angle on them, not to mention the roof top door way of the building itself. Show me an actual spot that you can 360 vision with absolutely 0 risk in this game if people are going to keep saying it.
I arrive at the house to find the buggy stuck on a fence and a dead body next to it, I can't get the buggy out and go about looting the house. Over the next five minutes several people run up and try to steal the buggy, but all it does is make a lot of noise and goes nowhere. I pop out, shoot them, and duck back inside the house. Most kills I've every gotten, and it was first person mode too!
You would think that the pile of boxes by the stationary buggy would put people off >_<
Regarding 3rd person invincible spots. While there are not absolutely truly impregnable 360 surround view spots where you can't be shot. There are plenty with close to 360 with no way of people reliably shooting you, or with true 360 with very little in the way of people reliably shooting you. To the point where saying "360 vision with 0 risk" is almost true in 3rd person.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Would you be less nitpicky if they had said "360 vision with 1 risk"?
It's an accurate statement though. 360 degrees is a circle in two dimensions. There are plenty of buildings on top of hills where you can get lines of sight in every direction of the compass without being exposed to observation or fire at all.
Throw in the third dimension and the building itself creates blind spots closer to you, but at such close ranges audio cues take over. The fact of the matter is that you still have safe vision in every cardinal direction without being exposed to fire. You get to pick and choose when to pop up and start shooting.
This is why it's so hard to spot campers in third person view. They're all hiding behind walls or out of sight next to windows and using their magic remote viewing to scan for targets.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
FPP forces you to take more risks in order to gain the same amount of information. Usually the additional risk you take is quite significant, especially if you've positioned yourself well in the first place. For instance, if you've put yourself up against a hill that the blue is cutting off, you can be pretty confident nobody is behind you. In TPP, if you're behind a rock right now, you are very safe, exposed from very very few if any angles, and you have great information. In FPP, in this same situation, you are going to be exposed from the front any time you peek for information, which will increase the total danger you're in exponentially.
The amount of additional danger you expose yourself to, relative to the amount of danger you're already in, obviously will depend on the situation. There's a whole spectrum there.
This isn't to say one mode is better than the other. It would be disingenuous to say that one of them is an objectively better game and that the other should not be played or enjoyed. Full stop. But when people complain that TPP allows others to be too safe while still having full or nearly full information, that is a valid complaint. Maybe it's the game you prefer to play, all the time or some of the time, but it doesn't make the statement untrue.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
From this perfectly concealed position, you can have a wide view of your surroundings to scan for any nearby player.
There is nothing false about the above.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
There are multiple rooftops in the game that are higher than any surrounding hill or building that also have wall cover. If you are to go prone on those buildings, the only way someone can see you is to also be up there. You can't see in every direction typically, often there's a little hut that'll restrict your sight in one like 10 degree area of the circle. But you get audio for that and can see pretty much everything else without exposing yourself. Unless someone is very close to the building or using some sort of cover to move in, you're probably going to be able to see them.
There really isn't "always other angles on any given position." There's lots of buildings where you can see the only entrance and no one can see you. Or you can see out around the building without being seen and there's no higher angle.
You can see around corners without having to show a person you're there. I was able to hide behind a low wall and see someone coming without them seeing me, then kill them when they came around the corner, because i knew exactly where they were and they had zero chance to ever see me.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
That's true of FPP as well. The difference is that in FPP, the defender can not visually observe the attaker without opening himself up to observation.
Particularly he can not calmy observe from complete concealment until the attacker has his back turned.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
If you think I have a limited understanding of the game after 100 hours you need to explain why. What parts of these posts do you disagree with and why?
like, you say there's always other angles on any given position. I say no, there's plenty of buildings I can sit on top of, be able to see the vast majority of the area around me, without anyone ever being able to see me unless they too climb the same building. If you disagree, I'd like some examples or something.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
The original statement is that you are at 0 risk in these positions. My argument is there is always another angle. Even if that angle is from the building itself, that is still an angle that puts the player at risk. All of this ignores grenades that also put any position at risk.
If you wanna show me an actual location with no other angles, that is unbreachable, let's see it. Quite frankly, I very much doubt there's even a roof top that exists in this game without a higher angle. The tallest mountains in the game don't have buildings with accessible roofs on them. There also has to exist the basic understanding that you can see onto roofs without actually having your character physically higher than them, by virtue of the camera itself being raised.
So lets see at the very least a specific location that you (or anyone making these wild claims) can name, and preferably 360 video from said location.
FPP forces you to take additional risks to gain the same amount of information. Usually the additional risk is quite significant, because it involves the one enemy you know is incoming.
I mean, if I cram myself into a bathroom and there's a single door, there's still "risk", because duh, anytime you shoot at someone there's risk. But the thing with the roof is people can't see you. You're getting vision and a lot of it, and no one knows you're there.
For instance, this type of building is in a lot of the cities. I think this one's rozhok?
If you lie prone and mash your nose into the wall behind that little door hut, you can see REALLY FAR, and other than the door hut nothing's blocking you. You'll notice none of the other roofs have a high enough platform, and that hill is too far, plus if you're lying by the wall, no one can see you. Sure, someone can weave around buildings and sneak up to your building, but they likely don't know you're there and aren't gonna try to avoid one specific building in a city full of them. Nothing in this game is zero risk, but it's pretty damn close. At least, until the circle forces you to move.
Sure, someone can come charging up the stairs, but you're in a way better position defensively for that if you hear them coming, which you probably will.
"Unbreachable?" no, no one is claiming that. When we say "zero risk" it means zero risk to look out. In FPP, knowing what's in a field requires you expose yourself. In TPP, you do not have to do that thanks to the camera letting you peek around corners. You certainly can't use your camera to peek over this three story roof, and while sure, there's a mountain or two higher than this in the game, it's not anywhere close enough to actually be useful for that.
edit: I mean hell, being able to look behind you using alt without having to actually turn around is a huge deal all by itself in TPP.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live