No First Person mode is very bad idea :(

[c4fkw294ziq]

It was one of the best feature in original Call to Arms game.

[M4F10S0]

Some people like it, some people hate it. I personally prefer the original direct control mode.

[SEEKERDOLL]

I would say it is the main reason for the failure of the CTA
Forcing one to ground level is not a good way to play a RTT game of any sorts.
Plus, it isn't implemented seamlessly with the game. To say the least, quality control is terrible.

[Culee]

Originally posted by c4fkw294ziq:

It was one of the best feature in original Call to Arms game.

This is not Call to Arms gameplay.

[terve886]

Can confirm that I was among the people who hated Call to Arms first person due to its heavy impact on game balance, that pulled Call to Arms heavily from RTS into FPS as microing units on first person was extremely strong force multiplier compared to the RTS controls. Had Call to Arms been completely first person focused game like battlefield, it would have been fine (assuming the controls were smooth enough for proper control of units in first person and so on).

[Styxx42]

Originally posted by c4fkw294ziq:

It was one of the best feature in original Call to Arms game.

+1

[Skipperyyz]

No , first personal mode is very bad idea.

[NOSOROG]

No , first personal mode is very good idea.

[Cope Destroyer]

First person in Call to arms runs like trash

[Ghost]

Originally posted by c4fkw294ziq:

It was one of the best feature in original Call to Arms game.

There's so many good FPS games out there. It should of never have been added to CtA.

[jlokau]

i'm happy with this not adding FPS

[Molested Bunny]

Originally posted by SeekerDolls:

I would say it is the main reason for the failure of the CTA

The feature itself was a nice gimmick, even back in Men of War the FPS mission was okay-ish, and thankfully it didnt outstay its welcome.

The problems came when Instinct made it a game seller main feature, ad they needed to dump money and man-hours into "properly" implementing it, since the engine/assets had very rudimentary support for it. All for a gimmick most MoW veterans didnt even want or need, and brought in relativly small amount of FPS nuts.

[ChadSimpKing]

wtf are these guys smoking....asking for fps in rts game just because another game did it fps mode would literaly kill the game experience

[CommanderTP]

Maybe you should start smoking the same thing............To put yourself in the midst of troops and tanks you send is a blast to me.

[Lucky Stralex]

It was straight out terrible balance wise, there is no denying that. It disrupted the game's flow as rts and encouraged using as few units as possible. It has no place in multiplayer.
It also was ultimately clunky and uninteresting to anyone with a half brain to be honest. There is nothing great about stomping AI that is not designed for that type of gameplay.

I'd strongly prefer they don't implement it at all or limit it to singleplayer for whoever can somehow find it enjoyable.

[CommanderTP]

It takes less than half a brain to realize how awesome it was to change to the fps mode. Maybe should have got a pc upgrade to help? Still have my vote to keep it in