Should First-Person view be forced in Cartel zones?

[rngr]

On 2/5/2016 at 11:15 AM, Olivia said:

Not voting in the poll out of respect for the rebels.

However the only argument I've ever heard for forced 1st person is "more realism", but I don't buy that one bit.  Compare your field of view right now in real life, to the field of view in any 1st person FPS.  It's so much more limited in game.  Even if we were all Ranger and had ultra wide HD monitors, it's nothing compared to the 200 degree horizontal FOV of the human eye.  Arma 3 has a max 120 degree horizontal FOV (even if it supported higher, no monitor would do it justice).  Sure, seeing your body in 3rd person is not "more realistic", however it compensates for some of the sensory input we're lacking because inherently we're looking through a monitor and not our real eyes.

I think complex 3rd person combat is a big reason why Arma/Asylum is so compelling and unique from other shooters.  Also heli hot drops would be aids in first person, I love me some good orca montages.  

Therefore: -1, let's stick to 3rd person.  Though a trial period or one 1st person server could be interesting.

EDIT: To expand more on my point of lack of sensory input, imagine you were fighting someone CQC in a rebel tower in real life.  You'd be able to feel and hear their footstep vibrations so well that you'd be able to pin point where they were, even a floor above/below you.  1st person Arma won't give you that, but 3rd person does to an extent.  Imagine in real life you're prone next to a wall and an enemy is just behind the wall.  If the enemy shuffled his legs, even turned his head, adjusted his gun, you'd hear it and know they were there.  1st Arma won't give you that knowledge but 3rd person does.  Hell even veteran rebels sometimes can't tell what direction they're being shot from.  How fucking unrealistic is that??  My point is, 1st person is not more realistic.  

+1 for ultrawide hd monitors.

-1 for my FPS though.  1440p fps is bleh

[Goldberg Attorney at Law]