What does the year have to do with creative decisions? The game was designed from the ground up to put you in Indy's shoes and make you see what he sees. Allowing 3rd person gameplay is not as simple as changing the camera position. Animations need to be re-done, how the change in perspective affects game mechanics has to be accounted for, game-breaking consequences like being able to see things you weren't intended to see need to be fixed, etc, etc.

It's OK for a studio to decide to make a 1st player game. The fact that some people can't enjoy them does not imply the freedom to make that type of game should not be allowed.

That's a weakass excuse!!! It has everything to do with the year. There's many games with 3rd and 1st person options, that have been out for years. The fact that they didn't make it an option just proves that they're just using the Indiana Jones name to make money, and they are too lazy and don't give a damn about fans. Maybe people would actually be excited about it, and not be hating on it so much, if they actually would have taken the time to give players the option..

Originally posted by Donovan Dellamorte:

That's a weakass excuse!!!

It's not an excuse. there's nothing here to excuse. It was a creative decision. That's it.

Originally posted by Donovan Dellamorte:

There's many games with 3rd and 1st person options, that have been out for years.

That in no way implies that every 1st person game is expected to also provide a 3rd person option by default.

Originally posted by Donovan Dellamorte:

The fact that they didn't make it an option just proves that they're just using the Indiana Jones name to make money, and they are too lazy and don't give a damn about fans.

That's an interesting take, but I don't share your perspective. I strongly disagree that not including a 3rd person mode in a 1st person game is somehow an affront to Indy fans.

Originally posted by Donovan Dellamorte:

Maybe people would actually be excited about it, and not be hating on it so much, if they actually would have taken the time to give players the option..

Maybe people should hold off opinions about the quality of the game until after it releases and we can play it.

it's Machine Games. it's just what they do since Wolfenstein.

Originally posted by Donovan Dellamorte:

That's a weakass excuse!!! It has everything to do with the year. There's many games with 3rd and 1st person options, that have been out for years. The fact that they didn't make it an option just proves that they're just using the Indiana Jones name to make money, and they are too lazy and don't give a damn about fans. Maybe people would actually be excited about it, and not be hating on it so much, if they actually would have taken the time to give players the option..

"nd they are too lazy and don't give a damn about fans." no they are just lazy to hear stupid no "fans" as you are for example;))
Why 1st? because they decide. Not players. What make you think you, me or any of us players have right to tell them how they are supposed to make their game?

Devs decide, how their game will look like, if 1st or 3rd look, not players:) Players have no right to choose in this, because they have only 2 options: Respect their creative decision or not play the game:)

Guess what it will be:))

2024 have nothing to do with that, what a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuny argument. But yea I fully understand, you are just troll nothing else ;)

Originally posted by Donovan Dellamorte:

I can't believe in 2024, you still are forced to play games in 1st person. Why would you limit sales because your to lazy to give players the ability to choose between 1st person and 3rd person. People with motion sickness cannot play this trash!!!

that just shows they aren't skilled enough to get the indy model moving and acting like real life indy, what is worse is the fact it looks like a fps from 2009