Do you think third person shooter tend to suck compare to first person shooters?

Hello,

So my dear friends, today i was researching about video games that i have played and yet to play. I have played many third person games and i always found them mediocre, dull, and boring. especially if they are third person shooters they involve nothing but take cover and shoot. Now I like plenty of third person games and some of them are even my fav of all time like Mafia 1, Max payne, early splinter cell, Hitman franchise. but majority of them are boring and overrated. Games like Gears, uncharted, tomb raider, mass effect. all they have in common is wall cover. I think third person is best suited for stealth genre (even thought first person did better).

Now compare them to thier older brother First person shooters they feel inferior. and even todays when most FPS games are dumbing down. they are still hell lot better than third person games.

Unlike third person. first person camera is more immersive. the only third person game immersed me was Mafia 1 because of amazing storyline.

so what do you think?

lets discuss

Depends. Those modern games where you stick to wall, doing nothing but waiting for the wack-a-moles to pop up is laborious. The environments tend to be grey and bland as well.

Grew up on MDK, colorful, creative, visceral, stunning, abstract. True masterpiece.

These, Naughty Dog and Gears of War, no MDK.

Well sure, yeah, Halo 5 > Gears 4 but having both of the best in genre; it's not called Xbox Won for nothing you know. :P

Not really. First person or third person is just a matter of perspective and camera position. It doesn't affect the game and world design, just how you see and interact with them.

I've played plenty of excellent third person games (the Saints Row games were great fun, and I thought the Tomb Raider reboot games were very good too) and mediocre first person games (*cough* Call of Duty! *cough*).

@madrocketeer: You're underselling it. First or third person perspective absolutely affects game design.

No third person beats first person everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

there are very few third person shooters that are actually any good.

A third-party shooter like Kid Icarus: Uprising (flying mode) is good.

@Juub1990:

Please elaborate.

You are trolling, right? they're not even the best titles in their franchise and far away from being the best in the genre.

No, not at all. While I enjoy both perspectives I would say that I generally prefer third person perspective more. Played a number of excellent TPS games such as Gears of War, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect, etc.

third person action games in general are not good. games like resident evil, tomb raider, witcher 3, assassins creed, GTA. they are just overrated.

plus most third person action games nowadays copy batman combat and assassins creed open world.

You are trolling, right? They're the best titles in their franchise this gen and far away the best in the genre this gen.

Ya see? Opinions be like that and as always, mine are better than yours. :P

No they are not. they both suck. especially gears of war where you take cover, shoot, cover shoot.

nothing about gears of war ever been good. its ruined entire third person genre.

Again, opinions be like that just like reviewer opinions made them 3 AAAE' in a row selling millions. Now then, yeah, I was being just a little facetious but hey, it's SW lol but I think saying Halo 5's MP is stellar and likely the best in class this gen isn't much of a stretch if any at all.

The perspective has a huge impact on the game design. For instance the AI in third and first person shooters is often very different.

Third person shooters often tend to take in account the player has a 360 degree field of view at any moment and can view things from a perspective first person cannot. It results in seemingly omniscient enemies in third person shooters to counterbalance the fact the player can pretty much see everything whereas first person shooters enemies tend to engage you only when you're up close and not at the other end of the map. It's not always like that mind you but that alone changes the entire dynamic on how a player approaches combat scenarios. What you know and don't know in first person and third person shooters is different.

First person shooters also make a different use of the cover system. Your view is obstructed by covers so instead they will rely on player's positioning and aiming proficiency to deal with enemies. Third person shooters often revolve around covers where you can just push a button and there you go, you're covered and you can see other people shoot back at you.

In theory only the perspective should matter. In practice it isn't the case. Third person shooters have a complete different design philosophy compared to first person shooters.

Knew this shitty thread was a thinly veiled attempt at criticizing Witcher 3.

Dead Space series is better than most FPS games out there... but that seems like more of the exception than the rule.

It's a matter of preference. Some like third-person games more. Others like first-person such as yours truly.

I like games that allow both first-person and third-person such as the Fallout games and GTA V. If GTA V didn't add a first-person view, I wouldn't have bought it. GTA V is my first game in the franchise.

you mean dumbed down and scripted system shock? thats what dead space is. it was suppose to be system shock 3 and thankfully it cancelled and we are getting true System shock 3. not EA system shock 3.

Never been a huge fan of FPS although I have played a few and enjoyed them. Third person games tend to offer more variety in gameplay.

Doom 2016 was dumbed down, yet you praise it whenever you can.

Its not. it play like old school shooters.

@ghosts4ever: I like how everything is dumbed down if you don't like it.... as if whatever game you are suggesting you need 8 degrees and a masters in physics to play.

Which were pretty dumb to begin with.

Halo on Legendary is a lot more intelligent than DOOM ever was yet you criticize it at every turn.

Nah, I tend to prefer third-person shooters.

I agree, the map design is very simplstic. No real memorable craftsmanship of the original.

Very much like Halo where it has huge maps, but the depth of a puddle.

hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa, wait, are you serious?

it has no iron sight and sprint system and no hand holding. if its not old school. i dont know what it is.

I even like it more than doom 1 and 2 because they dont have mouse support.

Multiplayer wise: Not even close. Gears of War has a good multiplayer, but it's thoroughly outclassed by the greatest FPS mp games.

Single player wise: Eh, I like Resident Evil 4 (probably more than any FPS not named Metroid Prime), Vanquish, Binary Domain, and the 2 Max Payne games by Remedy more than a shit load of FPS games. But that list is fairly short compared to SP FPS games I like.

Time out, we're also counting Stealth games like Splinter Cell?

I think he was referring to the fact you're saying the game is not dumb simply because it plays like a old school shooter. The game is a cakewalk even on Nightmare. You simply run and blow up everything with the shotgun or with a grenade launcher attached to it. Doesn't take a lot of thought process. Just a decent amount of skill and reflexes. No intelligence whatsoever.

Resident Evil 4, Gears, Tomb Raider Reboots, and Uncharted aren't bad when it comes to 3rd person combat. But I prefer 1st person

.

But the mouse dumbed the games down. Before that it was more pure and much better. I used to feel so clever and smart playing those games. My mum was always so impressed when I would tell her how great I was. Just as now people are so impressed by you when you say all modern game are dumbed down.

As far as sheer gunplay goes, FPS games are hard to beat but I do prefer a well done TPS campaign a well done FPS campaign, as few as there are in both categories. Multiplayer is a different story, the only TPS I like there is Gears and Uncharted 2, and neither are up there with something like Halo for me thanks to a lack of split screen, among other things.

resident evil 4 was one of the most overrated game of all time, vanquish is fast gears of war. but since its shinjin mikami game. it get praise.

the single player FPS has always dominate third person genre. either in 90s or early 00s or today.

lol look at his response. "Resident Evil 4 is the most overrated game of all time". "Vanquish is Gears of War but fast".

I dont, there are great third person shooters...

No I enjoy both, its nice being able to see your character, different experience overall. In Gears 4 they added jumping over cover/stunning enemy, which also gives you a brief window to counter if you are sharp, so they balanced it well with people who like to hide a long time behind cover.

I enjoy both for different reasons, dont really have a preference.

Who decided it was overrated?

its terrible controls and movement decide its overrated

its terrible combat decide its overrated

its awful design decide its overrated

and i can go on and on.

Would of been easier to just say 'I did!'

@ghosts4ever: Hey, would you be interested in an arena shooter with hovercrafts? Crash Force has a third person camera that works pretty good for the playstyle of the game. As for which camera mode i would prefer, i think it really depends of the game. Would want to play Mafia 3 in first person to be honest.

Ditto.

I prefer third parties in general due to a preference of strong narrative.

since cover based shooters have become the norm, then yea. Still some good ones but cover based shooting is generally pretty boring

yeah FPS games usually have no real sense of story. Resistance 3 was great though.

I prefer third person shooters

I like seeing my character and better wall cover mechanics than first person.

I know this already, this is why you think a mediocre story like Mafia 1 is good. You are ignorant of better mediums and settle for the worst story telling medium of all time.

@jg4xchamp:

Champ be scamp.

Like every genre there are good and bad examples.