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

Which is why I outlined how in SP, the higher end of things I like the TPS best stuff versus the FPS best stuff, but I like more FPS games by a good margin.

MP wise, .....no. Uncharted 2 is fun, but it's shallow. Gears is genuinely good, even though it took until the 3rd and 4th game for that series to get a good net code. But outside of that? No, that space sucks for multiplayer. GRAW I guess was good?

but i respect you my friend. even if you interpret my words.

Mafia 1 still have best story in gaming history. bar none

my friend champ, MP FPS has never been even a shadow of SP FPS in history. best MP games like CS, UT, quake cant hold candle against best SP like Half life, System shock, Doom, FEAR etc.

I prefer FPS

But Planescape Torment's better.

There are more gameplay mechanics that can be done as a Third Person, than First person.

I prefer third person for certain things over FPS because both do things differently.

it's hard to compare the two. games with each respective perspective tend to adhere to certain design elements and features but that's not the fault of the camera, that's just devs following whatever trend/elements are typically seen in those perspectives. though some things inherently just work and others just dont in both cases

3rd person when done right is the superior perspective for me. you get a greater sense of your character and how they relate to the environment (as opposed to the "head on a stick" feeling that a lot of fps games give you, even if you can look down and see your appendages), you see the animations and how your character interacts with whatever action you are doing, you get a nice cheat with the 360 camera movement and, in racing games in particular, you can navigate the game world with a better idea of exactly where you are going.

i feel a greater sense of playing as teh character in 3rd person vs 1st. idk, it just seems to be more immersive for me. both perspectives/genres suffer from a ton of copy cats so choosing one over the other comes down to taste. whatever you like, the other one is surely to seem generic.

soso for singleplayer, for multiplayer third person is just straight up trash tho, being able to see what you shouldn't be able to see without peaking is just wrong

You're an idiot, Sniper.

What's the point of these threads?

"Game 'X' is overrated because I say so, and it doesn't fit my preferences."

"Game 'X' game is better because it's old-school, and I can't expand any further than that."

What a shallow, narrow-minded person you are Sniper Ghosts4ever, you're like the angry old geezer who hates any music made after 1980 but has never bothered to listen to any of it.

Most TPSs suck ass compared to FPSs.

1st person suck outside of the confines of traditional shooters and arena shooters for shooters. So stuff like doom, xonotic, and overwatch are fine, however most fps are kind of shit.

3rd person are better in my opinion, stuff like ratchet and clank, horizon: zero dawn, binary domain, dead space 1 and 2, red dead redemption, mass effect, max payne 3, hitman, plants vs zombies garden warfare, vanquish, the evil within and resi games, etc etc. Honestly I don't know how one could argue that fps > tps when it's clear based on teh games we got that tps kind of work better.

And even when you get a game like deus ex, you realize that the reasons why said game is good is not due to the fps but due to the stealth, story, dialogue, etc etc.

So yeah, third person shoot > first person shooter

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

WHUT ?!?