Not enough pure third person shooters these days

I want something like Stranglehold or Max Payne.

**** FPS games, the worst.

About a year from one of the best hitting the street, Gears 4, yeah baby. :P

Quantum Break will be far better than Gears 4, unfortunately.

Errr I don't know. I'm pretty much Gears burn-out after putting a lot of hours into Gears 3, when I got Gears of War: Ultimate Edition back in August, it didn't sunk me in like I hope it would. I really hope MS adds something newer when it comes to 3rd person shooters, cause if it's more the same, I'll pass on this one.

Quantum Break >>>> Gears 4. At least from what we've seen.

Quantum Break. Evolution of Max Payne's gameplay and no cover mechanic.

Uncharted 4 looks great as well, will admit. Something about the hit reactions looks good, as does QB.

Gears 4 needs to have better hit reactions, enemies can't just absorb bullets like always. But that's just three pure TPS games, not many for 2016.

I believe there were no pure TPS games this year, outside of remasters. I hope the TPS genre gets a revitalization.

I've purposely skipped Gears UE and haven't played any of the others in a very long time except Judgement and only played a little of that so I should be ready to go for another Gears game come late next year.

Dunno if TC would consider QB a Pure TPS but I do agree it's likely QB > Gears 4.

It absolutely has a cover mechanic

On topic: What do you mean specifically by pure third person shooter?

GTAV is third person. Mad Max. Just Cause 3.

Trippin bro

Games that are mostly guns with minor fluff/gimmicks. (in third person obviously)

Does Just Cause 3 not satisfy that requirement? I mean yeah you can fly a plane, and drive in a boat but it does feature third person shooting.

So no platforming puzzly shit like Tomb Raider and Uncharted?

And more pure shooting like Max Payne and Vanquish? I wouldn't get my hopes up. The genre is more homogenized than the FPS has ever been, and that genre's had Doom clones, Halo knockoffs, and the military shooter run. Gears I guess has maintained its purity over the years, but it's also old, stale, and slow.

GTAV has euphoria toned down from MP3, it sucks at shooting because of that. Mad Max has no shooting from what I've ever seen, only melee and car combat.

Just Cause 3 is mostly about destruction than shooting enemies.

Mad Max is more poor man's Buttman with dookie car combat ideas in the ubisoft open world game design formula

Eh think of it like Saints Row, they are pitching the game on its absurdity and all the tools you gain for the absurdity, but really the core missions are using your mechanics to shoot dudes.

YES, the latest Uncharted looks very good in the shooting aspect which will hopefully make up for the shitty platforming/puzzle sections. Gears is alright but needs a shakeup indeed.

Quantum Break kicks both of their asses.

I guess there is Splatoon?

Honestly, yeah, I am surprised at how few real third person games there seem to be.

I love destruction physics as much as the next guy but I'm more about hit reactions on enemies, ragdoll and such. Not many games seem to be doing much on the latter front. Unfortunately.

It sucks, people are claiming the death of FPS but it seems alive and well compared to TPS.

I mean I don't mind, because Uncharted is too shallow of a game to really carry an action game for that long without having other elements to pace itself, Tomb Raider adds more layers, and it be nice if they made more predator like scenarios than those shitty set pieces they came up with, but tiss modern triple A, although Rise of the Tomb Raider allegedly fixes my displeasures with that first reboot.

QB could be good, but Remedy has a tendency to make games super repetitive, and their idea of tense set pieces are actually garbage like a stupid ass tornado in Alan Wake, Max Payne 1 and 2 they got away with a lot because of the story and those shooting mechanics to this day still feel better than any shooter that isn't Max Payne 3 (pure shooting a gun and bullet meeting flesh), and I'd still rather play Max Payne 1 and 2 over 3 to be frank. But **** if Alan Wake isn't dullsville for large stretches, and American Nightmare was booty.

My worry is that they might make you too OP, with the lone exception of that one enemy type that does time warps with you. Which knowing Remedy that will be the one and only enemy type like that they come up with. But yeah I have more interest in playing QB than another fucking Gears and another fucking Uncharted.

I mean in multiplayer yeah, but all these games basically become more pure tps when they multiplayer, because deathmatch. In its campaign until the boss fights, it's more like Ratchet n Clank, but since it's Nintendo more about the platforming/obstacles, less about the shooting. Which isn't a bad thing, it makes it something different in that space, way too half baked, and most of the bosses are dull, but you know it's a Nintendo action game, those always have their own quirks.

Please show me where he sticks to cover like Gears and GTA.

That's what I figured or I would have said one of my most anticipated games... Crackdown 3. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILUt3ztyXeU

1:47 and 2:40, it's not like Gears and GTA, it's more in line with how The Last of Us, the more recent Splinter Cells, Metal Gear, and Tomb Raider do cover. Where it's contextual, but there is absolutely a cover mechanic to the combat. It will be as wack-a-mole as anything else.

How do the guns feel in TO 1886?

Eh, some of them feel better than others, but it's so vanilla as an action game. A lot of dull corridor cover based shooting that lacks Uncharted's range of spectacle, TLOU/Tomb Raider's predator like levels, or Gears enemy variety. And their idea of mixing it up are these really bad QTE segments, the stealth segment I think works fine as a diversion, but people swear that thing is terrible, and I'm like why? I mean it's dull, it's bad in that sense, but the egregious bad design part I didn't see with that segment.

So, basically there is no cover mechanic. Just what I thought. Manually crouching behind objects =/= cover mechanic. You could do that in Max Payne 1 and 2 as well.

You tell yourself that, whatever works for you.

But you said it yourself and posted the video yourself. There is no "cover mechanic".

And I'm saying it's going to work like the contextual cover you see in TLOU or Tomb Raider, you don't press a button in those games either, but there is a cover mechanic to these games, it plays a role in the combat. It was just a less gamey way of doing it instead of sticky cover.

Then it's not a "Mechanic". You crouch just like any other game to take a short brake or use time powers to flank the enemy. And the gameplay also seem to encourage player to keep moving. TLOU goes for more Stealthy approach when it comes to gameplay, where gameplay is built around stealth attacking the enemy. The game encourages you to craft items and use them carefully.

QB is different. It is full blown Third Person Action Shooter. Even enemies try to flush you out of the cover ASAP by throwing grenades or flanking you, which forces player to use powers, flank them and attack them from different direction. But then again, it doesn't matter because my point was that there is no cover mechanic, and there isn't.

lol it's totally a mechanic, why wouldn't it be? The reason it doesn't animate that way in max Payne, because they just didn't animate that stuff like that back then. Metal Gear is the closest thing I can think of with that type of cover controls, and even that was super deliberate. The way I look at QB is that the cover will play a role, it's no different than when you crouch behind something in a FPS, they made it more of a proper system in TPS, because it looks stupid in a tps if the guy is standing up right or just crouching and not animating with the wall, plank, etc. It's jarring, and for all these immersion based products, it would be silly not to have it.

It's not like Gears, but in that same context Vanquish isn't like Gears. It's a button press just like them, but you spend most of that time shooting by sliding around and moving around the battlefield more, the cover is just there for you to regen health real quick or reaccess your position, but similar idea it's still on the move. The bold specifically is something they all do at this point, either via a parlor trick or more so by simply throwing a grenade/destructible cover etc.

QB has other systems to its combat, but saying it has no cover system when it's going to play a role in the level design (the blatant chest high wall stuff) and the combat would be false.

Games are not out obviously, but this is a fact. I know to each their own blah blah, but I just can't understand how people enjoy Gears games. There is like no redeeming factors in the game for me.

Multiplayer.

@jg4xchamp: It's not cover mechanic. What you mean is that some of those games actively encourage you to use those covers, and in some instances in the game entire segments revolve around crouching behind cover. Whether there is a cover mechanic or not, in both cases you'll still be crouching behind an oddly placed object blatantly placed there for just that.

It's an animation loop, the way you two are putting it's saying that TOmb Raider and The Last of Us don't have a cover mechanic, and they totally. Whether its super obvious or not, that's just how they make third person shooters these days, shooters in general have cover. But sure, mechanic or not, the goal and function is more or less the same. You're gonna duck.

The hell is wrong with having a cover mechanic? Is this some "I'm so old school and hardcore, bro" nonsense?

And what's the difference between having to push a button to take cover, and having your character just automatically stick to cover? Does the push of a button ruin it?

Cover mechanic, the is it or isn't it a rpg of system wars.

@Chutebox: Yes, the multiplayer and horde. The campiagn in 1&2 are some of my favorites ever.

@jg4xchamp: It's really poor level design in my opinion, and they usually have seemingly infinitely spawning enemies at some areas. It's just lazy design.

Lazy is a poor way to put it, uncreative sure.

Devs struggle with trying to keep it natural, although I think Naughty Dog did get a better handle on it over time, Tomb Raider was more scattershot, but I haven't tried Rise of the Tomb Raider yet. Rockstar is usually pretty bad about it, but sure it makes the areas look artificial. It's one of the many short comings of Mass Effect, that Mass Effect plebs never accept. I don't necessarily look at that style of gameplay as bad, if you do it right you can make a good action game out of it. Uncharted 2 is a good action game, Gears of War 1 is really well paced, 2 has the enemy variety, 3 ...3 exists.

The things wrong with Max Payne 3 have nothing to do with Max Payne 3 though, like Rockstar won't get out of that games way and the plot is so fucking stupid. In contrast games like Alan Wake, Dead Space, and Warhammer don't have cover mechanics. And they weren't exactly better for it. Alan Wake is repetitive, routinely found silly ways to throw you into a forest, and even though they have this nifty dodge move because they couldn't properly balance enemy spawns they pan the camera out, and go "LOOK THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE IS AT, DONT BE SCARED" in a scenario meant to be tense?

Dead Space, yeah let me wait for the elevator to come down as a fight off a wave of enemies wasn't exactly anymore ingenious than Gears of War, in fact that's part of the problem.

Likewise Gears running out of ideas has less to do with the cover system, infinite respawning enemies is just bad design, that's again not a mechanic thing. Vanquish doesn't have respawning enemies, shit neither did Gears, even Uncharted stopped doing that. The Last of Us doesn't have em either, in fact the last game I can think of that had infinite respawning enemies until you hit this imaginary line is probably CoD4.

gears and quantum break

Isnt the The Division the next third person big hype coming out soon? I probably wont play it but theres that.

Not a shooter but I'll probably be playing For Honor.

I actually like third person better than first person because I feel like first person isnt realisitc because it cant give you peripheral vision. Its a weird detail that always bothers me in FPS games.

To hell with pure "TPS", I want to see a revival in squad shooters.

SOCOM was made into a "pure TPS" last gen. I want to see them bring that IP back, but make it more of a tactical/squad based shooter like it was meant to be. Operation Flashpoint is another one that they need to bring back. Take that game back to it's roots. Dragon Rising, in retrospect, wasn't so bad. It had some cool features in it that made it far more interesting to me than most shooters. Such as the ability to send your squad-mates to flank enemies, the bullet detection that gave you different damage on different parts of the body (or instant kill if you are shot in the head) - the fact that it was a bit of a sandbox environment. The next game, as I recall, was a bit embarrassing because the CoD wannabe story was very poorly executed - but it still felt more advanced than the CoD linear nonsense.

I don't know, Quantum Break looks pretty cool.

Aiming is much, much better in FPS though. In TPS it always feels sort of awkward to me, to essentially be aiming over someone's shoulder.

I do like games that give you the ability to switch viewpoints seemlessly.

Gears should remove Roadie Run altogether, that's probably the most dated thing about it. Just make normal running faster and fast running by clicking/holding the left stick.

Does fallout count?