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

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

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

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

TPSs have more potential; TPSs can do everything a FPS can do while FPSs can't do everything a TPS can do. The basic control scheme of a FPS is limiting, you can't even run forward while looking backwards. You can't even have typical roll in a FPS because of how disorientating it is in 1st-person and FPSs use a slide mechanic to include a similar mechanic but it's not quite the same. Cover systems are good when done well and they can add so many dynamics to gunfights (like what a cover swap can do). A really well done cover system can be used for offense and not just for defensive purposes. FPSs don't even use everything they can either, MoH Warfighter was the best multiplayer FPS last-gen because it had both a lean and slide mechanic, most FPSs are lucky to have one of them. Recently, the slide mechanic has become pretty popular in most FPSs but where's the lean mechanic? Even R6 Siege isn't a "real" lean. A TPS can have leaning too like MGO2, so leaning is not only for FPSs.

Here's a video of a Ghost Recon Future Soldier top player had to make a Movement Tutorial to show people he wasn't hacking or cheating. GRFS's controls were in a sense like a fighting game combo system in how you could combo moves together. The new Ghost Recon Wildlands is complete shit and it's control scheme went backwards like 2 generations.

Spoiler: GRFS Movement Tutorial

 

[Hawki]

Well, as far as shooters go, I'd say that FPS games are generally superior to TPS games. Key word on "generally" though.

That said, I will contest a number of claims, the idea that first person is more immersive (debatable, third person allows just as much environmental exploration), and lumping Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Gears of War, and Mass Effect together on the basis of cover implies more similarities between them than already exist. Likewise, I could lump Resident Evil 4/5 there as these games are in third person and you can take cover, but that's about it.

Which, given how good RE4 is (and to use another example, Dead Space), I think as 'shooters', FPS is generally better, but third person games can be plenty of fun as well, at least when the shooting isn't the focus in of itself (Mass Effect, RE4, GTA3, etc.), and some TPS shooters are fun on their own as well (e.g. Gears of War).

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Whether one or the other is inherently 'better' is purely down to personal preference.

I'd say the average FPS arguably has a slight edge on the average TPS. Maybe because it is the older genre and thus had more time to finetune its mechanics. Especially the basic controls, a vital element of any action game, which were ostensibly pretty much finalized (at least on PC) as early as the first Quake. The TPS in my opinion didn't really come into its own until the the PS2 era, and even then, it has significantly evolved from there.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

FPS is better if its just a straight shooter, but for anything involving climbing/jumping, manipulating objects, and/or melee combat, 3rd person is better.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

FPS is better if its just a straight shooter, but for anything involving climbing/jumping, manipulating objects, and/or melee combat, 3rd person is better.

Mirrors Edge and Dying Light did fantastic jobs on being first person despite having to use almost exlusively melee and where climbing plays a big roll.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

FPS are usually better than TPS. But TPS have the potential to be superior. Most devs are just doing it wrong. TPV is better for a number of reasons. But FPV has its benefits too. The question is too simple.

the thing is developers do not make third person games like max payne 1 and mafia 1 anymore. even later games in frnachise are ruined by putting once again stupid wall cover (max payne 3 and mafia 2/3)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I can't believe I totally forgot to post a Vanquish video. Seriously, what FPS beats the following?

TPSs have more potential; TPSs can do everything a FPS can do while FPSs can't do everything a TPS can do.

Yup.

Bringing up this question over and over again makes me wanna conceptualize my ideal third-person shooter mechanics. I want something fluid and versatile. It's a shame Hard Boiled hasn't influenced third-person shooters more.

My perfect competitive MP TPS would be a combination of MGS4/MGO2's perfectly sound mechanics plus Ghost Recon Future Soldier's cover swap mechanic. I'm not sure about what would be the best for single player/campaign though.

 

[iwinatlife]

My favorite shooter ever was Star wars battlefront 2 so Third person for me.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

FPS are usually better than TPS. But TPS have the potential to be superior. Most devs are just doing it wrong. TPV is better for a number of reasons. But FPV has its benefits too. The question is too simple.

the thing is developers do not make third person games like max payne 1 and mafia 1 anymore. even later games in frnachise are ruined by putting once again stupid wall cover (max payne 3 and mafia 2/3)

That's because developers don't want to develop games for 2001 in 2017.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

NO. Enough with the loaded questions. You don't ask "Do you think this is shitty as fuck?", you ask "What do you think of this?".

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

Typically, yes.

There's just too many common issues that pop up, and developers rarely seem to address them properly. IE, camera view, crosshairs, FOV (I'm looking at you GTA5), poorly done cover systems (which as a PC gamer I have a particular bias against), and the baseline concept just doesn't typically work that well for decent aiming or visibility.

The main reason a few older titles like Max Payne worked is that the games were designed around the idea of running and gunning like a madman. Precision aiming was somewhat secondary to speed, movement, firepower, and tactical awareness. With the popularity of more realistic gun mechanics in the last decade or so though, developers have tried to implement some of those same mechanics into third person shooters and... it really didn't work that well most of the time.

Also, and maybe this is just me, but I've never found the horizontally off-set camera design to be very helpful. If anything it tends to throw off my aim and make it more difficult to judge distances.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

FPS are usually better than TPS. But TPS have the potential to be superior. Most devs are just doing it wrong. TPV is better for a number of reasons. But FPV has its benefits too. The question is too simple.

the thing is developers do not make third person games like max payne 1 and mafia 1 anymore. even later games in frnachise are ruined by putting once again stupid wall cover (max payne 3 and mafia 2/3)

That's because developers don't want to develop games for 2001 in 2017.

luckily there are some developers who know we gamers like old school games. developers like id software and arkane studio. Doom is old school so is new Prey that resemble system shock.

I dont want regen health
I dont want cover system
I dont want hand holding
I dont want open worlds

We want game that has great deep and complex level design.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Why the hell would anyone even try to compare the two? They're completely different genres aiming to do different things. Just because both can be shooters doesn't mean they should be compared. Does anyone sane think that a game like Max Payne would be better if it were a first person shooter? Or that Half Life would be better as a third person shooter? Stop comparing these two perspectives already. It's juvenile at best.

 

[go-10]

I prefer third person since first person is damn near unplayable to me, it gives me motion sickness.
Although oddly enough Borderlands and Far Cry I play just fine in 2 hour burst...

 

[FalloutJack]

Speaking AS a player of the more recent Fallout games, I can draw strength from either/or. Third-person gives me the ability to watch my own back in a crowded situation. First-person aids in my precision aiming, which I need because I'm not as good at firing from the hip. I can see more of the world from third-person, though. They're both useful.