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

[Rangaman]

I think that's reasonable - it depends on the circumstance.

For instance, I'm playing BioShock right now, and I think having it in third person would be far less immersive. The first person makes it easier to spot the details of Rapture's design, and experience the horror elements more intimatly.

On the other end of the spectrum, let's take, say, Gears of War, which is a squad-based TPS. Among other things, it allows you to get a better sense of your squad as both assets and as characters. It also helps to appreciate the scale of some of the environments, especially in Gears 2 (another game I've played, Xenoblade, is served by being in third person because, among other things, it conveys how large the environment actually is).

Both perspectives can work, depending on what's trying to be imparted.

That's fine and all. But knowing B-Cell, he's stating that outright. As in, first person is always more immersive than third person.

 

[one squirrel]

1337 g4merz plai FPS, TPS's for casuls

 

[loa]

You can only have so much first person mobility without making the player vomit.
Meanwhile in third person, you can go all the way up to metal gear rising levels of jump dodge roll doublejump jumpiness and do cartwheels around enemies all day long, no problem.
You can also take it a step further and change the entire genre on the fly into, say, a sidescrolling platformer or topdown shooter by simply moving the camera into a fixed angle which is impossible for first person games. Take a look at the nier series.

 

[Cowabungaa]

It's a shame Hard Boiled hasn't influenced third-person shooters more.

Now there's a statement I can get behind. Or should I say, get over. By diving. With two pistols. And lots of pigeons.

Shit I should install Max Payne again.

 

[Seishisha]

Personaly i often find shooters to be either dull or average most of the time, doesnt matter much to me if first or third person. I think this may just be due to modern design approaches more than anything else, though there are plenty of bad older games aswell. I recall games like unreal tournament and raven shield being more appealing to me, than somthing like titanfall or even the new doom. Perhaps my tastes have changed since my youth, perhaps it's a little bit of both.

Since this thread seems to be somwhat covering the perspective as much if not more so than the game genre i'll chime in some extra thoughts.

Immersion in first person somhow being better.
Falling back on this argument always strikes me as a little weak, you can get engrossed with practicly any activity, reading a book as example and being drawn into the world, visualising the written world and giving voice to the characters as they speak. Listening to music and tapping your feet to the ryhthm or singing along to the lyrics.

Immersion is about so much more than simply being able to lift up coffe cup's ingame or looking down and seeing some legs, hell one of the most immersive game's i can ever recall playing was defintaly world of warcraft, that hooked me in and dominated my time at the pc and my thoughts when away from it, i entered that world fully and even now a part of my mind is still trapped there all these years later, i remember details about quests, about the things i saw for the first time. Immersion is inherent is all games and practicly every entertainment media.

The idea that first person is just better for everything.
This one is definatly in the purview of personal opinion but first person is actualy very limited for alot of gameplay styles. Though it may excell at shooters, climbing a wall in an action/adventure game would be rather bad if all you could see was the wall 2 inches from your face, i can't even imagine how a RTS without the tactical overview would play. (actualy i could but it seems substantialy less efficient, hyperbole is fun)

 

[Sing]

I dont't think one perspective is inherently better than the other one. Both can be used badly as well as good. Both have their pro and cons respectively. The issue over which one to use is more about how well the perspective fullfills the developers vision for their game.

Also, some players prefer one perspecitve over the other, and that's fine too.

 

[MHR]

Third-person shooters tend to be more cover-based since being able to see around corners and over obstacles is more conducive to it. FPSes are more pure in this regard, since you're forced to use more intuition.

 

[Worgen]

Pshaw, third person, first person, both of those are for noobs. Top down is the ultimate perspective.

 

[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.

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.

And I didn't buy either of them. If they'd been third person, I would have at least given them serious consideration. First person for anything other than just shooting (eg. Overwatch), is pretty much an instant "no sale" for me.

 

[votemarvel]

I've never understood the "first person is more immersive" line. You lack peripheral vision, depth perception, and spacial awareness.

Now true third person can hardly be called realistic but it does help replicate the three things I mention above, which for me creates a far more immersive feeling while playing.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

First person is only really beneficial for shooters and now VR. But there are still some TPS games that I've had more fun with than many FPS, simply because FPS gameplay is so limited. Even when it tries to do things that third person does better (platforming, melee, tactile feedback from the environment you're inhabiting) it too often ends up awkward and clumsy.

This is because arms and feet on a monitor is still no replacement for spacial awareness, which third person at least artificially provides through the character being in full view.