1st vs. 3rd Person: Let's Brainstorm!

[RYjet911]

-Limited FOV (no peripheral vision)

Oh boy you wouldn't be saying that if you saw my Eyefinity setup.

And the 24 inchers are going the moment I've got £1200 for three 42 inch TVs. :3

Although I guess in normal computer and console setups people generally don't have three monitors/tvs to use.

 

[Treblaine]

I usually split the genres up in to the platforms I own. Third person games are played on my Xbox 360, PS2, Xbox or what other console the game runs on. First person games, especially shooters, I only play on the PC due to the mouse and keyboard makes the games a lot less frustrating.

Call me crazy but I even prefer Mouse + keyboard even for Third Person Shooters. Maybe this is from my early experience with 3rd person Shooters with the likes of Max Payne, MDK, Heavy Metal FAKK2 and so on that I played on PC, but as far as I'm concerned if mouse aiming is good in first person, the same principals apply in third person.

I think this myth of "Third person shooters are best with gamepad" is more down to how traditionally console games had the higher proportion of third-person shooters, that are of course played predominantly with a gamepad.

I suppose I only prefer a gamepad for racing games where you pretty much absolutely need an analogue stick of some sort for the steering.

 

[Something Amyss]

I really do hate the lack of body awareness and the limited field of view in FPS. If those could be rectified, I'd probably play every shooter ever.

Well, every good shooter ever.

Well, most of them.

 

[Outright Villainy]

A disadvantage of 1st person view is the bad melee combat options. Just play Oblivion and you'll know what I mean. The only game to have done 1st melee even half well was Zeno Clash.

Advantages of 1st Person:
-You don't know what's behind you. Awesome for scary games/levels.
-Longer and less obstructed line of sight. 3PV is usually slightly above the head which means you'll be looking a little downwards the whole time. In FPV, you get to see farther and also get to see more sky. This might not matter in a corridor shooter, but in an open-world game it makes a HUGE difference. Seeing the sunrise in FPV in a game like Fallout 3 is really something.
-Easier to feel as if you ARE the character, rather than just controlling the character. This might be subjective and is obviously also affected by a whole host of other factors, but I think it's true.

I'd agree with these points.

First person really adds a sense of immersion for me.

3rd person works better in racing and platform games unanimously, but in most games I prefer a first person perspective.

Strangely enough it's the opposite for me. First person works against immersion for the most part (not all the time, some games do it well, most don't) because it tries to give the idea that YOU are the one in these situations, however my inquisitive nature always gets in the way of that by subconsciously asking "why am I doing these things? I wouldn't be in this situation".

3rd person view makes more sense to me as the established characters WOULD be in that situation, and I'm watching that, and it's my job to move the characters to keep the story going without delay.

I suppose I'm more ready to accept a complete world and its people than a pseudo-second world for my eyes, if that makes sense.

That makes a lot of sense; I think a lot of it has to do with the mindset you approach games from, or even what games made more of an impact in our youth, which could define what we see as the "right" way to see a game world. (hundreds of hours of goldeneye here.)

Also, interesting that you bring up the point that putting you directly in their shoes would make you question why you're doing it more. That really added to the twist in Bioshock in my eyes.

Spoiler

After blindly following orders for no discernible reason, the game goes and tells you that it was controlling you all along.

I don't think that would work as well from a third person perspective, given your point, as it would seem more like something that was done to the character, and less of a meta moment, which is what made it so great for me, personally.

 

[Anchupom]

The only time I've genuinely enjoyed first person view is when I was blasting around in MotorStorm, just beause I love go-karting and it gave me a sense of speed. Then I switched to third person and enjoyed it MORE and did better generally.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

1st person has more difficult platforming, 3rd person has less connection to character during gameplay. I don't really know how you could fix cornersight without there being a really awkward block on the screen

What do you mean by "connection to character"?

I would fix the sight around corners by implementing a fog of war type feature like in RTSs. If it isn't in sight it's a hazy shadow.

This is one of the first things I thought of too. I would love to see it implemented even as a proof-of-concept test.

well the whole unrealistic sights around corners, its not like both players dont have it, so i dont consider it a disadvantage

If one player is 1m away from a corner and the other is 10m away, the first player gains a huge advantage. It's unrealistic anyways, which might hurt immersiveness, but I wouldn't be comfortable laying confident judgment without controlled testing.

Plus head-bob and lens-flare are annoying as fuck. Why am I getting a lens-flare when I'm not wearing any glasses or a helmet?!

You bring up an interesting point with head-bob, actually. Although our heads do bob while moving IRL, our brains correct this on the fly so that we don't get dizzy. Artificial head-bobbing is distracting and doesn't recreate any natural human experience.

well for one, if you dont corner check yourself before blatantly running around a corner then good luck playing any third person shooter online, and you might say that, but after the disgustingly creepy amount of hours i've put into socom 1 and 2 online and gears of war 1 and 2 online, it really doesn't make that much of a difference, you'd be surprised. plus if your sitting there corner watching more then likely the guy will get you from the other directions, and i do see it happen all the damn time.

 

[HellspawnCandy]

Solution, both. I've always like Fallout 3/NV and Elder scrolls for that. I'm really not all excited about 3rd person shooters, they kinda ruin it for me. I like looking at things up closely and see what they are, as if I'm actually in the game and not a lakitu with a camera.

 

[SomethingGiant]

Snip.

I think it would be jarring if too many separate elements from 1st and 3rd person games were incorporated into one game.

I think it would be bloody hard to implement but conceptually sound if done well.

Personally I feel that first person lacks something.

Body awareness. IRL, your brain constructs a virtual map of where your body is in 3D space, based on the limits of your senses. I generally prefer 3rd person because you get that artificial body awareness, but it lacks the precision necessary for shooters.

Snip.

200 degrees? 90-degrees wide USEFUL field of view?

Actually, 200 was a little high. It's really closer to 180, which is still impossible without a curved screen. Although less precise than that central 90, your peripheral vision is much better at sensing movement, which is critical in most first person games.

Natural? Nothing is "natural" about video games, want natural games then throw rocks in a pond. Intuitive? That sounds like casual talk!

We strive to recreate natural experiences as game designers so that players can invest more into the game, so that there is a lesser interface barrier. There are plenty of games that abstract the entire play experience (Like Tetris or Bejeweled), but attempting to recreate the human experience is a common theme in any art. Try to apply your statement to painting or literature. Did that? See how ridiculous it sounds? We can do many things in the real world, but games, books, and films let us do everything else, so making believable experiences really is important.

We've had enough of that with the Wii, it may be "natural and intuitive" to point with a Wii mote but in actual speed and precision it is far less capable.

The wii, kinect, and move are not natural, intuitive, or anything other than gimmicky. Speed and precision suffer, as you said, and so also do weight of actions, movement, and more importantly the time it takes to translate thought to action. The technology is nice, but not as a platform for gaming.

Point is, my experience with actually jumping over gaps, I don't wait until my foot "feels" the edge, otherwise I'd have already dropped over the edge! No, I simply look down at the edge to see how close I am and time my movement. And as an experiment I've done this with one eye patched (lol, no stereotopic effect, surely I can't tell how close anything is durp) and did just as well. I know from experience how much of a chore it is to merely glance around in a console FPS, but on PC with a Mouse, it's so easy you do it without thinking.

That's because your 3D perception is based on stereo, parallax, and occlusion, not just stereo. Stereo is not essential, but it helps. Don't assume everyone has such an easy time jumping around with mouse and keyboard as you do. You have probably been playing games for half your life, so a mouse is like an extra limb to you. Nobody starts there, and some people will never get there; just because it's comfortable to you now doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Microsoft blablabla

Point is that you sound like a fanboy to the point of irrationality. Microsoft was a bad example tbf, but I am playing on a 10 year old machine. They actually made games back then.

*Shudder* not more of that stereoscopic 3D crap, that only causes MORE problems with parallax aiming.
This current 3D fad is an ignorant and reductionist approach to how human visions works. One eyed people HAVE depth perception as there are half a dozen ways other than binocular-vision to do that.

What problems does it cause with parallax aiming? How is binocular vision reductionist? We aren't taking away your parallax/occlusion vision, just adding binocular to the set. Two, not half a dozen, ffs.

Could you fix it by introducing a fog of war everywhere outside your LoS?

I guess partially. Still, if you did that then I don't think people would prefer that perspective for melee any more. Still doesn't solve all the other problems.

I don't think it could make them worse, though. Again, I would love to see some rigorous testing.

Third person can never be that good for intense and immersive combat, third person is best for a very DISTINCT type of video game narrative.

y u so self limiting? Just because it doesn't exist now doesn't mean it can't exist.

Doesn't exist? Uhhh, Uncharted? Max Payne?

You're the one who said never, not me. You had good examples, why didn't you offer them before?

I suggest second person shooters.

It would make for a very interesting game if there were a back story for it. Like if you're playing an assassin and either have to consistently stay in their field of vision to know where you're going, or make sure that you have yourself way hidden so there's nobody finding you standing perfectly still. Bonus points if the game makes use of 3D sound so you can still hear what's going on around you.

Alternately, have the ability to pick a target and see out of their eyes to be able to see how well hidden you are, as well as hearing what they hear so you know if you're making a sound.

THAT WOULD BE AMAZING. Seriously, it needs to be done.

Amnesia - The Dark Descent

Imagine that game with shit moving around in your periph. Bricks... bricks everywhere.

-Limited FOV (no peripheral vision)

Oh boy you wouldn't be saying that if you saw my Eyefinity setup.

I would out of spite But seriously, the size of the screen you'd need to actually cover the full FOV is pretty ridiculous. Even if it existed, it wouldn't be affordable to 99% of the consumers.

only noobs don't corner check lol

I hope that's clear enough. The red player has a huge advantage over the blue player. There's nothing the blue player can do about it. The problem doesn't exist IRL or in FP games.

 

[ripdajacker]

I usually split the genres up in to the platforms I own. Third person games are played on my Xbox 360, PS2, Xbox or what other console the game runs on. First person games, especially shooters, I only play on the PC due to the mouse and keyboard makes the games a lot less frustrating.

Call me crazy but I even prefer Mouse + keyboard even for Third Person Shooters. Maybe this is from my early experience with 3rd person Shooters with the likes of Max Payne, MDK, Heavy Metal FAKK2 and so on that I played on PC, but as far as I'm concerned if mouse aiming is good in first person, the same principals apply in third person.

I think this myth of "Third person shooters are best with gamepad" is more down to how traditionally console games had the higher proportion of third-person shooters, that are of course played predominantly with a gamepad.

I did not mention the third person games being only shooters. Take a look at platform games, the WASD combination for movement (which is basically a 8-directional d-pad) limits you in many games. Example: Lara Croft and The Guardian of Light. With a gamepad controls get easier, you have analog control of movement speed and direction.

As for third person shooters I to prefer mouse and keyboard, but in the case of GTA where you have target lock-on it's not that bad with gamepad.

Racers are hopeless with a keyboard, but that's a whole different discussion.

 

[Treblaine]

Snip.

200 degrees? 90-degrees wide USEFUL field of view?

Actually, 200 was a little high. It's really closer to 180, which is still impossible without a curved screen. Although less precise than that central 90, your peripheral vision is much better at sensing movement, which is critical in most first person games.

Funny because where my computer screen is positioned completely miss important stuff that is outside my 90 degrees field of view, (with my headphones on I can't hear shit) such as people walking into the computer room that is about 60 degrees off from the centre of my vision (120 degrees total width) I never notice people walk in even when I am looking out for them.

I also REALLY want a source on that as now you are saying the very periphery is "most sensitive to movement". I'd make the reasonable argument that angles much beyond 90 degrees (total vision width) are just not that important and certainly not relevant to platforming. I also don't think it'll change much in a melee fight.

Natural? Nothing is "natural" about video games, want natural games then throw rocks in a pond. Intuitive? That sounds like casual talk!

We strive to recreate natural experiences as game designers so that players can invest more into the game, so that there is a lesser interface barrier. There are plenty of games that abstract the entire play experience (Like Tetris or Bejeweled), but attempting to recreate the human experience is a common theme in any art. Try to apply your statement to painting or literature. Did that? See how ridiculous it sounds? We can do many things in the real world, but games, books, and films let us do everything else, so making believable experiences really is important.

Hmm, seems you mean something else by "natural" but I really don't understand quite what you are getting at as you are framing under such broad terms as comparing to fine art.

I suppose if you are playing a character from their first person perspective, then a mouse for looking around would be a more natural analogue for looking around than a joystick or wii mote.

That's because your 3D perception is based on stereo, parallax, and occlusion, not just stereo. Stereo is not essential, but it helps. Don't assume everyone has such an easy time jumping around with mouse and keyboard as you do. You have probably been playing games for half your life, so a mouse is like an extra limb to you. Nobody starts there, and some people will never get there; just because it's comfortable to you now doesn't mean it can't be improved.

You don't need that much experience to be good with mouse aim, most people are ALREADY well used to the muscle memory of mouse aim thanks to their experience with mouse for normal computer use, it's a small adaptation to "move cursor" to "move perspective". interestingly, almost EVERYONE starts there. What is in fact far far harder is a console joystick, people's only experience with that would be from games and even those who've been console gaming for MORE than half their life can't do what they could do within a few weeks of taking up PC gaming.

Microsoft blablabla

Point is that you sound like a fanboy to the point of irrationality. Microsoft was a bad example tbf, but I am playing on a 10 year old machine. They actually made games back then.

You can call me a PC fanboy, that's fair and accurate. But don't make me out as a corporate stooge, especially for a corporation like Microsoft.

*Shudder* not more of that stereoscopic 3D crap

What problems does it cause with parallax aiming? How is binocular vision reductionist? We aren't taking away your parallax/occlusion vision, just adding binocular to the set. Two, not half a dozen, ffs.

I mean the current attempt at bringing 3D mainstream, this active shutter and circular polarisation technology. It adds complexity that it cannot control for such as how the parallax changes with viewing distance, and even the subtle differences in width between different people's eyes.

As to parallax I already mentioned for on-screen reticules like crosshairs that's hard enough with third person as the camera's line-of-sight is so high above the bullets line-of-travel yet they must intersect with the target, think about how with 3D you will now have TWO converging lines of sight, and what about when they are not converging? WE humans are able to adjust our convergent point of each eye's line of sight, a movie or video game CANNOT do that, unless your graphics card can somehow sense how far into the distance you are trying to look.

Hence the reductionist, "durr, human has two eye, den two cameras, camera for each eye, hurr we got 3D" as it does not factor for all those above. Not to mention if you are ACTUALLY trying to emulate human vision all of a sudden forced depth of field effects no longer works!

I don't think (fogging the non viewable) could make them worse, though. Again, I would love to see some rigorous testing.

That raises the question, why has it not been done already?

Third person can never be that good for intense and immersive combat, third person is best for a very DISTINCT type of video game narrative.

y u so self limiting? Just because it doesn't exist now doesn't mean it can't exist.

Doesn't exist? Uhhh, Uncharted? Max Payne?

You're the one who said never, not me. You had good examples, why didn't you offer them before?

Key part there "never THAT good for intense". My most intense games I'd put on 1st person games thanks to 1st person immersion and the style of aiming you can get with 1s person.

 

[SomethingGiant]

Snip.

200 degrees? 90-degrees wide USEFUL field of view?

Actually, 200 was a little high. It's really closer to 180, which is still impossible without a curved screen. Although less precise than that central 90, your peripheral vision is much better at sensing movement, which is critical in most first person games.

Funny because where my computer screen is positioned completely miss important stuff that is outside my 90 degrees field of view

That is probably more to do with how focused you are than the range of vision of your eyes.

I also REALLY want a source on that as now you are saying the very periphery is "most sensitive to movement".

I should have said that they're more sensitive to light, that's more accurate. The difference between the center and periphery of your vision is that cone light receptors are in the center and rods are in the periphery. Cones require hundreds of photons to register a change, and rods only take one, although the signal from a rod takes longer to reach your brain. This explains why you can detect small changes in your periphery better, but you focus when you want to see the precise colour or movement of something. Wiki's got more info on it.

You have probably been playing games for half your life, so a mouse is like an extra limb to you. Nobody starts there, and some people will never get there; just because it's comfortable to you now doesn't mean it can't be improved.

You don't need that much experience to be good with mouse aim, most people are ALREADY well used to the muscle memory of mouse aim thanks to their experience with mouse for normal computer use, it's a small adaptation to "move cursor" to "move perspective". interestingly, almost EVERYONE starts there. What is in fact far far harder is a console joystick, people's only experience with that would be from games and even those who've been console gaming for MORE than half their life can't do what they could do within a few weeks of taking up PC gaming.

I generalize as much as everyone else but these are some ridiculous claims. I can attest from personal experience that people who have used mice before don't necessarily find it easy to transition to FPS controls. Nobody starts at the level of precision that you and I have. It's a skill that comes from many uncounted hours of practice, and one you obviously take for granted. Joysticks are harder, though. Agree with you there. Oh man, I just realized how tangential this has become. Ha.

You can call me a PC fanboy, that's fair and accurate. But don't make me out as a corporate stooge, especially for a corporation like Microsoft.

Ok.

What problems does it cause with parallax aiming? How is binocular vision reductionist? We aren't taking away your parallax/occlusion vision, just adding binocular to the set. Two, not half a dozen, ffs.

I mean the current attempt at bringing 3D mainstream, this active shutter and circular polarisation technology. It adds complexity that it cannot control for such as how the parallax changes with viewing distance, and even the subtle differences in width between different people's eyes.

Yeah, the technology still needs some time to grow. What you're citing is fair criticism, but it's criticism of the current implementation of 3D, not 3D itself. Sorry for picking at straws.

As to parallax I already mentioned for on-screen reticules like crosshairs that's hard enough with third person as the camera's line-of-sight is so high above the bullets line-of-travel yet they must intersect with the target, think about how with 3D you will now have TWO converging lines of sight, and what about when they are not converging? WE humans are able to adjust our convergent point of each eye's line of sight, a movie or video game CANNOT do that, unless your graphics card can somehow sense how far into the distance you are trying to look.

Hence the reductionist, "durr, human has two eye, den two cameras, camera for each eye, hurr we got 3D" as it does not factor for all those above.

I don't know where you're coming from here. Reality doesn't actually become fuzzy/clear when we shift focus, so if 3D is properly implemented then our brains should be able to incorporate it effortlessly without manual help.

You bring up an interesting point with converging lines of sight, but I don't think it's a problem. RL marksmanship operates under the same constraints, and people seem to do fine. A naturally more difficult interface might actually allow designers to remove artificial accuracy loss to further reward good players.

Not to mention if you are ACTUALLY trying to emulate human vision all of a sudden forced depth of field effects no longer works!

I don't understand. Could you explain?

That raises the question, why has it not been done already?

Why indeed.

 

[Tharwen]

I think first person for atmosphere and accurate combat, and third person for smooth, physical combat.

The atmosphere thing only applies to first person though, since it's hard to feel fear for someone you can see standing in front of you.

 

[WorldCritic]

I would mention 2nd person gameplay, but with the exception of the Siren game, I don't think anyone has ever done it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

snip.

hmm well way to change what i actually said right there, and i understand what you mean mathematically with angles and everything, but anyways im just saying from the ridiculous amount of personal experience i have had, corner camping does not make you advantageous, i've hardly ever seen anyone heads up getting beat because the other person was corner camping. even then usually that person was the douche with the 12 gauge, in which case you should have been more cautious before strolling around.

 

[Ciaran Lunt]

compromise eg quantum of solace
also first person gives a sense of responsibility over actions so should work well with moral choices

 

[SomethingGiant]

snip.

hmm well way to change what i actually said right there, and i understand what you mean mathematically with angles and everything, but anyways im just saying from the ridiculous amount of personal experience i have had, corner camping does not make you advantageous, i've hardly ever seen anyone heads up getting beat because the other person was corner camping. even then usually that person was the douche with the 12 gauge, in which case you should have been more cautious before strolling around.

Did you not mean that?

if you dont corner check yourself before blatantly running around a corner then good luck playing any third person shooter online

Anyways, that's besides the point. What the illogical POV does is break suspension of disbelief and connection to your character. Both of which are bad things to break.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Just from a technical standpoint, first person is easy it means you can ignore making a player character and animating him and since a player character is significantly more time intensive then other characters this could be a boon. By the same token, its easier to program things to happen from the camera then from the PC since some additional calculations need to be made to get player information.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

snip.

hmm well way to change what i actually said right there, and i understand what you mean mathematically with angles and everything, but anyways im just saying from the ridiculous amount of personal experience i have had, corner camping does not make you advantageous, i've hardly ever seen anyone heads up getting beat because the other person was corner camping. even then usually that person was the douche with the 12 gauge, in which case you should have been more cautious before strolling around.

Did you not mean that?

if you dont corner check yourself before blatantly running around a corner then good luck playing any third person shooter online

Anyways, that's besides the point. What the illogical POV does is break suspension of disbelief and connection to your character. Both of which are bad things to break.

not entirely, i was just pointing out that if you try a gung ho run and gun style your gonna get owned probably 90% of the time, unless the other person equally shows themselves around a corner.

and your second part, thats subjective, imo, what breaks suspension of disbelief and connection to me? not being able to see everything i should be able to see, fp in real life is absolutely nothing like fp in games, and that bugs me constantly, CONSTANTLY while playing fp games. (i still play them and enjoy them, but im constantly reminded that i have zero peripheral vision and i can't see what im walking on at all, hell most of the time you dont have legs, your a pair of arms with a gun mostly.)

 

[elcamino41383]

I massively prefer 3rd person. I can count on one hand the amount of 1st person games I enjoy. People often complain about the camera in 3rd person games. In my experience, only very few games screw up the camera and the tunnel vision of 1st person is far more limiting. I also get more invested with my character when I see him/her as a person and not as a floating camera.

Personally I feel that first person lacks something, usually in first person you only play as a gun with arms, and occasionally if you look down, legs.

IRL First person view, however is well, it's not like that at all. I'm not sure it's just a problem with peripheral vision either. To put what I'm trying to say in basic terms, In the real world you can account better for where you are on any given area and what's in your general vicinity better than in FPS games.

If that makes any sense, I'm not even sure it does, I know what I'm trying to say, I just can't think of how to say it.

ON 3rd person, I actually prefer it, and I think it works well enough as it is.

I'm with both of these 100%.

OP: From my stand point, your list pretty much covers everything. As someone said, maybe add a fogging effect when it comes to looking around the corners or something.

 

[Treblaine]

That is probably more to do with how focused you are than the range of vision of your eyes.
...
should have said that they're more sensitive to light, that's more accurate. The difference between the center and periphery of your vision is that cone light receptors are in the center and rods are in the periphery. Cones require hundreds of photons to register a change, and rods only take one, although the signal from a rod takes longer to reach your brain. This explains why you can detect small changes in your periphery better, but you focus when you want to see the precise colour or movement of something. Wiki's got more info on it.

Well that's all nice in theory but EVEN when I am looking out for things in my periphery (beyond 90-degree wide) I don't see them. As PC can already so effectively depict 90-degree wide field-of-view I don't agree that 3rd person is necessary to recreate a naturally wide field of view. If anything a point of view hovering a few feet behind and up above your perspective is a pretty unnatural perspective.

Or at least the advantage it does confer to more-natural field of view it costs too much in creating an unnatural perspective, such as the old corner peeking trick. Also the problems with parallax aiming and so on.


One advantage of third person is it is much smoother transitioning from cinematics to gameplay. Also great in a game where you play multiple distinct roles, Black Ops really failed as you jumped between characters and lose track often of who you are even playing... there a 3rd person perspective, for the narrative, would have helped.

I can attest from personal experience that people who have used mice before don't necessarily find it easy to transition to FPS controls... Joysticks are harder.

That's kinda my point, as hard as Mouse-aim might be, console-joystick-look is EVEN HARDER.

I'd really like to see what good Isometric Joystick can do for improving gamepad capability. But I need to find some controllable experiments to do somehow comparing a cursor controlled by a thumbstick and also an IBM style trackpoint. I'll PM you if I can find anything interesting.

Yeah, the technology still needs some time to grow. What you're citing is fair criticism, but it's criticism of the current implementation of 3D, not 3D itself. Sorry for picking at straws.

Sorry but short of a direct mind-machine interface 3D will never work as intended. As it is I will never waste my money on it. Even if I get the 3DS I will never use 3D mode, it's a gimmick due to how many factors it leaves loose.

I don't know where you're coming from here. Reality doesn't actually become fuzzy/clear when we shift focus, so if 3D is properly implemented then our brains should be able to incorporate it effortlessly without manual help.

Try this, face a wide open room and hold a pen up a foot in front of one eye (other eye closed) and focus on the tip of the pen. Staying focused on the tip doesn't the rest of the room seems blurred and out of focus? Look back and forth between the tip of the pen and the opposite wall, now you see what I'm getting at? That can be simulated either with a film cameras lens or a video game deliberately adding blur to force your focus to certain levels.

You are taking a far too simplistic approach to 3D. 3D at the moment is trying to be implemented like stereo sound, i.e. record right field, record left field, and send to corresponding sensory organ. Modern 3D is STILL a failure as it treats the eyes like passive sensory organs does not control for:
-eye shifting focus
-convergence of eyes' line of sight
-area of focus (not necessarily looking at centre of screen)

No problem at all here with 2D, all fails with this crude modern attempt at 3D.

You bring up an interesting point with converging lines of sight, but I don't think it's a problem. RL marksmanship operates under the same constraints, and people seem to do fine. A naturally more difficult interface might actually allow designers to remove artificial accuracy loss to further reward good players.

You're wrong about real life shooting, I've done rifle shooting and that parallax is easily corrected for as the sights (and hence line of sight) is only an inch or less above the barrel, so point-of-impact will only be an inch or less below point-of-aim.

But with third person perspective the distance between point-of-aim and point-of-impact would be so great you'd have to aim for the air two foot up and to the right of your target. OR you'll have to resort to converging lines which is a frustrating complexity that dilutes the purity of shooting. Causes all sort of weird glitches too.