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

[Cold Shiny]

I don't think it has anything to do with the genre of the game, it has to do with the skill of the creators.

Both genres can suck, and both can be great.

Best third person shooter I've ever played is RE4, but we all know that there are a ton of crappy ones.

 

[CaitSeith]

"first person camera is more immersive."

Until you look down and see... you have no lower body! Jokes aside, immersion is overrated! OK, now really jokes aside, I prefer well-designed gameplay and cohesive narrative over immersion. The former two things aren't inherent to either genre.

 

[Souplex]

Depends. If first person games try to be like CoD where you're too squishy they tend to suck.
If first person games have bad design decisions like 90s ones before we figured out how to make good FPSes they also suck.
Otherwise they're pretty good.

 

[sXeth]

Third person shooting tends to pop up more as a mechanic in hybrid games really. Even your list (other then Gears, which I can't speak of, never actually played it) is all third-person-shooter-action-stealth-lite rpg melting pot games that do multiple things, mostly at an average to poor level.

I'd guess that a third person shooter focused on that gameplay aspect might polish out some of the more common issues. Obscene auto-aim, wonky hit boxes (FPS probably also has wonky hitboxes, but you can't see your character to know that they are being hit (or missed) in nonsensical ways). Sometimes weird camera placements.

The FPS is probably an easier one to pull off, overall. You have less worry about animations or camera, right off the bat. The players hit box can just be a literal box, since they can't view their shoulder to know the bullet went over it.

There are benefits to the third-person, of course. You can have more interesting mobility (play GTA in first-person and try and do the rolls without getting a headache). Its almost essential if you're going to do some kind of squad commanding gameplay. It offers a better presentation for cinematic moments, as you can show the world around the protagonist without them having to spin their view away from the action, or pull the camera back for a wider view

 

[bjj hero]

Field of view and movement are better in tps. Aiming and viewing the distance are better in fps. Both have their advantages.

 

[Hawki]

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.

You need to replace "we" with "I" in some of those cases.

 

[jklinders]

I generally enjoy TPS games more than FPS games. Superior or inferior is literally a matter of taste. The field of view is typically more natural. Movement is often a lot more clunky though.

I don't need to fell like i am in the game. I'm never going to get that level of immersion. I need to see what the fuck is going on around my character in a way that i would if I was not restricted to a narrow cone of view so that I'm not going to get nabbed by a cheesy closet monster in ways that would never work in reality.

I could pull a Zoidburg and ask "why not both?" Deus Ex (insert subtitle here) did a nice balance. FPS in general use and TPS when corner hugging. It's a nice system because it gives the more natural wide angle view when you are being stealthy and need it most.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Snip

Wow, you really put a lot of thought into this. The thing is I know exactly what I want from a MP experience but single player I'm not really sure. Do I want something like Vanquish but even better? Or something like Uncharted 2 but without Naughty Dog's shitty controls? Or maybe just a straight-up really really well-done tactical shooter with amazing enemy AI?

Funny you should bring up MP3 because it's literally the worst game I've ever played IMO. I hated everything about it from the gameplay to the writing. I hated that the gameplay felt like it should be fun and over-the-top but the way most shootouts played out was entirely against that. There were so many sections of medium to long range shootouts where there were enemies positioned at your 12,3,9 that you had to play whack-a-mole from cover or else you got killed super fast instead of having "fun" with the shoot-dodge and whatnot. The last or second to last level, the police station, was by far the best level in MP3 because it was a bunch of close quarters shooting and allowed you to have fun. So many little things were done poorly like not being able to go from prone to cover (having to standup first and get shot, then take cover), the shoulder-swap being mapped to the d-pad so you must stop moving to shoulder-swap, the fact you had to change weapons with a dial (just being able to tap the weapon dial button to switch to last used weapon would've fixed it), and Max's movement just didn't feel right. I realize those control issues are probably fixed with the extra buttons of the KB/M, but it's not an excuse for the poor button mapping on the controller either. Anyways I can see good few aspects you took from the game.

To me, there's no TPS that's as mechanically sound as MGS4. Everything from the sensitivity to the aim acceleration is just so perfect. There's no aim-assist. You have cover but the instant you press away with the left stick, your character exits cover whereas basically every cover TPS, you get "stuck" to cover to some degree. MGS4 even has advanced control options like being able to lean in 1st-person and shoot, being able to throw grenades underhand, and no contextual controls whatsoever.

Yes, it is superior because it does most of what TPS can do more organically.

In Far Cry 3 I can go up to some cover and simply hold the aim button, in say, Deus Ex: Human Revolution/Mankind Divided (which is an FPS, but uses a TPS cover system, complete with third person camera), I have to press a button and watch as Adam Jensen stick to cover like a magnet. It does have the ability to non-lethally take down enemies from behind cover but that could easily be implemented in first person faster and more believably as well. It doesn't matter if the camera is more natural (it isn't) when the movement is about as natural as the ED-209.

You don't need to take cover to use cover in a TPS either. If you watch any high-level play in an competitive TPS with a cover system, you'll see the best players use the cover system only very situationally because being "stuck" in cover puts you at quite the disadvantage due to lacking freedom of movement and if you do pop up and shoot, the other player knows exactly where your head will be. A FPS can't do something like a cover swap mechanic due to the limiting 1st-person perspective.

 

[infohippie]

First person everything is better than third person. But shooters in general suck.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

First person everything is better than third person. But shooters in general suck.

but they are better than animu games.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

They're just different types of games, suited to different types of gameplay. I like both viewpoints just as much. Sometimes, devs get creative and merge them into a hybrid situation because that's how they work best. Some examples:

Rainbow 6 Vegas: It's kinda realistic, but not that much insofar as you can take cover against a wall and it goes into TPS, so you can view and control and area, blindfire, etc. Regen health too, a very far cry from the realistic Rainbow 6 games that came before it, with slowly opening doors and leaning fine control with the mouse. But in this game where the pace is a bit quicker, it fits very well.

Fallout 4: I switched frequently between FPS and TPS. FPS when fighting in tight areas, or when combing for loot. And TPS when doing more long range battles, or to enjoy the countryside while I traverse large sections of terrain.

Recently, I have been playing thru coop Gears of War 4. Friend and I are fans of the series and decided to play Hardcore right off the bat. Surprise, it's no longer a waist-high-wall-shooting gallery. You actually get fucked really quick by staying and popping out of one spot for too long, sometimes within seconds of being in an area. One-shot kill by torque bows and grenades force you to move from cover to cover, shoot precisely and be aware of your surroundings, enemy locations and even what weapons they have (take out shotgunners before they bumrush you, because they also don't go down easily with one blast), and see who's swinging a grenade because there's no grenade indicator when one lands near you - just 2 beeps and you're dead. Also, the clunkiness of the controls suits the heavy armor of the characters and forces you to think ahead instead of just running up and emptying mags into the nearest enemy.

So yeah, while you can say games like Gears and whatnot are dumbed down, you can still up the difficulty and play it with a lot more involvement. Tomb Raider even on Hard though is just far too easy and you can literally pick whatever gun you like and pick off enemies one by one, upgrades are redundant - it's a bit of a cakewalk.

 

[Satinavian]

In general i prefer TPS, but i play both. In many other games i was really annoyed at ot being able to look at my surroundings and where exactly my body is positioned in relation to all the obstacles.

The more environment and layout matter compared to enemy NPCs, the more i prefer third person view.

 

[Rangaman]

I don't know why, but I just can't play first person perspective games well. So yeah, no.

Also,

first person camera is more immersive

Fucking...what? I mean...what?!?!

 

[Hawki]

Also,

first person camera is more immersive

Fucking...what? I mean...what?!?!

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.

 

[oRevanchisto]

Nah, I find the majority of FPS to be boring and derivative whereas TPS are much more varied and bold.