Mack from worth a buy explain why Third person games suck and why old school FPS are best

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

WOW what an informative review about todays third person action/shooters that involve cover system and xray vision.

these third person action games are what ruining gaming industry. why cant developer make third person games like Mafia 1 and Max payne 1??

lets discuss this video

 

[jademunky]

1st person games are great and all........ up until you actually have to do ANY platforming or melee combat (yes, I know, some 1st person games actually do melee half-decently) at which point they become about as user-friendly as trying to pick up a quarter while wearing oven-mitts.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I'm not gonna watch that. If he thinks third-person view doesn't have a place in games, as this thread implies, then all I can say is, wow, what a dumbass.

X-ray vision and cover systems aren't requirements when developing third-person games.

I have something to say about first-person games too.

Spoiler

I don't feel like the character in either first or third-person, but third-person at least gives me a visual of their body in relationship to the environment, whereas first-person gives me nothing. The point I'm trying to make is that seeing your character, their surroundings and how they interact with them is a better substitute for eyes and an actual body than first-person view, which gives you no sense of your character. So in that sense, third-person is more realistic. Some first-person games feature legs, but what's the point if you have to look down? In real life, you can feel your legs and the formation of the ground.

The disembodied character holds whatever they are holding like a robot, always up high in the center of their vision. I find a bit odd that people say first-person is more realistic when you're basically a tripod on wheels, with a gun attached. Its narrow field of view offers no peripheral vision. Increasing the field of view in a first-person game too much makes everything look too distant and weird. It even cuts off the limbs in some games. It's like you're looking at the world with flat eyes inside a little rectangular frame, mounted to a tripod with tank treads for legs.

You can't look to the side without stopping a run (because almost no first-person games let you run sideways, even though it could make sense if done right) or facing away from an enemy, since the disembodied camera turns in conjunction with the legs and the character cannot move their eyes. You can't look at your surroundings at all while running, even though your character has a neck and eyes. It's not done because of realism. If that were the case, they could simply reduce accuracy like they always do and have the character hold the gun with one hand if the position of their feet makes it impossible with two (if they were running straight and aiming to the right for example). Most modern shooters don't let you shoot while running anyway, so why can't you always run sideways with the gun lowered?

I bring this all up because of Resident Evil VII. First-person isn't necessarily more immersive or better for horror games. You can use the character model in a third-person game for horror elements. Sweat, shivering, a submissive posture, a pale face, wide eyes, slanted eyebrows, the head reacting to noise, heaving of the upper body. These are all examples of body language that needn't disrupt the gameplay. The old Resident Evil games had small touches like this. Body language is where a lot of the horror comes from in horror movies.

Let's be honest. The creators dropped the third-person view that has been a staple of Resident Evil because of P.T. and all the indie horror games that are so popular right now. The funny thing about P.T. is that Kojima planned to make the actual game, Silent Hills, third-person. The first-person view in RE7 is either there because of this current fad or because Sony made a deal for exclusive VR. I would be surprised if a Japanese developer did it for entirely creative reasons. Japanese games have almost always been third-person.

There are many first-person games where the perspective is ideal, such as Portal and Amnesia. But I don't think first-person view is better. It's just different. It shouldn't be mandatory in traditionally third-person games.

Third person games can be great if they are like Max payne 1 and Mafia 1. the thing is they are not anymore. they involve cover system and see thorugh walls. and regen health.

thats what this video is about devolution of gaming industry and why these type of games are ruining industry.

third person is also immersion breaking camera. you can see what is going on behind the back.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Third person games can be great if they are like Max payne 1 and Mafia 1. the thing is they are not anymore. they involve cover system and see thorugh walls. and regen health.

thats what this video is about devolution of gaming industry and why these type of games are ruining industry.

Plenty of first-person games let you see through walls and almost all the new ones have health regeneration, so I don't know what you're trying to imply. If the video is about the downfall of game mechanics, why does the thread title focus on the cameras specifically?

I don't like the current industry, but I also don't want games to stay in the past and never evolve.

I know majority of FPS these days are terrible but not all of them have health regen. good FPS do not have. Doom, Metro (partial regen maybe), shadow warrior, deus ex (again partial), Prey, System shock remake etc doesnot have regen health. but the fact is see through walls and cover system mostly present in third person game.

I cant see any good third person game around while i can find plenty of good first person games even thought most FPS are crap these days.

 

[CaitSeith]

It sounds like he is searching for who to blame for complex games losing popularity. Taste based reasoning, but I have heard worse.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I cant see any good third person game around while i can find plenty of good first person games even thought most FPS are crap these days.

That's your problem. Your tastes are too limited. You wouldn't know a good third-person game if it hit you on the head. I doubt you've even played many of the classics.

then my friend, recommend me a good third person shooter that doesnot involve see through walls and regen health and cover system.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I agree with some of his points in the video like AI, this has definitely need to be improved. I did just recently play Rise of the Tomb Raider and the AI is really basic and definitely ruins some of the fun. The whole thing where the AI comes through doorways or up ladders over and over again to easily get killed needs to stop unless they are like zombies. I don't think I really agree about his stealth AI criticisms as haven't stealth games almost always used a cone of vision? Although it does seem out of place in a game like Sniper Elite 4 as what's the challenge when you can kill so effectively from range while the AI has such short cones of vision? I played the 1st Sniper Elite on PS2 where the AI was much different & harder and also the difficulty would change how the AI reacts as well. I also think stealth games have always had the hide in bush/darkness/whatever and you're invisible whether it's Sniper Elite 4's bushes or Thief's/Splinter Cell's darkness. His liking of RDR makes no sense because the AI is such shit in every Rockstar game, RDR turns into a joke easy game of whack-a-mole once an enemy sees you with or without the slow-mo (even on a controller without auto-aim/aim-assist). I literally quit RDR because the gameplay was so basic and repetitive.

I see his point with regards to 3rd-person shooters and being able to look around corners being "cheating". But with that ability to "cheat" and look around corners brings something unique to the TPS where you can purposefully bait a camping player into popping out by moving toward the corner moving unnaturally. MGS4's Metal Gear Online is the least camper friendly online shooter I've ever played and it's a TPS. In TPSs you can see too much, but FPSs give you no peripheral vision so both have their own issues. Plus, in a FPS, you can't do something as simple as running forward and looking behind you like you can in a TPS or real-life.

I understand his point about the x-ray vision in lots of shooters now. I'm not a fan of marking enemies and them being visible forever like in FarCry or MGS5. However, I don't have a problem with giving the player tools to reveal enemies in a much more limited manner. For example, a sniper rifle scoped-in on a player highlighting them for a few seconds is basically the equivalent of an online clan having players giving great call-outs over the mic. Allowing for something like sensor grenades that highlight enemies for 5-10 seconds works as well. Forms of this type of "intel" are fine as long as there is a counter to it and as long as the "intel" can't be spammed.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I cant see any good third person game around while i can find plenty of good first person games even thought most FPS are crap these days.

That's your problem. Your tastes are too limited. You wouldn't know a good third-person game if it hit you on the head. I doubt you've even played many of the classics.

then my friend, recommend me a good third person shooter that doesnot involve see through walls and regen health and cover system.

You said third-person game, not third-person shooter.

"I cant see any good third person game around"

I'm not gonna recommend you any third-person shooters, because I know it's a waste of time. I'm even hesitant to rec you third-person (non-shooter) games.

so lets talk about non shooters.

most third person action games are assassins creed clones mostly if they are not shooters. otherwise they are gears of war/uncharted clones with cover and regen health.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I cant see any good third person game around while i can find plenty of good first person games even thought most FPS are crap these days.

That's your problem. Your tastes are too limited. You wouldn't know a good third-person game if it hit you on the head. I doubt you've even played many of the classics.

then my friend, recommend me a good third person shooter that doesnot involve see through walls and regen health and cover system.

All those mechanics can work if implemented properly, the problem is they are usually implemented poorly.

Spoiler: MGO2

Spoiler: Vanquish

A good cover system like Ghost Recon Future Soldier can be used for both OFFENSIVE and defensive purposes. Plus, what's so bad about cover systems? If you ever played an online TPS with a cover system, you know using the cover system against human opponents is something you want to only rarely do. Also Vanquish deducts points from your score every second you use cover.

Spoiler: GRFS cover swap used offensively!

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Let's not discuss the video. Let's not discuss anything that guy has to say. I've seen a few of his videos. Enough to conclude without a shadow of doubt that the guy is an absolute moron. He's dumber than Angry Joe and that is a small miracle. It honestly amazes me how dumb the guy is. He doesn't know anything meaningful about video games. Just the most basic things that even a child knows. And his thoughts (if you can even call them that) are as shallow as they get. He's basically a dudebro who doesn't understand anything that's more complex than a first person shooter that can be played by a six year old. He's the Donald Trump of gaming videos.

 

[Bad Jim]

I don't think he has a clue about AI.

First example MGS 5 enemies are short sighted. But enemies in Metal Gear games have never been very perceptive:
That player is obviously abusing the AI on a level most players couldn't replicate but it's clear the enemies are far less perceptive than a normal person. Everyone who has played the older MGS games knows this.

Next we see an example from Rise of the Tomb Raider. But if we look back through the Tomb Raider series, do we find amazing AI? Well no:

Half Life 2 does have good AI, but the aspect that seems to amaze him is the fact that it can make different decisions in the same situation. That is, it uses the AI roulette, randomly selecting it's behavior. This is a good technique as it makes enemies less predictable and the casual player will often infer intelligence that isn't there. But it's also an easy to implement and very common technique. And for all his damning criticism of enemies in modern games not being able to see him:

So no, I don't think AI has been getting worse.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Meh, I'll take my Nioh and Arkham games over Mafia or Max Payne any day. But then, I'm not fond of Shooters.

A slight defense of Detective/Eagle/Focus vision

While Detective Mode has become an overused gameplay mechanic, at this point it may be necessary because of the way games are designed now. Detective/Focus Mode are useful for highlighting important or lootable points of interest. It's pretty annoying to get stuck in a room and have to crawl along the wall waiting for a button prompt to appear. And, hey, here's two chests. One is lootable, the other isn't. Can you tell the difference? No? Because there is no visual difference! You'll just have to go to each one and tap X/Square until something pops up. And what about these drawers? Better be looking for that button prompt. Or you could use Focus Vision, find whats lootable, and get back to what you really want to do. Slaughter your enemies!

Not gonna defend detective modes that reveal enemy locations. In the Arkham games it felt fine because, While most other characters are trying to stay alive during stealth missions, Batman is basically hunting. Batman's Predator Modes is more about how to take out your enemies as quickly as possible while scaring the ever living piss out of them. Assassin's Creed's Eagle Vision feels unnecessary and I have no idea why it's in Mafia III.

Here's hoping Horizon Zero Dawn at least gives a reason for why Aloy has it.

 

[Skatalite]

I agree on some points, but it's basically just half an hour of some guy making dumb generalizations about modern gaming. "Games these days are dreadful, they're all soulless, and they all look the same" (followed by praising RDR, contradicting everything he's been talking about until then). Waste of time.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

He's a clown. His rants are entertaining because he's so off base about almost everything, but nothing he says should be taken seriously.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

A slight defense of Detective/Eagle/Focus vision

While Detective Mode has become an overused gameplay mechanic, at this point it may be necessary because of the way games are designed now. Detective/Focus Mode are useful for highlighting important or lootable points of interest. It's pretty annoying to get stuck in a room and have to crawl along the wall waiting for a button prompt to appear. And, hey, here's two chests. One is lootable, the other isn't. Can you tell the difference? No? Because there is no visual difference! You'll just have to go to each one and tap X/Square until something pops up. And what about these drawers? Better be looking for that button prompt. Or you could use Focus Vision, find whats lootable, and get back to what you really want to do. Slaughter your enemies!

You know what, I agree. I know there are people who consider mechanics like item glow or vision modes to be needless handholding.
I consider them something else:

Timesavers.

To put into perspective my opinion, there was a time when visually filtering the useful stuff in the environment from the useless was fairly easy, at least in games with full 3d environments.[footnote]Pre-rendered backgrounds are a different story. "Pixelhunting" has always been my biggest issue with old school point&click advanture games.[/footnote] Things were usually sparse enough that any pickup lying on the ground or interactible on a wall stood out enough that you could see them and think "Can I do something with that?", without the aid of item glow or vision modes. We probably all have stories about walking through a level in, let's say Doom, and coming across a wall with slightly different color or texture. "Let's press Space on that".

But as visual fidelity increased, so did the amount of detail in environments. More props. More interactible stuff. Not all of it useful to the player. To the point that pickups can start to just blend into the background, unless you already know what to look for. Unless you have some visual aid to help you filter them out. For example, until I learned what they looked like, I had a bit of a hard time finding stuff when I first started playing Dishonored 2, much more so than the first game. And that was with the item glow on.

"You're just a scrub. Real gamers would explore every nook and cranny".

Yeah no, I'm sorry, but I no longer have the time or patience to rub my face and press use on every prop and surface. It wastes my time and is not fun to me. Good visual design can greatly help, but even so, give me my glowing outlines or predator vision anytime. My tolerance for it depends on a game's genre though, but even many modern games that are built around exploration and scavenging, or have it as an important element, provide some kind of assistance. Dark Souls is equal parts combat and exploration, but items still stand out as big balls of white light. RE7 is a return to the scarcity and scrounging for health and ammo of the first game, but there are still a limited number of items that lets you see pickups through walls.

And that's fine if you ask me.

Ok, guess I should say something on-topic now. Euhm, watched the first couple of minutes of that video. Had a good laugh and stopped watching. The guy is a dumbass.