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

[JUMBO PALACE]

1. Stop saying "CASUAL" like it's a dirty word. No one is forcing you to play any third person games you don't want to play.

You say that like games that don't cater explicitly to his tastes and/or earned his hype have a right to exist in the first place.

True hardcore gamers, like himself, know what's best. You should know that by now.

How foolish I have been!

People like B-Cell are why I've always disliked the term "gamer". I'm not anti-labels- I'm happy to call myself a weight lifter or a car guy, but christ, this hobby has some of the most uppity, self righteous elitists I've ever spoken with. I just don't have the energy or interest to get that furious over video games. I play them to have fun, why turn them into a source of stress?

It's even worse when you look at the FGC or MOBA's. So much gatekeeping.

I did my time in the clink for League of Legends. I'll die before I go back.

 

[Rednog]

Not much to really say. I skimmed around the guys YouTube page and I'll boil it down.
Modern games are trash go play Half Life 1&2. That's it.
God only knows why this guy continues to play games. My impression is that he deems every game is be absolutely worthless unless it panders exactly to how he wants to play it.

 

[Erttheking]

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.

Batman Arkham Asylum, Dark Souls, Witcher 3, Hitman, Dead Space, Resident Evil 4, Vanquish, Saint's Row, Spec Ops the Line, Mass Effect, Red Faction: Guerilla, Transformers: Fall of Cybertron, Sniper Elite, Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, Protoype, Infamous, Metal Gear Solid V, Metal Gear Solid Rising, Revengence, Deadpool, God of War, Warhammer 40k Space Marine, Jet Force Gemini. Just to name a few. Shooters and non-shooters.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

cover system did ruined entire thid person shooter genre... you take cover and can see what is going behind your back.

we can see what is enemy doing behind us. we just take cover and wait until enemy try to shoot then we shoot. no challange

what does these mechanic doing in games like assassins creed and hitman?????

How did the cover system ruin 3rd-person shooters when you could ALWAYS just STAND behind a wall and see around it just like the screenshot above with or without a cover system? You also fail to take note of games that actually utilize a cover system well that creates more of a skill-gap and gives more depth.

AssCreed was at its best (the very 1st game) a very lite version of Hitman. AssCreed has always been a super casual game where it's almost impossible to die. Hitman: Absolution was a horrible Hitman game and it had nothing to do with cover systems or x-ray vision; nobody in their right mind would waste their limited "Instinct" power to see through walls when you needed to use "Instinct" to blend in because the disguise system was shit.

Plus, what's so bad about cover systems?

IMO, nothing. Not inherently at least, provided they're used well.

Thing about cover systems/regenerating health is that they're the antithesis to games such as, say, Doom. In Doom, mobility is king - you have to keep moving, projectiles can easily be dodged, etc. You can stay alive as long as you keep your speed up.

Cover systems/regen health accomadate for hit-scan-type combat, where enemies will generally hit you if they can see you. So, while in Doom, a lack of regenerating health is made bearable by enemy inacuraccy, regen systems accomadate for greater enemy accuracy, and thus a chance to recover from your mistakes. Also, it emphasises using the environment to your advantage more - taking cover, knowing when to move, doing your best to take out enemies from as secure a location as possible, etc. It's a less mobile type of gameplay, but still quite enjoyable if done right. Least for me.

A lot of TPSs have become whack-a-mole due to cover systems. There's really no point in say playing Uncharted on Crushing difficulty because it does just turn the game into boring whack-a-mole and pretty much takes the fun out of the game. Crushing isn't really harder to play, it's just more boring to play. With that said, lots of games have always been made implementing game mechanics poorly.

Good and great cover systems can actually add depth while making the game more mobile in fact. One of the top players on Ghost Recon Future Soldier had to make a movement tutorial to demonstrate how to do what he does while showing he's not a hacker. Then, of course, Vanquish exists.

Spoiler: Ghost Recon movement tutorial

 

[Hawki]

back then console get different thing and not to be try to be like PC. consolization of PC gaming didnot exist until Xbox release in market.

Let's see...

Max Payne
Mafia
Doom
Metro
Shadow Warrior
Deus Ex
Prey
System Shock remake

That's a list of games you've mentioned that you're partial to within this thread. Apart from System Shock, every one of them has been multi-platform. And if you want a list of "ye olde school" of FPS games that have been mentioned by you or by Mac:

-Quake
-Doom
-Duke Nukem 3D
-Heretic

Apart from Heretic, each one of those is multi-platform.

So, if you want to lament the "downfall" of the industry, correlation doesn't imply causation here.

not single type of. if cover system, regen health, see thorugh walls become trend in every time of game that of course its is ruining industry.

If they were in every game, it could be argued to be hemogenous, but that's about it.

Yes they are. it doesnot matter who like or not. cover system did ruined entire thid person shooter genre and see thorugh walls actually ruined stealth games. what is the point of play a game when it play it self? you take cover and can see what is going behind your back. you see through walls and know what enemy doing. it just remove all tension and making game CASUAL!!!!

Jesus Christ...

So, basically, these things "ruined" the industry, and it doesn't care whether people like them or not. Okay...B-cell? That's not how the world works. Saying an excess of sugar in food/drinks could be reasonably said to "ruin" people's health because it's an objective measurement of human health. An earthquake can "ruin" a town because it does objective damage. But entertainment/fiction is inherently subjective in how it's developed and how it's consumed, so saying "I don't care if you like it, it's bad because I say so" is a falacious argument. I don't care what you do or don't like, but you're not going to win any friends by saying that you have the monopoly over taste. Same reason why I've never made such a claim either. Because I don't have a monopoly either.

Also, I'm tired of "casual" being treated as a dirty word. People can consume what they like and how they like, and you can apply the argument to anything and make it derogatory. Only played sport in high school and didn't practice every waking hour? "Casual." Don't go to the cinema every week to see a cinematic offerring? "Casual" film-goer. Don't read a book every day? "Casual" book reader. The term "casual" applies to time spent on an activity, so if people don't spend as much time on an activity as other people, berating them for it comes off as elitist at best. You've probably noticed by now that not many people in this thread are rallying to your side.

Then again, it's kind of sad that there has to be "sides" to this at all.

where is tension? where is suspense? where is immersion? we can see what is enemy doing behind us. we just take cover and wait until enemy try to shoot then we shoot. no challange.

Gears of War: Judgement is my least favorite game in the series, but, fine, I'll try to answer those questions:

Tension/Suspense: Those are kind of the same thing, but Gears has fluctuated a bit on those things. It's high in Gears 1/4, but low in the others, as the ones I mentioned tend to go down "action horror" routes. Sense of isolation, vulnerability, sense of the unknown, etc. That's diminished a bit since we've learnt more about the Locust, and the Swarm never reaches the same level as before, but here we are, fighting for a losing side with the fate of humanity at stake, against hideous monsters, and we're operating as a squad. Tension is inherent to the scenario.

Immersion: Gears has never sold itself as being realistic, but I do find myself being immersed in the game. Reading EU material helps, but Sera, to me, does feel like its own setting, with its own history, with an enemy that, as horrific as they are, does even have its own culture. What also helps is the banter between the characters. The Gears games don't score that highly in terms of plot, but do score highly in terms of storytelling (plot/storytelling are two different aspects of story, if you apply the Five Elements of Storytelling paradigm). So, yes, Gears is immersive, in that it's easy and welcome to become invested in the squad dynamic.

Cover System: Gears varies a bit on this. In multiplayer, I don't have any issue. Singleplayer can get a bit too easy at times, but both operate on the same principle, that cover/position is more important than mobility. Gears isn't a tactical shooter per se, but the tactics involved do revolve around those above principles. Know when to move, when to stay in place, when to outflank, how to deal with being flanked, etc. Like I said, these are more true in multiplayer, but the singleplayer has the immersion/suspense factors to carry the slack when the gameplay doesn't.

Gears isn't high art, but it is enjoyable. It can be dramatic when it wants to be, it can be silly, it can be everything in-between, and the gameplay is, at the end of the day, "fun." Course one's definition of "fun" is going to vary, but Gears knows what it is - a third-person shooter based around cover, where angles of fire and understanding flanking are more important than mobility. In that, it does quite well.

"Make Gaming great again!"

I think Mac is already saying that unironically.

 

[CaitSeith]

[And if you want a list of "ye olde school" of FPS games that have been mentioned by you or by Mac:

-Quake
-Doom
-Duke Nukem 3D
-Heretic

Apart from Heretic, each one of those is multi-platform.

To be fair, those games were created for PC first, and ported to consoles later (with subpar results). Nowadays multiplatform games are usually designed from the ground with console limitations in mind and released in multiple consoles and PC at the same time. Definitely a gain for console owners, but PC players experienced in gameplay designed for keyboard/mouse first, might find the experience... different to what they are used to.

 

[Hawki]

To be fair, those games were created for PC first, and ported to consoles later (with subpar results). Nowadays multiplatform games are usually designed from the ground with console limitations in mind and released in multiple consoles and PC at the same time. Definitely a gain for console owners, but PC players experienced in gameplay designed for keyboard/mouse first, might find the experience... different to what they are used to.

Maybe, but is that because development is scaling down, or consoles caught up?

I'm not really one for platform loyalty, but least as far as I can tell, mouse and keyboard does give a bit more accuracy than a controller, but that's about it, and the amount of difference is miniscule when compared to something like playing an RTS with a controller versus a keyboard. So, even when I've played PC-exclusive FPS games, I've never encountered a reason as to why they'd be PC-only (the same goes for console exclusives).

 

[CaitSeith]

To be fair, those games were created for PC first, and ported to consoles later (with subpar results). Nowadays multiplatform games are usually designed from the ground with console limitations in mind and released in multiple consoles and PC at the same time. Definitely a gain for console owners, but PC players experienced in gameplay designed for keyboard/mouse first, might find the experience... different to what they are used to.

Maybe, but is that because development is scaling down, or consoles caught up?

I'm not really one for platform loyalty, but least as far as I can tell, mouse and keyboard does give a bit more accuracy than a controller, but that's about it, and the amount of difference is miniscule when compared to something like playing an RTS with a controller versus a keyboard. So, even when I've played PC-exclusive FPS games, I've never encountered a reason as to why they'd be PC-only (the same goes for console exclusives).

Not sure if the development has scaled up or down, but the pressure to be released in all platforms ASAP has scaled up in AAA games (budget). That lower accuracy in gamepads has been compensated mechanically with clever tricks like iron sights aiming mode and auto-aim. But in some PC ports this translates the shooting with a mouse to point-and-click mechanics (like Battlefield 3 single-player campaign). Gameplay-wise, that can be boring for PC players used to more strategic gameplay in FPS. I'm not saying games should be exclusive to the platform where they were first created, even if the controller adaptation is sub-optimal (I'm looking at you, Dark Souls). I'm saying that titles maintaining their original gamepad oriented design in their PC versions aren't uncommon (whatever that's good or bad is up to debate).

 

[Hawki]

Not sure if the development has scaled up or down, but the pressure to be released in all platforms ASAP has scaled up in AAA games (budget). That lower accuracy in gamepads has been compensated mechanically with clever tricks like iron sights aiming mode and auto-aim. But in some PC ports this translates the shooting with a mouse to point-and-click mechanics (like Battlefield 3 single-player campaign). Gameplay-wise, that can be boring for PC players used to more strategic gameplay in FPS. I'm not saying games should be exclusive to the platform where they were first created, even if the controller adaptation is sub-optimal (I'm looking at you, Dark Souls). I'm saying that titles maintaining their original gamepad oriented design in their PC versions aren't uncommon (whatever that's good or bad is up to debate).

I understand what you're getting at, but I can't really second it, at least in the scope of personal experience. As in:

-I've never felt that iron sights are meant to be some kind of compensation for a game-pad or whatnot. I've played using iron sights in PC-exclusive games (e.g. Medal of Honour: Pacific Assault) and I've played without iron sights in console-exclusive games (e.g. Halo). In both cases, this makes sense. In Halo, mobility matters a fair amount, and I'm playing as a super-soldier in a space opera/military sci-fi setting, so, yes, I'm fine with being Master Chief and kicking alien arse. In contrast, Medal of Honour's level of realism varies on a by-game basis, but using Pacific Assault as an example, you're playing as a regular marine in a historic conflict. In real life, you have to aim your firearm for any kind of accuracy. So aiming down sights fits the tone in a setting where you have to be very cautious in how you approach the enemy. The Japanese rifles you pick up are crap, machine gun nests are hard to flank, you're fragile, etc. The use of iron sights, emphasising cautious accuracy over mad-cap mobility, fits the type of game it's trying to be.

I'm fine with both approaches, at the end of the day. But I don't see iron-sights as any kind of "consolization," rather a different type of gameplay that is fun on its own terms, if utilized properly.

-Concerning gamepads vs. keyboard/mouse. Now, it's an objective fact that the latter configuration has far more forms of imput at its disposal. It's the reason why RTS for instance is often dead on arrival on consoles. There'd even be some FPS games where the lack of imput options would be detrimental (tactical shooters I guess?) Still, every FPS game I've mentioned in this thread so far is one that could be covered by a controller adequately IMO. I'm not denying that mouse/keyboard is more accurate than a controller, but that's about it.

Basically, in regards to the things B-cell and Mac are complaining about, I think it's a bit much to attribute it to "consolization" or "casualization." A lot of stuff they complain about is stuff I see coming about either way, and I've never found the console/PC difference for FPS to be that noticeable at all. So, hypothetically, if these trends were to appeal to "casuals" or whatnot, at least personally, it's a solution without a problem.

 

[Kurt91]

As far as the whole "Controller vs. Keyboard/Mouse" debate goes, I figure that it's all up to how the game was designed. I rarely play first-person games because I personally am not a fan of the genre. However, I still will occasionally play something like the Portal and Bioshock series. With games like those, I'll use a keyboard and mouse because that's the most comfortable way to play. I also play a lot of older console games on emulator. I have a couple PC controllers for when I play those, or games that are more comfortable to play with a controller. I'll use a controller when I play the Arkham games, or Metal Gear Rising. Yes, the keyboard/mouse option is there, but I prefer the controller for comfort. Some of my favorite games are specifically designed for controllers, and are best played appropriately. Tell you what, go set up a Kingdom Hearts game on an emulator, and map everything to keyboard/mouse controls. Let me know how well that goes. (I'm serious on that. If you come up with a comfortable and fun way to play entirely through mouse + keyboard, that would be pretty interesting. Could be pretty fun with the first-person mode on KH2.)

Speaking of third-person vs first-person, like I said just a second ago, I prefer third-person games. The lack of peripheral vision in a shooter game just kills it for me. A lot of my favorite games are third-person. I love the Mega Man Legends series, and like I said earlier, I'm a huge Kingdom Hearts fan. Different types of game work best in different viewpoints. If you're making a platform-heavy game, you'll probably benefit more with a third-person viewpoint so you can more easily see where your character is in relation to the ground. If you want a shooter game where long-range accuracy with manual aiming is essential, a first-person aiming mode or just entirely first-person viewpoint is probably the way to go. Personally, if I ever get one of the VR headsets with a decent FOV so I can incorporate more of my peripheral vision, I'll probably set up a ton more first-person games to take advantage of that.

Regardless, if you like a certain type of game, then that's fine. You can play your Call of Duty, Dishonored, Tomb Raider, Dark Souls, whatever. I'll play my Disgaea, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Arkham series, Kingdom Hearts and the other games that I enjoy. Who really cares? As long as they're still making games that you can enjoy, just go ahead an enjoy them. I can totally get behind making a suggestion for somebody, but why do you feel the need to dictate what's right or wrong in regards to personal preference?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

-I've never felt that iron sights are meant to be some kind of compensation for a game-pad or whatnot.

They are, most of the time. While they started out in PC games as an additional nod to realism (Call of Duty being the first AAA game that did it, as far as I know), they serve a different purpose on consoles. The problem is that you don't get as much precision with a thumb stick as you do a mouse, so the solution was to add an aiming mode where you could get a lower sensitivity on the thumb stick and allow for higher precision. Thus iron sights or "aiming mode" were added to pretty much all FPS and TPS games on console, because it allowed for high sensitivity movement to look and move around and low sensitivity for aiming, all with the tap or holding of a trigger.

You're right that it is not originally a form of "consolization", as iron sights or aiming mode developed concurrently on PC and Console to fulfill different needs. To deny the importance of aiming modes in consoles is to ignore the massive problems that a gamepad has compared to a mouse in terms of versatility and precision input.

The old Shadowrunner game (2007) proved this beyond a doubt with its' Cross-Platform approach to matchmaking. People on Xbox were absolutely wrecked by people on PC every time, since the PC crowd had controls that worked much better for a FPS.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

People are still trying to argue with bcell?[/img]

We all have our ways of coping with B-Cell threads.

Some try to argue, alas in vain.
Some shake their heads in disbelief.

And some ... some just like to sit back and take the piss.

 

[NLS]

The reason we "need" x-ray/super/tech/spirit/eagle/bat vision in modern games is simple: More graphics, increased detail in environments and generally "more stuff" on screen has the downside of generally more visual clutter. As we move closer and closer to realistic graphics rendering, we're also making it more difficult to spot out important details like items or characters. This wasn't much of a problem in the first few generations of 3d games, since a typical scene would only contain the bare basics of environmental detail and any interactable pickups and/or characters would easily stand out. Highly stylized games (TF2 for instance) or indie titles suffer less from this, but AAA games with "realistic" graphics are becoming more and more detailed, and thus harder to make out individual details without the use of HUD overlays or other effects. This is also more understandable when it comes to 3rd person games, where the camera is even further away and certain close up details become harder to inspect.

As a side note: There are good old school fps games, as well as bad ones, and the same goes for 3rd person games. It's even possible to like both styles or even "bad" games.

 

[RaikuFA]

People are still trying to argue with bcell?[/img]

We all have our ways of coping with B-Cell threads.

Some try to argue, alas in vain.
Some shake their heads in disbelief.

And some ... some just like to sit back and take the piss.

But BCell threads... BCell threads never change.

 

[shrekfan246]

Enemies close by are small, which I guess is why third person shooters have aim assist.

Most of the third-person shooters I've played on PC allow you to turn aim assist off (or have it off by default if it's even in the game), and nearly every first-person shooter on console since Halo has had aim assist.

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.

Technically you can, you move the camera to the left, and then run right, and you end up running in the same direction whilst looking left. The worst thing that could happen is you slow down a little bit.

I believe what the person you quoted meant was that most first-person games don't let you sprint in a direction you're not facing, which is true.

So yes, the worst thing that could happen is that you slow down. Strafing isn't the same thing, and it still leaves you pretty vulnerable. The trade-off for sprinting is that you're harder to hit while not being able to attack, only being able to do that in a single direction and then needing to manually aim yourself is a fairly arbitrary video game limitation (though, in many cases it may in fact partially be for game balance reasons).

 

[shrekfan246]

Tell you what, go set up a Kingdom Hearts game on an emulator, and map everything to keyboard/mouse controls. Let me know how well that goes. (I'm serious on that. If you come up with a comfortable and fun way to play entirely through mouse + keyboard, that would be pretty interesting. Could be pretty fun with the first-person mode on KH2.)

I've actually been thinking about this for a while. Until/unless PCSX2 has mouse-movement control, I don't think it would be feasible to the degree where it's as good as playing on a controller, but the games would work as PC games even without overhauling their UIs. PC would obviously be able to have the benefit of just shortcutting all of the menus to certain keys (or redesigning the UI so that you don't have to navigate the quick-menu at all and just have a toolbar like most other RPGs these days), but even without that something like the mouse wheel could be used to navigate the combat quick-menu, left-click is your basic attack, right-click selects the menu option. Shift is dodge roll, E is block, Space is jump, toggle lock-on would be in the same Tab-Q-R-T-F area, 1-2-3-4 would be the face button shortcuts for quick-menus, etc.

Not the most elegant solution, but there's nothing really about the games that makes them incapable of being played keyboard+mouse despite how awkward the UI makes it seem.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

You're right.

Dues Ex Human Revolution and Mankind Divided completely ruined the industry with their cover systems, x-ray vision and regen health. And they weren't even totally third-person games!

 

[Smithnikov_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 does not involve see through walls and regen health and cover system.

Manhunt.

 

[IceForce]

Can't you just... you know... not use the wallhacks if they bother you? Every game that has that mechanic always treats it as an optional ability.
Hell, I played the first Dishonored recently, and that game has a wallhacks ability too. But it's an upgrade that you have to explicitly and manually buy/unlock, and definitely not something the game forces on you.

This sort of "RUINED FOREVAR!" complaint reminds me of all the temper tantrums people threw back when an easy mode was first proposed for Dark Souls. People complained that an optional game mode would "ruin" the game.

It's a pathetic and elitist attitude that deserves absolutely no respect in the videogame industry.