I like both. I like both the Call of Duty style and Mass Effect style. They both have their strong points.
Poll: 2nd person shooter
- Thread starter Souplex
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay, so first person is you are the main character, controlled from his view. Second person would be controlling your character from the perspective of another character in the game, probably an enemy. Some third person games have missions or boss fights like this. Third person is from a removed spectator's viewpoint, like a movie, where the camera isn't a character in the game. Now I want to see Fourth Person, the guy watching the guy seeing the guy who is the main character. Mind-bottling, isn't it?
There are pros and cons to both.
FPS:
Pros;
-eaisier aiming, usually
-more emersive
-always looking where your going
Cons;
-no periphial vision
-charicter doesn't always respond well to the environment
-lack of realistic cover or moves i.e. rolling, blind fire
Third Person Shooter:
Pros;
-wider range of vision
-can look to the side without turning (in most), in case you still need to shoot but want to look for enemys
-reacts better to the environment
-more realistinc movements i.e. rolling, diving behind cover, blind firing
Cons;
-somewhat harder aiming (I personaly find it just as easy)
-less emersive to some
-camera may get off track on some of the "not as good" games
FPS:
Pros;
-eaisier aiming, usually
-more emersive
-always looking where your going
Cons;
-no periphial vision
-charicter doesn't always respond well to the environment
-lack of realistic cover or moves i.e. rolling, blind fire
Third Person Shooter:
Pros;
-wider range of vision
-can look to the side without turning (in most), in case you still need to shoot but want to look for enemys
-reacts better to the environment
-more realistinc movements i.e. rolling, diving behind cover, blind firing
Cons;
-somewhat harder aiming (I personaly find it just as easy)
-less emersive to some
-camera may get off track on some of the "not as good" games
3rd.
The cover mechanic can be used much better.
you can do everything as a first person game could do (ie. run jump shoot) and you can do other stuff like barrel rolls.
Yeah sure there might be a game that lets you do this stuff in FP but I dont think it works as well Killzone2 for example. The cover mechanic worked but it was much better in gears because you could blind fire and pop up and get someone.
I just perfer games like uncharted and gears because you can run around and cling to walls and climb up stuff which i find pretty cool.
The cover mechanic can be used much better.
you can do everything as a first person game could do (ie. run jump shoot) and you can do other stuff like barrel rolls.
Yeah sure there might be a game that lets you do this stuff in FP but I dont think it works as well Killzone2 for example. The cover mechanic worked but it was much better in gears because you could blind fire and pop up and get someone.
I just perfer games like uncharted and gears because you can run around and cling to walls and climb up stuff which i find pretty cool.
I can go either way. Mass Effect(3rd), The Orange Box(1st), BioShock(1st), Fable 2(3rd) doesn't really matter as long as it's good. (yes, I know Mass Effect & Fable 2 aren't shooters, they're RPG's, but I can't really think of any 3rd person shooters that I've played in a while. Felt like I needed to put something in for 3rd person. Both do have shooting in them and yes I just realized how bad of an argument that is. Please disregard most of this post for the dribbled spew of nothing that it is.)
As for the actual topic, it really depends on the game. If the game is more character drive (Such as Resident Evil or Gears of War) then the third person is great. If feels more cinematic, but can be tricky when it comes to atmosphere. Games where the events drive the story (Bioshock is more about Rapture than the main character, and the COD games are definately focused on the war rather than the soldiers) are more of a first person affair. First person is more emersive, however they tend to be more dismissive of the lead character's motivation and personal feelings.
Now, about 2nd person games; I think it's an interesting idea, even if it was just bait for this topic. It'd boil down to a game where the main character commands other people to accomplish the tasks given by the game, like an RTS, but still be a character in the game world. It's like Haunting Grounds, only the dog is the main character.
Now, about 2nd person games; I think it's an interesting idea, even if it was just bait for this topic. It'd boil down to a game where the main character commands other people to accomplish the tasks given by the game, like an RTS, but still be a character in the game world. It's like Haunting Grounds, only the dog is the main character.
FPS, only TPS I've played was Gears of War 1 and 2, they weren't bad but I felt it was better to see the whole screen instead of just part of the screen and the rest of the screen was filled by my characters giant back.
This, both views tailor to different games needs, like games based on cover mechanics, Gears of War takes advantage of the information provided in a 3rd person perspective than in a 1st person perspective, unlike Killzone 2 which neglects this fact.PS3fanboy said:
I enjoy both with an overall preference to 3rd (55/45).
Why don't we have more games with both options?
Oblivion and Fallout 3 gave both options but the 3rd person view was horrible.
Robotech Invasion had both. If I have one praise for that game it is that they did both well.
Oblivion and Fallout 3 gave both options but the 3rd person view was horrible.
Robotech Invasion had both. If I have one praise for that game it is that they did both well.
third person i picked because you normally turn faster then in first person
its just the facts i know
its just the facts i know