A single viewpoint is not best for every situation or player, or game style. Oblivion and several other games have offeed both 3rd and 1st person, switchable at a keystroke. More should do the same. Let the player decide when each is appropriate.

3rd person? please you didnt did you? lol awww you did

you better listen to PHJF next time.

This comment was edited on Nov 23, 21:53.

I much prefer PC gaming, but I'd be lying if I said that I've done more PC gaming than 360 gaming in the past 6 months.

Or that I do as much PC gaming as I do Smash Brothers.



PC gaming, as a whole, fits me better. But some 360 games steal me, and Smash Brothers with 3 or 4 people is as good as gaming gets.




For those waiting for GTA4, try Saints Row. It's a blatant GTA3:SA clone, but every single gameplay element is reworked and infinitely better. The humor sucks, but the gameplay is so much more refined. The plot is a bit better as well.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

Yeah, Dimitri's statement was pretty silly. If you want an imaginative third-person game that is fast, play FAKK2. Or if you own an X-Box, Ninja Gaiden.

Dimitri then I suggest you go play Jedi Outcast or Academy and explain to me how there is 1) less imagination and 2) slower. Or even Splinter Cell series.

Cover does NOT work better in 3rd person; it destroys it. The whole idea of hiding behind something is that the enemy cannot see or shoot you. Unfortunately you get the same problem. The third person camera is no less than cheating. It's far more exciting popping out of cover not knowing what to expect.

------
"Oh how awful. Did he at least die peacefully? To shreds you say. Well, how's his wife holding up? To shreds you say."

3rd person works better in GoW becuase of the added tactical elements of cover and such. I think it also helps provide a larger theatrical experience, whereas first person is a very narrow perspective.

There's also the difference in story telling. In an FPS you ARE the guy. In the 3rd person you both are the guy, and watching the guy. Maybe it's semantics, but I think there are some interesting differences to the story in how it's shown.

3rd person requires less imagination and is slower, allowing more accessible play. This is why console gamers prefer it.

See I find myself more immersed in 3rd person cause I can see the actions of my character, how they move around the enviroment and interact with it, unless it's a very tactical game like the Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon series. But that's just me. *shrugs*

3rd person is good for melee combat, sneaking, acrobatics and platforming.
1st person is good for aiming and general immersion.

Each perspective has its own strengths and weaknesses. While first-person is undoubtedly the most immersive, it is also the most limited in terms of what your character's mobility. Imagine trying to play Prince of Persia (with all its rolls and flips) in 1st person. You'd probably get sick within first five minutes.

and a perfectly good excuse to exercise gun control

Oh yes because robbers like those are going to give up their guns because of some gun control law. If Massachusetts were a concealed handgun state perhaps those robbers wouldn't have been so brazen as to rob a large group like that. It's one thing to point a gun at an unarmed crowd. It's quite another when you know you might find yourself facing several guns pointed back at you. I know I wouldn't have stood outside in that line for hours or days unarmed.

This comment was edited on Nov 18, 01:57.

And overall I think you'll see alot more 3rd person view games on the 360 and PS3 to show off the graphics

Show off the graphics? So there are no graphics when you are in first person?

Third person is good for "sneaking" because you can see around corners. I guess you could use that argument for a third person action game as well. As far as I'm concerned, however, you lose all sense of immersion in the process. You wouldn't *be* Gordon Freeman if you were looking at his ass the entire time. Plus I like the recent trend of Half-Life, Quake IV (for the most part), and Call of Duty where there are no "cut scenes." All the action is taking place right from your view. It's easy to lose yourself in a game presented in that way.

------
"Oh how awful. Did he at least die peacefully? To shreds you say. Well, how's his wife holding up? To shreds you say."

No. As long as you don't mind waiting a year or two for it to be finally released...like the HALO series and Jade Empire...

And as long as you dont mind getting Vista to play it...

well plus there are games that simply cannot be done in first person view (Jedi Knight Series minus Dark Forces I).

As for a FPS version of Gear of War? I don't think it would work. 90% of games these days sell on graphics. And with each 'next gen' console the biggest selling point is the graphics. And the same for PC Gaming. But with GOW I don't think you could do the gameplay mechanics justice with first person view, not to mention this is really the first 'showcase' of the Unreal 3 engine, and what it's capable of, ala Doom 3.

Plus it's nice to see Epic do something different then another Madden'ish series of UT.

And overall I think you'll see alot more 3rd person view games on the 360 and PS3 to show off the graphics, unless they are games like PGR3 where the interior of the car looks just as impressive as the outside.

But I'm happy with the slower paced type games as I sure as hell can't compete with my Quake 1 days anymore, I'm just not a spazing jump/rocket monkey

I don't know why but for some reason I found the level design in GoW to be fairly convuluted in alot of areas (take cover, kill, move forward..rinse/repeat) and the enemy/friendly AI to be wonky in some places. As far as graphics, atmosphere, sound quality, and the like is concerned...it's a very intense + visceral experience (just tends to get a bit repetitive but I guess you can say that of almost EVERY game). Can't comment on the MP component. Overall, good game but doesn't live up to the immense hype that surrounded it.

This comment was edited on Nov 17, 20:03.

what's wrong with third person games?

Nothing, just people being resistant to change.

Especially in the case of Gears of War... you just don't need first person. I'd imagine most people who've played it would agree; GoW's innovation doesn't come from being a shooter, it comes from its presentation and cinematic quality. It does it brilliantly, and the control works perfectly as it is... I don't understand why anyone would want to turn it into just another shooter.

Outstanding game.

"My friend has been playing console games since the first Atari came out."

What does that have to do with anytihng? I played Pong, does that mean what I'm about to say trumps your friends opinion? <rollseyes>

It's obvious he was playing on easy - duh. Hike it up to hardcore and have him chat with you. Also, it's a badass coop game - why weren't you both playing?

What's wrong with third-person games?

Careful. That kind of flexibility in gameplay style could be misinterpreted as being "consolized".

So you deny this phenomenon Lolicon?

I have those same questions about shooting people in BF2 and 2142. I mean a support weapon, opened up on someone's back for a whole 3 seconds and the person turns around and kills you? This has not happened just once, but MANY times.

I think some games just litterally toss a coin and say "Oh, heads, your dead" regardless of your position and weapon.

Did your friend have a Vectrex?

Didn't think so