Why separate first and third person shooters still?

[Ezekiel]

Regardless of perspective, it's still fundamentally the same. Control schemes are usually the same. The difference isn't like top down shooters and first person, or scrolling shoot 'em ups vs. first person. I think it's worth finally having discussions about where each is stagnating, getting dumbed down and outdoing the other mechanically.

If the big sites made their top 50 or whatever lists of (let's call them camera-focused, to distinguish from scrolling and bird's eye ones) shooters and placed many of the third person ones way down near the bottom, they could maybe help shame those developers into making them more fun again. Perhaps they wouldn't get passes for their cinematic qualities quite so much, or they might try to compete with the speed of some of these first person shooters, instead of being so slow and clunky all the time by animating the characters as if they have arthritis and always forcing the zoomed in RE4-like camera. Wouldn't hurt any, since those types of articles usually get more criticism than approval anyway.

Talking about them as if they are one might also highlight how samey and robotic most first person shooters are, how nearly every single one of them now is about aiming down those sights and having your movement slowed in any direction but the usual forward run, which usually disables shooting anyway. Or how the platforming is worse, how the field of view is smaller -- preventing you from knowing what's around you for lack of sensation in the virtual legs/back -- and how the hand to hand combat is usually so poor, sometimes a locking extended animation (Doom reboot).

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I would say to the title question, because TPS games tend to be looser in terms of movement. More freedom, even if its the illusion of freedom. There's scarcely a TPS title, even a modern one, that doesn't offer some kind of complex movement option that wouldn't work in FP the way developers do it. Not to mention most TPS titles are also cover shooters, and that also wouldn't work in FP, this time the way players expect it.
To the body of the message, would it matter? People will still buy 'em. Most people couldn't really tell you too deeply about any game they play, they just play it the same way their parents would watch Law & Order reruns. Its something to pass the time.

 

[Mangoose]

I would like a second person shooter.

I would say to the title question, because TPS games tend to be looser in terms of movement. More freedom, even if its the illusion of freedom. There's scarcely a TPS title, even a modern one, that doesn't offer some kind of complex movement option that wouldn't work in FP the way developers do it. Not to mention most TPS titles are also cover shooters, and that also wouldn't work in FP, this time the way players expect it.

Space Marine is an exception because you can switch into third-person hack&slash. I think someone is modding it for FPS but I'm not sure if such a camera translation would be survivable.

 

[Impressive Organ]

First person is superior because I like having a full screen view of things instead of having my character take up space on screen.

 

[Ezekiel]

First person is superior because I like having a full screen view of things instead of having my character take up space on screen.

Not the best examples below. MGS was never a very good shooter. I didn't have another first and third person hybrid game at hand. But...

Wide (though still not ideally so) third person field of view:

(Yes, MGS5 requires that the player zoom in with the right mouse button or left trigger before they can shoot, but it's not necessary in a straight shooter. Max Payne 3 had the right idea.)

Narrow first person field of view:

If the third person field of view were as narrow but still in the same perspective:

Yeah, you're still seeing much more in third person, even with the character on the screen, who is usually slightly off the center anyway. In first person, even without ADS, you have the big gun on the screen, so what's really the difference?

Even if it's the kind of game that requires holding the aim button to shoot, like MGS5, you see more than in first person:

Cropped and magnified to match the first person perspective again:

Still seeing more. Feels very limiting, the first person one. In real life, you at least have your senses and peripheral vision.

 

[gurugeorge]

The truth and resolution about the 1st/3rd person debate is:-

1) 1st person is more immersive in situations where you'd be subject to fear (e.g. dungeon crawl, haunted house, etc.) because it mimics tunnel vision, which is what you get with fear; otherwise it isn't, because you don't normally go around with tunnel vision.

2) 3rd person at some distance (i.e. inbetween top-down and directly over-the-shoulder, which is just a borked version of 1st person with a static image pointlessly taking up a fifth of the screen) is more immersive most of the time (because it mimics situational awareness - i.e. it "covers" for the other sensory cues, mainly aural, that are normally integrated with sight, to give you a rounded sense of your environment - but also for the way in which the visual field is built up by unconscious saccading and looking around).

3) The big downside of 3rd person view from the point of gameplay is that you can see around corners (same problem with top-down views, unless you have fog of war, which is just annoying in human-sized spaces or in non-turn-based games).

 

[JarlFrank]

you don't normally go around with tunnel vision.

I do though

 

[samuraigaiden]

Third person shooters are controller games. First person shooters are mouse and keyboard games

 

[Valestein]

I'm still waiting on second person shooters.

 

[samuraigaiden]

Second person shooters would have to be played from the perspective of the enemy shooting the player. It's feasible

 

[Valestein]

Second person shooters would have to be played from the perspective of the enemy shooting the player. It's feasible

Original battletoads game's first boss was in second person, it was pretty cool.



Also this.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Apart from the particular advantages of TPS in contexts where you need more environmental awareness or the like, the difference in perspective often goes down to the purpose of the game. It's easy to notice more simulationist games tend to be first person, while more generalist games third person. Take racers for example; simulation racing is done almost exclusively in first person or cockpit view, while I'm yet to see anyone play a kart game that way.

I don't think the distinction is that first person are necessarily more serious, technical or difficult, although that's often the case. Simulations are first person, because they need to eliminate distortions and allow singular focus without hidden complexities like the behavior of the game's camera.

Apart from simulations, one can generalize and say that first person games tend to focus on changes to the game environment made by a player who is not yet a "player character", without allowing this "player character" to form a separate identity from the player. Even in a game like Thief, who has an established and charismatic protagonist, as far as the mission is concerned there is no Garret, only the level and the player's intelligence and skill applied to the challenge the level offers. Thus you don't need to see Garret in game, except as a kind of reward Easter Egg when you locate a mirror. In Metal Gear Solid, seeing Snake all the time is essential to the way the gameplay is presented, because Snake is the hero and you're playing his story. Things are caused by Snake, but things also happen to him, which you're allowed to see from a detached perspective.

In a game like Tomb Raider, which is a glorified platformer, third person is obviously going to feel more natural. Just like any platformer, it's unthinkable without the protagonist. Seeing her jump, cling on to ledges, fall to her death, etc. is necessary as any other element. Controlling her skillfully will create a nice visual spectacle, while clumsily sending her to her death will make you feel guilty. It's one thing to fall into a pit of crude polygons headfirst, it's another thing to see it happen to a beautiful woman because you didn't time your jump correctly. Likewise with horror games where you can see horrible things happen to your character, which somehow is more painful than if it happened to a disembodied self in first person.

It would seem logical that anything would be more intense in first person (as claimed by VR propagandists), but this is a wrong and illiterate assumption. The purpose of the game and its aesthetics must be in agreement.

 

[Hag]

In a game like Tomb Raider, which is a glorified platformer, third person is obviously going to feel more natural. Just like any platformer, it's unthinkable without the protagonist. Seeing her jump, cling on to ledges, fall to her death, etc. is necessary as any other element. Controlling her skillfully will create a nice visual spectacle, while clumsily sending her to her death will make you feel guilty. It's one thing to fall into a pit of crude polygons headfirst, it's another thing to see it happen to a beautiful woman because you didn't time your jump correctly. Likewise with horror games where you can see horrible things happen to your character, which somehow is more painful than if it happened to a disembodied self in first person.

Mirrors's Edge managed to do all of this with a first person view and a good body awareness. Actually I would say the reason TPS are better for platformers is a better appreciation of distances and strides. Timing a jump is harder when you don't see your feet.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I'm still waiting on second person shooters.

People have already made several. The issue is that they're all novelties because its tricky to pull off, and its very disorienting to shoot yourself like that. Because that's what you're doing, shooting yourself.
There are several lists all over the place, they all seem to have questionable choices. I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing some MP-only game where the concept was looking over at the other person's screen in MP, but you couldn't see your own.
For my money games like Resident Evil qualify. Think about it, its got a distinct camera, but it isn't first or third person, its not any of the other options like side-scrolling or isometric. Almost always looking at the player in some weird angle.

 

[Ezekiel]

In a game like Tomb Raider, which is a glorified platformer, third person is obviously going to feel more natural. Just like any platformer, it's unthinkable without the protagonist. Seeing her jump, cling on to ledges, fall to her death, etc. is necessary as any other element. Controlling her skillfully will create a nice visual spectacle, while clumsily sending her to her death will make you feel guilty. It's one thing to fall into a pit of crude polygons headfirst, it's another thing to see it happen to a beautiful woman because you didn't time your jump correctly. Likewise with horror games where you can see horrible things happen to your character, which somehow is more painful than if it happened to a disembodied self in first person.

Mirrors's Edge managed to do all of this with a first person view and a good body awareness. Actually I would say the reason TPS are better for platformers is a better appreciation of distances and strides. Timing a jump is harder when you don't see your feet.

By the time Mirror's Edge 2 came around, I wanted a third person perspective. Not just because I wanted to look at that ass. You're much more limited as a "runner" than you'd be in real life, with full peripheral vision, a sense of touch and the ability to look in one direction while running in another. Never finished that second game, but it was more because of all the AAA bloat they thought they had to insert.

 

[Viata]

I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing some MP-only game where the concept was looking over at the other person's screen in MP, but you couldn't see your own.

Screencheat:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/301970/Screencheat/

 

[Eisen]

What the hell is a second person shooter?

 

[Nifft Batuff]

First person = third person whitout an annoying NPC always in front of you.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

What the hell is a second person shooter?

From the pov of the enemy.

 

[wishbonetail]

Personally im ok with fpp but third person usually irritates me. Not only part of the screen is obscured behind heros strong back, but also part of his movements in melee action and it could be hard to calculate distance to your opponents without jerking the camera constantly.

 

[samuraigaiden]

Second person shooters would have to be played from the perspective of the enemy shooting the player. It's feasible

Original battletoads game's first boss was in second person, it was pretty cool.

Konami's TMNT beat'em up on the SNES also had something like that. The turtles pick up enemies and throw them at the screen to hit the boss.

 

[Viata]

Second person shooters would have to be played from the perspective of the enemy shooting the player. It's feasible

Original battletoads game's first boss was in second person, it was pretty cool.

Konami's TMNT beat'em up on the SNES also had something like that. The turtles pick up enemies and throw them at the screen to hit the boss.

 

[CanadianCorndog]

Third person is more appealing from a "storytelling" design framework but usually the designers don't think about a reason for a third person watching the action. If the camera is behind the player, who is the camera? A friend? A ghost? Some random creature?
Super Mario 64 is an exception.