evernessinceGiving the player the ability to see around corners and where the character's eyes can't see isn't making things harder, it's essentially cheating. 3rd person shooters are casual shooters.

3rd person is fine for strategy based games but being 3rd person, it's far less immersive. CP Project Red choose well when they choose first person.

lynx29That's incorrect, if you look at the gear a lot of advanced soldiers use. I saw a video on it a couple years ago, guns with cameras that brings a camera feed to the soldiers helmet are actively being used in the military, etc. All they have to do is point the gun around a corner a little bit, no exposure, and get a 3rd person field video feed of everything to see what there next move will be. On the go, fast and tactical. Allowing for creation of new strategies on the fly.

rtwjunkieSigh...spoken like a true armchair videogame warrior. Things you speak of are not available service-wide, nor are they completely relied upon, because things break, systems go down etc, inc the real world. In the military, the best plans become go to hell as soon as combat starts.

The only thing a ground-pounder has are his/her teammates and their individual weapon, and what little they can see from their perspective. Training is even done this way equally as much as with high tech equipment because it won’t always be available.

Teaching note: Strategies rarely change. Strategy is the coat of paint you give your living room wall. Tactics are what are implement to push the strategy for the battlefield, and thise do change on the fly.

lynx29Yeah I agree with all of that, but the tech does work and has been used before, therefore there is nothing wrong with my analogy either. So... I guess continue to act high and mighty. lulz later g

lynx29That is your opinion. My opinion is that it makes it more engaging especially of the game offers a lot of variables and opportunities for strategy in positioning.

lynx29Also, with drones and advanced optics being used on modern battlefields, I would argue third person is actually more accurate in modern combat than first.

evernessinceNo, it's fact that you can see much more in 3rd person shooters. That's a trait of the perspective, that's not arguable.



Um no. This makes zero sense. When a soldier controls a drone he's controlling it in first person. Even if you assumed that the drone kept a fixed distance from the soldier and said soldier could have the drone's camera feed overlayed over his vision (which is not possible currently and brings it's own large set of issues), it's an extremely bad idea to have something making noise and being obvious constantly giving away your position. Real life isn't a 3rd person shooter, where there's a invisible camera constantly following the player. In addition, that's assuming you somehow got it to work indoors. Depending on the camera distance, many 3rd person games choose to cross section the building because it isn't possible to do that perspective and still have a view of the interior.

lynx29I guess we are watching different technology documentaries then, cause I have seen othrerwise in regards to latest tech on actual combat fields with special ops, etc. I think it was a Popular Science issue once, I can't quite remember. I read a lot of magazines and watch a lot of documentaries.

So your opinion is yours, mine is mine. Take care.

evernessinceIn otherwords, you can't be bothered to debate on the material of the subject and won't link anything to backup your latest claim that you read something somewhere.

And again, it isn't opinion that 3rd person comes with it's own drawbacks inherent to the perspective (as explained above). Try as you might. No one here is trying to dunk on 3rd person games. It's your stubborn refusal of the facts that you got yourself into this position of denial. Each perspective has it's plus and minuses.

lynx29yeah I am going to go through my backlog of thousands of magazines to just find the article for you. lol nah, welcome to my ignore list, don't have time for this nonsense, later g

dyonoctisThe thing is that what you are saying now seems to deviate a bit from the first statement about "immersion". Third person does give you more visibility, but that's not how you are going about your daily life. Then you used a very perticuliar example of using AR in the military. The Q warrior of BAE system appears to enhance first person, but you don't actually interact with the world in third person. Every other exemples that i've seen is the same : all you get is an HUD on top of your first person view, you don't get a full video stream at the third person to replace your eyes.


The fact that first person is more limited, is exactly what makes it thrilling. There's a sense of danger that is stronger, because you don't have an all mighty field of view. It's an hindrance that is used as a gameplay element. You don't like it ? That's fine. But it's not an inferior game design choice by any means.

People where bitching about metroid prime going first person, but that didn't stopped it from being a critic and commercial sucess:

lynx29that wasn't the one I was referring to. but thanks for your opinion, my opinion is still the same.

lynx29that wasn't the one I was referring to. but thanks for your opinion, my opinion is still the same.