1st/3rd Person Shooters: Two Genres, Hierarchical, Or Same

[Kalyx triaD]

I say same, there's much too little distinctions between 1st and 3rd person shooters. I've found that people regard them as vastly different, which I imagine is to validate accolades: one could say "_______" is a great 3ps but if said game was measured against shooters as a general genre it wouldn't get as much praise. Not that there's some conspiracy to make 3ps games look better than they are, just offering an example.

VG Forum weigh in.

[Xero]

It's a slightly different perspective but it's the exact same gameplay. I don't think the perspective is different enough to call them truly different genres.

[The Jayman]

I agree with Xero. Same concept, different point of view

[Kane Knight]

A shooter is pretty much a shooter

[BigDaddyCool]

It is splitting hairs.

[Savio]

I dunno playing call of duty in 3rd person mode make it extremely shitty.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Savior I dunno playing call of duty in 3rd person mode make it extremely shitty.

Playing any game in a perspective not intended will harm it. That doesn't mean they're separate genres.

[Funky Fly]

Only difference I can see is that 3rd person shooters can have dodge moves like rolling without fucking up perspective/making the player dizzy as shit. Otherwise, it's the same shit.

[Savio]

Originally Posted by Savior I dunno playing call of duty in 3rd person mode make it extremely shitty.

I have to stop "rush posting" from work.

[Drakul]

I think they are different in the same way 2D and 3D platformers differ from each other.
The ultimate goal of the game is usually the same (shoot everything to bits) but FPS is usually purely that. It tends to be more constant through out the whole game which is usually just shooting room after room of enemy grunts. 3rd person shooters have other things going for it like story, stealth, multiple paths to the levels end, item collection and other objectives.

3rd person shooters are like the love child of FPS and action/adventure games. It has the best elements from each genre. When it's done right.

[mitchables]

Originally Posted by Xero It's a slightly different perspective but it's the exact same gameplay. I don't think the perspective is different enough to call them truly different genres.

disagree immensely here. was discussing this with my flatmates the other day. i find fps view too restrictive. it's impossible to see what's going on around or behind you without physically moving your character. in 3ps, you generally have control over the external camera and have a greater ability to get a feel for the environment, set up combo shots or exit strategies, and generally is a less frustrating experience when you're frantically searching for where enemy fire is coming from without compromising your actual character.

or at least that's how i come out of it

[Kalyx triaD]

I wouldn't say Fps has a restrictive viewpoint seeing as how the whole point is the POV presentation. Of course they can't get the actual range of human sight but I'd say they do a damn fine job and came a long way in immersion since Doom.

@ Drak:

Many Fps games have these qualities, though the more physical elements are in the 3ps games as the model would likely show off elaborate melee and platforming in animations.

Back @ Mitch:

It's funny you're actually complaining about turning to look at something when you wanna look at something, but unfortunately for your case you'd have to do that in 3ps games as well. The vantage point is actually the same with the key difference being your character (and his 'hitbox' is ahead of the cam).

We're not talking about free-control cameras like GTA or Red Dead, though even they become 3ps games after you draw your weapon.

[dronepool]

They're a little different with the same concept. I much prefer 3rd person over first person most of the time. A lot of times 1st person is the factor in my decision to get a game or not... usually not though.

[DAMN iNATOR]

They're just different camera angles nothing more. Therefore they're the same genre.

[mitchables]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I wouldn't say Fps has a restrictive viewpoint seeing as how the whole point is the POV presentation. Of course they can't get the actual range of human sight but I'd say they do a damn fine job and came a long way in immersion since Doom. @ Drak: Many Fps games have these qualities, though the more physical elements are in the 3ps games as the model would likely show off elaborate melee and platforming in animations. Back @ Mitch: It's funny you're actually complaining about turning to look at something when you wanna look at something, but unfortunately for your case you'd have to do that in 3ps games as well. The vantage point is actually the same with the key difference being your character (and his 'hitbox' is ahead of the cam). We're not talking about free-control cameras like GTA or Red Dead, though even they become 3ps games after you draw your weapon.

i was talking about free-control cameras, because some games that are classified (however loosely) as 3ps still have that ability. if we're talking locked position over-the-shoulder/behind-the-back, no-camera-rotation whatsoever, then i agree with you. but some 3ps include that feature without it necessarily falling into the 'action/adventure' category, and in those cases, the line of sight and general ability to control your character and its aim, cover, etc. is always much greater.

[Kalyx triaD]

The only game that comes closest to fitting that description is Lost Planet. Other than that you can line up sights, seek cover, and control aim in Fps.

I think it's the visage of it all. Really interesting. I drive in GTA and Blur (or whatever lets me drive) in first person and my bro thinks it's insane. My thing is; we do everything in first person for real. Surely you can be aware without seeing your avatar, even without the wider range.

How does anyone feel about Mirror's Edge?

[mitchables]

the original tomb raider is still regarded as a third-person shooter, or at the very least a progenitor to the actual dedicated third-person shooter movement.

[Kalyx triaD]

Says who? Gonna look that up, no offense.

[Kalyx triaD]

Will ya look at that. How... wrong. Why would they say that? Odd.

I'd say early Fps games laid the framework for modern 3ps.

[Extreme Angle]

Different IMO. Well, in games like stranglehold you can do all crazy jumps and shiz, works alot better in 3PS than FPS. Easier to see where the player is going to land.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by mitchables disagree immensely here. was discussing this with my flatmates the other day. i find fps view too restrictive. it's impossible to see what's going on around or behind you without physically moving your character. in 3ps, you generally have control over the external camera and have a greater ability to get a feel for the environment, set up combo shots or exit strategies, and generally is a less frustrating experience when you're frantically searching for where enemy fire is coming from without compromising your actual character. or at least that's how i come out of it

That doesn't differentiate them as separate genres, it merely means the presentation is different. Few other genres attempt to differentiate themselves so thoroughly based on perspective. 2D and 3D platformers are generally not so fiercely differentiated, nor are third and first person RPGs. Hell, Action RPGs and TBRPGs are frequently uttered in the same breath, and several games blue the lines. Camera perspective is harder to blur the lines on, but they're still part of the same genre.

Don't get me wrong. I don't play FPS and I do play some TPS because it better represents human vision, which makes it easier for me. That doesn't mean they're a separate genre, really. They're more or less the same thing, just one plays better to the way my brain processes.