jump to navigation

Would you Like Your Shooter with a Side of First or Third Person? June 11, 2010

Posted by maxfreund in General, PS3, Xbox 360.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

The shooter is the most pervasive genre in gaming today.  Each year’s fall schedule is highlighted by great games like Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, and Uncharted.

But within this one genre, there are two competing formats, the first person, and third person shooter. With two distinct styles competing for the spotlight in a crowded field, it is inevitable to ask which style of shooter is better, the first or third person?

I suppose there is no definitive answer to this question. Both have tremendous entries in their libraries. Halo is considered by many to be the greatest shooter of all time, and is a first person shooter. While critically acclaimed titles like Gears of War, and last year’s game of the year Uncharted 2 are third person affairs.

Thus the choice comes down to personal preference, and for me, the choice is clear.

It is third person all the way.

Now before I dive into my analysis, I must absolve myself on any bias. I have played and loved, Halo 1, 2, 3, Gears 1, 2, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1, 2, Uncharted 1, 2, Borderlands, and many more. Games on the PS3 and Xbox 360, both first person and third person games alike. One of my favorite genres in all of gaming is the shooter, and I feel I am able to make a rather informed decision on this matter.

So what makes the third person shooter the clear choice in my eyes?

Well there are three reasons why I prefer third person shooter to the first person.

First, third person shooters provide the player with a better sense of self. This might sound strange, but let me explain. The third person view is a view that is used in multiple genres of games. Most platformers, adventure games, sports game, and even racing games use the third person view. This means that gamers are comfortable with this angle, and intrinsically know how to move within the space of a level.

When a game is in the first person view, seeing your surroundings and moving is a much more difficult task. Mirror’s Edge, a platforming game released in 2008 was set in the first person view. While this game was met with relatively mixed reviews, it was universally agreed upon that it was a tremendous undertaking to create a functioning platformer in the first person. Simple actions like seeing a ladder to the left of you, or gauging a jump were extremely difficult in the first person view.

The better sense of self leads into the second reason why the third person view is better for shooters. The third person view allows for more creative level design.

I love the Halo and Modern Warfare series, but often times the level design can be a bit too linear or flat. The perfect counterpoint to this is the third person shooter Uncharted 2. Uncharted 2 has maps that are three, sometimes four levels tall, and since the game is in the third person view, it allows for complex platforming. You are capable of scaling the sides of walls, shimming along ledges, and jump from platform to platform, allowing players to find creative paths to escape a gunfight or sneak up on an unsuspecting opponent.

First person shooter levels are handcuffed by the player’s ability to move in space. Most multi-tiered levels use stairwells or ramps to let players move, and while this is perfectly functional, it does not promote the creativity in movement that a third person shooter like Uncharted 2 does.

The third, and final reason why I prefer third person shooters is the cover system.

Gears revolutionized the cover system. By allowing the player to attach to walls, they made it possible to covertly move through levels, as well as hole up and play defensively. (image courtesy of IGN)

Gears of War revolutionized the way third person shooters use cover, and this change has made them significantly more enjoyable than their first person counterparts. When a player is in a third person view, they can easily attach their character to cover, keeping their character and their surroundings in view.

First person shooters cannot use this cover system efficiently. If a player was allowed to attach their character to cover, their view would be whipped around 180 degrees; this would obstruct the player’s view as well be disorienting. So to combat this difficulty, the majority of first person shooters have decided to forgo any form of cover system. Players can stand behind walls, but there is no guarantee that their leg or shoulder isn’t sticking out in the open, welcoming enemy bullets.

With most first person shooters, you have no cover system. So you might as well lay down and pray you don't get shot. (image courtesy of IGN)

The lack of a comprehensive cover system in first person shooters causes many matches to deteriorate into giant mosh-pits of bullets and melee attacks. Too many Halo 3 games resulted with everyone running into the middle of the arena, wildly spraying bullets at the nearest person, just to be shot in the back of the head by the next guy to enter.

Without a way for players to hide effectively, a shooter looses an important layer of strategy. In fact, Rainbow Six Vegas, which is a first person shooter in the popular Rainbow Six series, actually allowed for a Gears of War style cover system, taking the player from a first to third person view when they went into cover.

While I have made my case for the third person view, there are definitely points in favor of the first person perspective.

Seeing the world directly through your character’s eyes, if done properly, can lead to a more immersive experience. Also, since the aiming ridicule is more zoomed in with the first person view, it can make for a more responsive and accurate shooting experience.

Modern Warfare 2 sold roughly 300 million in sales in its first week, so it is rather safe to guess that shooters are here to stay. And whether you enjoy the immersive, tunnel vision of first person shooters, or the more fluid and complex qualities of a third person shooter, it all boils down to personal preference.

But for me, give me the third person view.

Give Ezio a Chance December 28, 2009

Posted by maxfreund in General, PS3, Xbox 360.
Tags: , , , , , ,
5 comments

With the holiday season winding down, I have settled in with my newly acquired cache of games, and recently completed Assassins Creed 2.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the game, and plan to go back through it to collect all the extra goodies I missed while playing the main campaign, the overall package brought up a huge pet peeve of mine, and has driven me to write this mini rant.

Assassins Creed 2 is obviously the second game in the Assassins Creed series, which Ubisoft proclaimed to be a pre-planned trilogy during development of the first Assassins Creed.

The trilogy is supposed to follow the life of Desmond Miles, a man caught up in a modern day war between two factions, the Templars, and the Assassins. Miles is a descendant of former assassins, and so far the first two games in the series has had him plugged into a machine that allows him to relive the experiences of his ancestors, in order to gain knowledge and experience for the modern day conflict.

The problem that I had when playing Assassins Creed 2, is that it is an incomplete story, it begins essentially in the middle of a scene and ends with Desmond and his obnoxiously stereotypical chums escaping their facility. No closure, no self-contained story. I understand Ubisoft has grand plans for this franchise, and wants the three games to be played in succession in order for the entire story to be enjoyed, but they executed it so poorly.

If you want an example of doing it right, look at Uncharted. Uncharted 1 and 2 are complete, fully-fledged games that have a beginning, middle and end. Both can be played independently and provide the gamer with a great, immersive story, yet when played together the experience is that much more expansive and deep.

Assassins Creed 2 fails to be an independently functioning game, and for 60 bucks, that is unacceptable. But the most frustrating part of it all is that there is a tremendous story hidden within Assassins Creed 2.

I know who I would pick to build a franchise around, but Ubisoft has chosen a whiney punk in a hoodie instead...

Ezio Auditore de Firenze, Desmond’s Italian ancestor, is whom you spend over 90% of the game controlling, and is the year’s new badass. He is suave, cunning, and wears fashionable left shoulder capes. And the setting of Renaissance Italy is breathtakingly rendered, and a welcome change from the usual post-apocalyptic brown and grey landscapes of modern day games.

But instead of creating a tremendous, complete, compelling assassin game based around Ezio, Ubisoft forces Mr. Miles down our throats. The fact that most of the time you are in Ezio’s world, means that the player gains little to no interest or connection to Desmond, so the few sections that you are controlling him feel tacked on. But since the entire Assassins Creed storyline revolves around Desmond, the Ezio experience lacks the center stage it deserves, and Assassins Creed 2 ends up feeling like an incomplete experience.

For all the negative, there is a great game hidden in there. The time that you are Ezio is tremendous, and all of Italy is worth exploring, I really enjoyed this game, but hate that Ezio does not get the front stage he deserves. If Desmond was scrapped, along with his obnoxious futuristic war storyline, and Ubisoft gave me an awesome 1400s Italy assassin game, it would be on my short list for game of the year. Instead it is an incomplete experience that can only be fully appreciated with prior knowledge of AC1 and subsequent playing of AC3.