who prefers which and why?

can't stand 3rd person at all! 1st person all the way.

Doesn't matter to me. If it's good, I like it :p

I have been a FPS guy for the longest time, and the 1st TPS I played was GoW, and it initially took some getting used to. I have just started playing GRAW 2, and again, the aiming is a little harder, but I get used to it. At the end TPS tend to lend to stealth more with the cover systems, but games like R6V is a FPS and yet has a decent cover system.

I think that TPS lend to a a variety of gameplay, and thus is great to have as opposed to the multiple FPS that are out there. I would buy GRAW3 over R6V3 if I had to choose only 1.

Tend to like 3rd PS on consoles, Love FPS with a KB\M.

Don't like how nuked they are for controllers.

1st person makes me dizzy. i like the wider view of 3rd.

hate 1st love 3rd

I like both, but I'm much better at 1st person

Depends on the game. Gears of War (yes, I know it's a 360 game) and Uncharted would both suck as FPS's, but that doesn't mean I don't love them.

Likewise, I wouldn't want to see a Call of Duty game as a 3PS.

Not a big fan of shooters in general... but 3rd person like Grand Theft or Tomb Raider works well for me. The aiming in Drake drove me nuts however, I just couldn't play that game at all. Almost every 1st person game I've played makes me dizy/sick. I have horrible time judging distances in those 1st person games.

For the longest time I couldn't even play driving games using the bummer-cam or in car / 1st person view but now that I have a wheel/pedal setup its alot more natural and I feel a huge disconnect if I play from the 3rd person/behind the car camera setup.

I really enjoy shooters and play both. Thats said I find more 3rd person games just don't get it "right" with the controls or view.

For adventure games, like Dead space, Drake, MGS4, 3rd person is great. So I like both.

I prefer 3rd when it's an up close and personal game like Deadspace but like 1st for a game like CoD4.

I LOVE BioShock. I LOVE Uncharted. So.....

:confused:

Don't like either, but 3rd if I have to choose.

I'll play either as long as "SOCOM" isn't in the game's name.

I shoot both ways. :eek:

I can do both... however, I've become a fan of 1st person shooters on consoles because they've come really close to emulating what you could do on the PC.

Also, you cannot manipulate the camera to see around corners in FPS's. So that's another reason why I would prefer FPS over 3PS.

They both have ups and downs. 3rd person has a wider field of view with better peripheral vision. But there will always be a small blindspot right in front of the character. 1st person allows more accuracy in firing weapons and interacting with environmental objects, but it's easier to be blindsided by an enemy. And developers tend to stretch the horizontal edges of a 1st person widescreen frame, which can be unsettling.

I would rather play in 3rd person ala Socom, Ghost Recon, Dead Space. I think you have better sight as far as things going on around you (especially peripheral). In FPS mode I usually end up running into objects because I can't see them (very frustrating). I can play both, just prefer 3rd.

Also, you cannot manipulate the camera to see around corners in FPS's. So that's another reason why I would prefer FPS over 3PS.

That's one of the things I prefer about 3PS, tends to lead to more strategic movements.

Also, in FPS you feel like you have tunnel vision and grenades and other things at your feet can't be seen.

So yeah, definitely 3rd for me.

That's one of the things I prefer about 3PS, tends to lead to more strategic movements.

Also, in FPS you feel like you have tunnel vision and grenades and other things at your feet can't be seen.

So yeah, definitely 3rd for me.

Welcome to the real world. Having been in the military and been deployed into real combat, FPS's give me the next best thing to reliving life on the battlefield (no pun intended).

Unless you're using some high tech technology/equipment, you're not going to be able to see around corners.

Welcome to the real world. Having been in the military and been deployed into real combat, FPS's give me the next best thing to reliving life on the battlefield (no pun intended).

Unless you're using some high tech technology/equipment, you're not going to be able to see around corners.

I wish I could use something to see around a corner. I might have avoided that mustard hotdog on my shirt if I did.

Welcome to the real world. Having been in the military and been deployed into real combat, FPS's give me the next best thing to reliving life on the battlefield (no pun intended).

Unless you're using some high tech technology/equipment, you're not going to be able to see around corners.

There's no doubt that it's not possible to see around corners in real life, but most of us don't have tunnel vision and we can usually see things at our feet too. Both views are not realistic, so it just comes down to what flaws you can put up with more, or just enjoy.

FPS for me. Just like racing games, first person views give a better sense of realism, urgency and requirement for precision.

I like TPS better for when you're playing a character (i.e., Nathan Drake, Marcus Fenix, etc.), because at least for me it feels more like you're actually playing with the person instead of just having to go by what people tell you. It's one reason I never really 'felt' like I was Gordon Freeman while playing HL2. I also enjoy it a lot in games like SOCOM because whether realistic or not, it adds a strategic element that makes the gameplay that much more exciting.

I like them both, depending on the genre and implementation.

For SHOOTERS, FPS is the most immersive. Run n'gun or cover system, as long as the game is designed well, it works. But any sort of platforming element or extensive melee system is very clunky and awkward in FPS mode.

TPS works well with really wacky environments or melee heavy games. I think it also helps when your character has lots of clothing/appearance options, or when the devs really want to show off their environment.

For example, Fallout 3 works as a FPS as it is almost a stright shooter for me. But Fable 2 and Dead Space are much more enjoyable as TPS since they both have WOW environments and lots of melee combat. I though Oblivion was hurt a bit due to the FPS viewpoint (I thought the TPS view was not very satisfying).

I prefer 3rd person for platform type games like Ratchet and Clank, while realistic games are better as 1st person.

There's no doubt that it's not possible to see around corners in real life, but most of us don't have tunnel vision and we can usually see things at our feet too. Both views are not realistic, so it just comes down to what flaws you can put up with more, or just enjoy.

Sure you have tunnel vision, just try to see what's in your periphrary when driving. Your vision becomes less reliable the faster you move. It's just how our eyes are "built". You can practice at making your periphreal vision stronger but it's still a weakness in humans. As for seeing things near your feet you'd have to look down to see them, nothing a game can't replicate.

Sure you have tunnel vision, just try to see what's in your periphrary when driving. Your vision becomes less reliable the faster you move. It's just how our eyes are "built". You can practice at making your periphreal vision stronger but it's still a weakness in humans. As for seeing things near your feet you'd have to look down to see them, nothing a game can't replicate.
In real life you can look in a wide variety of directions nearly instantly. In an FPS, your eyes are fixed forward and you can only alter your PoV by moving your head.

I like Fallout 3 despite the first person view, not because of.

It's not bad on a PC where you have the keyboard and mouse controls.

That said, Wolfenstein 3D was quite a sight to behold back in 1992! :D

In real life you can look in a wide variety of directions nearly instantly. In an FPS, your eyes are fixed forward and you can only alter your PoV by moving your head.

I like Fallout 3 despite the first person view, not because of.

It's not bad on a PC where you have the keyboard and mouse controls.

That said, Wolfenstein 3D was quite a sight to behold back in 1992! :D

As you have indicated, it's not really a problem on PCs but rather a problem with FPS games on a gamepad. Mouse can be pretty damn quick if you're any good, like I will make you hurl if you watch me play rocket arena on a big screen.

I can't say I have a preference for either, they are both good for different sorts of games.