Please respond with the following:

A. What features are exclusive to FP games?
B. What features are better accomplished in FP than TP?
C. What features are exclusive to TP games?
D. What features are better accomplished in TP than FP?
E. Are there any further comparisons to be drawn between the two (i.e. comments that FP made MGS: Twin Snakes easy)?

I'll post some observations of my own later. As for now:

Alowishus wrote:

B. Platforming. In third person it's terrible because you can't see where you are jumping in some cases.

I am not understanding how you came to this conclusion. I thought platforming in first person games were mostly regarded as awful until Metroid Prime came out. (Now I am thinking back to the frustrating jumping in the N64 Turok games.) When you jump in third person you can gauge exactly where your feet will land since you can see them.

Some people have shit depth perception in third person platformers. Describing Super Mario Galaxy:

stake n sheak wrote:

On top of which jumping on goombas is hard in 3D. I don't know why, I have no problem controlling or navigating in other 3D games.

What first person games are you thinking of?

Alowishus wrote:

D. games where you need to see what's around you.

Well in a game like Diablo you can see everything around you.

Quote:

Compare RE and it's light gun series. Hard to see objects, can't look up and down really.

I would change 'hard' to 'harder'. I agree that first person does make objects more visible to the eye due to the closer camera. However, I don't exactly have a problem seeing an object in Resident Evil 4. Nor with Resident Evil 1 predrawn backgrounds and static camera angles. I do think it is interesting if the developers contrast items differently for them to standout to the player in third person game compared to a first person one.

Quote:

I guess it's actually harder to shoot things in third person games without lock on. Just as how in TP games its difficult to see where to jump, it's also difficult to see where to shoot. The depth isn't easy to get a hold of.

Lock-on does make certain things easier, however, shoulder-cam games like RE4 are way more accurate than GTA3. These newer 3rd person games don't function properly with lock-on due to the new multiple hitpoints system. (It could be done using a Wii controller, but not with any real benefit.) Lock-on has been much improved from early wrongfull targeting enemies in third person games from the latest games I've played.

Again with the depth stuff. Indeed the laser pointer in RE4 was added to weapons to make it easy to shoot enemies. But I can throw grenades in RE4 targeting enemies a good distance away (like 8 cow length distance in the game). That's just judging the distance of the enemy and the angle of Leon's bent body. Now you have games like Gears of War where grenade throwing looks like you're playing a golf videogame with display lines showing the arch of your grenade toss and all the parameter shit.

Saint Ste7en wrote:

]I don't know if there's a term for it, but a pre-positioned, following camera is the best possibility for a Survival/Horror game. Static cameras, like Resident Evil, are great because it gives you a view of your surroundings. Being able to see the whole room is perfect for developing a fearful atmosphere. Also, static cameras player can memorize an area quickly without getting lost. However, the problem with static cameras is when the camera jumps. Because static camera jumping tank controls are a must, and modern video gamers just aren't accustom to tank controls. There are also the issues that, and this happens often in the Resident Evil series, the player will be forced to shoot at hostiles that are not on the screen. That causes me, as the player, to miss out on what is happening on screen. That's probably my biggest issue with static cameras. An over-the-shoulder and a FPS are both limiting on several aspects when compared to classic static cameras. FPS cameras are good for immersion but are incredibly limiting when it comes to puzzles. That's not to say it's impossible to have great puzzles in an FPS survival/horror game, but there are many puzzles that work better when seen from a certain angle. And there's feelings of fear that static cameras can better develop than an over-the-shoulder camera can. An example would be crossing a rickety bridge. Walking along a dangerous bridge that's swaying, creaking, and looks like it's ready to fall at any moment, is much more tense when you can actually see where you'd fall. No doubt a good developer can make it scary either way, but when you can actually see how far you would fall if that bridge snaps... That really raises the tension. Another thing good that static cameras do that either an FPS camera or an over-the-shoulder camera can do is blind the player in a good way. Walking towards the unknown can be tension mounding, as Silent Hill 2 showed us all too well. Problem is that not every setting can use opaque fog to block vision, and in replacement they can use static cameras. There is a difference between walking down stairs with your character, and watching your character walk down a flight of stairs, without knowing what's at the bottom of the stairs. Haunting Ground is the best example of how Survival/Horror cameras *should* work. Here's a visual example. I've talked about why static cameras are generally better when it comes to building atmosphere, memorizing the layout of an area, advanced puzzles, and over all exploring, but I've also talking about some issues and Haunting Ground handles those like a champ. The first is that the positioned camera follows the protagonist around so the camera doesn't have to jump so often. Second on that same topic, right before the camera jumps, the following camera almost always stops, so the player, whether he notices or not, expects a camera jump. I didn't notice this until I started analyzing the game a bit more. Never once did the camera change and I wasn't shocked at it. Goodness knows, Resident Evil knocked me down in surprise with all of the camera jumps it gave me at times (and not always in a good way). As far as seeing what you're shooting at? You were supposed to get as much distance between you and the pursuers, so not seeing them was a good thing. But if that kind of camera was in a Resident Evil game, I imagine the camera could be programmed to where if a hostile is in a certain range the camera could zoom out a bit so the player can see the hostile and his/herself. A pre-positioned, following camera is definitely the way to go when designing a survival/horror game.

source: http://evilwithin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7&start=30#p376