First Person Shooters vs 3rd Person

[Tony Blitz]

You are a ****ing liar.

1st person are always so fast paced and ****, Socom 1 was a classic tactical game with no mines or rocket launchers and that gay ****.

[badblood]

1st person are always so fast paced and ****, Socom 1 was a classic tactical game with no mines or rocket launchers and that gay ****.

I bought SOCOM 3 and it's no where near is good as COD 2.

[Tony Blitz]

I bought SOCOM 3 and it's no where near is good as COD 2.

I told you it was gonna be lame, they ruined that game with all the vehicles and rocket launcher ****. I definetly suggest picking up part 1, it's a classic and it's prob like $10 now.

[badblood]

I told you it was gonna be lame, they ruined that game with all the vehicles and rocket launcher ****. I definetly suggest picking up part 1, it's a classic and it's prob like $10 now.

I have it.

[Tony Blitz]

I have it.

That game is golden, it's too bad nobody plays it online anymore.

[badblood]

That game is golden, it's too bad nobody plays it online anymore.

Brothers in arms 2 will be my new game soon. It's also a FPS.

[Jarlaxle]

Normally FPS are better because they are usually high budget projects that are trying to top a standard that’s been set pretty high. Many 3rd person shooters are 3rd person just so they can show off a popular character or license. Also to actually benefit from being 3rd person it puts a burden on the game to have decent amount of melee combat or acrobatics/platforming. The most underrated 3rd person shooter that I know of today is Gun. I have played both Gun and CoD 2 on the 360 and I prefer Gun.

[Undefeated]

i would say 1st person is better

i love these games there 1st person shooters

Timesplitter 3
perfect dark zero

them ****s is hot...

i like 3rd person to also i like both... i love metal gear solid 3 that **** is hot!

[BadMagick]

Third-person is a lot more tactical I find, 1st person is more arcade style.

I have one game for you: Counter-Strike.

Anything that is team based becomes a tactical battle.

Halo 2, I find, is both semi-fast paced, and tactical. It's more about weapon/map control than anything else, but also combine with hand-eye co-ordination. If you're playing teams it becomes a very tactical game, it's kind of like football. If you're playing one on one it's tactical in the sense that boxing is tactical.

I was thinking about that, actually, how one could relate Halo 2 to boxing. It's very similar, in some ways. Basically just how you react to what your opponent is doing. I consider myself more of a "counter-punching" type. I allow my opponent to take the lead, and then do something that will beat what he is doing. For example, let's say they're shotgun whoring, or sword whoring. I'll sit back and snipe them, or BR them to death, and vice-versa. Rather than set the pace, I try to wait for openings on my opponent, so to speak, and then fire back at them. If I see them make even the slightest mistake, I try to capitalize on it.

There's really a lot of strategy in playing Halo 2. I'll just give a quick situation:

In Sanctuary (I'm assuming the reader has played the game), let's say a guy is using the sniper/sword. Obviously he's going to kill you easily up close if you're going at him with a BR, SMG, SMG/Plasma rifle, SMG/Plasma pistol, Magnum/plasma pistol, dual SMG's, dual plasma rifles, dual pistols. More than likely you're going to die should you attempt any of those in close. So what do you do? He's controlling the sniper ammo, so you can't snipe back. So you use your BR. If he's out of range you move in between rocks and other various structures avoiding his shots, trying to make him miss. Every now and then fire out a few shots to descope him. Get in to medium range, as long range the BR is not as effective, and close range you're going to die with most other weapons. In medium range a battle rifle user will win 9 out of 10 battles against a sniper/sword user. The other option is to get a shotgun and get in close on him, but don't mess up your shot, because you're only going to get one chance against him. If you don't kill him with the shotgun blast you can bet he'll be hopping backwards to avoid your melee, and then coming down on you with the sword.

That's some of the most basic strategy in the game, but there's a lot to playing it, and being good at it.

So, in conclusion, FPS>TPS.

By the way CoD 2 is ****ing incredible. My friend and I took turns going through missions (we switched when we couldn't get past a certain spot), and we beat it in a day, but it was good.

i would say 1st person is better

i love these games there 1st person shooters

Timesplitter 3
perfect dark zero

them ****s is hot...

i like 3rd person to also i like both... i love metal gear solid 3 that **** is hot!

Timesplitters 3 is good, except that one cheap-ass gun that shoots through walls, that ****'s just gay. I was playing my friend's sister (I know, I lost to a girl, it's embarassing), and the ***** kept using that gun. If you took that ONE gun away, I would have easily won the game, as I lost by only seven kills, and my hit % was 10 points or so higher, I had more headshots, a better spree, etc, etc, etc.

[Piggu]

I suck at First Person Shooters.