Why do Third Person Shooters get called repetitive?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by RageQuitter69 (1295 posts) -

I see reviews of Third Person Shooters and they say things like this; 'just shooting and shooting and shooting, it's really repetitive' or 'you just go into one room, kill everyone and rinse and repeat. Isn't this first person shooters as well?, how come they never get bashed for these resons but third person shooters do?

#2 Posted by meetroid8 (21139 posts) -
I've seen many FPS games criticized for those exact same reasons. Those are common problems with the shooter genre as a whole, they aren't exclusive to third person shooters.
#3 Posted by RageQuitter69 (1295 posts) -
I've seen many FPS games criticized for those exact same reasons. Those are common problems with the shooter genre as a whole, they aren't exclusive to third person shooters.meetroid8
Well i've never seen any FPSs get criticized for those reasons, probably because of Call of Duty.
#4 Posted by c_rakestraw (14549 posts) -

Those are some dumb reviewers then. Shooting is all you do in shooters, so of course it's repetitive! That's the point.

#5 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6194 posts) -

FPS is more immersive and RTS is more cranial.

TPS is just schit.

The only tolerable TPS is when they creatively switch to almost first-person when firing around corners.

All TPS games are just not fun for me, I don't want to look at a dude's ass (or anybody's ass) while running down a corridor.

Which brain surgeon decided this was a good idea?

#6 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

That sounds like a good thing,because when I play a shooter of any kind,I want to shoot things.

#7 Posted by tjricardo089 (7429 posts) -

I think FPSs are more repetitive than TPS..

#8 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

I suppose third person shooters tend to have more action/adventure elements to them. So when you get one of those games and it's nothing but shooting - basically a first-person shooter just with a different camera view - then you might be a bit disappointed.

When you get a FPS you know for a fact that it's going to to be nothing but shooting, so people don't tend to criticize them for that.

#9 Posted by sukraj (21641 posts) -

i like shooters be it tps or fps.

#10 Posted by Supabul (3855 posts) -

FPS is more immersive and RTS is more cranial.

TPS is just schit.

The only tolerable TPS is when they creatively switch to almost first-person when firing around corners.

All TPS games are just not fun for me, I don't want to look at a dude's ass (or anybody's ass) while running down a corridor.

Which brain surgeon decided this was a good idea?

ZombieKiller7

Thats an odd problem to have with TPS games, tell me does it happen with other genres or are you solely a FPS gamer

Dam you Mario for having such an annoying ass

#11 Posted by brucecambell (1572 posts) -

FPS is more immersive and RTS is more cranial.

TPS is just schit.

The only tolerable TPS is when they creatively switch to almost first-person when firing around corners.

All TPS games are just not fun for me, I don't want to look at a dude's ass (or anybody's ass) while running down a corridor.

Which brain surgeon decided this was a good idea?

ZombieKiller7

I dont know how you could say that. TPS is muchbetter. I think FPS games ( of 1st person games in general ) have no where to go. The thing with these is your head & eyes are both locked into one position. Where as in real life you can move both your head & eyes.

This is excatly why games feature 3rd person. Exactly why most games have always been 3rd person . . . Because they work better. 1st peron gameplay is dated & has nowhere to go. Its not practical for a game. Its why 3rd person games always have better gameplay.

TP games can do things that just aren't practitcal in FP. Look at any Eler Scrolls game & ask why the combat isnt as good as God Of War, Ninja Gaiden, Kingdoms Of Amalur.

Look at any FPS game & compare it to Gears Of War, Uncharted, Vanquish. Also you dont see any cover system working in 1st person? Rainbow6 actually puts you in 3rd person to do this ( one of my FPS games BTW ).

FP gameplay doesnt work, it needs to go, its holding back games. TP is the way every game should be. TP games are always better than FP games.

#12 Posted by undeadgoon (597 posts) -

Games are repetive by nature just some more than others

#13 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6194 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

FPS is more immersive and RTS is more cranial.

TPS is just schit.

The only tolerable TPS is when they creatively switch to almost first-person when firing around corners.

All TPS games are just not fun for me, I don't want to look at a dude's ass (or anybody's ass) while running down a corridor.

Which brain surgeon decided this was a good idea?

brucecambell

I dont know how you could say that. TPS is muchbetter. I think FPS games ( of 1st person games in general ) have no where to go. The thing with these is your head & eyes are both locked into one position. Where as in real life you can move both your head & eyes.

This is excatly why games feature 3rd person. Exactly why most games have always been 3rd person . . . Because they work better. 1st peron gameplay is dated & has nowhere to go. Its not practical for a game. Its why 3rd person games always have better gameplay.

TP games can do things that just aren't practitcal in FP. Look at any Eler Scrolls game & ask why the combat isnt as good as God Of War, Ninja Gaiden, Kingdoms Of Amalur.

Look at any FPS game & compare it to Gears Of War, Uncharted, Vanquish. Also you dont see any cover system working in 1st person? Rainbow6 actually puts you in 3rd person to do this ( one of my FPS games BTW ).

FP gameplay doesnt work, it needs to go, its holding back games. TP is the way every game should be. TP games are always better than FP games.

FPS has nowhere to go but at least it provides entertainment.

TPS has nowhere to go and is the epitome of casualized gaming.

#14 Posted by EXEraserVS (346 posts) -
I don't know, could be because of the of duck/cover gameplay. TPS need to be broken up with various gameplay or have excellent co-op (and AI) to keep it less repetitive. Which is why Gears of War is more fun when played with friends.
#15 Posted by JayQproductions (1685 posts) -

I'm alright with TPS but I prefer FPS especially for multiplayer because TPS are so unrealistic and easy to exploit, most of the games turn into people standing in corners so they can manuver the camera so they can see around a corner then poping out as someone walks by and kills them. It's just not good for competitive multiplayer.

#16 Posted by EXEraserVS (346 posts) -

I'm alright with TPS but I prefer FPS especially for multiplayer because TPS are so unrealistic and easy to exploit, most of the games turn into people standing in corners so they can manuver the camera so they can see around a corner then poping out as someone walks by and kills them. It's just not good for competitive multiplayer.

JayQproductions

I think Uncharted's multiplayer got it right and Epic finally got it down pretty good with Gears of War 3.

#17 Posted by Alexander2cents (5 posts) -

Because, the only good one was Resident Evil 4. Most of these games follow the foot steps of gears of war. By that I mean being shitty and bland. All you do is cover and shoot (with a really really forced cover system). There are no puzzles or exploration. Just really slow shooting. Only good for coop and multiplayer.

And don't even mention Uncharted. Uncharted is a platform game with shooting. Like Tomb Raider.

#18 Posted by sukraj (21641 posts) -

uncharted game yar.