Games having the option to choose between 1st person and over the shoulder perspectives

I've mentioned my opinion before but I'll post it again here. For singleplayer games I don't mind much, whatever workds although I find first person more immersive. For anything multiplayer though I believe you can't have people switching.

Although he's talking about very serious milisim games it applies to pretty much any MP shooter.

I almost always prefer first-person perspective (in games where it makes sense).

Third person in fallout and skyrim was nice to be able to look at your armour/character, but I didn't find it fun to play that way. It's like you're skating around over the ground or something.

I always liked being able to switch back and forth in fallout 3. I think GTAV is, probably, the best example of this in a single player game. Fallout 4 seems to be a big improvement over 3 in both 1st and 3rd person. Shooting looks better in both, and the player model in 3rd person seems to animate more fluidly. Actually, the animations for all characters seem to be much better in 4. Oh my god, Im so excited for this game and glad Jeff was wrong about it not getting released this year (please don't get pushed).

If a game like this is designed after TPS view, the FPS playing can suffer from it. If it doesn't, then that's the kind of combination I like. I doubt I'll be in TPS view for anything but platforming and trying for geometry exploits though.

I prefer TPS view over FPS, but I agree with the video. FPS is the perspective to go. I guess, like dslyecxi talked, I hate the tension of surprise. Although I do like more body and spatial awareness, like in reality.

But considering TPS, they can be made to be more realistic if the camera stick more closely the avatar's body, without such a distance between the camera and the character's body, like in Resident Evil 4.

And as that, I believe that no game should supply both perspectives, as both views work in fundamentally different way, and provide a significantly different experience. I think that it's better to polish one of the perspectives, that have a catch all experience, that doesn't excel in any.

It depends on the game & how it's designed, if it's single player then I'd prefer the option to switch between usually. With racing games I like the option to choose while driving but in multiplayer prefer in car cams or helmet cams only, so I guess in a fps I'd prefer it the same way.

@trylks "I am in favor of this, as long as it is really optional and sold separately (e.g. DLC)" Why is this even an option? Pay to change camera views? Who are you, EA?

I don't ussually care, altough I like to have the chance.

The games that need to have that feature, though, are those that have a big component of character customization (yes, I am speaking of Fallout and Elder Scrolls). It is not necessary that I am able to play the game in 3rd person, but being able to switch views is important.

I like how Max Payne 3 and 2 do third person. An over the shoulder view eliminates too much screen space. First person doesn't have a large enough field of view (except with VR, I guess) and makes the action look robotic.

ilike it when games do it. cause when there are times to get in close, bam at the press off a button I'm all in your face with my shotgun .

Although I dont have much of a preference, silent first person protagonists don't make the game immersive for me at all. On the other hand if the first person character has a voice the immersiveness for me at least is much better. On the third person it's pretty much the same as first person voiced. Ultimately it means more work for the devs in order to implement both third and first person but why not.

Depends on the game, first person is inherently more immersive, third person is better for storytelling. You can do exploration either way and games like Dark Souls et al. prove that you can have immersion in third person as well.

I think as far as shooters go third person is better objectively but the only game that's utilized that to the fullest so far is Vanquish. I suppose it would be hard to pull off Doom/Painkiller/Bulletstorm (i.e. the best First person shooters) in third person.

Nice examples that I liked are Gears of War and Mass Effect. In the latter there are two modes for the camera, third person and over the shoulder, depending on whether you are (not) holding a weapon. Then also first person when using the sniper riffle.

I think those two games are quite different from the example of Arma 3 (which does not seem to have the usual cover based gameplay), however, the point that @haytmakes about multiplayer holds in the sense that I didn't consider that adding options could bother anyone but it may, for example someone who uses to play in FPS and doesn't like the third person view, but someone else uses that for their advantage. That has the a great potential to suck, so that's something to consider.

Another point to consider is that it is not completely true that "if I can see you, then you can see me", there are parts of the body (including the head) that can be exposed without a clear reciprocal line of sight. But fair enough, we can understand that not-first-person perspectives take this to "unrealistic" situations.

Finally: @hone_mcbone: you know, freedom to choose is freedom to pay and to not pay for what other people want, so I thought it made sense (or it made more sense to add it than to not add it), especially since I think that there are many people in this forum who have spent their whole lives in the country of freedom. Freedom is probably something we all should value more, but I'm going offtopic...

I enjoy both 1st and 3rd person, whether for single or multiplayer, and it doesn't really matter to me if there is an option. Ideally both are done well but I also appreciate camera angles just as a preference. Personally I could never stand to play Fallout or TES in 3rd person but it's nice the option is there for those who do, dunno why anyone would be against that.