Red Faction 1 and 2 were both really good IMO. They were very good FPS'. I was disappointed when I found out they were making Guerilla a TPS and having watched a gameplay video or two, I think they made a mistake. The graphics look good, but the shooting mechanics don't look that good IMO.
I think they would have been better off sticking with what they're good at.
Thoughts? Any other RF fans out there who wish Guerilla was a FPS?

I of course have a big nostalgia for that,and really deep down kinda wish it just stayed first person,but according to the designers they started it in first person,and the way they had the destruction,more times than not it would fall and kill you and you wouldn't see it coming ,and die plenty of deaths where you had no idea what the hell happened. Thats their basis for changing it to third person,I completely understand it, but I'll definitely wish it stayed first person.

Red Faction will always hold a special place in my heart.  Red Faction and Unreal Tournament on the PS2 introduced me to the dual stick FPS control scheme for consoles.

Ah OK. I'd always wondered what prompted them to make it TP, especially since the first two were pretty good and pretty successful. I guess that makes sense. But I still think it would have been better as an FPS - plenty of FPS' have destruction and get away with it. Does Guerilla just take the destruction and ramp it up a little bit more then or something?

"Red Faction will always hold a special place in my heart.  Red Faction and Unreal Tournament on the PS2 introduced me to the dual stick FPS control scheme for consoles.
"

Yeah,higher than anyone has gone with it yet,I mean they basically invented it with RF to begin with,and the destruction in that game is still stronger than any modern game that claims to have some in it.

Basically every game that has "destructible environments" doesn't. The way it works is,it simply replaces a normal model with a destroyed model,making it appear as if you've truely done something. What RF Guerilla is,is the first true destruction based game,their designers had to literally learn about building architecture because of the system they have,if it didn't build like a real world building,it would fall down in game. They build things from the ground up,with things that would hold together real world buildings and environments,and they'll fall apart different everytime,depending on how you decide to try to tear them down.

"but the shooting mechanics don't look that good IMO."

Red Faction 1 was really awesome, especially for a console shooter.   RF2 single player sucked ass, they ruined everything fun and balanced about RF1 but they made up for it w/ a nice Local Multiplayer component

I fear this new RF will control like Saints Row (decent controls for a single player open world game, but for a 3rdPS it might be too haphazard)

"I fear this new RF will control like Saints Row (decent controls for a single player open world game, but for a 3rdPS it might be too haphazard)"

"Hexpane said:

"I fear this new RF will control like Saints Row (decent controls for a single player open world game, but for a 3rdPS it might be too haphazard)"

Nope, we have reworked the controls specifically for RFG.  It has a very different feel from Saints Row.  :)"

Good to know, you should probably get flagged by GB staff here w/ a red name since you work for a dev.   Certified employees of game companies usually get official status on boards so people don't think they are pulling the "I heard the next Zelda will have Mario in it.. my uncle works for nintendo told me"

Red Faction was my first dual analog FPS. Took me a while to get the hang of it, but in the end, I thought it was pretty freaking excellent. However, man, that game sure hasn't held up. I tried playing it again a year or two ago, and I can certainly see why the game has auto-aim. Regardless, it was great for its time. I never did like the sequel that much.

The best part about it being 3rd person, is the ability to spin the camera around while escaping an EDF compound that you just loaded with remote charges and pressing detonate and watching the mayhem ensue.

Causing all of that destruction in first person would make the game unplayable.

BUT LOOK AT THE WAY STUFF BLOWS UP!?!?

Seriously though, I think it's better because of the fact it's in third person. I honestly haven't played the originals so I can't compare - but it seems to me they made the decision based on the destruction mechanic being the hook. The destruction works fantastic in this game and being able to view that action in third-person works all the better. It must have took balls to make the shift but for me, I can't imagine the Guerrilla being as good as it is in first-person.

The game works great in third person. The shooting mechanics are smooth and the animation is great. The game is also a very solid shooter online, probably one of the best ive played. My only complaint is the matchmaking system. Their isn't a 'search for good connection' or 'search for this region' option online. And this is a problem because im in Australia and the majority of games me and my party of 4-5 other Australians will get matched into matches with Americans and suffer from lagg which makes for some pretty frustrating moments of host advantage.

Apart from that though, the single player and multiplayer both work well and in my opinion are better for being in third person than in first person.

Gameplay wouldn't work in 1st person.  Was all designed around a 3rd person perspective. And it works fantastic!