I was talking about Third-Person Shooters yesterday, I guess I am sort of in the mood for playing some. It has been a while since I last played one.

Figured it would be a good idea to expand the discussion. See what other people think of the genre and what games they like.

First of all, I believe that despite TPS games dominating the industry for a good 5 to 7 year period, they haven't been analyzed to quite the same extent that, say FPS games, have. You might find some think-pieces grumbling about cover-based systems, but there doesn't seem to be quite the direct antithesis to them, in the same way, that modern FPS games with regenerating health and cover are contrasted with 90s FPS shooters with health packs and bunnyhopping. Or at least, I haven't seen quite the same battle lines drawn between cover-based TPSs and run and gun TPSs.

This leads to the question: What makes a Third-Person Shooter work for you? Do you see yourself favoring one direction over another within the genre? Or do you think they're all mostly the same?

I have to say, I have always been mostly lukewarm on the genre. Particularly during the height of its popularity. When it felt like whenever a developer had a certain idea or property they were interested in, when it came time to ask "Okay, but what is the gameplay like?", the answer was inevitably "I don't know. Make it a Third-Person Shooter, I guess".

Even with regards to games I did undoubtedly enjoy, like Red Dead Redemption, mechanics-wise I mostly considered them to be just passable.

So I stopped to think about what my favorite TPS might be, and I think it is Shinji Mikami's Resident Evil 4. Which is curious, one of the granddaddies of the genre, certainly influential, is still one of my favorites in the genre. Despite being on this website, a lot of people who have argued with me will know, I'm not one for nostalgia. What's different about it?

I think the thing with me is that I was never such a fan of either cover-based TPSs or run n' gun TPSs. I find the gameplay a bit too stale in both cases. Either you stay behind cover as much as possible, only pop out to shoot, or to move to a different cover; or you spend your entire time running to avoid shots while trying to land your own. Or at least that feels true for the skill-level in which I play at, if you play online at a high rank, your experience might very well be different.

Resident Evil 4 is an interesting third way because it limits your movement when shooting. You often have to run from enemies and reposition, but you can't shoot them while you do it, nor can you run forever. At some point, you have to stand your ground and shoot while the zombies are running straight at you. It's tense. It rewards skillful play as well. Ammo is scarce, and well-placed shots to weak points can disarm enemies, or open them up to melee attacks that both conserve ammo and do a lot of damage. I think that's what I really love about that game. It's the tactical choice of when to move, when to shoot, when to go for the body, when to risk going for the weak spots, when to close in for a special melee move.

As much as I love my walking simulators, I also love my mechanically-complex, over the top Japanese action games, and Resident Evil 4 I think is one of the very few examples of those sensibilities being applied to a shooter instead of a hack n' slash/beat 'em up.

Resident Evil 5 was not as creative and fun as RE4 in my eyes, but I do think it was still mechanically sound, at least in so far as combat mechanics. And Resident Evil 6, though it's maligned by many for ditching horror pretty much completely, as an action game and a Third-Person Shooter I think it's great.

The TPS games outside of the RE series that I can think of that I would put on a similar level would be Shadows of the Damned and Vanquish, the latter being a much more fast-paced game though, both of which are also Shinji Mikami games.

This is just my personal feelings towards the genre, but I'm curious if anyone else has similar views or, if they don't, what exactly separates a good and a bad Third-Person Shooter in their eyes.

So you mean over-the-shoulder, right ? Not space invaders.

Fistfights and swordfights seem a bit more intuitive in 3rd person than in 1st (or more useful when you need full awareness of your very immediate surroundings). But 3rd person games feel less, hm, 'serious' (in tone), maybe less immersive. Which is fine depending on the mood. I sometimes wish to be more, or less, detached from the game, and this plays a role in the distance to the character that I want in my game, at a given point. The farther the sillier, the more laid back, the more gamey. The more cartoonish, in a way.

I wouldn't feel the same as in System Shock 2 with Dead Space. But I wouldn't play Saints Row or Just Cause in 1st person. I invest myself very differently in Morrowind, Nolf, AvP, Penumbra or Fallout3 than in Mad Max, Shadow of Mordor, Silent Hill or Max Payne. Maybe because there is always something awkward in the movements and behaviour of a seen character (the turns, the jumps, hesitations around physical obstacles) that are invisible in 1st person. But Borderlands is, strangely, 3rd person in my memory.

I wouldn't say Spec Ops is a bad shooter, but it's weird to be that serious and that (3rd personishly) gamey. But again, it plays a bit with the codes, rules and expectations of videogames so maybe it works because of that. To answer the question, I wouldn't say it's the best, as its gameplay fun but a bit shootyshootycorridorshooty bland (it's no Fear, but Fear is 1st person see). But it's the most memorable 3rd person doom-like that I've played. I would say that my favorite 3rd person shooters belong to other genres - open world crazyness with lots of body interaction, like the satisfyingly retarded Just Cause. Max Payne is the straightforward shooter which 3rd personery makes the most sense. My other 3rd person favorites are more about blades and knuckles and acrobatics.

But basically, be it an action adventure shooter or an RPG, first person gets closer to a book and third person closer to a videogame. I'm not certain it makes sense, but that's how I'd describe how I feel about it.

I feel like a good 3rd person shooter can't focus on the shooting, otherwise it would always be better as 1st person shooter.

The best one here is probably Dead Space.

There are just so many that qualify. Though I suspect we are limiting ourselves to ones with viewing angles behind the character and with a strong emphasis on shooting?
If I had to choose then the best I've played I think would have to be Dead Space. Mass Effect? It's perhaps too RPGish and the 1st is too much of a flawed diamond to unseat Dead Space anyhow. And Max Payne 1&2? Excellent games both, but neither quite manages to unseat Dead Space in my book.

And the biggest disappointment? Definitely Space Marine, but not that it was bad. In fact, it was pretty damn good. It's just that seeing as it's 40K they could've done a lot more with it.

Honorable mentions:
Fade to Black - for its seriously kickass cover art and for making me drool over its screenshots in gaming mags back in the day.
Outwars - this game seriously needs to come here. Think Starship Troopers but with jetpacks.
Cold Fear(steam) - often overlooked excellent tps. Quite similar to Dead Space.

Do games like Hexen, Tomb Raider, GTA count as "shooters"?

i dont think so

I had that game back in the 90's and I can't believe I had forgotten about it! Such a cool game. Wish it would show up here. Would be insta-buy.

Arma 1-3 and Operation Flashpoint / Cold War Crisis.

Whilst seen as hardcore FPS games (they are) playing third person is great. It can be seen as a cheat as you can see over walls you would not usually see over when in first person view due to the higher view - so there is an advantage.

Playing in third person is still as gratifying as first person, the AI is hard as nails - think Robocop or Syndicate on higher levels.

The third view/higher position camera is a bonus or leveler against the AI and the guilt is justified. You still need to revert to first person to fire a weapon.

Max Payne was pretty cool, but it's been 15 years since I played it (at a friend's home, never owned it myself), so I don't remember that many details.

Hexen doesn't count as a shooter? Since when? It's first person though, not third person. Heretic 2 would be third person, but I haven't played it, so I don't know whether it's more a shooter or an action adventure. The lines between genres are often blurry anyway ...

To me "third-person shooters" usually meant "a console game". It just always seemed to me that third-person shooting and slash'em up games just were much more common on consoles than the PC. Maybe it was about controllers, gamepads were better suited for third-person action and mouse + keyboard for FPS?

I can't really tell how many third-person shooters I have played (only a handful?), and which are considered as one? Is Outcast such a game, or Tomb Raider games? I don't consider them really as "shooters" but action-adventures, even if they may have some shooting too.

Spec Ops: The Line is certainly one third-person shooter I've played, and I don't need to hesitate to nominate it probably as the best such game I've played. And no, I am not recommending it for the story like other people, but somehow the game was able to convey the feeling of hectic and realistic(?) combat action, better than I've seen in any military FPS game (like the few Call of Duty or Medal of Honor games I've played).

I can't put my finger on it what it was, but somehow playing Spec Ops combat sections very much felt and seemed like watching some realistic war/military/commando movie, or even live footage from some combat zone. Maybe it was partly from being third-person, seeing how your own character behaved when taking cover from incoming fire etc. It is the kind of game that to me would be fun to watch someone else playing, which doesn't happen with many games.

That reminds me that I've played (and finished) also the first Spec Ops game, Spec Ops: Rangers Lead the Way. It was certainly also what I'd consider a third-person shooter, but quite different game from The Line. It was just a series of missions without any real story, somewhat like the first Delta Force game, but from a third-person view.

EDIT: How could I forget about Max Payne 1-2...?

Shit, my bad. I get Hexen and Heretic confused.

Mafia 1

Max Payne 2

Out of interest, mythbusters did an episode recently on which was easier for control, first or third person perspective.
Sometimes 3rd person works ok, batman Arkham asylum or max Payne for instance. Tomb raider is another, thought the 2013 reboot was really quite good.

I won't go into semantics to differentiate "Third-Person Shooters" from games with "Third-Person Shooter elements". I'm more interested in how well the shooting mechanics themselves are realized. Have you ever played Resident Evil 4? Because I always felt like Dead Space was trying to ape that, but slower and less over the top, and more horror focused.