Recently I have been playing a lot of first-person shooter games and because of this, I have been having conversations with my friends about first-person vs. third-person shooters. If you do not know the difference, first-person is where you see only what the character you are controlling sees while third-person is where you can see the back of your character and the surroundings. In terms of player versus player shooters, I think that there are pros and cons of both viewpoints. For first-person games, the obvious benefit is the realism that you get and the quality of the gameplay. The con of this however is that it is hard to see things in the peripheral vision and that can increase the difference between new and more skilled players. Classic examples of this type of game are Rainbow Six Siege and Valorant. In terms of third-person shooters, the benefits are that the vision of the player is greatly increased and that helps lower the skill difference and make it for new players to find the game more fun. In terms of cons, the obvious one is that the game is not as realistic but another con is that it is hard to learn to aim and get better because of the long distance between the camera and the enemies. In terms of player versus environment games, I feel like both options are viable and it all comes down to preference. I find that these games are easier to get used to and that because you are playing against the computer, it is easier overall. In terms of this debate, I enjoy both styles of games but if I want to be competitive then first-person shooters help me stay engaged and have more fun.
Summary
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHi, my name is Nick Bayer and I will be posting blogs about every 1-2 weeks in the 2020-21 school year. I am doing this for my Advanced Game Design class at Durham School of the Arts(DSA). The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Durham School of the Arts or Durham Public Schools. Categories
All
Archives
May 2021
|