Depend of the genre, FPS on scifi/military shooter, TPS for anything else. I hate survival horror in FPS.

I'm not very surprised by the poll results, to be honest.  VGC is at least half Nintendo fans, after all.

We also have a good number of people who have a grudge against the FPS genre, as ridiculous as that sounds.

I prefer third person, you can do so much more stuff in third person.

The shooting in first person is a lot better.

Third person.

As I said in another thread. Just like in real life, movement and expressions tell so much about the character. Good animations in video games will always be an important way to "know" the characters and see how they interact with the environment. First person view does not have any of that as it supposed to simulate "you" inside the game not the character, which is in my opinion a weak attempt at best.

I'd have to go with 3rd person shooters.

Offers greater control, flexibility in game mechanics and gives devs more chance to play around with FOV. Saying that, some of my favourite titles are also FPS.. so it varies from game to game. I generally prefer looking at my avatar than not though.

I like both of them. Suppose it depends on what kind of game it is.

wow ... interesting poll results! Plenty people prefer TPS.

TL;DR The FPS genre is hated for all the wrong reasons.  It can be fairly varied, but the online community (here and other places) generalize every FPS to be CoD (which isn't a bad game for what it is, IMHO) even though there are many experiences to be had in the genre.

Yeah, I guess I shouldn't been too surprised with the poll results, having seen FPS get so much hate in other threads.  I like both FPS and TPS, but like I said before I don't see immersion get much better than when the screen is your eyes so to speak (really want to get oculus rift when it comes out and a decent gaming pc set up).

As for this FPS "grudge", I do see it and think it is kind of misdirected.  Just because a lot of people on these boards hate the redundancy of one series (CoD), they generalize all FPS as being and doing the same things.  Franchises like Planetside and Battlefield bring massively scaled firefights that necessitate strategy and/or teamwork to accompish things.  And for sheer fun factors, fast paced shooter deathmatches like in CoD or Killzone are still really fun to me.  They're kind of like fighting game matches, sweet and short, not loads too deep but easy to get into and out of and simply entertaining.  Just because they're not as deep as the more strategic competitive shooters, doesn't mean that they aren't entertaining.  It's the same thing as saying Mario Kart sucks, because it's not as deep or realistic as Gran Turismo (really like both series btw, so this is not a flamebait).  That's not the point of Mario Kart, the point is to be entertaining and accessible!

And then their is the FPA, a variant of FPS introduced with Metroid Prime.  The immersion is even greater, because exploration is put at the helm even though you still have to shoot and kill stuff to get through to the next area and/or boss.  Even though I get that some might not consider FPA as FPS, because they think FPS is just a mindless shooter in the first person view, I'd consider Metroid Prime to be a FPS just like I'd consider The Last of Us or Uncharted to be a TPS.  Yes they are both action/adventure games, and both have exploration (more so in TLOU than Uncharted) but necessitate the player shooting something eventually to get to the next boss (again, even less so in TLOU).  Same with Prime.