How cover system ruined third person shooters

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Just find out fantastic video that sum up everything wrong with cover system. except he praise vanquish which imo a terrible game.

even games like max payne has cover system now. its such a lazy design. theres the reason why third person genre is not strong today.

what are your thoughs?

discuss

Vanquish is boring, though. It has its moments, but mostly it's boring. I don't know why people complain about it being too short. I want it to end.

If he didn't sully his argument by lumping Max Payne 3 in, this would be a video I'd share. He says you can only run and gun in that game once you've memorized the enemy positions, which is false. Dead Men Walking proves it.

You know what ruined shooters? Consoles. Everything had to be slowed down once consoles became the primary platform for shooters. I mean, compare the foot movement in F.E.A.R. with any modern shooter. Doom is an exception. Aiming down sights/over the shoulder and cover systems have also slowed down the action, and they became so popular because players weren't precise and fast enough with controllers. With a cover system, you could finally take your time and push the dot towards the target with the imprecise stick. A lot of these console games also suffer from 30 fps. Good run and gun action would be lost on them.

This is one of the reasons why having difficulty settings is important in games. Mass Effect 2 is one of my all time favorite games, but on higher difficulties all you do is sit in cover. On lower difficulties you're free to run and gun like a madman and it is glorious. Especially if you play with vanguard class. Mass Effect 3 fixed a lot of the issues by making levels more open and changing the way that health and armor works compared to ME2. Even with cover system in place, ME3 is a really great third person shooter/RPG hybrid.

For FPS games, difficulty settings are important because PC gamers get to benefit from having a mouse instead of an analog stick and vice versa for consoles. Playing on a higher difficulty setting shouldn't be some kind of achievement and it shouldn't reward you with special unlocks. It should just exist to tailor gameplay according to your skill or device that you use for controlling your character.

Ezekiel:
Vanquish is boring, though. It has its moments, but mostly it's boring. I don't know why people complain about it being too short. I want it to end.

If he didn't sully his argument by lumping Max Payne 3 in, this would be a video I'd share. He says you can only run and gun in that game once you've memorized the enemy positions, which is false. Dead Men Walking proves it.

max payne 3 is not even a shadow of original max payne. so he have a point. max payne 1 is still hold up and is masterpiece.

its a good game on its own.

Any tl;dr versions?

I find cover system work pretty well in games like Uncharted where enemies will flank you so you need to constantly change position, but it can be terrible when you're just statically shooting in a corridor just waiting for them to die. So like everything it depends on how well it's used. Not to mention that a shooters always had "cover", just not a dedicated button for it.

Cover is fine when it can be used to increase movement like the Gears wall-bounce or the GRFS cover swap. Just like any other mechanic or game element, it will be used poorly more often than not. Look at how over and poorly used open worlds are.

Ezekiel:
Vanquish is boring, though. It has its moments, but mostly it's boring.

You know what ruined shooters? Consoles... With a cover system, you could finally take your time and push the dot towards the target with the imprecise stick.

A game is boring if you choose to play it in a boring manner. You go on and on about how shooters should be about movement and how cover sucks yet you go and play Vanquish as a cover shooter and complain it's boring. You even use the most boring weapons to boot. Just think about it, you're in agreement with IGN, which automatically means you're wrong.

The MMS ruined shooters. Will you ever get off your prejudice against controllers? They work perfectly fine in fast-paced twitchy shooters. And shooters emphasizing movement are doing just fine on consoles.

Adam Jensen:
Mass Effect 3 fixed a lot of the issues by making levels more open and changing the way that health and armor works compared to ME2.

ME3 reduced cooldowns pretty majorly, especially with the weight system that allowed you to lower the already faster cooldown times even more. The ME3 MP was a blast to play, plus there were so many classes that played so differently like the Geth Infiltrator who probably was the best melee class in the game, phantoms would melt before me.

---

And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

Phoenixmgs:
Cover is fine when it can be used to increase movement like the Gears wall-bounce or the GRFS cover swap. Just like any other mechanic or game element, it will be used poorly more often than not. Look at how over and poorly used open worlds are.

Ezekiel:
Vanquish is boring, though. It has its moments, but mostly it's boring.

You know what ruined shooters? Consoles... With a cover system, you could finally take your time and push the dot towards the target with the imprecise stick.

A game is boring if you choose to play it in a boring manner. You go on and on about how shooters should be about movement and how cover sucks yet you go and play Vanquish as a cover shooter and complain it's boring. You even use the most boring weapons to boot. Just think about it, you're in agreement with IGN, which automatically means you're wrong.

The MMS ruined shooters. Will you ever get off your prejudice against controllers? They work perfectly fine in fast-paced twitchy shooters. And shooters emphasizing movement are doing just fine on consoles.

Adam Jensen:
Mass Effect 3 fixed a lot of the issues by making levels more open and changing the way that health and armor works compared to ME2.

ME3 reduced cooldowns pretty majorly, especially with the weight system that allowed you to lower the already faster cooldown times even more. The ME3 MP was a blast to play, plus there were so many classes that played so differently like the Geth Infiltrator who probably was the best melee class in the game, phantoms would melt before me.

---

And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Is there that much of an impact of the Souls games on other action games? It seemed to be mostly focused on creating clones or higher difficulty.

Adam Jensen:
This is one of the reasons why having difficulty settings is important in games. Mass Effect 2 is one of my all time favorite games, but on higher difficulties all you do is sit in cover. On lower difficulties you're free to run and gun like a madman and it is glorious. Especially if you play with vanguard class. Mass Effect 3 fixed a lot of the issues by making levels more open and changing the way that health and armor works compared to ME2. Even with cover system in place, ME3 is a really great third person shooter/RPG hybrid.

For FPS games, difficulty settings are important because PC gamers get to benefit from having a mouse instead of an analog stick and vice versa for consoles. Playing on a higher difficulty setting shouldn't be some kind of achievement and it shouldn't reward you with special unlocks. It should just exist to tailor gameplay according to your skill or device that you use for controlling your character.

I liked being a Sentinel in ME1. A shield to protect myself, and lots of abilities to stop the enemy from shooting. Whether its dampening their weapons, stunning them, or flinging them around the ceiling.

Don't be ridiculous, cover didn't ruin shooters.

Walls and terrain did.

Remember in the original Doom, where you didn't have line of sight on every monster in the level right from the get go? What kind of developer makes a game like that? All those stupid corridors, dragging out fights and blocking movement and bullets.

The only good shooter, third or otherwise, is one that takes place on a completely flat surface with no blocking features, where only speed, twitches and pure ADHD matters.

DefunctTheory:
Don't be ridiculous, cover didn't ruin shooters.

Walls and terrain did.

Remember in the original Doom, where you didn't have line of sight on every monster in the level right from the get go? What kind of developer makes a game like that? All those stupid corridors, dragging out fights and blocking movement and bullets.

The only good shooter, third or otherwise, is one that takes place on a completely flat surface with no blocking features, where only speed, twitches and pure ADHD matters.

Robotron 2084 in other words?

Phoenixmgs:

ME3 reduced cooldowns pretty majorly, especially with the weight system that allowed you to lower the already faster cooldown times even more. The ME3 MP was a blast to play, plus there were so many classes that played so differently like the Geth Infiltrator who probably was the best melee class in the game, phantoms would melt before me.

I loathed the weight system in ME3 as it pushed the balance even further in favour of the gun based classes. As an Adept I found myself having to choose between good weapons or good cooldowns.

Flip to the opposite side of the Soldier and all I had to do was put the ammo powers on my weapons at the start of the level and I was set. Adrenaline Rush taking a little longer to cooldown was in no way a hindrance when you could have all the best weapons and an ammo power for every situation.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Vanquish is boring, though. It has its moments, but mostly it's boring.

You know what ruined shooters? Consoles... With a cover system, you could finally take your time and push the dot towards the target with the imprecise stick.

A game is boring if you choose to play it in a boring manner. You go on and on about how shooters should be about movement and how cover sucks yet you go and play Vanquish as a cover shooter and complain it's boring. You even use the most boring weapons to boot. Just think about it, you're in agreement with IGN, which automatically means you're wrong.

The MMS ruined shooters. Will you ever get off your prejudice against controllers? They work perfectly fine in fast-paced twitchy shooters. And shooters emphasizing movement are doing just fine on consoles.

No, it's boring because it's a flashy Platinum game with a bland, generic story, blander characters, bland music and setting. I've shown that I can play levels by sliding around like a retard. It doesn't suddenly make the game awesome. Get off your high horse.

I don't know what MMS stands for. It's not prejudice. Controller HAVE made shooters worse. Controllers ARE pretty flawed. If I was prejudiced against controllers, I wouldn't be using them.

Edit: Oh, I forgot auto-aim. Controllers are also to blame for auto-aim being in shooters that shouldn't have it.

inu-kun:
Any tl;dr versions?

I find cover system work pretty well in games like Uncharted where enemies will flank you so you need to constantly change position, but it can be terrible when you're just statically shooting in a corridor just waiting for them to die. So like everything it depends on how well it's used. Not to mention that a shooters always had "cover", just not a dedicated button for it.

Yeah, some do it well. And some you may as well be playing Time Crisis/Area 51. Which for those who didn't have ubiqitous arcades, were arcade machines where you pushed a pedal to pop in and out of cover to plink away at the enemies with your light gun, then the rails just automatically advanced you to the next cover point.

The toss-up on whether cover use is a proper mechanic is pretty ancient. I remember playing Duke Nukem 3d in High School computer class, and people arguing back and forth because someone insisted the football field map (which is entirely open space and flat terrain) was the high skill one and others preferring the tactical play on maps with walls and corridors and stuff.

Phoenixmgs:
And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

Hack and slash games killed themselves with disappointing releases like DMC4, DmC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and Ninja Gaiden 3. The cost of developing for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was another factor. Japanese devs had trouble keeping up.

inu-kun:
The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Wrestling with slow controls isn't immersive. Animations are immersive, but not clunky controls.

Ezekiel:

inu-kun:
The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Wrestling with slow controls isn't immersive. Animations are immersive, but not clunky controls.

Maybe change the analog stick sensitivity? In Uncharted I didn't have any problem popping headshots late in the game once I acclimated with the controls

inu-kun:

Ezekiel:

inu-kun:
The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Wrestling with slow controls isn't immersive. Animations are immersive, but not clunky controls.

Maybe change the analog stick sensitivity? In Uncharted I didn't have any problem popping headshots late in the game once I acclimated with the controls

I beat the first two on Crushing.

B-Cell:

Ezekiel:
Vanquish is boring, though. It has its moments, but mostly it's boring. I don't know why people complain about it being too short. I want it to end.

If he didn't sully his argument by lumping Max Payne 3 in, this would be a video I'd share. He says you can only run and gun in that game once you've memorized the enemy positions, which is false. Dead Men Walking proves it.

max payne 3 is not even a shadow of original max payne. so he have a point. max payne 1 is still hold up and is masterpiece.

its a good game on its own.

Max Payne 1 is good. Max Payne 3 is mechanically superior, has a more varied soundtrack and doesn't have such a ridiculous story. I mean, super soldiers and an underground base in a noir? Come on. It also doesn't have glitchy platforming sections.

But that wasn't what he was arguing. He said Max Payne 3 is too punishing, too slow and constantly forces you into cover. I don't agree with any of that.

inu-kun:
The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Is there that much of an impact of the Souls games on other action games? It seemed to be mostly focused on creating clones or higher difficulty.

I agree about everything with your controller assessment. I actually do like the fact that they don't have that surgical accuracy as you say because it makes gunfights last longer especially with how popular low-health MMSs became. Even with a controller, I don't get why anyone wants a game with realistic bullet damage when the time-to-kill in a game is far less than real life because controllers and obviously KB/M are so much more accurate than any human marksman. How is a shooter realistic if aiming is so easy and fast? I prefer high-health multiplayer shooters as they emphasize skill a lot more as it's easy to spray with an automatic and land 2-3 bullets but up that to just 5-6 bullets and the skill required for a kill goes up quite a bit.

It's early with regards to Souls clones and whatnot. I'm more so "calling" that Souls games will end up ruining action games like how MMSs ruined shooters for awhile. We've already got Lords of the Fallen, The Surge, Nioh, and a few 2D Souls-like games. There's at least Code Vein on the way that I know of. There's a great video by Mark Brown in his Game Maker's Toolkit series on the subject of how a Souls-like genre is a bad idea. Even if Souls-like doesn't become a genre, I think the slower paced nature of the Souls games is going to take over most action games regardless if the devs are going for a straight clone or not. God of War looks to definitely play slower for example.

votemarvel:

Phoenixmgs:

ME3 reduced cooldowns pretty majorly, especially with the weight system that allowed you to lower the already faster cooldown times even more. The ME3 MP was a blast to play, plus there were so many classes that played so differently like the Geth Infiltrator who probably was the best melee class in the game, phantoms would melt before me.

I loathed the weight system in ME3 as it pushed the balance even further in favour of the gun based classes. As an Adept I found myself having to choose between good weapons or good cooldowns.

Flip to the opposite side of the Soldier and all I had to do was put the ammo powers on my weapons at the start of the level and I was set. Adrenaline Rush taking a little longer to cooldown was in no way a hindrance when you could have all the best weapons and an ammo power for every situation.

Huh? The biotic classes were so awesome because of the biotic explosions. The Asari Adept was ridiculous in the MP because they have Stasis, and warp + throw. They could not only "freeze" enemies like phantoms but they could make their own biotic explosions with warp then throw. All you needed to equip as a weapon in ME3 as a non-weapon class was the Carnifex.

Ezekiel:
No, it's boring because it's a flashy Platinum game with a bland, generic story, blander characters, bland music and setting. I've shown that I can play levels by sliding around like a retard. It doesn't suddenly make the game awesome. Get off your high horse.

I don't know what MMS stands for. It's not prejudice. Controller HAVE made shooters worse. Controllers ARE pretty flawed. If I was prejudiced against controllers, I wouldn't be using them.

Edit: Oh, I forgot auto-aim. Controllers are also to blame for auto-aim being in shooters that shouldn't have it.

You slid around with just bog-standard automatic guns. MMS = Modern Military Shooter. Console players aren't having trouble with the new wave of shooters that emphasize movement. Console players don't like auto-aim or aim-assist. Rockstar is still using auto-aim, which only was necessary back in the PS1 and early PS2 days before shooter controls got good. Even casual shooters like Uncharted don't have auto-aim.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

Hack and slash games killed themselves with disappointing releases like DMC4, DmC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and Ninja Gaiden 3. The cost of developing for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was another factor. Japanese devs had trouble keeping up.

Huh? DMC4 is considered the best battle system in DMC and Bayonetta is considered the best spectacle fighter ever.

Ezekiel:

inu-kun:
Maybe change the analog stick sensitivity? In Uncharted I didn't have any problem popping headshots late in the game once I acclimated with the controls

I beat the first two on Crushing.

Beating Uncharted on Crushing isn't a test of skill, it's just tedium and patience (as the video in the opening post states). Why would you even play the games on Crushing if you don't like that type of playstyle?

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
No, it's boring because it's a flashy Platinum game with a bland, generic story, blander characters, bland music and setting. I've shown that I can play levels by sliding around like a retard. It doesn't suddenly make the game awesome. Get off your high horse.

I don't know what MMS stands for. It's not prejudice. Controller HAVE made shooters worse. Controllers ARE pretty flawed. If I was prejudiced against controllers, I wouldn't be using them.

Edit: Oh, I forgot auto-aim. Controllers are also to blame for auto-aim being in shooters that shouldn't have it.

You slid around with just bog-standard automatic guns. MMS = Modern Military Shooter. Console players aren't having trouble with the new wave of shooters that emphasize movement. Console players don't like auto-aim or aim-assist. Rockstar is still using auto-aim, which only was necessary back in the PS1 and early PS2 days before shooter controls got good. Even casual shooters like Uncharted don't have auto-aim.

I've used high power explosive weapons and laser beams as well. It's still a boring game with only occasional moments of fun. When I think about it, the worst part of it is the level design. It's all open so that you use cover and the rocket slide. But open, empty level design gets boring in a shooter.

Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

Hack and slash games killed themselves with disappointing releases like DMC4, DmC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and Ninja Gaiden 3. The cost of developing for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was another factor. Japanese devs had trouble keeping up.

Huh? DMC4 is considered the best battle system in DMC and Bayonetta is considered the best spectacle fighter ever.

DMC4 is one of the laziest sequels I have ever played. They give you the most fleshed out battle system, but half a campaign to use it in. The world is so bland compared to DMC3's, and only some of the enemies are fun to fight. Bayonetta has too many long cutscenes, confusing boss setpieces, drawn out shoot 'em up/bike sections, quick time events, a badly told story, too few enemy types (including bosses that are reused as lesser enemies) and a lot of boring level design. I know there's a lot more to complain about, but I don't care to think about it.

Ezekiel:

inu-kun:
Maybe change the analog stick sensitivity? In Uncharted I didn't have any problem popping headshots late in the game once I acclimated with the controls

I beat the first two on Crushing.

Beating Uncharted on Crushing isn't a test of skill, it's just tedium and patience (as the video in the opening post states). Why would you even play the games on Crushing if you don't like that type of playstyle?

Oh god... I never implied Crushing was a test of high skill. I only mentioned it because Inu said I might have a problem with the sensitivity and brought up Uncharted. I knew you were gonna butt in with more of your pretentious shit.

You keep talking about skill. I don't remember ever mentioning skill. My argument in favor of a mouse and keyboard was always ease of use and speed.

Phoenixmgs:

It's early with regards to Souls clones and whatnot. I'm more so "calling" that Souls games will end up ruining action games like how MMSs ruined shooters for awhile. We've already got Lords of the Fallen, The Surge, Nioh, and a few 2D Souls-like games. There's at least Code Vein on the way that I know of. There's a great video by Mark Brown in his Game Maker's Toolkit series on the subject of how a Souls-like genre is a bad idea. Even if Souls-like doesn't become a genre, I think the slower paced nature of the Souls games is going to take over most action games regardless if the devs are going for a straight clone or not. God of War looks to definitely play slower for example.

I don't think so due to the simple fact that Souls combat is not very marketable, it's hard for casuals players and doesn't look as "exciting". Even the definition of Souls like is a bit hard, the slow combat is the most obvious gameplay point but besides that there's: Big open levels to explore have always been, minimalistic story telling is new but games like Nioh don't do that and grimdark design which is also not new.

Ezekiel:
Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

Yet Rockstar is the only one that does...

DMC4 is one of the laziest sequels I have ever played. They give you the most fleshed out battle system, but half a campaign to use it in. The world is so bland compared to DMC3's, and only some of the enemies are fun to fight. Bayonetta has too many long cutscenes, confusing boss setpieces, drawn out shoot 'em up/bike sections, quick time events, a badly told story, too few enemy types (including bosses that are reused as lesser enemies) and a lot of boring level design. I know there's a lot more to complain about, but I don't care to think about it.

That's what happens when Capcom loses all their talent. Bayonetta's story is amazing schlock and cheese, loved every second of every cutscene. Bosses aren't reused unless you're talking about mini-bosses or Jeane. Spectacle fighters aren't about level design and even then they had enough fun and variety with it.

Ezekiel:
Oh god... I never implied Crushing was a test of high skill. I only mentioned it because Inu said I might have a problem with the sensitivity and brought up Uncharted. I knew you were gonna butt in with more of your pretentious shit.

You keep talking about skill. I don't remember ever mentioning skill. My argument in favor of a mouse and keyboard was always ease of use and speed.

Then why did you reply to inu-kun that you beat the game on Crushing when he said he didn't have trouble headshotting enemies with a controller?

The point inu-kun and I are making is that controllers allow for more than enough aiming precision to competently play a shooter.

inu-kun:
I don't think so due to the simple fact that Souls combat is not very marketable, it's hard for casuals players and doesn't look as "exciting". Even the definition of Souls like is a bit hard, the slow combat is the most obvious gameplay point but besides that there's: Big open levels to explore have always been, minimalistic story telling is new but games like Nioh don't do that and grimdark design which is also not new.

Souls has gotten pretty popular with Dark Souls 3 selling over 4 million depending how accurate VGChartz and SteamSpy are. The combat is easier in a Souls game to master than say Bayonetta. I feel like an average gamer can get more feeling of accomplishment out of a Souls game than Bayo even though Souls is initially harder. How many gamers do you think got good with dodge offsetting in Bayo? I guess the best way I can put it is that Bayo is meant to be played to mastery whereas Souls is meant to be played to victory.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

Yet Rockstar is the only one that does...

The other reason they keep using it is because not everyone who buys open world jack-of-all-trades action-adventure games is into shooters and wants to deal with analog aiming. It also has to do with the long, successful history of the series. They put it into Max Payne 3 as well because players keep telling them it's okay by selecting it in RDR and GTA. Probably most of the GTA V players on YouTube use it. Controller users do like that garbage.

DMC4 is one of the laziest sequels I have ever played. They give you the most fleshed out battle system, but half a campaign to use it in. The world is so bland compared to DMC3's, and only some of the enemies are fun to fight. Bayonetta has too many long cutscenes, confusing boss setpieces, drawn out shoot 'em up/bike sections, quick time events, a badly told story, too few enemy types (including bosses that are reused as lesser enemies) and a lot of boring level design. I know there's a lot more to complain about, but I don't care to think about it.

That's what happens when Capcom loses all their talent. Bayonetta's story is amazing schlock and cheese, loved every second of every cutscene. Bosses aren't reused unless you're talking about mini-bosses or Jeane. Spectacle fighters aren't about level design and even then they had enough fun and variety with it.

That's a low standard for a largely boring genre. It could honestly learn a few things from the Souls series, like interesting level design and world progression.

Bayonetta's story, like Platinum's other stories, is trash. I like cheese too, if it's good cheeese. Total Recall and RoboCop are good cheese.

Ezekiel:
Oh god... I never implied Crushing was a test of high skill. I only mentioned it because Inu said I might have a problem with the sensitivity and brought up Uncharted. I knew you were gonna butt in with more of your pretentious shit.

You keep talking about skill. I don't remember ever mentioning skill. My argument in favor of a mouse and keyboard was always ease of use and speed.

Then why did you reply to inu-kun that you beat the game on Crushing when he said he didn't have trouble headshotting enemies with a controller?

It was my way of telling him that I was able to pull of headshots too. You yourself know that the enemies in Uncharted take a lot of bullets to the body.

The point inu-kun and I are making is that controllers allow for more than enough aiming precision to competently play a shooter.

It's still slow and imprecise enough that it has led to all kinds of badness in game design.

Ezekiel:
I know there's a lot more to complain about, but I don't care to think about it.

That'd be a first.

Ezekiel:
The other reason they keep using it is because not everyone who buys open world jack-of-all-trades action-adventure games is into shooters and wants to deal with analog aiming. It also has to do with the long, successful history of the series. They put it into Max Payne 3 as well because players keep telling them it's okay by selecting it in RDR and GTA. Probably most of the GTA V players on YouTube use it. Controller users do like that garbage.

I believe it's the DEFAULT option in Rockstar's games. The Mass Effect games don't have auto-aim and they're freaking RPGs.

That's a low standard for a largely boring genre. It could honestly learn a few things from the Souls series, like interesting level design and world progression.

Bayonetta's story, like Platinum's other stories, is trash. I like cheese too, if it's good cheeese. Total Recall and RoboCop are good cheese.

In a spectacle fighter, you come for the combat system, and that needs to deliver first and foremost. And the Souls series can learn a lot from Bayo's combat...

Total Recall and Robocop aren't cheesy movies, they have cheesy moments.

It was my way of telling him that I was able to pull of headshots too. You yourself know that the enemies in Uncharted take a lot of bullets to the body.

It's still slow and imprecise enough that it has led to all kinds of badness in game design.

The headshot thing was only really necessary for Uncharted 1, which I forget because that game is really just a tech demo IMO.

The "realism" push led to just about all of the problems with the shooter genre last-gen, which probably started on PC as it took shooters a bit longer to grow on console. Didn't the CODs and Battlefields gain initial popularity on PC? Why would console players need such bad game design elements when we played early shooters like SOCOM on PS2 just fine without such elements?

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
The other reason they keep using it is because not everyone who buys open world jack-of-all-trades action-adventure games is into shooters and wants to deal with analog aiming. It also has to do with the long, successful history of the series. They put it into Max Payne 3 as well because players keep telling them it's okay by selecting it in RDR and GTA. Probably most of the GTA V players on YouTube use it. Controller users do like that garbage.

I believe it's the DEFAULT option in Rockstar's games. The Mass Effect games don't have auto-aim and they're freaking RPGs.

Mass Effect didn't start sixteen years ago, on the PS2, and it's not a jack-of-all trades sandbox game.

That's a low standard for a largely boring genre. It could honestly learn a few things from the Souls series, like interesting level design and world progression.

Bayonetta's story, like Platinum's other stories, is trash. I like cheese too, if it's good cheeese. Total Recall and RoboCop are good cheese.

In a spectacle fighter, you come for the combat system, and that needs to deliver first and foremost. And the Souls series can learn a lot from Bayo's combat...

If all you have is a combat system, that's a tech demo. Most of the hack and slashers are dull. I could never play one an entire day, because they don't have compelling enough worlds.

Total Recall and Robocop aren't cheesy movies, they have cheesy moments.

Thus, they're cheesy.

It was my way of telling him that I was able to pull of headshots too. You yourself know that the enemies in Uncharted take a lot of bullets to the body.

It's still slow and imprecise enough that it has led to all kinds of badness in game design.

The headshot thing was only really necessary for Uncharted 1, which I forget because that game is really just a tech demo IMO.

The "realism" push led to just about all of the problems with the shooter genre last-gen, which probably started on PC as it took shooters a bit longer to grow on console. Didn't the CODs and Battlefields gain initial popularity on PC? Why would console players need such bad game design elements when we played early shooters like SOCOM on PS2 just fine without such elements?

Socom wasn't that popular. It didn't make shooters mainstream.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

Hack and slash games killed themselves with disappointing releases like DMC4, DmC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and Ninja Gaiden 3. The cost of developing for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was another factor. Japanese devs had trouble keeping up.

inu-kun:
The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Wrestling with slow controls isn't immersive. Animations are immersive, but not clunky controls.

I like you Ezekiel, but I am calling bullshit on most of that. DMC4 wasn't perfect. In fact, it was clearly rushed; yet 4 sold 2.9 million units. The best selling game int he entire franchise. Is 3 best the series? To most people, including myself, yes. Whatever issues 4 had, could have been fixed with a possible 5,but we all know that went down. You are on the money with DmC reboot and Ninja Gaiden 3. Though II didn't help matters either (the game was broken at launch), and nobody wants to remember Yaiba.

Ezekiel:
Mass Effect didn't start sixteen years ago, on the PS2, and it's not a jack-of-all trades sandbox game.

If all you have is a combat system, that's a tech demo. Most of the hack and slashers are dull. I could never play one an entire day, because they don't have compelling enough worlds.

Thus, they're cheesy.

Socom wasn't that popular. It didn't make shooters mainstream.

You miss my point like every single time. The point wasn't when Mass Effect started, the point was that if Bioware RPG gamers can handle shooting on a controller just fine without auto-aim, then why the fuck is Rockstar still using it? Same with my point about SOCOM. If console gamers got along just fine without auto-aim way back on PS2, why would devs need to come up with bad mechanics to fix an issue that obviously wasn't there to begin with?

A cheesy movie is Big Trouble in Little China, not Robocop. And, that's not what a tech demo is.

The first thing I do when rating my enjoyment of a game is ask myself what is taking up most of my game time. If that thing isn't enjoyable, then why am I playing the game? Bayonetta having the best combat in the business and being probably 90% of my game time is just awesome (especially when compared to most games). Most of your time playing a Souls game is combat and it's really not that good, control-wise and all it's pretty good/smooth but it's too simplistic for it to be enjoyable for me. That's why I'm not a big fan of the series. I've said numerous times I'd wish the Souls games would go straight to survival horror, keep the bosses, but have few but majorly threatening enemies populate the levels. Then, most of the game is not combat and the tension level is very high. Same thing with most RPGs out there, there's so much fighting and most RPG combat systems aren't good, at best you're hoping the combat is "good for an RPG" but that's still unacceptable, spending that much time with an average at best combat system is not good. I don't like Witcher 3 because I didn't enjoy any of the actual "playing" of the game from combat to just freaking moving Geralt. Witcher 3 would've been so much better if it was just an adventure game and I didn't have to put up with any gameplay. So, to conclude, I'll take a game that does only one thing gloriously for 10 or so hours over a game that's 50 hours where only half of the time was enjoyable. The quality of my time spent is directly proportional to how good/bad any game is IMO. Bayonetta is a game I'd rate a 10 because I loved every second I spent with it.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Mass Effect didn't start sixteen years ago, on the PS2, and it's not a jack-of-all trades sandbox game.

If all you have is a combat system, that's a tech demo. Most of the hack and slashers are dull. I could never play one an entire day, because they don't have compelling enough worlds.

Thus, they're cheesy.

Socom wasn't that popular. It didn't make shooters mainstream.

You miss my point like every single time. The point wasn't when Mass Effect started, the point was that if Bioware RPG gamers can handle shooting on a controller just fine without auto-aim, then why the fuck is Rockstar still using it?

I already explained it to you. You just don't want to accept my answer.

Ezekiel:
I already explained it to you. You just don't want to accept my answer.

PART of your answer may be right; the part in that Rockstar's games have sold successfully and they don't want to remove features some gamers may like. Fine, that makes perfect sense, but you can keep auto-aim in the game without making it the default setting. Also, that reasoning is stretching really thin as to why MP3 has auto-aim as previous entries didn't have it. However, the other part of your answer saying open world gamers aren't into "shooters" and don't/can't aim with analog sticks is bullshit. Firstly, a very large majority of open world games involve lots of shooting. You think GTA is the one fucking open world game with shooting that brings in open world gamers that don't like shooters? Secondly, there has to be a bigger percentage of RPG gamers that don't like shooters (vs open world gamers that don't like shooters) that figured how to shoot just fine in Mass Effect with analog sticks.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
I already explained it to you. You just don't want to accept my answer.

PART of your answer may be right; the part in that Rockstar's games have sold successfully and they don't want to remove features some gamers may like. Fine, that makes perfect sense, but you can keep auto-aim in the game without making it the default setting. Also, that reasoning is stretching really thin as to why MP3 has auto-aim as previous entries didn't have it. However, the other part of your answer saying open world gamers aren't into "shooters" and don't/can't aim with analog sticks is bullshit. Firstly, a very large majority of open world games involve lots of shooting. You think GTA is the one fucking open world game with shooting that brings in open world gamers that don't like shooters? Secondly, there has to be a bigger percentage of RPG gamers that don't like shooters (vs open world gamers that don't like shooters) that figured how to shoot just fine in Mass Effect with analog sticks.

No, but GTA V is the one that sold 80 million copies, owing partly to being as accessible and easy as possible. Rockstar has always done auto-aim. It has become a staple of their games. They're not gonna drop it. Just as Nintendo will probably not drop auto-aim from Metroid Prime 4.

Ezekiel:
No, but GTA V is the one that sold 80 million copies, owing partly to being as accessible and easy as possible. Rockstar has always done auto-aim. It has become a staple of their games. They're not gonna drop it. Just as Nintendo will probably not drop auto-aim from Metroid Prime 3.

Thus, it is a dev/pub trying make their product as accessible as possible and not...

Ezekiel:
Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
No, but GTA V is the one that sold 80 million copies, owing partly to being as accessible and easy as possible. Rockstar has always done auto-aim. It has become a staple of their games. They're not gonna drop it. Just as Nintendo will probably not drop auto-aim from Metroid Prime 3.

Thus, it is a dev/pub trying make their product as accessible as possible and not...

Ezekiel:
Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

Huh? Controller users ARE telling them that it's okay by buying so many copies and using the feature. Like I said, most of the YouTubers use auto-aim. They use auto-aim because the controller isn't quick and precise enough for them. Even players with thousands of views, who take themselves seriously, are using it. Just search "deathmatch."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TclOp5gf-Os

I bet some of the people here use it too.

Ezekiel:
Huh? Controller users ARE telling them that it's okay by buying so many copies and using the feature. Like I said, most of the YouTubers use auto-aim. They use auto-aim because the controller isn't quick and precise enough for them. Even players with thousands of views, who take themselves seriously, are using it. Just search "deathmatch."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TclOp5gf-Os

I bet some of the people here use it too.

Are they supposed to not buy the game because it has an OPTION that they don't have to use? People use auto-aim because it's the freaking DEFAULT setting. And, obviously most people prefer the easier option especially in any form of competition.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here