How cover system ruined third person shooters

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Phoenixmgs:

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.

I turned the auto-aim in RDR off right away. It's not complicated to find the option. Anyone who has played a few modern AAA games should find the auto-aim atypical. If it bothered them, they'd look for an option to turn it off. But it doesn't bother them.

And, obviously most people prefer the easier option especially in any form of competition.

They use it in single player too.

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.

So im guessing the prospect of Serious Sam 4 must make you hard, eh?

Ezekiel:
I turned the auto-aim in RDR off right away. It's not complicated to find the option. Anyone who has played a few modern AAA games should find the auto-aim atypical. If it bothered them, they'd look for an option to turn it off. But it doesn't bother them.

Most gamers don't care about options, they just play a game as is. If auto-aim wasn't the default setting, it would be used far less. It's sorta like how people leave the "soap opera" effect on their TVs because that's how they come.

B-Cell:

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

Finally watched the OP video. The question I'm left with seems to be, how one makes a compelling shooter without it becoming too absurd. There are only a few good examples I can think of:

-Max Payne has the bullet time which is a stylish way to make dodging bullets actually possible.

-Half Life 2 did things with physics puzzles.

-Crysis gives you a power suit with different abilities, and you can grab and throw most objects, rig explosive traps, etc.

Phoenixmgs:
And the Souls series can learn a lot from Bayo's combat...

Like what? 300 different weightless moves that all do the same thing and overpower you? Endless stamina, which goes against the level design? Jumping around, defying gravity, contradicting the level design further? Assigning attack to a face button, making it hard to look around the environments while fighting? Cheap QTE finishers that would make the game excessively easy? A scoring system that would serve no purpose? Slowing down enemies every time you dodge right? A lock on system that slows you to a slow walk?

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
And the Souls series can learn a lot from Bayo's combat...

Like what? 300 different weightless moves that all do the same thing and overpower you? Endless stamina, which goes against the level design? Jumping around, defying gravity, contradicting the level design further? Assigning attack to a face button, making it hard to look around the environments while fighting? Cheap QTE finishers that would make the game excessively easy? A scoring system that would serve no purpose? Slowing down enemies every time you dodge right? A lock on system that slows you to a slow walk?

Anything more than dodge, then hit with a stick would be nice. Perhaps, a juggle, Bloodborne was ripe for that. Perhaps, a dodge/block offset. Perhaps, something like Nioh's Ki Pulse. There's nothing to master in the Souls game from a mechanics standpoint, combat becomes really boring outside of boss battles.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
And the Souls series can learn a lot from Bayo's combat...

Like what? 300 different weightless moves that all do the same thing and overpower you? Endless stamina, which goes against the level design? Jumping around, defying gravity, contradicting the level design further? Assigning attack to a face button, making it hard to look around the environments while fighting? Cheap QTE finishers that would make the game excessively easy? A scoring system that would serve no purpose? Slowing down enemies every time you dodge right? A lock on system that slows you to a slow walk?

Anything more than dodge, then hit with a stick would be nice. Perhaps, a juggle, Bloodborne was ripe for that. Perhaps, a dodge/block offset. Perhaps, something like Nioh's Ki Pulse. There's nothing to master in the Souls game from a mechanics standpoint, combat becomes really boring outside of boss battles.

That's almost every action game. I can get through almost every fight in Bayonetta by dodging and pressing Y. It has canned QTE animations to break up the monotony, but I wouldn't call that a positive. Like in the Souls games, you can change it up if you're getting bored. But the Souls games don't automatically turn you towards the enemy when you press attack, which I'm grateful for. It's not about looking cool, which I'm also grateful for.

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.

personally, I found flinging powers every second was enjoyable, way more then shooting. It gave me options to deal with a situation. You could destroy a room without popping out of cover. But I could understanding someone wanting to shoot thier way out.

The first mission was by far the hardest mission. You couldn't combine powers well.

Ezekiel:
That's almost every action game. I can get through almost every fight in Bayonetta by dodging and pressing Y. It has canned QTE animations to break up the monotony, but I wouldn't call that a positive. Like in the Souls games, you can change it up if you're getting bored. But the Souls games don't automatically turn you towards the enemy when you press attack, which I'm grateful for. It's not about looking cool, which I'm also grateful for.

Good action games have mechanics to master and you get better at the game the more you play. I played Bayo 3 times in a row when I first got it because I was consistently improving as a player as well as the game being great fun. Same thing with Vanquish, there's quite a huge difference between the videos you made vs how someone that basically mastered the game plays. Again, you seem to have played Bayo in the not fun manner, games aren't just about finding the easiest way to complete them. Also, that stuff wouldn't fly on Hard or NSIC. It's like that video you posted of running through Dishonored 2's opening level, why would you play like that unless you're speedrunning it and that's why I don't speedrun games because it's usually a rather not fun way to play. Looking cool when it's hard to look cool is where the mastery and fun is at.

What can you change up in the Souls game? You can use magic or a shield but that's even more boring and easy. Every weapon just varies along the spectrum of from slow/high damage to quick/low damage. You're still doing the same thing regardless if you have a hammer the size of your character or a katana. Bloodborne added a bit with the trick weapons, but they didn't really add anything to master mechanically. The best thing added was that you could smash an enemy (even bosses) to the ground with a charged heavy attack, which is both cool and rewarding a risky move. However, the game even messes that up by giving the enemy i-frames to get up thereby causing the player to barely get rewarded for such a risky move making it not worth it to even do. That even goes against the Souls mantra of everything is fair because you, as the player, don't get i-frames to get up but the enemy does. The viscerals were definitely a step up from the riposte. I remember seeing a trailer for Bloodborne and seeing Father G knock the player into the air and I was like "awesome, there's juggles!" and I was disappointed when that wasn't in the game.

Pff... Bayonetta isn't so much about getting better as it is about looking cooler. If a boxer did a bunch of retarded spins and twirls in the ring, no one would compliment his skills any more than if he simply punched the other guy. They'd ask why the idiot is wasting so much energy. I don't care for that fluff, which I don't try to learn the combos. I'd rather play something simplistic yet well designed, like Streets of Rage 2. Streets of Rage 2 is funner than Bayonetta.

Like who shoved a stick up Ezekiel's butt. Does this guy like any games because the impression I'm getting is that he just hate plays games to trash talk them online.

Ezekiel:
If a boxer did a bunch of retarded spins and twirls in the ring, no one would compliment his skills any more than if he simply punched the other guy

So what show boating? Pretty common in sports like boxing and needlessly flashy moves are a pretty common sight in MMA and people do praise them for it. Just check out how much more popular videos of of spin kick KO are over a clip of a standard pin.

Ezekiel:
Pff... Bayonetta isn't so much about getting better as it is about looking cooler. If a boxer did a bunch of retarded spins and twirls in the ring, no one would compliment his skills any more than if he simply punched the other guy. They'd ask why the idiot is wasting so much energy. I don't care for that fluff, which I don't try to learn the combos. I'd rather play something simplistic yet well designed, like Streets of Rage 2. Streets of Rage 2 is funner than Bayonetta.

But getting good at Bayo is about hitting harder in a shorter amount of time...

alrekr:
Like who shoved a stick up Ezekiel's butt. Does this guy like any games because the impression I'm getting is that he just hate plays games to trash talk them online.

Ezekiel:
If a boxer did a bunch of retarded spins and twirls in the ring, no one would compliment his skills any more than if he simply punched the other guy

So what show boating? Pretty common in sports like boxing and needlessly flashy moves are a pretty common sight in MMA and people do praise them for it. Just check out how much more popular videos of of spin kick KO are over a clip of a standard pin.

I'm not into sports, but I thought showboating was frowned upon. After a quick search, it does appear to be frowned upon. Especially when the needless actions cost them the match or hurt their score. But even outside of that. Besides, what Ali did wasn't that retarded.

Phoenixmgs:
But getting good at Bayo is about hitting harder in a shorter amount of time...

It's about stringing long combos with different button combinations, which ain't fighting.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
But getting good at Bayo is about hitting harder in a shorter amount of time...

It's about stringing long combos with different button combinations, which ain't fighting.

No it's not. The combos are 3-6 buttons in length, which is short compared to fighting games. Wicked weaves hit the hardest and come at the end of combos so you don't want long combos. Then, of course, you want to use your magic doing torture attacks and then executing a punish attack to regain your magic, which is set up by combos in which you knock enemies down or up. It's one glorious gameplay loop.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
But getting good at Bayo is about hitting harder in a shorter amount of time...

It's about stringing long combos with different button combinations, which ain't fighting.

No it's not. The combos are 3-6 buttons in length, which is short compared to fighting games.

That's not short. I don't play fighting games. You wanna turn the Souls games into something they shouldn't be. I prefer the importance of positioning and simple attacks in Streets of Rage 2. Dark Souls is kind of like that too, except the level design adds another element of danger, something which Bayonetta's big empty arenas seldom achieve. It's more satisfying to me than a scoring system based on pointless variety and not getting hit, a system of automation with so many attacks that you don't even feel in 1:1 control when you're pressing buttons in random orders and the character keeps performing unpredictable moves. I'd love a modern 3D Streets of Rage. What is Sega doing?

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
It's about stringing long combos with different button combinations, which ain't fighting.

No it's not. The combos are 3-6 buttons in length, which is short compared to fighting games.

That's not short. I don't play fighting games. You wanna turn the Souls games into something they shouldn't be. I prefer the importance of positioning and simple attacks in Streets of Rage 2. Dark Souls is kind of like that too, except the level design adds another element of danger, something which Bayonetta's big empty arenas seldom achieve. It's more satisfying to me than a scoring system based on pointless variety and not getting hit, a system of automation with so many attacks that you don't even feel in 1:1 control when you're pressing buttons in random orders and the character keeps performing unpredictable moves. I'd love a modern 3D Streets of Rage. What is Sega doing?

I never said Souls should have combos; either make the combat better or remove the majority of the enemies. Positioning has like zero importance in a Souls game unless you're PvPing as the AI is horrid. Clover (basically Platinum) already made a brawler called God Hand, it's basically 3D Streets of Rage, and oh boy is positioning important in that. TotalBiscuit did a marvelous video on it in his "This is why we can't have nice things" series.

By what you type, it's obvious you didn't learn to play Bayonetta properly because everything you say is completely false. You can play it and completely ignore the scoring system, I didn't give a rat's ass about my score, I cared about getting better and playing the game well, which I knew I was doing or not regardless of my score. It's like a hitter in baseball knows if he's hitting well or not, he doesn't need to look at his stats to know. Some people care about the scoring system and try to get top scores so that's there for those type of people. Just like some people like speedrunning games. Bayonetta does exactly what you tell her to do; if she was doing unpredictable stuff, you were button mashing then.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

No it's not. The combos are 3-6 buttons in length, which is short compared to fighting games.

That's not short. I don't play fighting games. You wanna turn the Souls games into something they shouldn't be. I prefer the importance of positioning and simple attacks in Streets of Rage 2. Dark Souls is kind of like that too, except the level design adds another element of danger, something which Bayonetta's big empty arenas seldom achieve. It's more satisfying to me than a scoring system based on pointless variety and not getting hit, a system of automation with so many attacks that you don't even feel in 1:1 control when you're pressing buttons in random orders and the character keeps performing unpredictable moves. I'd love a modern 3D Streets of Rage. What is Sega doing?

I never said Souls should have combos; either make the combat better or remove the majority of the enemies. Positioning has like zero importance in a Souls game unless you're PvPing as the AI is horrid. Clover (basically Platinum) already made a brawler called God Hand, it's basically 3D Streets of Rage, and oh boy is positioning important in that. TotalBiscuit did a marvelous video on it in his "This is why we can't have nice things" series.

By what you type, it's obvious you didn't learn to play Bayonetta properly because everything you say is completely false. You can play it and completely ignore the scoring system, I didn't give a rat's ass about my score, I cared about getting better and playing the game well, which I knew I was doing or not regardless of my score. It's like a hitter in baseball knows if he's hitting well or not, he doesn't need to look at his stats to know. Some people care about the scoring system and try to get top scores so that's there for those type of people. Just like some people like speedrunning games. Bayonetta does exactly what you tell her to do; if she was doing unpredictable stuff, you were button mashing then.

Scoring system, your definition of getting good, it's the same thing. Performing combos for more effect. It doesn't matter how long the combo is, it's still lame that repeating regular attacks has so little effect. I don't wanna look at a menu and memorize these arbitrary moves, I wanna play the game. I want my hits to have impact. That's how Streets of Rage 2 makes me feel. I also love throwing people into other people.

There was a game I was thinking of earlier, but now I can't remember what it was. I thought of it after someone on the last page said shooters are better with flat, empty areas. Maybe it was Souls. But I thought of this game because it had pretty basic combat but interesting level and world design, which was far more stimulating to me. I could keep playing it and playing it without stopping. I can't do that with games like Bayonetta and Metal Gear Rising and Vanquish, because they have such bland environments and maps. Platinum still hasn't realized that a combat system by itself doesn't make a game. It makes their games so repetitive.

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.

Come to think about it, in original DeusEx on max difficulty settings, although there was no cover system, you would keep on hiding behind something constantly and memorising sniper positions anyway.
Since you could tell, that you are in sniper's range, that took notice of you by... loading screen ;) (instant death). Ofcourse once you got few augs and weapon upgrades going you could go all out, building jumping, sword slashin and weapon blazing, pushing this to story breaking level (ie. wiping out everything on mission in which you can either let your brother di runing away trhough window or run out with him guns blazing and supposedly to your own demise; Gunther Hermann is immune to damage in this mission thou, so in the end you have no choice but let him kill you to move the story forward).

Ezekiel:
Scoring system, your definition of getting good, it's the same thing. Performing combos for more effect. It doesn't matter how long the combo is, it's still lame that repeating regular attacks has so little effect. I don't wanna look at a menu and memorize these arbitrary moves, I wanna play the game. I want my hits to have impact. That's how Streets of Rage 2 makes me feel. I also love throwing people into other people.

There was a game I was thinking of earlier, but now I can't remember what it was. I thought of it after someone on the last page said shooters are better with flat, empty areas. Maybe it was Souls. But I thought of this game because it had pretty basic combat but interesting level and world design, which was far more stimulating to me. I could keep playing it and playing it without stopping. I can't do that with games like Bayonetta and Metal Gear Rising and Vanquish, because they have such bland environments and maps. Platinum still hasn't realized that a combat system by itself doesn't make a game. It makes their games so repetitive.

Punch+Kick+Punch is too hard?

You make the games repetitive by finding the most repetitive way to play and doing nothing but that. The most important thing to a game is how it PLAYS. You think a baseball player would call baseball repetitive because he plays 81 games a year at his home park? It's why there's been a backlash at against open world games because they rarely do any one thing really well, they are a jack-of-all-trades. Environments have gotten bigger yet games have gotten worse. TotalBiscuit hits the nail on the head right here...

Y'all need to get some sun and remember these are video games.

You know, for fun?

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Scoring system, your definition of getting good, it's the same thing. Performing combos for more effect. It doesn't matter how long the combo is, it's still lame that repeating regular attacks has so little effect. I don't wanna look at a menu and memorize these arbitrary moves, I wanna play the game. I want my hits to have impact. That's how Streets of Rage 2 makes me feel. I also love throwing people into other people.

There was a game I was thinking of earlier, but now I can't remember what it was. I thought of it after someone on the last page said shooters are better with flat, empty areas. Maybe it was Souls. But I thought of this game because it had pretty basic combat but interesting level and world design, which was far more stimulating to me. I could keep playing it and playing it without stopping. I can't do that with games like Bayonetta and Metal Gear Rising and Vanquish, because they have such bland environments and maps. Platinum still hasn't realized that a combat system by itself doesn't make a game. It makes their games so repetitive.

Punch+Kick+Punch is too hard?

You make the games repetitive by finding the most repetitive way to play and doing nothing but that. The most important thing to a game is how it PLAYS. You think a baseball player would call baseball repetitive because he plays 81 games a year at his home park? It's why there's been a backlash at against open world games because they rarely do any one thing really well, they are a jack-of-all-trades. Environments have gotten bigger yet games have gotten worse. TotalBiscuit hits the nail on the head right here...

Most open world games don't even have proper level design. The Souls games have good level design and good gameplay. Streets of Rage 2 was just about the combat, but it was short and sweet. I think L4D-like campaigns would be best for a modern Streets of Rage-style game. Two or three players max. The host could start off alone or with an AI or two. Online players could jump right in and take control of the AI. There would be banter between the characters, like in L4D. By making this new Streets of Rage kind of like L4D's campaigns, it wouldn't feel tediously long. I wouldn't want it to have an over the shoulder camera like God Hand's. Also, a production doesn't have to stretch itself thin like that. Environments and combat can be different departments with different people, who communicate.

Cover systems are great but only if you dont have rechargeable shields and health. That way charging out of cover towards the enemy can end in sucess or death. Especially with limited health packs. But many games have cover systems and regenerating shields so you just behind cover until your shield regenerates - thats what makes these games easier and boring.

I'm not a big shooter player, but I don't see the problem. I usually play games solo on the highest difficulty and I like to be slow and methodical, so cover systems mesh well with that playstyle.

Besides, run and gun is not very realistic to me. In real life combat, the goal is always to find a way to shoot at the enemy while not exposing yourself. Run and gun went out of style about the time that rifling made guns actually accurate enough to hit what you were aiming at (post-Napolean era).

In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

Kerg3927:

Besides, run and gun is not very realistic to me. In real life combat, the goal is always to find a way to shoot at the enemy while not exposing yourself. Run and gun went out of style about the time that rifling made guns actually accurate enough to hit what you were aiming at (post-Napolean era).

In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

There's some basis for 'running and gunning' in 'real life' combat, but its pretty specific - Breaching. Especially when taking a building - Speed is life, and moving through a corridor, through a room, from floor to floor as fast as possible is always preferable to taking cover or trying to protect yourself. You just have to push through.

Kerg3927:
In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

The problem I have with realism in shooters is that real gunfights aren't fun. And, aiming in a game is so drastically faster than real life that trying to bring in realistic elements is usually a hindrance on the game.

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:
In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

The problem I have with realism in shooters is that real gunfights aren't fun. And, aiming in a game is so drastically faster than real life that trying to bring in realistic elements is usually a hindrance on the game.

Compare it to hunting then. People usually don't run and gun when they hunt, either. Obviously, cover is not necessary for protection, but you still want a preferably concealed vantage point where you can see an area and have a rest for your gun, even if it's just on the side of a tree.

I don't know, as someone who has hunted and shot a lot of guns in real life, shooting from cover just feels more natural than charging out into the open and blazing away free-handed. So I don't see cover as a negative.

Kerg3927:
I'm not a big shooter player, but I don't see the problem. I usually play games solo on the highest difficulty and I like to be slow and methodical, so cover systems mesh well with that playstyle.

Besides, run and gun is not very realistic to me. In real life combat, the goal is always to find a way to shoot at the enemy while not exposing yourself. Run and gun went out of style about the time that rifling made guns actually accurate enough to hit what you were aiming at (post-Napolean era).

In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

In real life, you don't stick to cover, and you can use cover even if it's not near you. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't turn your back against the wall you're taking cover behind. You can have cover without making it a dedicated button. Just put in a shoulder swap button and a good crouch. The problem that I have with cover systems is that whenever a game has one, the devs decide to put you in whack-a-mole situations in which you can't move at all.

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:
In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

The problem I have with realism in shooters is that real gunfights aren't fun. And, aiming in a game is so drastically faster than real life that trying to bring in realistic elements is usually a hindrance on the game.

Compare it to hunting then. People usually don't run and gun when they hunt, either. Obviously, cover is not necessary for protection, but you still want a preferably concealed vantage point where you can see an area and have a rest for your gun, even if it's just on the side of a tree.

I don't know, as someone who has hunted and shot a lot of guns in real life, shooting from cover just feels more natural than charging out into the open and blazing away free-handed. So I don't see cover as a negative.

The main thing for me is a lot of cover shooters devolve into whack-a-mole, which just isn't good gameplay. Playing slow, using cover, and utilizing vantage points is good for a stealth-oriented shooter like a Sniper Elite but for standard shooters, that usually results in boring gameplay. It's a game, I wanna do stuff that doesn't fly in real life like when Uncharted is at its best or to the extreme of killing robot dinosaurs with a bow and arrow.

Phoenixmgs:
The main thing for me is a lot of cover shooters devolve into whack-a-mole...

If you ever watch a cop show shootout on TV, they play whack-a-mole, too. Real cops in shootouts probably operate similarly, except they're not playing.

... which just isn't good gameplay. Playing slow, using cover, and utilizing vantage points is good for a stealth-oriented shooter like a Sniper Elite but for standard shooters, that usually results in boring gameplay. It's a game, I wanna do stuff that doesn't fly in real life like when Uncharted is at its best or to the extreme of killing robot dinosaurs with a bow and arrow.

And that's understandable. Just difficult to do, IMO, without giving your character some magical super hero powers or sci fi equipment. Cover systems in games could probably be improved, but you probably can't do away with it and expect to maintain any semblence of realism. But if you'd rather have more fun gameplay than realism, that's fine. Just have to recognize that there is a tradeoff.

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
The main thing for me is a lot of cover shooters devolve into whack-a-mole...

If you ever watch a cop show shootout on TV, they play whack-a-mole, too. Real cops in shootouts probably operate similarly, except they're not playing.

... which just isn't good gameplay. Playing slow, using cover, and utilizing vantage points is good for a stealth-oriented shooter like a Sniper Elite but for standard shooters, that usually results in boring gameplay. It's a game, I wanna do stuff that doesn't fly in real life like when Uncharted is at its best or to the extreme of killing robot dinosaurs with a bow and arrow.

And that's understandable. Just difficult to do, IMO, without giving your character some magical super hero powers or sci fi equipment. Cover systems in games could probably be improved, but you probably can't do away with it and expect to maintain any semblence of realism. But if you'd rather have more fun gameplay than realism, that's fine. Just have to recognize that there is a tradeoff.

If a shooter about cop shootouts was just you controlling a single cop shooting from behind his car (and occasionally moving), the game would suck. However, if the game was an XCOM-like tactics game where the goal was eliminating the threat without losing any cops, that would be an immensely better game.

The whack-a-mole gameplay makes for bad, repetitive gameplay. There's nothing to improve your play besides getting better at aiming. And, of course, there's also no variety involved either. If you have a shooter that emphasizes strategy, tactics, and stealth; then you are doing more than just shooting as your gameplay. But most shooters are much more akin to the CODs, BFs, Spec Ops, Uncharteds, etc. where it's mostly linear corridor-like level design that is basically just a fancy shooting gallery. Even something like TLOU it works fine as most of the gameplay involves getting in a good position to take out 1 or 2 enemies at a time safely and then executing a good shot; it works especially well with the bow because you actually have to calculate drop and lead your target. Whereas guns in most shooters are far too accurate with barely any recoil to the point there's nothing to it but point and shoot. Thus, in "shooting gallery" shooters, most realism elements from cover shooting to real bullet damage make them worse games because those elements remove depth in that scenario. And, a cover system in those types of shooters should also allow for extending the movement system and making cover usage something that can be used offensively (like Ghost Recon Future Soldier) vs only being used defensively.

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:
In any real gunfight, the first thing you do is find cover, so it makes sense to me.

The problem I have with realism in shooters is that real gunfights aren't fun. And, aiming in a game is so drastically faster than real life that trying to bring in realistic elements is usually a hindrance on the game.

Compare it to hunting then. People usually don't run and gun when they hunt, either. Obviously, cover is not necessary for protection, but you still want a preferably concealed vantage point where you can see an area and have a rest for your gun, even if it's just on the side of a tree.

I don't know, as someone who has hunted and shot a lot of guns in real life, shooting from cover just feels more natural than charging out into the open and blazing away free-handed. So I don't see cover as a negative.

Better yet, think of it as if the animals (or other people) are hunting you. With that frame of mind you bet your ass you'll be using cover, unless you truly have a death wish. I'd love to play a true-to-nature survival horror game in first person, with something like an adrenaline system that would change based on situational awareness. It would definitely have shooting, but the challenge would be nailing the movement and traversal mechanics, which are typically limited in this perspective. It would also have lean/peak, along with prone and crouch which all could pretty much take the place of a cover system.

Phoenixmgs:

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
The main thing for me is a lot of cover shooters devolve into whack-a-mole...

If you ever watch a cop show shootout on TV, they play whack-a-mole, too. Real cops in shootouts probably operate similarly, except they're not playing.

... which just isn't good gameplay. Playing slow, using cover, and utilizing vantage points is good for a stealth-oriented shooter like a Sniper Elite but for standard shooters, that usually results in boring gameplay. It's a game, I wanna do stuff that doesn't fly in real life like when Uncharted is at its best or to the extreme of killing robot dinosaurs with a bow and arrow.

And that's understandable. Just difficult to do, IMO, without giving your character some magical super hero powers or sci fi equipment. Cover systems in games could probably be improved, but you probably can't do away with it and expect to maintain any semblence of realism. But if you'd rather have more fun gameplay than realism, that's fine. Just have to recognize that there is a tradeoff.

If a shooter about cop shootouts was just you controlling a single cop shooting from behind his car (and occasionally moving), the game would suck. However, if the game was an XCOM-like tactics game where the goal was eliminating the threat without losing any cops, that would be an immensely better game.

The whack-a-mole gameplay makes for bad, repetitive gameplay. There's nothing to improve your play besides getting better at aiming. And, of course, there's also no variety involved either. If you have a shooter that emphasizes strategy, tactics, and stealth; then you are doing more than just shooting as your gameplay. But most shooters are much more akin to the CODs, BFs, Spec Ops, Uncharteds, etc. where it's mostly linear corridor-like level design that is basically just a fancy shooting gallery. Even something like TLOU it works fine as most of the gameplay involves getting in a good position to take out 1 or 2 enemies at a time safely and then executing a good shot; it works especially well with the bow because you actually have to calculate drop and lead your target. Whereas guns in most shooters are far too accurate with barely any recoil to the point there's nothing to it but point and shoot. Thus, in "shooting gallery" shooters, most realism elements from cover shooting to real bullet damage make them worse games because those elements remove depth in that scenario. And, a cover system in those types of shooters should also allow for extending the movement system and making cover usage something that can be used offensively (like Ghost Recon Future Soldier) vs only being used defensively.

Makes sense. My shooter experience is limited. I played the original Doom games back in the day and Duke Nukem. I think the cover system is an improvement from hide behind wall, strafe left and shoot, strafe right back behind wall. Repeat.

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of my favorite game series. I remember people complaining that Mass Effect 2 was trying to turn the series into Gears of War. I thought the ME2 & ME3 gameplay with cover system was a lot of fun. It's not just about whack-a-mole. You have melee enemies that rush you. In ME3 they throw grenades behind your cover. Cover can be destroyed. Or you can get outflanked.

But Mass Effect is more than just a shooter where you pick up guns and kill people, repeat. There's leveling up, upgrading and modding your guns and gear, and of course, the story, which is the main focus.

I have played the original Gears of War, and it did start to get repetitive after a while, so I can see where you're coming from.

Aren't you guy that made some bogus claims about Fallout?

Taking cover is part of battle, because Rambo is myth. Any dude that just waltzes in, guns blazing, is probably going to die. But don't take it from me. Here's Captain Blackadder to fill you in.

Kerg3927:
Makes sense. My shooter experience is limited. I played the original Doom games back in the day and Duke Nukem. I think the cover system is an improvement from hide behind wall, strafe left and shoot, strafe right back behind wall. Repeat.

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of my favorite game series. I remember people complaining that Mass Effect 2 was trying to turn the series into Gears of War. I thought the ME2 & ME3 gameplay with cover system was a lot of fun. It's not just about whack-a-mole. You have melee enemies that rush you. In ME3 they throw grenades behind your cover. Cover can be destroyed. Or you can get outflanked.

But Mass Effect is more than just a shooter where you pick up guns and kill people, repeat. There's leveling up, upgrading and modding your guns and gear, and of course, the story, which is the main focus.

I have played the original Gears of War, and it did start to get repetitive after a while, so I can see where you're coming from.

Mass Effect is great because you can play without needing to be forced into cover. There's a suite of powers/abilities that allow for additional movement, crowd control, and damage. It's an RPG that is sadly a better shooter than most shooters.

FalloutJack:

Pfft, Blackaddar is hardly a military strategists. If you want to know what works, ask a General!

image

 Pages PREV 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