Alternative to cover-based combat?
- Thread starter Cranyx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think the real problem is about using a cover system
The problem, at least for me, is the poor implementation of cover based mechanics. They usually have these major flaws for me.
1) Lack of suppression. You can shoot all you want at your enemy, but he will still poke his head out and certain intervals. With the exception of the Brothers in Arms series, which when suppressed they just...poke their head out less and not as far. This ruins tactics when it really does just become like Yahtzee says, a shooting gallery. If they made enemies take cover...I dunno, from bullets that'd be great. You could then pin them, and move around them. Which I think would by itself make cover based shooting much more fun.
2) The cover is obviously placed. You will always have it. You'll always know combat is coming because you can only take cover on certain walls, that are about chest high. Levels end up looking more like cement bank queues than an actual place. I don't think cover should be designed into the level like that. What they should do it design a level that's believable, throw in some furniture or something, and make the player decide where to take cover. Or...maybe just not have cover in a room, so you have to hang out by the door and clear it out for a bit. It would change up tactics per room almost, rather than say...you need to run to that wall, shoot Steve the rent-a-cop, then move up to the next wall to trigger the next wave of security, shoot them all, move up to the next wall. You could make the flow so much better.
3) The lack of the ability to blind fire. Most games with cover tend to lack this feature. I don't think it's because they hate it, or they didn't have time. I believe it's not here because of the AI like in point 1. If you can't suppress enemies, there's really no need to blind fire. I think it could add a lot to a game having both of these.
4) Cover is absolutely necessary. If you come out of cover, the enemy has super accurate weapons, they don't breathe, and they have no heartbeat. They have bionic eyes, and super reflexes. You stop being in cover, ever bullet on this half of the planet is going right for you. I think when you sprint, you should be pretty hard to actually hit. You could use that to your adventage tactically too. (Sometimes it works in games...sometimes it doesn't. For me, more often it doesn't.) The ability to slide and such could be implemented too. (which seems to be coming in some games) Or bring diving back. Strangely getting to cover is pretty well done in the newer James Bond games (Quantum of Solace and Blood Stone)
...Giant wall of text, but that's really how I feel about it. I'd rather not have an alternative (because there aren't many really) I just think the current state of things need to be changed. The only games I think should kinda get noted for doing it properly (not perfect, but passably so) is Brothers in Arms, and Killswitch. Oddly both of them came before Gears of War...
The problem, at least for me, is the poor implementation of cover based mechanics. They usually have these major flaws for me.
1) Lack of suppression. You can shoot all you want at your enemy, but he will still poke his head out and certain intervals. With the exception of the Brothers in Arms series, which when suppressed they just...poke their head out less and not as far. This ruins tactics when it really does just become like Yahtzee says, a shooting gallery. If they made enemies take cover...I dunno, from bullets that'd be great. You could then pin them, and move around them. Which I think would by itself make cover based shooting much more fun.
2) The cover is obviously placed. You will always have it. You'll always know combat is coming because you can only take cover on certain walls, that are about chest high. Levels end up looking more like cement bank queues than an actual place. I don't think cover should be designed into the level like that. What they should do it design a level that's believable, throw in some furniture or something, and make the player decide where to take cover. Or...maybe just not have cover in a room, so you have to hang out by the door and clear it out for a bit. It would change up tactics per room almost, rather than say...you need to run to that wall, shoot Steve the rent-a-cop, then move up to the next wall to trigger the next wave of security, shoot them all, move up to the next wall. You could make the flow so much better.
3) The lack of the ability to blind fire. Most games with cover tend to lack this feature. I don't think it's because they hate it, or they didn't have time. I believe it's not here because of the AI like in point 1. If you can't suppress enemies, there's really no need to blind fire. I think it could add a lot to a game having both of these.
4) Cover is absolutely necessary. If you come out of cover, the enemy has super accurate weapons, they don't breathe, and they have no heartbeat. They have bionic eyes, and super reflexes. You stop being in cover, ever bullet on this half of the planet is going right for you. I think when you sprint, you should be pretty hard to actually hit. You could use that to your adventage tactically too. (Sometimes it works in games...sometimes it doesn't. For me, more often it doesn't.) The ability to slide and such could be implemented too. (which seems to be coming in some games) Or bring diving back. Strangely getting to cover is pretty well done in the newer James Bond games (Quantum of Solace and Blood Stone)
...Giant wall of text, but that's really how I feel about it. I'd rather not have an alternative (because there aren't many really) I just think the current state of things need to be changed. The only games I think should kinda get noted for doing it properly (not perfect, but passably so) is Brothers in Arms, and Killswitch. Oddly both of them came before Gears of War...
You pretty much have to have it in "realistic" shooters, since people will generally use some kind of cover in a firefight.
I suppose the only real alternative is to change the genre itself: Add melee, stealth, increase the player's speed to the point where enemies can't hit, anything. Vanquish did it well, but I digress.
I suppose the only real alternative is to change the genre itself: Add melee, stealth, increase the player's speed to the point where enemies can't hit, anything. Vanquish did it well, but I digress.
You could go EXTREMELY old school and have everyone stand in lines and take single shot volleys at each other.
The Battlefield sub series, Bad Company, both the first and the second, have a fun way of maintaining cover in battle. There is no cover system, but there is a large amount of cover. At the same time, the environment is 90% destructible, allowing to shape your cover however you wish. Or kill a shit load of campers, whatever floats your boat.
It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it wasn't so overdone, but they just ramped it up to the point where everyone that comes into the map finds a chest high wall to hug and you end up playing modern "realistic" gritty brown super ultra mega high def whack a mole, and that is one nasty evolutionary step.
Just dial it down, it's not like chest high walls grow out of every crevice of every surface.
Just dial it down, it's not like chest high walls grow out of every crevice of every surface.
ok how about we take the fallout style of having each body part assigned its own hp based on body type, anatomy, and clothing, then we have the character react to the wounded areas such as if you are shot in the arm you cant use that arm or if you are shot in the leg you drag your leg or if you are shot in the dead you are dead.
After that to simulate near hits we add a bit of dnd stats by having save percents that based on what you wear and what wounds you have add or subtract from those saves such as wearing a bullet proof vest increases the save from getting shot in the chest while having an incapacitated leg reduces your save.
then we take concepts such as cover and instead of getting glued to the wall you just crouch to the correct height by adjusting it your self with either a few preset key bound heights or you can adjust it on the fly.
After that to simulate near hits we add a bit of dnd stats by having save percents that based on what you wear and what wounds you have add or subtract from those saves such as wearing a bullet proof vest increases the save from getting shot in the chest while having an incapacitated leg reduces your save.
then we take concepts such as cover and instead of getting glued to the wall you just crouch to the correct height by adjusting it your self with either a few preset key bound heights or you can adjust it on the fly.
Best solution to prevent cover-based combat fatigue is a wide variety of enemy types, so cover-based combat doesn't become the entirity of gameplay. It's only when nearly every enemy hides behind cover that it becomes whack-a-mole. There's nothing inherently wrong with cover-based mechanics that you need to get rid of them. It's simply an easier to use system to what players naturally do. Halo players are hiding behind walls too.
Both style games have their issues. People are only bringing up Cover-based mechanics because they're more common now than they were a 5 years ago.
The run-and-gun style of Doom is hard for developers to develop and make interesting to a mass audience for a long time in todays market. Back when Doom was new and original, those kind of games worked because, at the time, thats the only real way to make the game work. Quake, Wolfenstein, and Unreal Tournament followed suit.
In an age where software and hardware can press technological bounds, that type of gameplay is being phased out: just like turn-based combat in RPG's. Wave after wave after wave of enemies charging at you, and either:
A. being turned into pastrami
B. Getting railed
is hard to design successfully for. It either puts the game in a situation where its too easy, or too hard. Both cause a lot of people to put the game down. Its hard to tell when and where to put a health pack in non-regenerating health games: put them too far apart and its artifically harder, while putting them closer together makes the game artifically easier.
Cover based games, however, have much more appeal to people. Health low? Pop down, regen, pop back up. It allows for varying degrees of difficulty, without making the player feel like its too easy, or too hard (unless it was badly developed). The problem with that is then linearity. Its easy to tell when something is going to happen.
Atleast thats what people say: personally I get engrossed in most of the games I play. I dont think to myself "ambush up ahead", I go into it and get suprised. Same for movies as well, I dont think ahead, I watch whats in the present. Try it sometime, it makes your experience MUCH better.
But I digress. These two styles have there flaws. Personally, I think the Run-and-gun era was just boring. Very little tactic, and with the open world (and often lack of a compass), it made getting lost really easy. The cover based games appeal to a wider audience: and are often more fulfilling. Whats the challenge in mowing down 46 demons with a Chain Gun if all you had to do is press and hold your left mouse button?
The run-and-gun style of Doom is hard for developers to develop and make interesting to a mass audience for a long time in todays market. Back when Doom was new and original, those kind of games worked because, at the time, thats the only real way to make the game work. Quake, Wolfenstein, and Unreal Tournament followed suit.
In an age where software and hardware can press technological bounds, that type of gameplay is being phased out: just like turn-based combat in RPG's. Wave after wave after wave of enemies charging at you, and either:
A. being turned into pastrami
B. Getting railed
is hard to design successfully for. It either puts the game in a situation where its too easy, or too hard. Both cause a lot of people to put the game down. Its hard to tell when and where to put a health pack in non-regenerating health games: put them too far apart and its artifically harder, while putting them closer together makes the game artifically easier.
Cover based games, however, have much more appeal to people. Health low? Pop down, regen, pop back up. It allows for varying degrees of difficulty, without making the player feel like its too easy, or too hard (unless it was badly developed). The problem with that is then linearity. Its easy to tell when something is going to happen.
Atleast thats what people say: personally I get engrossed in most of the games I play. I dont think to myself "ambush up ahead", I go into it and get suprised. Same for movies as well, I dont think ahead, I watch whats in the present. Try it sometime, it makes your experience MUCH better.
But I digress. These two styles have there flaws. Personally, I think the Run-and-gun era was just boring. Very little tactic, and with the open world (and often lack of a compass), it made getting lost really easy. The cover based games appeal to a wider audience: and are often more fulfilling. Whats the challenge in mowing down 46 demons with a Chain Gun if all you had to do is press and hold your left mouse button?
So are you a fan of how the Uncharted series handles it? I actually do like it. In case you haven't played any of the games:oplinger said:
Some enemies (mostly ones with shotguns who have heavier armor) will continually press towards you while others stay back and shoot from a distance. Snipers will stay out of cover, but you need to either take them down quickly or stay mobile to avoid their fire).
You can shoot blind from cover. The reticule disappears as soon as you go into cover, so you really are shooting blind. You can also shoot (with a pistol) while hanging from an object. And you can also shoot behind you while you're being chased (it's much more inaccurate than standard shooting).
I understand that there will be almost an entire generation now that has seen little else but cover shooters and life regenerating meat walls, but before this current era we had games that operated like this:Cranyx said:
In the old days it was all about dodging projectiles and trying to keep one step ahead of bullets. Walls were used for cover but you didn't suction onto them and since everyone had fairly high health and head shots weren't one-hit kills it's not like you couldn't flush somebody out of cover. Play a game like Quake 2 and you'll see what I mean man.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Kill switch was a surprisingly good game. Cover was often arranged in a fashion that was almost like a puzzle and didn't resort to chest high walls planted here and there for the hell of it. It was a good game, I remember enjoying it when it came out. Had I known it was to spawn a never-ending wave of cover shooters I might have burned down the studio that made it but I am a little surprised killswitch itself never got a sequel.oplinger said: