Are Cover Mechanics Pointless?

[Tiger King]

didn't gears of war invent cover mechanics? I mean, true glue to a wall and blindfire cover mechanics?
I remember seeing a trailer on my households crappy old pc ages ago (must be ten years?) and that and oblivion was what convinced me to get a 360.
for anyone that cares by the way, I have an original white 360 that hasn't red ringed me. must have been the only one ha ha

anyway, in the super duper limited edition gears of war box, there was a little art book with a fore word from cliffy b, the mega manager/director/dogsbody, whatever his job was at epic.
he said he was out paintballing and he was inspired by the feeling of rushing and slamming into cover with paintballs wizzing over his head to make gears of war, or something like that.
he spoke about realism and eliminating the strafing that was going on in first person shooters at the time like quake.

so is it pointless?
depends on your view, do you want realism? or do you not care too much?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

didn't gears of war invent cover mechanics? I mean, true glue to a wall and blindfire cover mechanics?

Winback invented cover mechanics 2 gens before Gears back on N64.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't dislike cover where you press against it and then your aiming is adjusted when you want to. That's more fluid and immersive and whatnot when the controls are good. But there's a line between games where cover is effective and enhances the gameplay and games where cover is the only way you can play and you're in it practically all the time. That said, I think I prefer no cover-specific stance when compared to most cover systems.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't know why Rockstar removed the crouch and replaced it with that lame slow walking thing.I used to crouch walk all the time in GTA4 when there was no cover present,GTA5 should've had something like that.

They became super reliant on cover shooting as a "feature." And while I don't hate it (as I said), I think this dependence is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

Well, you're playing games with cover mechanics... that's your problem right there.
I wouldn't say cover mechanics are pointless...
shitty yes, pointless no.

Because taking out a mechanic the game is built around would probably render it unplayable for the most part.

in games where the enemies aim is based on percentages, distance and line of sight, taking out that "line of sight" modifier so it's always on would limit your options to sniping better than the AI or spamming health packs.

but if it has regenerating health based on a timer instead of health packs. Your fate is in the hands of RNGesus

Spoiler: may he be praised

and that's bad game design

cough Bioshock Infinite Cough

 

[SnakeTrousers]

snip

Well, you're playing games with cover mechanics... that's your problem right there.
I wouldn't say cover mechanics are pointless...
shitty yes, pointless no.

Because taking out a mechanic the game is built around would probably render it unplayable for the most part.

Methinks you didn't read too far into my post. My point is, these games aren't unplayable at all without the cover mechanics, in fact not using them often has it's advantages. In Uncharted, for an extreme example, it's actually possible to shoot enemies through walls as long as the reticle is over them.

 

[Something Amyss]

They became super reliant on cover shooting as a "feature." And while I don't hate it (as I said), I think this dependence is kind of ridiculous.

Agreed,there were many times where crouching behind something was more effective than taking cover.It got really annoying when enemies are hiding being elevated Truck containers and simply crouching to shoot underneath would've suffice,but instead you have to walk around the container and expose yourself to gunfire in the process.[/quote]

It's also be nice specifically with the sniper rifles. I don't always snipe, but I'd rather not be popping up and down. Worse, the game seems to distinguish between being glued to cover and standing behind it. I don't remember if RDR did the same, but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Ieyke]

Cover mechanics are retarded unless it's a stealth game.
There are numerous games like Gears Of War that do away with cover and just instantly play better - Transformers Fall Of Cybertron, Space Marine, etc.

 

[elvor0]

The issue is with the way modern games handle the enemy AI shooting at you. In Doom you could strafe out of the way because you were being shot by fireballs, and the enemies had a tell as they were about to shoot. Modern games with cover mechanics have this "hitscan" shit, to where if you are visible and not in cover you are going to get hit by bullets. You can't really tell when the enemy is about to fire, and you can't move out of the way of the bullets without running away full speed.

Despite not really loving the game, that's one thing I appreciated about Dishonored. When the enemies decided to shoot you, they would do that little windup telegraph to let you know that they were about to shoot you, and you could do something about it. I'm amazed that a game hasn't really tried to blend the best of both of these systems, because this hard-on for realism rarely means that we encounter hairy imps from Martian Hell who shoot fireballs at you.

Shooters have almost /always/ used hitscan, it's in no way a modern thing. Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Uneal Tournement all used Hitscan, because it's the best way to simulate modern weaponary without tanking the games performance. The only time games don't use hitscan is for rockets, fireballs, grenades, or slow weapons such as Bows.

Hitscan is perfectly acceptable because fireballs in Doom and Crossbows/Flintlock pistols are very different to modern assault rifles. A crossbow/flintlock projectile fires much slower than a modern bullet, slow enough to warrant it's own projectile modle. I mean lets be honest here, could you dodge a hail of gunfire from AK-47s by strafing? No.

Furthermore, a man with a crossbow or flintlock pistol is going to have a windup, because they only have one shot before reloading, so they need to make it count. Having each and every bullet be it's own object with various properties would require an insane amount of processing power. You can also tell when an enemy is about to shoot at you, by looking at him, and seeing he has a gun pointed at you, at which point, you should move.


Sure I'd like a new Doom-esque game, but there's nothing wrong with hitscan.

 

[Zeras]

didn't gears of war invent cover mechanics? I mean, true glue to a wall and blindfire cover mechanics?
I remember seeing a trailer on my households crappy old pc ages ago (must be ten years?) and that and oblivion was what convinced me to get a 360.
for anyone that cares by the way, I have an original white 360 that hasn't red ringed me. must have been the only one ha ha

anyway, in the super duper limited edition gears of war box, there was a little art book with a fore word from cliffy b, the mega manager/director/dogsbody, whatever his job was at epic.
he said he was out paintballing and he was inspired by the feeling of rushing and slamming into cover with paintballs wizzing over his head to make gears of war, or something like that.
he spoke about realism and eliminating the strafing that was going on in first person shooters at the time like quake.

so is it pointless?
depends on your view, do you want realism? or do you not care too much?

I, too, have an original white 360. Represent!

 

[BloodSquirrel]

The problem isn't that cover systems are useless- they're extremely useful. The problem is that the current standard TPS model is kind of crap.

Gears of War did it right, and looking at that game you can see why it was important. Gears of War made player movement crucial- enemies were *tough*, and you had to be able to maneuver around them well. You had to be able to lay out a lot of fire to take one down at range, which required you to be able to fire while not take much damage. Flanking and trying to get into close range (because you needed to be able to kill the enemy before they could take cover, or because you wanted to use a shotgun or grenade tag) were things.

The cover system let the player quickly shift from place to place, knowing when they were and were not behind cover as they did. And most importantly, the cover system was *fun*. It was fluid. It let the player do a lot of cool stuff without taking control out of their hands (A typical problem with animation-heavy games). The entire game was designed around it, and it worked very well.

Other, less well-designed games are more about sitting in one place slowly picking off enemies with headshots. In the Tomb Raider reboot, for example, there's usually little reason to move from one spot unless it's on fire or there are too many enemies and you need to back off to spread them out some. You can do 99% of the game with just the bow, which can kill most enemies in one shot. Most games also have crap for enemy AI, and without any tactical complexity to the games a robust cover system isn't going to see much use.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

Well, you're playing games with cover mechanics... that's your problem right there.
I wouldn't say cover mechanics are pointless...
shitty yes, pointless no.

Because taking out a mechanic the game is built around would probably render it unplayable for the most part.

Methinks you didn't read too far into my post. My point is, these games aren't unplayable at all without the cover mechanics, in fact not using them often has it's advantages. In Uncharted, for an extreme example, it's actually possible to shoot enemies through walls as long as the reticle is over them.

Well I couldn't tell you one way or the other about Uncharted (Never played it)

but in other games with regenerating health or shields like CoD or Bioshock Infinite or Mass Effect for example, whether you live or died would rely completely on RNG if you removed the cover aspect. and that's broken game design.

in order to guarantee health regeneration you'd have to you'd have to kill every enemy in an instance in one health bar. and since in games with cover mechanics are designed so enemies do a lot of damage quickly the cover is pretty necessary unless you have twitch reflexes to rival aim bots.

I heavily prefer games where the best way to avoid fire is to be mobile, like Halo Reach or Borderlands, but those games are made so that enemies don't always one or two shot you the second you show your face.

It's a balance thing. Cover based games are balanced around taking cover so if you take it out the game is broken. simple as that.
unless it's not in which case the cover is redundant and the game probably wasn't very well designed in the first place.

I'd argue that it's more fun to ignore cover mechanics entirely but if you keep getting killed by hit scanning aim bots, you're just going to get frustrated and play something else