Cover based combat: what's the problem?

[Jakub324]

I don't get it. Why is it so unpopular? It's functional and makes you use your head more than grabbing a gun and running right through your enemies ever does. I'm not saying run-and-gun gameplay has no place in the industry, I just don't get why people hate it so much when it so obviously sells so well.

 

[Avaholic03]

The biggest reason I don't like it is it feels like a way to pad out the length of a game. If you spend half the time shooting from cover rather than progressing through the level, it gets tedious. Sure, it can be used effectively, but usually games that have a cover system force you to use it by making the run-and-gun approach completely impossible on even the easy difficulties.

 

[Dr Pussymagnet]

I don't hate cover based combat, it's just that, like any game mechanic, you have to do it well and some games forget to add variety causing the game to become really dull and repetitive.

 

[lobster1077]

Nothing wrong with it, it works very well in certain games like Gears. The problem is that pretty much every game with combat has a crappy cover based system shoehorned into it.

 

[carnege4]

Good to be used in some parts of a game? Yes

24/7? NO

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

It needs to be done WELL for it to be fun.

In Gears of War (which kinda popularized the idea), it makes the gameplay tactical. You need to find the best cover, and move to the best position to take out the enemies. It also feels well made.

In generic shooter du jour, they just stick a bunch of chest high walls everywhere with no regard for level design, and call it a day. This sucks.

 

[Woodsey]

Because quite a few developers seem to think a cover-system is a selling point. It shouldn't be used to "sell" a game anymore than the fact that you are shooting is (see: not at all). That can't be its only fucking "trick".

 

[Mirror Cage]

It's probably that a lot of games rely on nothing but cover based combat. Take games like SOCOM and such. You're railroaded down a strictly linear path using, mostly, the same weapons throughout and fighting the same enemies throughout, all that changes is the scenery and the number of mooks.

I think the Mass Effect series is a good example of how to do it well. The shooting is complimented by the various biotic and tech powers and its satisfying to know that the enemies you kill are leading to more and stronger powers; and outside of combat you can walk around and talk to folks/take side missions/dance strangely/etc.

I mean, even the Gears of War series attempts to spice things up with some vehicle sections, some different enemy types, and varied weapon choices.

Cover based combat is fine, but a lot of games think it's enough by itself when it's not.

 

[wickedmonkey]

I don't hate it, but it is a boring mechanic - you latch onto a chest-high wall, so does your enemy and seven of his friends then you wait for him to peek over the top to take a shot (having carefully lined up your shot to coincide with his forehead when he stands up) while all the other enemies annoy you by peppering your cover ineffectually or doing a bit of damage that you'll ignore because as soon as you take cover again the jam falls off your screen and your health regens.

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat ad boredom.

There's no sense of urgency or tension. It turns the whole affair into tedious back and forth that is repeated in nearly every encounter. Should you try to liven things up in Gears of War for instance, and decide to go hunt enemies with a chainsaw, you'll get gunned down before long unless you're lucky because the player controls are less than optimal for anything other than shuffling between walls.

Grabbing a bit of cover should be encouraged to allow for a breather or a situational reappraisal or to reload or whatever, but basing an entire combat system round it is just...ugh...

 

[Veylon]

The problem with it is precisely that it is functional. It's a system based upon the very real need to take cover when someone is shooting at you. Unfortunately, it leads to the exact situation real soldiers face: it's repetitive. Once the best methods are figured out, tactical warfare becomes a process of using them over and over again. And this is aggravated when there are chest-high walls everywhere and levels are strictly linear.

Real-life soldiers at least have the options of a variety of grenades, rocket launchers to destroy cover, incendiaries to burn the enemy out, smoke bombs to provide concealment, and the ability to flank around particularly thorny fortifications. Or, failing that, call in the air support/artillery/armor to flatten the enemy.

 

[gigastar]

Its not that i hate cover based combat, its simply that i prefer open combat for its quick pace and demand of good reaction times and efficent actions, like in TF2.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

It's not bad, it's overused. Or so most would say. Personally I think it works quite well and I tend not to play all of the yearly iterations of the same games ie. CoD, GoW, Halo, etc so I don't see it too often. The thing is, just like anything in a game if there's no variety it will get boring and tedious. You really have to think about the overall experience before throwing a bunch of chest high walls all over your game.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I like cover based combat when levels are designed so that you can actually play tactically by flanking and using the environment or the capabilities of your weapons. I don't like it when it always winds down to whack-a-mole-ing your way down corridors.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I generally like the mechanic itself, but what bothers me is when it doesn't feel organic to the level design at all. Gears of War does it very well because generally the cover is varied and appropriate to where you are. In most games that use cover, however, you just end up in areas with conspicuously placed chest high walls out of nowhere. It's not organic at all and it actually hurts any sort of suspense or pacing the game has because you know exactly where the combat is going to be taking place.

 

[burningdragoon]

First thing I have to say: The whole "it makes sense" type of argument really isn't a strong argument to most a good amount of people. Especially in cases like this, since cover-based shooting is so often paired with regenerating health. Combining those two things you get a system that has you hiding behind cover just to get your life back, which can really put a drag on pacing of a game. And I'd like to add to that the ways designers try to shove in chest high walls in places that are just another level of sillyness that completely counteracts that whole "it makes sense" thing.

Anyway, the reason a lot of people have problems with cover-based shooting is one main thing: over-saturation.