I hate cover-based shooters almost as much as Yahtzee does. I hate them for the same reason that Yahtzee does. But, unlike Yahtzee, I can kind of see why people enjoy them, so I'm here to tell you people who actually like the grey-brown cover-based shooters why the rest of us hate them.
It's because they are exclusively multiplayer games.
I'm going to try to break down the cliches involved in these games and talk about why they suck for single player but make multiplayer even better.
1) Regenerating Health
Yahtzee said it best in his EP on regenerating health (found at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8719-Extra-Punctuation-Why-Regenerating-Health-Sucks). Regenerating health stops players from being rewarded and stops combat from being a narrative. In any other game, if you take a hit, you are penalized through the rest of the level for taking the hit. Look back at the original Super Mario Brothers. If you accidentally hit a goomba or koopa troopa, you would either die, meaning you start the level over, or you would lose the ability to break blocks and possibly even the ability to shoot fireballs, both of which would seriously hamper your ability to survive. But with regenerating health, any penalties for being shot are negated after a few seconds of hiding behind cover. You don't get John McClain ending up as a broken, bleeding mess at the end of Die Hard, you get a main character who has been through hell and somehow hasn't received so much as a scratch. There's no sense of change to your character, as if being shot in the head is a temporary inconvenience as opposed to a serious problem.
You see, when you can't regenerate health by sitting in a corner, it forces you to develop new strategies for every fight. If you only have 5 health left and you know you're about to be attacked, your primary goal isn't to kill them, but to not die yourself. Health kits are actually a detriment in some ways, forcing you to change your strategy back to killing them above not getting hit. And it gives the story a sense of progression, because even if you go through fight after fight, you're getting torn up a bit more each time. You're not the same man from one fight to the next.
However, where this is a great thing in single-player mode, it sucks for multiplayer.
Let's say you're playing a shooter and let's say you don't have regenerating health. You're l33t and the other team is entirely n00bs. However, these n00bs can still kill you. Why? They whittle down your health over and over until you finally can't win against them not because of lack of skill, but because you simply don't have the health to fight them. Regenerating health makes that point moot. Each battle you start fresh, so each battle is a test of skill, not who has more health. It allows a pro to pwn all the n00bs, simply because he doesn't have to deal with the fact that he's coming into each battle handicapped. The game is about skill, not who has the most health.
See, for single-player you're not trying to prove that you're better than each individual enemy, since they're AI-constructed clones. You're trying to prove that you can survive no matter what the odds. But in multiplayer, you're comparing your skill against others', and regenerating health puts both players on even footing so that skill actually determines the outcome.
2) Cover-Based Shooting.
Cover-based shooting makes single-player stagnate. Since you're spending the entire battle trying not to get hit at all, you can't take the risks that allow you to advance. In single player, you're trying to get from point A to point B, and cover-based shooting completely screws you up, since it rewards you for staying still. The AI doesn't even spawn until you're past your cover, so you can't just sit in a corner and wait for all the enemies to come and get sniped. You have to keep moving to beat the level and, ultimately, the game. Cover-based shooting breaks this flow by bogging you down behind cover. I'm pretty sure Yahtzee has said this before, too.
So, why does it work in multiplayer?
Multiplayer isn?t linear. At least, deathmatches aren?t. There are very few games that don?t have ?team deathmatch? or just ?deathmatch? as their standard game type, and those usually don?t have cover-based shooting. You see, in deathmatch, the goal is to kill opponents. If you can find a good sniping spot, you?ll never have to move, and you can rain down murder. A cover-based combat system allows them to not get sniped silly and allows you to not get counter-sniped. It helps to make sniping a necessary part of the game (to keep enemies under cover) without making it overpowering (by giving them cover to keep behind). Cover doubles as concealment, so it can hid a camping sniper as well as protect them, and staying hidden is absolutely necessary for camping. I would argue that the best campers move all the time?they just stay within a good sniping area (like the top of a building), moving from cover to cover. But enough about cover-based combat. Let?s move on to?
3) The Two-Weapon Rule.
I?m going to start with multiplayer first on this one, because once I explain why it?s necessary for multiplayer, it will become obvious why this doesn?t work for single-player.
Only being able to carry two weapons forces players to work as a team. If all you?ve got is a rocket launcher and a pistol, you?re not going to be charging up to the frontlines. You?ve got to hang back and blow up any vehicles the enemy may have. Likewise, if you?ve got a sniper rifle, you shouldn?t be fighting any enemies closer than fifty feet or so. If you?ve got an assault rifle, it?s your job to protect the rocket guys and snipers. See where I?m going? The weapons you carry determine a ?class? of sorts. It forces you to work together to defeat the enemies and it allows you to blame a teammate for your death. And if the main type of fight is ?team deathmatch?...
However limiting the number of weapons a person can carry sucks for single-player.
In single-player, you are supposed to be a one-man army. That?s how almost every single-player story goes, and that?s how you?re forced to play because the friendly AI is almost invariably retarded. Name one game with a decent friendly AI and ask yourself ?was I astonished by the fact that the AI didn?t run directly into enemy fire?? I guarantee the answer is yes, because friendly AI is very, very dumb. If you can carry every weapon in the game, you?re ok to take on any threats you encounter. But we both know that your AI buddy with the rocket launcher is going to choose the basic grunt over the tank every time, simply because the grunt is closer and the AI is dumb. So, if you?re able to carry all the weapons, then you can deal with all the threats. But if you?re stuck carrying only two, then it?s going to be awkward when you try to attack a tank with a machine gun and a pistol.
4) Grey-brown industrial environments.
Ok, anyone who?s ever played in a grey-brown industrial environment should understand why it sucks for single-player--you can?t see and the AI can. The AI knows the position of every character on the battlefield, including you. And while your allied AI is retarded, enemy AI is usually programmed much better. So, you can guarantee that every enemy on the map will know exactly where you are at all times, and that you?ll spend five minutes playing ?Where?s Waldo? trying to find someone to shoot. Camouflage armor is camouflage for a reason?it is hard to see. If your enemies are wearing urban camo, you?ll find it hard to see them, and you?ll get shot to death.
On the other hand, grey-brown industrial is pretty much the perfect place to have a deathmatch.
You both have limited visibility, which makes finding snipers harder, there are lots of high places to snipe from, and it is just generally better for snipers. And as we all know, sniping and counter-sniping is the basis of any shooter that doesn?t involve getting from point A to point B and doesn?t have vehicles, since there are pretty much two or three different ?classes? in those games: light assault, heavy assault/protection, and sniper.
Conclusion:
So, as we can see, the first-person shooter genre is headed towards multiplayer-based games rather than single-player games. Why is this? My theory is because they're less effort to make and are easier to measure. For a single-player game, you have to include a story, a difficulty curve, and some sort of AI. For multiplayer, you just need an engine and a bunch of maps. You don't even need to test for balance--just patch in the balance as necessary. Also, if you need to know what game types are popular, the data is a lot easier to acquire when players are forced to connect to the internet to play the game. So, with multiplayer-focused games on the rise, what are YOU, the gaming public, going to do to make sure that single-player games are still around? Or do you even care?
It's because they are exclusively multiplayer games.
I'm going to try to break down the cliches involved in these games and talk about why they suck for single player but make multiplayer even better.
1) Regenerating Health
Yahtzee said it best in his EP on regenerating health (found at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8719-Extra-Punctuation-Why-Regenerating-Health-Sucks). Regenerating health stops players from being rewarded and stops combat from being a narrative. In any other game, if you take a hit, you are penalized through the rest of the level for taking the hit. Look back at the original Super Mario Brothers. If you accidentally hit a goomba or koopa troopa, you would either die, meaning you start the level over, or you would lose the ability to break blocks and possibly even the ability to shoot fireballs, both of which would seriously hamper your ability to survive. But with regenerating health, any penalties for being shot are negated after a few seconds of hiding behind cover. You don't get John McClain ending up as a broken, bleeding mess at the end of Die Hard, you get a main character who has been through hell and somehow hasn't received so much as a scratch. There's no sense of change to your character, as if being shot in the head is a temporary inconvenience as opposed to a serious problem.
You see, when you can't regenerate health by sitting in a corner, it forces you to develop new strategies for every fight. If you only have 5 health left and you know you're about to be attacked, your primary goal isn't to kill them, but to not die yourself. Health kits are actually a detriment in some ways, forcing you to change your strategy back to killing them above not getting hit. And it gives the story a sense of progression, because even if you go through fight after fight, you're getting torn up a bit more each time. You're not the same man from one fight to the next.
However, where this is a great thing in single-player mode, it sucks for multiplayer.
Let's say you're playing a shooter and let's say you don't have regenerating health. You're l33t and the other team is entirely n00bs. However, these n00bs can still kill you. Why? They whittle down your health over and over until you finally can't win against them not because of lack of skill, but because you simply don't have the health to fight them. Regenerating health makes that point moot. Each battle you start fresh, so each battle is a test of skill, not who has more health. It allows a pro to pwn all the n00bs, simply because he doesn't have to deal with the fact that he's coming into each battle handicapped. The game is about skill, not who has the most health.
See, for single-player you're not trying to prove that you're better than each individual enemy, since they're AI-constructed clones. You're trying to prove that you can survive no matter what the odds. But in multiplayer, you're comparing your skill against others', and regenerating health puts both players on even footing so that skill actually determines the outcome.
2) Cover-Based Shooting.
Cover-based shooting makes single-player stagnate. Since you're spending the entire battle trying not to get hit at all, you can't take the risks that allow you to advance. In single player, you're trying to get from point A to point B, and cover-based shooting completely screws you up, since it rewards you for staying still. The AI doesn't even spawn until you're past your cover, so you can't just sit in a corner and wait for all the enemies to come and get sniped. You have to keep moving to beat the level and, ultimately, the game. Cover-based shooting breaks this flow by bogging you down behind cover. I'm pretty sure Yahtzee has said this before, too.
So, why does it work in multiplayer?
Multiplayer isn?t linear. At least, deathmatches aren?t. There are very few games that don?t have ?team deathmatch? or just ?deathmatch? as their standard game type, and those usually don?t have cover-based shooting. You see, in deathmatch, the goal is to kill opponents. If you can find a good sniping spot, you?ll never have to move, and you can rain down murder. A cover-based combat system allows them to not get sniped silly and allows you to not get counter-sniped. It helps to make sniping a necessary part of the game (to keep enemies under cover) without making it overpowering (by giving them cover to keep behind). Cover doubles as concealment, so it can hid a camping sniper as well as protect them, and staying hidden is absolutely necessary for camping. I would argue that the best campers move all the time?they just stay within a good sniping area (like the top of a building), moving from cover to cover. But enough about cover-based combat. Let?s move on to?
3) The Two-Weapon Rule.
I?m going to start with multiplayer first on this one, because once I explain why it?s necessary for multiplayer, it will become obvious why this doesn?t work for single-player.
Only being able to carry two weapons forces players to work as a team. If all you?ve got is a rocket launcher and a pistol, you?re not going to be charging up to the frontlines. You?ve got to hang back and blow up any vehicles the enemy may have. Likewise, if you?ve got a sniper rifle, you shouldn?t be fighting any enemies closer than fifty feet or so. If you?ve got an assault rifle, it?s your job to protect the rocket guys and snipers. See where I?m going? The weapons you carry determine a ?class? of sorts. It forces you to work together to defeat the enemies and it allows you to blame a teammate for your death. And if the main type of fight is ?team deathmatch?...
However limiting the number of weapons a person can carry sucks for single-player.
In single-player, you are supposed to be a one-man army. That?s how almost every single-player story goes, and that?s how you?re forced to play because the friendly AI is almost invariably retarded. Name one game with a decent friendly AI and ask yourself ?was I astonished by the fact that the AI didn?t run directly into enemy fire?? I guarantee the answer is yes, because friendly AI is very, very dumb. If you can carry every weapon in the game, you?re ok to take on any threats you encounter. But we both know that your AI buddy with the rocket launcher is going to choose the basic grunt over the tank every time, simply because the grunt is closer and the AI is dumb. So, if you?re able to carry all the weapons, then you can deal with all the threats. But if you?re stuck carrying only two, then it?s going to be awkward when you try to attack a tank with a machine gun and a pistol.
4) Grey-brown industrial environments.
Ok, anyone who?s ever played in a grey-brown industrial environment should understand why it sucks for single-player--you can?t see and the AI can. The AI knows the position of every character on the battlefield, including you. And while your allied AI is retarded, enemy AI is usually programmed much better. So, you can guarantee that every enemy on the map will know exactly where you are at all times, and that you?ll spend five minutes playing ?Where?s Waldo? trying to find someone to shoot. Camouflage armor is camouflage for a reason?it is hard to see. If your enemies are wearing urban camo, you?ll find it hard to see them, and you?ll get shot to death.
On the other hand, grey-brown industrial is pretty much the perfect place to have a deathmatch.
You both have limited visibility, which makes finding snipers harder, there are lots of high places to snipe from, and it is just generally better for snipers. And as we all know, sniping and counter-sniping is the basis of any shooter that doesn?t involve getting from point A to point B and doesn?t have vehicles, since there are pretty much two or three different ?classes? in those games: light assault, heavy assault/protection, and sniper.
Conclusion:
So, as we can see, the first-person shooter genre is headed towards multiplayer-based games rather than single-player games. Why is this? My theory is because they're less effort to make and are easier to measure. For a single-player game, you have to include a story, a difficulty curve, and some sort of AI. For multiplayer, you just need an engine and a bunch of maps. You don't even need to test for balance--just patch in the balance as necessary. Also, if you need to know what game types are popular, the data is a lot easier to acquire when players are forced to connect to the internet to play the game. So, with multiplayer-focused games on the rise, what are YOU, the gaming public, going to do to make sure that single-player games are still around? Or do you even care?
