How cover system ruined third person shooters

[gigastar]

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?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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_v1legacy]

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_v1legacy]

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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw&t=957] 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.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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_v1legacy]

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?

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.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

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).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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...

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

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

You know, for fun?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DefunctTheory]

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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Kerg3927]

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.