How cover system ruined third person shooters

[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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

If a shooter about cop shootouts was just you controlling a single cop shooting from behind his car (and occasionally moving), the game would suck. However, if the game was an XCOM-like tactics game where the goal was eliminating the threat without losing any cops, that would be an immensely better game.

The whack-a-mole gameplay makes for bad, repetitive gameplay. There's nothing to improve your play besides getting better at aiming. And, of course, there's also no variety involved either. If you have a shooter that emphasizes strategy, tactics, and stealth; then you are doing more than just shooting as your gameplay. But most shooters are much more akin to the CODs, BFs, Spec Ops, Uncharteds, etc. where it's mostly linear corridor-like level design that is basically just a fancy shooting gallery. Even something like TLOU it works fine as most of the gameplay involves getting in a good position to take out 1 or 2 enemies at a time safely and then executing a good shot; it works especially well with the bow because you actually have to calculate drop and lead your target. Whereas guns in most shooters are far too accurate with barely any recoil to the point there's nothing to it but point and shoot. Thus, in "shooting gallery" shooters, most realism elements from cover shooting to real bullet damage make them worse games because those elements remove depth in that scenario. And, a cover system in those types of shooters should also allow for extending the movement system and making cover usage something that can be used offensively (like Ghost Recon Future Soldier) vs only being used defensively.

 

[B-Cell_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.

Better yet, think of it as if the animals (or other people) are hunting you. With that frame of mind you bet your ass you'll be using cover, unless you truly have a death wish. I'd love to play a true-to-nature survival horror game in first person, with something like an adrenaline system that would change based on situational awareness. It would definitely have shooting, but the challenge would be nailing the movement and traversal mechanics, which are typically limited in this perspective. It would also have lean/peak, along with prone and crouch which all could pretty much take the place of a cover system.

 

[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.

If a shooter about cop shootouts was just you controlling a single cop shooting from behind his car (and occasionally moving), the game would suck. However, if the game was an XCOM-like tactics game where the goal was eliminating the threat without losing any cops, that would be an immensely better game.

The whack-a-mole gameplay makes for bad, repetitive gameplay. There's nothing to improve your play besides getting better at aiming. And, of course, there's also no variety involved either. If you have a shooter that emphasizes strategy, tactics, and stealth; then you are doing more than just shooting as your gameplay. But most shooters are much more akin to the CODs, BFs, Spec Ops, Uncharteds, etc. where it's mostly linear corridor-like level design that is basically just a fancy shooting gallery. Even something like TLOU it works fine as most of the gameplay involves getting in a good position to take out 1 or 2 enemies at a time safely and then executing a good shot; it works especially well with the bow because you actually have to calculate drop and lead your target. Whereas guns in most shooters are far too accurate with barely any recoil to the point there's nothing to it but point and shoot. Thus, in "shooting gallery" shooters, most realism elements from cover shooting to real bullet damage make them worse games because those elements remove depth in that scenario. And, a cover system in those types of shooters should also allow for extending the movement system and making cover usage something that can be used offensively (like Ghost Recon Future Soldier) vs only being used defensively.

Makes sense. My shooter experience is limited. I played the original Doom games back in the day and Duke Nukem. I think the cover system is an improvement from hide behind wall, strafe left and shoot, strafe right back behind wall. Repeat.

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of my favorite game series. I remember people complaining that Mass Effect 2 was trying to turn the series into Gears of War. I thought the ME2 & ME3 gameplay with cover system was a lot of fun. It's not just about whack-a-mole. You have melee enemies that rush you. In ME3 they throw grenades behind your cover. Cover can be destroyed. Or you can get outflanked.

But Mass Effect is more than just a shooter where you pick up guns and kill people, repeat. There's leveling up, upgrading and modding your guns and gear, and of course, the story, which is the main focus.

I have played the original Gears of War, and it did start to get repetitive after a while, so I can see where you're coming from.

 

[FalloutJack]

Aren't you guy that made some bogus claims about Fallout?

Taking cover is part of battle, because Rambo is myth. Any dude that just waltzes in, guns blazing, is probably going to die. But don't take it from me. Here's Captain Blackadder to fill you in.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Makes sense. My shooter experience is limited. I played the original Doom games back in the day and Duke Nukem. I think the cover system is an improvement from hide behind wall, strafe left and shoot, strafe right back behind wall. Repeat.

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of my favorite game series. I remember people complaining that Mass Effect 2 was trying to turn the series into Gears of War. I thought the ME2 & ME3 gameplay with cover system was a lot of fun. It's not just about whack-a-mole. You have melee enemies that rush you. In ME3 they throw grenades behind your cover. Cover can be destroyed. Or you can get outflanked.

But Mass Effect is more than just a shooter where you pick up guns and kill people, repeat. There's leveling up, upgrading and modding your guns and gear, and of course, the story, which is the main focus.

I have played the original Gears of War, and it did start to get repetitive after a while, so I can see where you're coming from.

Mass Effect is great because you can play without needing to be forced into cover. There's a suite of powers/abilities that allow for additional movement, crowd control, and damage. It's an RPG that is sadly a better shooter than most shooters.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

Aren't you guy that made some bogus claims about Fallout?

Taking cover is part of battle, because Rambo is myth. Any dude that just waltzes in, guns blazing, is probably going to die. But don't take it from me. Here's Captain Blackadder to fill you in.

Pfft, Blackaddar is hardly a military strategists. If you want to know what works, ask a General!

 

[kilenem]

Transformers war for Cybertron and Fall of Cybertron would've been better choice then Vanquish.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I remember the old days...hiding round a corner and shooting people in the elbow...before the cover-based systems came in and did it for everyone automatically. Things haven't really changed that much when you think about it.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I just finished my first play through of Uncharted: Lost Legacy and man, I'm inclined to proclaim damned if it isn't the best one of the bunch imo. It's well-paced with balanced, varied game design to stave off boredom, great gunplay, melee, vehicle usage, and epic scale platforming. The way the last chapter blended everything together as one big grand finale set piece stole the show.

Plus, it felt like just the right length for an action adventure. I was taking my time finding stuff and admiring the gorgeous visuals, clocking in at 9:12. Oh, and about 30 minutes + change of that was spent using cover. I could've easily used less though; half of the time or more was just to help with stealth.

I can easily see going for Platinum with this one, as it sounds pretty easy with the unlocks and the game is just a plain fun romp. The loads of different filters will keep replays entertaining as well for quite some time.