Why all the hate for:

[Platypus540]

1. Military shooters. Yes, there are a lot of them, but that doesn't make them bad and neither does their being a popular genre.

2. On a related note, regenerating health. In most games where it is used, regenerating health encourages realistic tactics like having to run from cover to cover or picking off enemies quickly, not standing in the open. I've heard people complain it isn't realistic, but neither is picking up a magic box that heals all wounds.

3. Finally, cover systems in (you guessed it) shooters. I hear a lot of anger towards them but have yet to hear a good explanation for why they suck.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

1. I have no hate of them. I just picked up Red Orchestra 2 and I love it.

2. I like regenerating health to be slow, making you deal with the situation without being confident that a few seconds of cover will make you right as rain again. Still prefer healthpacks to it though.

3. Just turns the online gameplay into a more defensive battle... I dunno, I liked games like Timesplitter 2 where it was you, everyone else in the map and keeping moving that determined your survival.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

1. Its come to a point where people try to cash in on the craze rather than develop something of a different genre. I mean, look at the rise of number of military FPS developed in the past five years, and compare that to any other genre.

2. I don't know. People are just afraid of new things I guess. It keeps you in the game and doesn't detract from the experience and break immersion. You don't reload from a checkpoint 50 times in Modern Warfare because you only start out with 14% health. I can understand for genres like survival horror, where the atmosphere is meant to be tense, but most action games aren't like that. They're meant to be exciting.

3. Because if you're not standing in the open with an M60 shooting off a bunch of rounds from the hip while taking dozens of rounds because you have a large health meter, you're a total pussy. *sarcasm*

 

[Alakaizer]

Point one: I have no idea. They're not my thing, but I just tend to ignore them if they don't get in my way.
Point two: I would actually find medkits and other health nuggets to be more realistic than regenerating health, since I'm not Wolverine. Regenerating health also cuts down on the challenge factor and installs needless waiting periods that break up the flow of gameplay. I'd rather take a minute to backtrack to a health nugget than sit in one spot waiting for a meter to fill.
Point three: I think that one depends on how the cover system is implemented. I don't play FPSs so I don't know how those ones work(or don't), and my play style is really weak on defense, but that's how I have fun.

Hope that helps.

Captcha: Tome nwithos

 

[windlenot]

I find cover systems annoying. I don't like the idea of sticking to cover with a button, then sticking out. I don't like that you can't get behind certain objects without the annoying sticky mechanic. Also, I like a jump button. I don't like having to get in cover, then press the same button to hop over. But that last part's prolly just me.

 

[SageRuffin]

1. Military shooters. Yes, there are a lot of them, but that doesn't make them bad and neither does their being a popular genre.

The main problem with military shooters is that everyone is trying to make one. how many interviews or news stories have to read where a developer wants to make a game that either becomes the next CoD, if only in terms of popularity, or attempts to trump CoD? Even BioWare is(was?) trying to cash in on that prospect. They're a dime a dozen in this day and age and everyone's tired of seeing them.

It also seems like a fall-back for a developer to either get out of rut (often with the exact opposite results) or to break out into the mainstream. Shooters are where it's at these days, just like fighting games before them and like platformers before them. Hell, I'm sure you've noticed how many games are actually being remade into shooters. Now there are several theories behind this, but I'll leave all that for someone else to relay.

Do keep in mind that this is all purely conjecture and that I could be completely wrong. But the chance that I am not, hopefully that clears up a few things.

 

[Ruwrak]

1) It's more the same bland surrounding with the same bland guns with the same bland soldiers and the same bland story I think?

2) It encourages realistic tactics you say? You mean hiding behind a piece of cover waiting for your body to close up all wounds? If anything is realistic, one shot in the leg will incapacitate you with lots of pain, a shot to the gut renders you breathless and a shot in the shoulder will not make your accuracy improve. Regenerating health is just as realistic as picking up medboxes.
However, I think I know what you mean. It's just that -everyone- uses the same mechanics, there is nothing different, new, refreshing anymore. (Except for suddenly Resistance 3, which goes back to what the first shooters looked like.)Besides, to me personally it sucks out the tension of hoping to find a medkit somewhere in some corner before getting gutted by the enemies.

3) This is more a call back to the old shooters like Half Life 2, Duke Nukem and so on. It's not about hiding behind cover and stick your weapon out. Personally, I find it not attractive to play. The method just does not appeal to me.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

1) Probably because people are tired of seeing them, and I'll admit a lot of them look the same to me. But I don't hate them; I just don't play many of them.

2) I don't have a beef, but I expect some people find it too easy when all you have to do is hide around a corner and heal. I think they want the difficulty of not knowing where that next item is going to be that saves their lives, and the need to be very stingy with health and damage. I do find that in games with regen, I waste my HP a lot, knowing I can just chill in an air vent or behind a rock and be perfectly fine in a few seconds.

3) Often, cover uses really klutzy controls. Deus Ex: Human Revolution did this right, if you ask me, but some games I've played just screw it up so badly. That, and if it's the only tactic you'll use in the game as the guy before me said), it gets annoying fast.

 

[The Virgo]

1. Military shooters. Yes, there are a lot of them, but that doesn't make them bad and neither does their being a popular genre.

Mainly the problem is that most military shooters are Call of Duty clones, riding on what's popular so their product can sell. Remember when everything was World War 2? I rest my case.

2. On a related note, regenerating health. In most games where it is used, regenerating health encourages realistic tactics like having to run from cover to cover or picking off enemies quickly, not standing in the open. I've heard people complain it isn't realistic, but neither is picking up a magic box that heals all wounds.

I'm sorry, but hiding behind some rubble and having the bullets fall out of your body like some kind of superhero is not "realistic tactics". Those are superpowers. Those very same tactics that you mention "happen" when you have regenerating health I'm not sure even happens with regen. health. Most people just wait in the corner until they heal up. If those tactics do happen does, however, it's equally more intense when you're on your last sliver of health.

3. Finally, cover systems in (you guessed it) shooters. I hear a lot of anger towards them but have yet to hear a good explanation for why they suck.

Alright, here's my explanation:

I play a lot of TimeSplitters 2. In that game, there are no cover mechanics, yet, you can use cover in the environment. How? You actually have to use it instead of going near a wall and sticking to it. It's totally possible for a game with no cover based, stick-to-the-wall mechanics or even an inclination to have cover to have a cover system. You can take cover in Doom 1 if you wanted.

And besides, it's more fun when you take it by yourself, rather than having to push a button or something.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

1. Military shooters. Yes, there are a lot of them, but that doesn't make them bad and neither does their being a popular genre.

2. On a related note, regenerating health. In most games where it is used, regenerating health encourages realistic tactics like having to run from cover to cover or picking off enemies quickly, not standing in the open. I've heard people complain it isn't realistic, but neither is picking up a magic box that heals all wounds.

3. Finally, cover systems in (you guessed it) shooters. I hear a lot of anger towards them but have yet to hear a good explanation for why they suck.

1. They're all similar with their pretension to realism (at least the ones I've tried). That's the problem since it means no-one is trying to innovate anymore but cash in on the latest fad.

2. What annoys me about regenerating health is that there's no health bar, so you never know how close you are from really dying. And non-regenerating health encourages caution even more, since you never now if you'll have full health for the next encounter.

3. Again it's because a lot of games use it with varying degrees of success. And it isn't even always necessary. I personally prefer to be in control, and if I want to take cover behind something I'll crouch behind it, I don't need my spine to super glue itself to the wall.