How Cover Systems Ruined Shooters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 сер 2017
- Cover mechanics gained a pretty infamous reputation during the 7th generation of games, leading many to feel that the entire third-person shooter genre was becoming homogenous and stale. In this video, let's take a look back at just how cover mechanics ruined shooters.
Support Turbo Button on Patreon: / turbobutton
Follow me on twitter if you're into that sort of thing: / turbo_button
Logo designed by / ozzar0th and coloured/animated by / agrimvale
Fuse - Gameplay: • Fuse - Gameplay
The Sprint - Season 3 Ep. 4 “Sustain”: • The Sprint - Season 3 ...
Gears of War 3 "Outplays w/Clutches" Ep : 27 (2016 Wallbounce Grind): • Gears of War 3 "Outpla...
Thanks to HeavyEyed, Novacanoo, Mark Brown and Joseph Anderson for taking the time to read through my script along the way: / @heavyeyed / @novacanoo / @josephandersonchannel
Thanks to HeavyEyed and Mark Brown for the footage of Doom and Mafia 3 respectively. I didn't exactly want to reinstall all 70gigs of Doom just to get 5 seconds of footage.
IGN article: uk.ign.com/wikis/vanquish/Weap...
Mashable Wall-bouncind article: mashable.com/2016/10/11/learn-...
Lee Perry quote from this article: www.gamespresso.com/2015/08/pe...
Games shown:
The Last of Us
Splinter Cell: Blacklist
Mass Effect 2
Uncharted (1-4)
Gears of War (1-Judgement)
Metal Gear Solid
Splinter Cell
Spec Ops: The Line
Kayne & Lynch 2: Dog Days
Quantum Break
The Order: 1886
Quantum Theory
Tomb Raider (2013)
Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction
DOOM (2016)
Vanquish
Fuse
Mafia III
Music:
Act Like You Know (Instrumental) - Fat Larry's Band
Somebody Else's Guy (Instrumental) - Jocelyn Brown
Hold Tight (Instrumental) - Change
The Way You Move (Instrumental) - Outkast
Got To Give It Up (Instrumental) - West Street Mob
This Is How We Do It (Instrumental) - Montell Jordan
Celebrate Your Love (Instrumental) - Executive
Help Is On The Way (Instrumental) - Whatnauts
Easy (Instrumental) - Commodores
Your Sunset - Tekken Tag Tournament 2 - Ігри
World war 1 was a boring mess thanks to cover shooting too. It was one big trench warfare. Thank god they balanced it better in World war 2 with new weaponary options to combat it.
I enjoy this comment
yeah but the atomic bomb expansion was just too op
Then don't cover you idiot, you complain that in higher difficulties you'll die too fast because of the increased damage, well if you wanted realism, there you go, try to take more than 1 bullet in real life.
@@marius3165 realism can be done well and poorly. It’s a video game, and cover based shooting is boring as shit. If you have to sacrifice cover and realism for fun, then do it, who cares. It’s gonna be a more enjoyable experience.
@@marius3165 it’s also a video game, and not every aspect has to be realistic; that’s stupid. Most games he showed here were not realistic. So why make your character have to hide at all times? Ur making one aspect realistic for no real reason. And that aspect is the most important; second to second gameplay.
Ah yes, cover in Vanquish, otherwise known as "Ramps".
I quite like it in The Division 2 since oftentimes the AI enemies are smart enough to actually try to flank you so it can be very intimidating and anxiety inducing when multiple enemies are all covering each other and slowing pinching you.
Agreed. There are enough reasons to have to get out of cover in DI2 that I think it is actually pretty well balanced.
I love it in division 2
games like years of war that implemented an smart ai so you can't just stay on your "safe zone"
locust will try to rush at you with their gnashers, launch grenades to get you out of cover, snipers and explosive bow guards will destroy you if you get out of cover too much, troikas will do supressive fire so you can't move without risking, boomers will kill you if you try to rush and finally but not less important drones will always try to flank you that's actually why i love gears of war cover mechanich so much
because it's well implemented and it just works
(this is just gears of war 1 other games in the saga even expanded this)
never played the division 2 just the first part
F.E.A.R had amazing AI
"in vanquish, your pushiment, is you have to play a cover shooter"
that line man, daaaamn
genius
Just perfection.
Thanks for the tip. Now I need to play rough. Like Doom 4, or 2016 if you want to be technical.
I feel like the greatest sin of cover mechanics is letting you know when you're going to get into a fight. You walk into a room or area with a ton of crates and chest high walls everywhere, repeatedly, and all of them are going to look the same, making you roll your eyes when you immediately recognize a firefight room.
Also I think the new Lara Croft games have the auto cover like Quantum Break has. I kinda like the gameplay in that a bit, if only because of the predatory stealth and the bow felt nice to use.
Also it's been how long since Vanquish was released? It feels like no new TPS has taken even an inkling of inspiration from it.
I think the new Tomb Raider games handle the cover mechanic better than a lot of other games too. It's a lot more fluid. The bow added a lot to it as well. It's a bit too easy though.
Vanquish was released on the same week as a COD and Gears sequel with little to no advertisement. Barely anyone knows about the game who isn't a fan of Platinum's fighters because of this.
I've literally never heard of this game before, yet the gameplay I saw in this video looks fantastic. It's going straight in my cart.
I wish more people's heard about it, but yeah, as the other people say: it's not very well known. But it's a fantastic game that turns conventional cover shooting on its head.
There are a few flaws, one would be that it's a bit short. And there is no skills or abilities to purchase like you would get in most other Platinum games. What you start with is what you end the game with, but using those abilities in different situations is what makes the game fun.
I just wanna see a character walk right through an area full of chest-high walls, and then NOTHING HAPPENS.
The character just goes "Huh..."
Then he walks into the next area, and there are enemies everywhere, throwing projectiles around that he has to dodge, like it's Doom or something.
Anyone here remember stranglehold? It had a cover system but you couldn't use it for very long because of the destructible environments and you had rely on shoot dodging, tequila bombs and you could shoot things in the environment to take out enemies that were using cover.
Yeah! Stranglehold!
I'm surprised that you never got into the part about how cover based shooting puts some harsh restrictions on level design and aesthetic. Basically every combat area needs a plethora of small blocky obstacles that you can hide behind. Often you can guess whether an encounter will be solved through diplomacy or gunpowder by simply looking at the amount of waste high cover in the vicinity.
"Safety net without the trampoline." Perfect allegory.
How about the Arkham freeflow combat system where you mash the attack button until you're prompted to counter for an entire game.
Seems to be creeping into every single game now.
The Platoaster just doing that in the Arkham games is like just mashing the attack button in devil may cry. It works, but it's not nearly as fun as using combo's. That's why a game like shadow of mordor's combat which imitated Arkham's worked because of all the abilities talion has, the aggression of the enemies and the responsiveness of the controls, and mad Max's wasn't that good because of the lack of interesting combo's and especially responsiveness in the controls. It's a shame because it does some things I like like charging up a more powerful attack and getting more points and damage if you time your counter just right.
remember that was revolutionary when it first came out, had reviewers drooling? did nothing for someone like me who was a big beat em up fan.
The Platoaster Is true that the freflow...y arkham...y combat get in every open world sandbox now but the problem not that is not fun or mindless, is just that doing it right is verry hard. In my count only arkham and shadow of mordor did it right (and maybe sleeping dogs as well but is still not quite there yet). Those kind of combat on high difficulty or challenge mode does still required skill, reflex and stragict thinking to counter alot different kinds of enermy at the same time. But the best thing that it really easy to pick up and play for more casual player and they still feel like a badass in a game.
just compare it to an actually deep beat em up mechanics like God Hand, where you have to master the dodges, juggles, thows, breakers, chargers, the peculiarities of each enemy type, all manually, all with intent...
At least AC Origins is breaking away with its mash till all's dead combat.
If I don't put cover mechanics,how can I show how "realistic and mature" is my videogame?
Basically, the problem is not the cover system but enemy AI not using tactics to maneuver around you. But in Division 2 and Uncharted 4, enemy AI was designed to do exactly that the games were fun
I've always said that Vanquish revolutionised the way that third person shooters should be played, and I'm disappointed that it wasn't better received. The movement is smooth, the blend of risk/reward, it really trounces its contemporaries.
Great vid
Yeah. There's a lot to do with cover mechanics.
- Giving the player the possibility to put some rocket on covers so it's propelled right on enemies
- Or you could mount the cover you just propelled with that rocket to go behind enemy lines
- Using ennemies (Dead or alive) as cover. (Let's say they are robots, it would be weird with human bodies)
- Covers that explode when enemies shoot to much at it. Like a big dead robot you killed earlier.
And much more...
"Giving the player the possibility to put some rocket on covers so it's propelled right on enemies"
You're a fucking genius.
Turbo Button I think just cause 3 does that.
-Deflector shields that let you walk out of cover with impunity, for a time.
-An energy absorbing mechanic that lets you absorb incoming weapons fire and convert it to ability power.
-Abilities that let you move between cover and enemies faster and easier.
-Some enemies with the same abilities, or resistance to certain abilities of yours, forcing combat variety.
-Other enemies that either get in your face and are harder to deal with.
-Environments that can be altered to your advantage, and used to make new cover/etc.
I am surprised in the 7th generation, after every game wanted to mimic the physics of _Half-Life 2_ that so few allowed us to move large objects we can use as shields while throwing as weapons.
Fantastic video. Excellently paced with enough lightness to balance the criticisms of this sub-genre of gaming. Regardless of a game being first or third person, I've grown tired of gameplay that amounts to using a strong protagonist with regenerating health against weak enemies that don't. It's a timesink. It doesn't matter if you're hit by a 9mm or a shotgun blast, in ten seconds, it amounts to the same thing.
I've really got to replay Vanquish at some point. Haven't touched it since launch.
Get on that Vanquish replay, dude. It's like twice as good the second time round when you know what you're doing.
Turbo Button it's one of the rare games were it's better the 2nd time round
Hey get back to work on narrating your next project !
No breaks ya hear ! Quality content knows no limits.
Cod? XP (although in some of their games the use of cover is quite nice)
Bioshock? (have not really played much of 1 and 2)
Titanfall if that's any good?
About the use of cover can be a nice way for design if you are having a campagin, somewhat easy and keeps them where you want them to be.
But sure then it comes down to all of the other things about it.
Also not every character or game could be like that or behave in that way, although some could be better or to the example of max payne.
Raycevick how are you not an op protagonist in vanquish?
Meanwhile in Warframe you have no cover as you ninja leap you way through all of your enemies while they cower behind cover >:D
That’s part of what makes the gameplay so great
Some Warframes can make their own covers. Volt can deploy an electric shield, Nyc can generate a psychic energy bubble that absorbs incoming damage.
One of the big problems in console shooters that cover systems are supposed to mitigate, as you mention in this video, is the awfulness of control stick aiming. It's completely unexpected, then, that Nintendo of all places found an excellent solution with gyro aim. I wonder if you could get a video essay out of that?
The answer to cover systems is improved AI. Gamers need to push for devs to work to improve the AI so that hiding behind cover isn't a long term thing. There also needs to be an emphasis on better level/map design.
Righteous, Rockstar & Remedy both tried that with Max Payne 3 & Quantum Break.
that's why multiplayer in gow is more fun, you're fighting against other players, they're not gonna let you hide behind your cover
Well most game do have something like that in place, MGSV enemies will toss grenades, while juggernauts can easily flank you and same with Uncharted. The last of us had zombies in it that didn't give a crap if you were in cover or not and would rush you making cover completely useless. I can tell he has never actually played Uncharted on a difficult setting or he would have realized that you can't just hide behind cover forever and the pop out when ever you want.
Gears of war 4 made the AI act more like players and they'll like rush you and charge you with shotguns if you sit too long
@@dhgmrz17 Uncharted is boring and mediocre nowhere near fun like Vanquish and Resident Evil 4
As much as I agree that cover systems can be boring, I don't think every shooter needs to have boost jumping, power sliding, and wall-running either. My dream shooter would be slow paced enough that you aren't getting hosed every 2 seconds by jetpack wielding maniacs, but fast paced enough that you aren't just going to be sitting behind waist high walls for like 80% of the game. I like Battlefield for example, but I feel like more often than not you will die within 10 seconds of spawning because of some git hiding out in a building with a sniper, then you respawn only to get killed by sniper-douche's friend the "I suck so bad at this game I have to use a Model-10 Hunter all the time" guy. Everyone has unlimited stamina and weapon weight doesn't slow you down, so you end up with people sprinting around like they have a problem with their legs where they can't stop running. I just want things to slow down a bit so I can have a moment to think and come up with a strategy before running into a hailstorm of bullets coming from an army of 12 year olds who are hopped up on Dew and Doritos. Not every FPS game needs to play like an action movie. And no, I don't want to play a "tactical" shooter where you die in like 2 hits and have to use medkits or have a medic that doesn't suck on your team. I want a hybrid between slow paced games like Rainbow Six (not siege) and faster "arcade" shooters like Titanfall or CoD with a reasonable health pool.
Nightshade And I want 5 millions dollars
I know this is a bit late here, but if you have a PC you should play Insurgency. It's fast-paced enough that it doesn't get bogged down, but lethal enough that strategic use of cover is important. More importantly, it has both hard and soft cover, and the careful selection between the two often means the difference between life and death.
Freedom's Flame Agreed. I play insurgency too
arma 3
Bring back health bars and you've got your dream game.
If the enemy AI is good at flanking around to you and catching you off-guard, I actually like the cover system. Only problem I have is that people become way too dependant on it when any other alternative results in higher risk of death.
Games with cover mechanics often provide a slight change of pace, because you're not constantly running and gunning. Additionally, in stealth or tactical games, it allows you to scout out a location before deciding on your approach. It all comes down to taste but I prefer that than endless fast pacing.
See Metal Gear Solid games vs Metal Gear Rising
This is why I love Doom so much.
Yup but it’s because why would the Doom slayer even need cover
8:41- 8:48 Having your field of view restricted while in cover only makes sense. Any game that allows you to see too much of what's going on WHILE in cover is just making the mechanic way too OP.
"In Vanquish your punishment is playing a cover shooter. Brilliant." Ha! ;)
Surely Winback started the whole cover/shooter thing?
Yeah to be honest I don't know why I was so sure about the whole Kill Switch thing.
I seem to find you in almost every comment section lol
The Kill.Switch devs at the time even directly cited Winback as an influence, lol.
If you think deep enough, the true inspiration is Duck Hunt. If you break down the idea between Duck Hunt and the cover system, they seem to have similar set of rules.
I think gears 3 and 4 do cover very well. Jumping over cover and knocking into the enemies is pre fun.
I also liked how you could grab enemies from across cover and execute them in 4, added another layer.
I think cover systems are good when the covers are very destructible, keeping players on the move and quick-thinking.
I like this too, reminds me of using cars as cover in GTA IV. If your enemies are shooting in your direction, they'll be hitting the car, and soon it'll be on fire, requiring you to find something else to hide behind.
There’s also enemies throwing grenades at you
Can't help but agree
Imagine, for example, how incredibly lame Resident Evil 4 would've been with a cover system. That's what puts it into perspective for me
Lol. Play RE5 in areas with enemies with guns. There's the example.
enemies were slow in that game and most didn't have guns
Cover shooter is one part, having hit scanners only and re-generating health were the final nails in the coffin of the "grey urban shooters" of 2008-2016 or thereabout
I am going to point out this system was necessary in games like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter were one shot often could kill you. However, Ghost Recon and other tactical games did make the AI also use cover and some would have the AI flank you if it thought you were suppressed. At the time Tom Clancy games were notoriously difficult due to the lethality of the AI.
I still come back to this video from time to time, and I have a few thoughts:
- ANY shooter with obnoxious hitscan enemies becomes more fun when playing at lower difficulties, Blood is a good example. Doing that gives more leeway for the player to just move instead of stopping and popping.
- Amusingly, Vanquish also becomes more fun on lower difficulties because at higher skill levels, enemies have more HP to the point where they become bullet sponges and that just _kills_ the pacing.
- Cover Shooters could've been a hell of a lot more fun if enemies actually moved and tried to flank the player instead of growing roots like the player and staying firmly in one spot. Better combat arena design would also help, allowing both players and enemies to flank one another, like in F.E.A.R. Also, adding more verticality could be great. But alas, that didn't really happen, did it?
- Realism does NOT equal fun gameplay, it has been said a billion times before, but it's still relevant. Adding reloading to shooters did more good than harm, but Aiming Down Sights when the enemy is less than a meter in front of the player is just silly, when I'm watching a video and I see COD gameplay footage where people do that all the time gets annoying, REAL fast. Same with cover shooters, just give players a BIT more room for error when it comes to taking damage, please.
But in the end, cover shooters became a dying breed, and I'm glad, since they all basically played the same. And just like Turbo said, they did nothing with those concepts.
immense disagree with that first one. blood gives you the tools to counteract those annoying hitscanners with ducking, area of effect attacks, ability to use traps, etc. all playing on lower difficulties does is lower the enemy count, their health and their damage, and by doing this theres no differentiating in encounters. it doesnt matter what technique you use because its all the same outcome, which was ironically doom 2016's, a game that didnt use hitscan enemies at all and was applauded for it, biggest issue. it essentially becomes a linear sandbox game and i dont really find that very interesting compared to chucking dynamite around a corner, using the flare gun alt fire and then finishing off the rest of the enemies by ducking and shotgunning them.
next youre gonna tell me that doom is better on lower difficulties.
I disagree with reloading
Old fps without reloafing had way better pacing because you fidnt have to wait for your gun to reload
Same thing with regenerating health
That first level of Doom 4 hit me so hard. It was like a cold slap to the face and an injection of adrenaline all at once. Certainly made it hard to go back to chest high walls.
Josh Bouman Same here. By the end of the game i was zapping through the game like a flash.
Now that you've mentioned ign and Vanquish. A lot of people played this game like a cover shooter and didn't get comfortable with it's other mechanics. I think you're having the same problem with Max Payne 3. I don't think the developer designed the cover system as the main mechanic but rather as safe spots for planning your attack and using bullet time.
Fair enough. I don't have as harsh opinions on Max Payne 3 as I do with many other games in this video, but I felt obligated to mention it in this video as the shift in mobility was something I definitely noticed playing the trilogy back to back.
Turbo Button cool. I haven't played Max Payne 2 so i might not be on the same page as you. I liked Max Payne 1 and 3 but don't now what direction the series went inbetween. Cheers.
teehundeart
Max Payne 2 was just a very refined Max Payne 1.
Turbo Button
I agree, the problem with MP3 was that the game basically *forced* you to use cover and punished aggressive players.
Max Payne 1&2 = bulleTTime was your safety net
Max Payne 3 = cover is your safety net
Max Payne 2 is the worst game in the series gameplay-wise. it's too shallow, and just drives the fun story forward. max payne 1 is a classic, and max payne 3 is super polished but people miss the idea of how it's supposed to be played.
Came back to say Vanquish has gotten the vip treatment it deserves
When executed and implemented well, i think cover can make for some really engaging gameplay. For instance, The Division has a really incredibly well designed cover system and the shootouts are built around this system. Strategic positioning and consideration make for some really intelligently designed combat spaces, where you'll be forced to move between cover points almost as frequently as you hide behind them. Positioning and mobility are just as important here as they are in shooters without cover mechanics, however in The Division, mobility and positioning applied completely differently, in a way where it is built around the cover mechanics in conjunction with the combat arenas.
In Gears of War, strategic positioning and movement between cover points isn't anywhere near as important, because the cover is placed in such a way that for the most part, you often don't actually need to consider your position or the direction in which the enemy approaches you. As long as you're behind cover in Gears, you're pretty much safe.
MGS V, also uses cover extremely well because it's purely contextual, requires no button input from the player and is incredibly reliable. Again, the spaces are designed so well around these mechanics, that you'll never be abusing cover as a crutch, and you'll be forced to take advantage of it tactically as it serves a purpose more than just protection from bullets. Cover in MGS V opens up gameplay opportunities significantly, granting the player access to tactical gameplay scenarios that feel completely scripted, but aren't.
the gears part it's true
unless you are playing on other than easy dificulty i think gears it's way more complicated than the division
games like gears of war that implemented an smart ai so you can't just stay on your "safe zone"
locust will try to rush at you with their gnashers, launch grenades to get you out of cover, snipers and explosive bow guards will destroy you if you get out of cover too much, troikas will do supressive fire so you can't move without risking, boomers will kill you if you try to rush and finally but not less important drones will always try to flank you that's actually why i love gears of war cover mechanich so much
because it's well implemented and it just works
(this is just gears of war 1 other games in the saga even expanded this)
I think the only time I felt like the use of cover gave you MORE options than less was Mass Effect 2. With all your powers to use the cover allowed you to use them to set up fun little combos and the cover wasn't mandatory. Want to just wade into combat? Play a Vanguard and actively avoid cover usage for optimal play. Not skilled enough to play Vanguard or afraid of dying? Fine, play Sentinel and be WALKING COVER as you are tankier than a brick shithouse.
want to relocate to a vantage point or fall back when swarmed in a safer manner without having to hide behind every wall on the way, become an infiltrator in cloak through a firefight.
Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game. Currently playing through the original series, on ME2 right now and having a blast 😁
Play Infiltrator and flank the enemies without cover.
I hate cover systems in general, besides Gears, that shit is lit online because you can use the cover system pretty aggressively.
My Guy yeah I agree, if you're playing gears like other cover shooters, you're playing it wrong.
Facts
Yeah as someone who played a lot of gears of war, the dude has basically no understanding of how gears of war cover mechanics worked. It did a cover system better than any other game because it wasn't just to sit behind and play wack-a-mole, it was honestly my favourite movement system of any game. Especially online, it was used super aggressively and it was all about the movement you could get from wall bouncing and going from cover to cover rather than just a way to hide from damage.
He almost fell into the right idea when he started talking about Wretches and Tickers, but then missed it again. There are a lot of other enemies that make sitting behind one piece of cover for the entire fight a bad idea. I mean I guess if he wants to make himself an easy target for literally anything that's not a standard Drone, that's his business. I also can't believe he missed obvious stuff like e-holes. Yeah I guess you can stick behind one wall and let every single enemy pour out from an e-hole if you want to, or you can actually move up there and go close it which is way more intense and exciting. Gears also puts a chainsaw on your gun, and you can't use that from behind cover, you gotta move up there and make real good friends with the Locust if you want to use it. Or if you want to stick an enemy with a grenade. Or do a curb stomp or other brutal melee finisher on a downed enemy before one of his friends get him up. And like you said, online play was mostly about being super aggressive with movement so you could get up nice and close with your shotgun. Good ol' Gnashers of War.
Or you could just sit behind a single piece of cover and be really bored in single player and get destroyed in multiplayer. At the risk of having this comment read by an 18th Century aristocrat, the guy who made this video sounds like he's terrible at and/or doesn't know how to play Gears of War.
Kind of missed the idea when he talked about how Uncharted is more fun on easy than on normal. Any cover shooter worth playing will have enemies on harder difficulties get more aggressive. Rush you more, flank you more, make staying in one place a really bad idea. A lot of those uninspired "hey cover shooters are the popular thing right now so let's make a cover shooter" clones will get that wrong, but for the ones who get it right, I find it way more fun to play on harder difficulties.
All that said, I am 100% on board with shitting on The Order 1886. Man that game sucks. Shit all over it, it has nothing going for it at all.
By the end of the video he definitely mentions that the cover mechanic can be used to increase mobility and that he is not very good at it....he even shows video of multiplayer combat and discusses the Dev's reaction to players "exploiting" the cover movement speed (they call it valid)
I always figured that in games, realism doesnt count for shit if it isnt fun. "Oh, but you just dont get it," no, you're making excuses for a game that isnt fun. Notable exceptions notwithstanding.
Cover isn’t the issue, the lack of AI tactics is
While I agree that cover systems generally suck, I really enjoyed the feel of quantum break. The time mechanics might not be as cool or freely exploitable as, say, the best level ever in Titanfall 2, but they are a lot of fun to use and make it easy to spend most of your time out of cover. Cover becomes something you use to temporarily lose enemies, rather than a place to turtle, and when you pop out, it's to flank rather than to whack moles.
In all honesty, stupid TV stuff aside, Quantum Break is probably one of the better titles in here, gameplay-wise.
Mother's Basement speaking of Titanfall 2, one of the best movement based shooters of this generation
I personally don't mind cover systems that much, but I agree that their restrictive and overly-used.
And I also agree that Quantum Break is one of the better cover shooters out there.
Canaria Utara also if you just use it too peek and shoot when being stealthy
How about a video on 'Effect and Cause' from titanfall? It was one of, if not the best, movement based level of a game ever, in my opinion.
Uncharted 4 almost completely fixed this issue IMO. I've been playing it on hard and I very often moving around in the open to fight enemies. The destructible cover definitely helps this. The game also has the swinging and a lot of vertically to it that makes you move around a lot more than previous titles. I think The Last of Us generally handles cover pretty well too. Enemies will flank you, throw an assortment of explosives at you, and charge you with melee weapons.
Yeah I know what you mean especially in last of us. Sometimes the games makes you move via charging melee guy or even a person chucking a Molotov. The only thing I found in playing on harder difficulties in last of us is that it plays more like a stealth game. Because of very limited ammo and supplies and even if you did get into cover sometimes you're just stuck there then you die. Leaving the option to evade the areas with a lot of enemies or take them one by one with stealth.
Cant wait to see the AI improvements in TLOU P2
The Last of us 2 is gonna be insane
actualy i think there's 2 types of cover shooter games
1 the games you describe on your video being plain and simple
2 games like gears of war that implemented an smart ai so you can't just stay on your "safe zone"
locust will try to rush at you with their gnashers, launch grenades to get you out of cover, snipers and explosive bow guards will destroy you if you get out of cover too much, troikas will do supressive fire so you can't move without risking, boomers will kill you if you try to rush and finally but not less important drones will always try to flank you that's actually why i love gears of war cover mechanich so much
because it's well implemented and it just works
(this is just gears of war 1 other games in the saga even expanded this)
I fell like GoW handled the cover system well while making it fun and interesting
Whoa, I didn't even realize this was a 20-minute video. Just watched the whole thing nodding my head and pretty frequently saying the words "yeah", "true" and "yup". And now I gotta watch all your videos so I probably won't be sleeping tonight. Thanks.
One big issue with cover mechanics like this that I've always had is the fact that they're used in third person. You can magically see around the cover while being completely protected, which isn't exciting at all.
In real life, getting fully into cover also means reducing your vision and overview of your surroundings. Which is more exciting because there's a tradeoff involved.
M8 if you think MP3 is just ruined by cover then you've been playing it wrang M8.
sure it's no vanquish, but if you simply view cover as something max can use to set up rolls and dives, to springboard cool moves instead of hunkering down and, god forbid, firing *from* cover, then the game becomes this beautiful dance of headshots that you get to experience in glorious slomo
watch rabbit respawn's MP3 clips and you'll see what I mean. even without previous knowledge of enemy placements, you can have a ton of fun with the mechanics at play, if you just play reactionarily and with a similar approach to cover as vanquish has. anyways that's me two cents M8, cheers.
To think Titanfall 2 in one level used that idea you suggested for time based cover in Quantum Break
I was so worried that you weren't going to mention vanquish but BLESS YOU. Vanquish is amazing and always in the back of my mind when people talk about everything wrong with cover shooters.
Thought exactly the same
Vanquish isn't a covershooter, though. Just a shooter with cover.
It's good but would've been better if you could actually dodge bullets.
Im not gonna lie I disagree with everything you say but still liked the video cause you actually stated facts instead of just saying it's bad
Dante butcher True legend.
Cover base shooters are both skill based and combo based.
Each move you make WILL make or break your fate.
Facts as in the reason for the mechanic's implementation and the amount of skill involved. It's still subjective whether or not the mechanic itself is or isn't detrimental, regardless of why it exists or how easy it is to master. Some people like the mechanic, some don't. That's all there is to it. I personally dislike it if it requires you to use it, and I personally dislike shooters anyway. But I can at least say that there is no right or wrong when it comes to most mechanics, just preference.
@Yas I am bronze, I actually disagree with that, because if you're pretty good at shooting, as long as you take cover, you can takedown even snipers easily, by using any cover that let's you view them. But what I dislike is when people create a game that put's you on a power suit and the game itself is based on cover. It's by far the most stupid decision I've ever seen. Why the fuck do the MCs in Crysis need cover? Why the fuck do their aiming sucks as bad as CoD blind soldiers? They are using cutting edge tech for heaven's sake. By all means that should give them eneough survivability for them to run and gun against mere footsoldiers using only normal equipement. It makes 0 sense when a shooter gives you superpowers and have you act like just any run of the mill soldiers out there.
I disagree with the Turbo as well but i respect his opinion and the effort done to present it. Cover mechanics are meant for more things than just to help console players handle movement and aiming - the primary thing is to make shoot outs to happen in a way that feels more realistic. This is why most cover systems appear in somewhat reaslistic ways. you wont find it in Just cause, transformers or crackdown for a reason. a second reason is to allow players to handle cover better, peak over it easily, see around the left sides of cover, blind fire, too grenades from around both sides of cover, to understand when you are safe behind cover or exposed etc. its has many benefits.
However, it makes the gun fights slower and more realistic, which Turbo Button is obviously not a fan of. I dont like shooters that play like arcade insanity. I prefer games like ghost recon: wildlands, rainbow six: Vegas, GTA:V, Gears of war and others. games that has firefights that feel more realistic in terms of how you move and fire (which, in reality - you dont). The fact that Vanquish has a cover system is super strange to me, but i havent played that game for reasons you can already guess.
However, I think that static enemies + cover system + linear encounters like in The Order make fights really dull. Take out the regenerating health and you got a much better fights. Or open up the shooting arenas to allow flanking enemies.
There need to be something to lure players away from taking cover so that they can take risks.
Few of the solutions:
1) is to bringing back health kits & having traditional health bars, and then placing health kits away from cover, with destructions.
2) Maybe placing ammo crates somewhere that is not near a cover.
3) Remove walls as a cover mechanic, but replace it with detachable cover, like a door of car, that is not overpowered but weak after a few shots by the enemy with grately reduced movement or maybe just letting the player remain static, while holding the door as cover, and maybe just add something like while holding the cover the player can’t shoot over it.
4) Non-bulletproof cover.
5) Nerf the recoil or aim sensitivity when a player is in cover. The player character model has spot the enemy visually first before that character can shoot perfectly or react. Something like Xcom, where big covers give you an aim boost, while small cover gives you less aim accuracy, is like penalty for being in small cover.
The thing about Quantum Break is that it wasn't a cover based shooter, Jack just crouched when he got close to a cover, to give you some breathing space to refill health and powers, but the game clearly wants you to run around using the time powers.
Yes, Vanquish is so damn good, i wish we had more of that instead of Bayonetta.
This video is the main inspiration behind my thoughts on an Eurojank game called Infernal, which I find to be an interesting hybrid between movement third person shooters and cover shooter. I just posted the only review on youtube.
What’s wrong with Bayonetta?
@@Mister_Domm I'm just saying i prefer Vanquish
“For those of you who have been living under a chest high wall for the past decade”
zoo wee mama
SPUD lol
nice reference.
Pepper Millers I agree
Diary of a wimpy kid!
Og movie
I think your making an inherent flaw in how your looking at this, as many of the games your using as examples for cover shooters are games that are trying to have grounded world (i.e. they want to be at least somewhat close to reality) In a more grounded scenario you can't roll three times a second, and the protagonist isn't some superhuman maniac who zips around the battlefield. You are trying to force ideologies from fast paced action games onto more slow paced shooters. Your essentially trying to force a square block into a triangle hole. By that same logic you could say that GTA is inherently a worse open world game then the Infamous games since you can't climb walls and such to get around. Even if they are in the same genre, they have completely different goals.
Darknesscoming "yuoi're"
01ChaosWarrior how is gears of war is any where nearly grounded in realtiy and news flash in real life you can't regenerate bullets in middle of combat
There is a distinction between grounded and realistic. Gears is grounded in the fact that, as good as the characters are at fighting, they are still portrayed as relatively weak humans who need to worry about guns and enemies coming at them. There is a world of difference between Marcus Phoenix, and say Dante for example.
I think he's saying the problem is that they haven't done much interesting with it in the time it's existed. I don't think the title helps.
It would have been better if he pushed that point more, and given examples of what they could do. I like the comparisons to classic arena games, because realism and cover shooters did almost completely replace those in AAA, but I think they confuse his point. Also, he probably went a touch too long on complaining about cover shooters.
01ChaosWarrior 100% with you, I think it's ridiculous at some points of the video, he's forgetting that even when all games are not completely real they're appealing to achieve some of that so you can be immersed into the story and have fun playing it (ex. Regenerate health), thus you cant expect Nathan form Uncharted do the same things as in vanquished because of the nature of the character.
I expected this to be an ultra-clickbait but it was actually a good video, and I liked your joking on the sand mechanics. That said, for some stealth games especially, cover mechanics really do add to it, and it seems to be being solved to an extent now, with a small number of games having AI's trying to find an angle cover doesn't cover you from. Vanquish, great game, you hit it spot on, and then good old metal gear, also works very nicely.
Mate such a great content, I watched like 10 videos in row.
But is seems like you're like not publishing videos anymore.
Well, all the best Turbo Button!
And to all of you reading this.
Have a nice time gaming!
Feels like the problem with these games is that cover is almost overpowered (getting bored while waiting for your hp to regen behind a brick). I don't see any games where the AI tries to flank you or you have to hold two fronts in this list (many "wave survival" games rely on multiple points of attack for the same reason that most linear, cover-based shooters suck).
(made two comments so there's not two topics in the replies)
Watch some uncharted 4 gameplay
When you play a game where they can shoot you when your in cover you get a little more worried. Not like all the time but just enough.
If i'm not mistaken far cry and gears of war had flanking enemies.
The new Tomb Raider games throw seemingly endless grenades that fall exactly where you are behind cover, while flanking you, firing from multiple directions, and flanking you with melee enemies with tower shields that force you to dodge their sword swing and counter-attack immediately as that’s the only half second they’re exposed. I believe the newer Uncharted games do similar things to force you out of cover to scramble.
Man, have you even played max payne or last of us?
So I am not the only one that thought Max Payne 3 got up way too slow.
Digital Blade that was part of the game, u know, cuz he is an old drunk
cover mechanics would work if the enemies also frequently used cover or actively attempted to flank you, but unfortunately the AI for that type of stuff had yet to be developed so the enemies just kinda walk around and shoot at you ever now and then.
i think its also worth noting that video games are meant to be fun, not realistic. actual gun combat in real life is not some fun run and gun thing, it involves taking cover and waiting for a good time to shoot.
I think splinter cell conviction did cover well, since enemies make an active effort to get you out of it, by throwing grenades and flanking the player from multiple directions, but there’s also the fact that the player is much more deadly while moving around, unless they have their marking ability active, (and if they do, they can easily take out near adversaries and get back to slithering about on walls or hanging from ceiling pipes, minimizing time using the mechanic).
Cover is much more effective for avoiding being seen in the first place and/or safely positioning quiet gun takedowns, rather than being used for an advantage in full on gunfights.
It did not ruin rainbow six las Vegas. If done right it is ok.
Truth. One of my favorite shooters ever.
It had the most hassle free control scheme for it too. Hold left trigger wasnt it? As soon as you let go you released immediately.
vegas was a fun game that involves extensive cover play, for the same reason you just said: peeking out of the cover has a cost.
but looking at the other examples in the video, i do think that the cover is too safe as a breather
My biggest takeaway from this was the question, "Why have I not played Vanquish yet?"
This is why I appreciate Splatoon and Splatoon 2. A lot less focus on cover and more shooting. Also, the camera has the character dead center so that it's an ACTUAL third person shooter.
It seems like the sweet spot is to make cover optional rather than mandatory. Allowing different playstyles and strategies for different situations instead of locking people into repetitive boring gameplay. You want combat to be dynamic, not a grind.
The only major example I've seen of this done right is the Time Crisis series. It deals with some of the limitations of the mechanic in otherwise unorthodox ways:
1: No regenerating health means you have to play faster.
2: The time limit. It synergies with the lack of regenerating health.
3: It's also a light gun shooter, and the cover button is also reload, meaning that you can also play it more like House of the Dead where you just tap the pedal to reload.
time crisis isnt third person shooter.
krypticavalanch I get that but it shows how to use the mechanic.
I think there are several (other) likely reasons for cover mechanics: To make it easier for consoles to maintain their framerates, padding out game levels, ease-of-use (especially if said game uses the Unreal Engine 3/4) and easy scripting/zone triggers.
Binary Domain does reward you for going out of cover to be more aggressive. If you were to just sit back and not pull your weight in a fight, your allies mock you for it and you lose their trust. But if you do go aggressive and take them out, your allies compliment you for it, and you get an extra bit of trust, as well as a comment you can reply to in order to gain a bit more. This makes them not only respond to your commands better, but makes it so you can get the best ending. And the use of the bosnic charge Dan can use helps encourage this aggression by throwing the robots to the ground so you can pop off easier shots.
i think that the cover system can be fixed with one thing
a cover is a damage reducter , not a nullifier
so if a gun normaly does 20 damage , behind cover it will do only 10 , but you can still get killed behind cover , and the damage reduction maybe depends on the cover taken
I'd like to mention multiplayer in ME3 where some classes basically don't need cover, like the ones with "annihilation field" and others can't even take cover (if I remember correctly)
I haven’t had to stay in cover since me1 when using the vanguard class, just when abilities are on cool down
Even Mass Effect 2 (which is shown in this video as a "generic cover shooter") doesn't have an over reliance on cover, Mass Effect 1 is even less so since cover mostly gets you killed in it. Sure, you can use the cover and move along safely, but the time-to-kill is a lot lower than traditional cover shooters and different movement abilities mitigate reasons to use cover. The most obvious class that embodies this "fuck cover" attitude is Vanguard, but you can make other classes function similarly (PS, if any ME fan reading this hasn't tried a shotgun Infiltrator build yet, DO IT). ME3 definitely refined the formula the most in the trilogy, anyone who's played ME3MP knows that no one ever uses cover in high levels, not even the low HP caster classes.
Razorator EDI infiltrator with claymore shotgun and krogan vanguard with reegar carbine were so dope in me3mp
To his credit on this one, you can turn Mass Effect 2 into a "generic cover shooter" by picking the Soldier class. That's not a mistake I'll ever be repeating.
mjc0961 I still play quite aggressively as a soldier in ME2. On the PC at least. Aggressive play is harder on the consoles in general.
Here's how I think the cover system can be easily disposed of.
Just get rid of regenerating health and replace it with something else.
For example, Mirror's Edge Catalyst had an interesting idea for health in how the more the player moves and does parkour, the bigger their momentum shield becomes. This promoted constantly moving in order to avoid damage from gunfire. With the upgraded movement mechanics and arenas from Uncharted 4, this health system would have made the game much more fun since it would have promoted running and gunning.
Just give the player health packs for him to collect that wasnt an issue when wolf3d and doom released i dont understand why they decided to change it later on
At least in halo you have both health and a regenerating shield so there this design makes sense but games that only have regenerating health are just pointless
I love you you make exactly the kind of content I wanted to start doing. Do you by chance have one about dishonored?
The use of grenades in shooters by enemy ai was meant to be the counter to sitting in cover. Most shooters that use a cover system will also have readily available grenades. Enemies will normally begin to throw more and more grenades behind your safe little wall if you stay there too long. This is meant to force the player out of cover and back into the fight.
The very first video game I remeber to actually start using this cover system was Winback Covert Operation in the N64. I've always thought of cover systems as a sort of mix between run n gun games and old arcade style railed shooters like Time Crisis. Yet as you say, it seems nobody actually does anything interesting woth the mechanic so far.
I'm suprised you didn't mention how it was supposed to be "realistic", but in real life, you don't have A FUCKING FLYING CAMERA THAT LETS YOU SEE YOUR ENEMIES IN IMPLAUSABLE WAYS...
Great topic. Watched most of the video but found it a bit hard to follow, would have been interesting to discuss the evolution of cover systems in a more organized way, game by game chronologically maybe, pointing out the flaws and benefits where they exist with each game - and also taking a look at the concept of cover systems with part of the video specifically dedicated to a catalog of types and examples of cover. Some games can be pretty artificial in their use of types of cover, while others are much more natural and varied. Would have liked to see Mafia II or Singularity included. Mafia II sticks out in my mind because it relies a lot on cover, but I can't remember how well it was used or if it was unique in its use. Singularity is definitely worth mentioning with its destructible and creatable cover elements - the video doesn't seem to get into the topic of destructible cover very much. Anyway, great topic, maybe some ideas if you visit this topic again!
i think the main reason it worked for Gears of War was due to (A) how easy it was to shoot around most cover, with either grenades, flanking maneuvers, or simply shooting you when you through the occasional weak spots in your cover (either your shoulder is jutting out just right, or your leg is in the open) and (B) the possibility of enemies saying fuck you to your cover and engaging you in Melee.
I really like how games are starting to return to lean mechanics rather than sticky cover.
With lean mechanics its far more fluid to go in and out of cover and doesn't require a complicated animation. Its also far more realistic as it provides the safest way to shoot while exposing as little of yourself as possible. No one in their right mind in real life would get next to a wall, hug it, and expose their entire upper body just to shoot past the cover they're on. And with the way sticky cover works, the animation keeps the player locked at a predictable height and position relative the cover they are using, making it easy for an enemy player to shoot at them reliably.
I remember back when I used to play alot of rainbow six vegas 2 that alot of players who were really good would not use the cover mechanics for the reason I just stated. It was also faster just to move your character out from behind a wall to shoot rather than going through the cover animation to shoot. In PvP, there was no advantage to using the cover system so naturally, when Siege came out, they moved back to a lean system which works far better for PvP scenarios.
A few recent Examples: Rainbow Six Siege, Squad, and Arma 3.
Even Call of Duty and Battlefield dabbled with leaning mechanics, as they were present in both Cod Ghosts and Battlefield 4 (tho they were contextual as fuck and could be disabled in the options menu).
Medal of Honor had a leaning mechanic 1st then CoD & BF finally implemented it after MoH died. Sneaky bastards lol
Well, I wouldn't say Medal of Honor was the first game to have a leaning mechanic. The old ghost recon did and so did the first rainbow six game. Not sure what game was the first but it wasnt medal of honor.
By-far the best cover system in any videogame, is 'soft' and 'non-sticky', i.e' lean based. Wildlands is the only TPS I know that has that-and it's the best for it, whilst the cover-system in Far Cry 3 alone-makes it a better game than Far Cry 2. With that said, it should be context-sensitive, as it's a bit retarded [and not very immersive] leaning whilst standing in the open. MoH Airborne did that, and got away with it; as it's the first I remember [2007, maybe not before Rainbow 6]. I also remember-as flawed as that cover-system was, it blew my mind; and I could instantly tell it was the future-as it solved the most-pressing problem plaguing FPS's and making them unrealistic; how do you believably avoid incoming fire? Most every complaint leveled against cover-systems; is to do with the sticky-variety.
I disagree with Wildland's cover system. I personally hated it. I also only played the beta so they might have refined it since I played it. I found it to be difficult to tell when I'm in cover and when Im not in cover, or basically, when the character will lean out to shoot or when they'll just shoot the wall that they're standing behind because they aren't close enough to be "in-cover". I felt like it was a middle ground that just didn't work.
I played the beta too..it's basically unchanged from that. The weakness with it; is not being able to use the corners of doorways for cover-like you could in Far Cry, so overall that means it's not as good. I do think that and [sometimes-usually then] not being able to tell when you're in cover, is for the same reason the aiming feels shonky next to a dedicated FPS; third-person games just have more lagg, which means walking-not just aiming, always feels floaty. It makes it very difficult to position yourself properly-which again, is easy in FC. First person games MUST have great shooting controls, hence the lagg tends to be under control [and is why GTA V remastered is unplayable as an FPS on console]. In general, as I'm sure you're aware; as with Far Cry-a chan ge of animation informs you you're in cover, e.g; you hold your weapon vertically against the surface [Far Cry], or hunker-down [Wildlands]. I also think part of the problem; is that Far Cry-esp no#4 is just a more polished game. I've also heard rumour, that there was no cover-system in Wildlands-'till there was a fan outcry, so they added one-as an afterthought. Not sure if that's true or not, but not being able to use the edges of doors as cover, is a disappointment-esp as your enemies can.
As a related sidenote, AI in Wildlands is better than in Far Cry-that's the first time I've seen enemies take cover in doorways, they're a lot less shy about taking you on inside buildings [almost never happens in FC] and I also like how bases come to life-with lights flickering on from one end to the other, followed by sending out patrols. All these improvements should be in Far Cry V, I just only wish/hope they'd go one step further; and have bases mutually support each other-so they can combine forces and really kick your arse. That, and a dynamic front line, with counter-attacks that aren't just randomized-but actually serve the enemies purpose; are improvements I'm still waiting for. Probably for a long time, lol.
I grew up with games that never had cover-based shooting mechanics, and seeing the rise kind of makes my blood boil. Kind of. And after watching your vid my good sir, I'm subbing.
One thing I wanted to add to the list of Gears enemies that make you have to get out of cover and actually be aggressive in the game. Maulers, Bloodmounts, Butchers, Therons with cleavers, Grenadiers, Locust with Scorchers, Corpsers, Serapedes, Savage Boomers.
If I made a "Cover Shooter" I'd at LEAST make it on the premise that enemies hunt you DOWN when you use it. The whole point of cover in a shooter is to provide relief from combat to regen health and allow the player more time to learn the situation, which is EXACTLY why I'd use this idea against players, making cover inherently as dangerous as fighting back. Then again, I'm kinda a brutal game designer at heart (Even though I dislike overly-hard games), so maybe that's just a bad idea.
The best cover system in a slow third-person shooter is in Ghost Recon: Wildlands (my opinion). It is so soft, so subtle, you don't have to use it and playing on the hardest difficulty is actually the most fun. Ubisoft has done a good job here (didn't expect I would ever say that).
Agreed. The best cover-system I know; is in Far Cry 3 and 4 [though Star Citizens will change that], it's 'soft' like Wildlands, only better; as you can peak around the edges of doorways. But WL's is the best I've seen in an TPS.
Far Cry 3 is really under appreciated sometimes I think; it's a well-designed game with a lot of intuitive creative choices (like its dynamic cover system) that people gloss over because they think its story is dumb (even though it is actually pretty smart mostly because the direction is as thematic as it is, tying to the gameplay really well)... Say what you will about how that writer approached the criticism, he did a good job with the actual game :)
Ryene Motarjeme idk what your getting that from but far cry 3 is loved by many and some even say its way better than far cry 4
That's true, but there is a decently large community that thinks the story sucks and things like that... I disagree with that, but I've seen it before a few times. I suppose everything has haters eh :)
Ryene Motarjeme Haters? You know they have an opinion right? Not everybody has to agree with you.
I discovered you from joseph anderson and I am so glad I did! Keep up your quality content :)
Someone is too young to remember Winback, the true start of the cover shooter.
TPS used to be one of my favorite genres before GoW released and EVERYONE jumped on the bland cover shooting meme, first time I even played GoW I was so dissapointed having to just sit behind cover most of the time and take potshot at enemies that was pretty much the opposite of fun to me.
First cover not gear of war
8:57 Just gotta say that was such a cool transition
Thanks, I tried to do those as much as possible
Homogenization is not caused by a game mechanic. It is caused by the creatively bankrupt people who decided to just mimic other games like it for cynical cash grabbing.
Military shooters? Homogenized
Cover shooters? Homogenized
Clash of Clans clones? Homogenized
Battle Royale games? Homogenized
Open-world games? Homogenized
It's not COD's fault. It's not the fault of the "cover system" concept. It's not the fault of Clash of Clans. It's not the fault of H1z1. PUBG. or whoever the fuck started it. It is certainly not the fault of GTA. Nope, it's the people who decided NOT to make an original game. It's the people who decided to make a game to order.
Cover systems are just one of the many tools in the toolbox. It can be used or misused depending on who.
Nah. I understand what you are saying but it’s too broad a stroke. Is (and were they at time of release) last of us and uncharted “a cynical cash grab”. Whatever your opinion, they were not cashgrabs. You are equaiting “clash clones” with a game having a certain mechanic. Homogenization I agree with but I don’t think really cod and counter strike sharing the same fundamental gameplay mechanics makes them clones/cashgrabs.
And I also don’t think it has anything to do with being creatively bankrupt either. Where do you draw the line? Sure cod and battlefield are fairly similar, but also very different. Is the FPS mechanic done, since doom made it? A lot of the games here are very different but they share the same mechanics (uncharted, spec ops and gears), would you say all the games are similar cashgrabs?
And let's not forget the consumers who are fine with buying, playing and then throwing away 10 games that are exactly the same every year - or literally buying the exact same game every year (Call of Duty, Madden, Fifa...). It's a creatively bankrupt skill-less game industry for creatively bankrupt skill-less people. It works out at the end.
Never played Winbak have you? A real hidden gem on N64 that, atleast for me, introduced the cover medhanic.
Man this guy would have LOVED Doom Eternal and ULTRAKILL
>Ultrakill
No thanks.
@@NihilisticIdealist ultra kill literally does the whole “character action shooter” thing way better then Vanquish ever did. Honestly I dunno why all these people who talked about vanquish from back in the day arent talking about either game. Vanquish walked so Doom and UK could run
@@MILDMONSTER1234 Ultrakill might be fun to play, but its one of the most visually unappealing games I've ever seen.
I seriously disagree about Max Payne 3. I think the purpose cover is supposed to serve is giving you safe zones to shoot dodge to and from. The high lethality of enemies, and lack of regenerating health makes the game significantly harder to play as a bog standard cover shooter. Shoot dodging allows you to pull off headshots easily, and you always have bullet time for it. Every time I snap into cover in Max Payne 3, it's to figure out my next shoot dodge route.
Edit: Rabbit Respawn's BOOM Headshot videos are a good demonstration of what I'm talking about.
It still made the game a lot less fun, and there was no reason for them to gimp the movement speed in MP3. The first game in that trilogy still remains my favorite because that game just nailed it.
Why not just give you the movement speed of the older games instead of implementing a cover system? It doesn't really add anything and you can still crouch so there's no reason for it to be there.
Mayo Rice Obvious fanboy is obvious.
JC Denton They probably went with a cover system because A) it was in style, and all their other Rockstar games use it, and B) it provided more solid safe spots. I think not having a cover system, and increased movement speed would make it almost the same game as the earlier Max Paynes.
Rabbit Respawn is the shit
I think you raise some excellent points but I think mechanics like in vanquish would be difficult to implement in "realistic" games without losing immersion. Being this one man army who dosent need cover makes sense in certain sci-fi games but not in something like uncharted because a real human would die if they tried that.
That being said I am surprised there hasn't been more innovation in this area.
In Tomb Raider there is no button to take cover. He was just crouching beside a wall. Same as last of us.
I hate games that reduce fun just to make it more "realistic"
WHO CARES IT'S A GAME
Yeah and some of us want more realistic....
Then I know you will really not like No More Heroes. It has some mechanics that are meant to be tedious to properly tell a story
@@SinArtavia If it hinders the game design it sucks as a game and that is far more important tha being "realistic"
@@teneesh3376 yeah but plenty of games can do that without having to stray away from what they were marketed as
@@juanmanikings yeah but it annoys me because I bought a game which was marketed as a realistic tactical shooter only for it all to change.
I prefer the Gears of War method of shooting it was done right but most games these days don't offer that much which is annoying.
I personally like cover based shooters. I feel if they are done right they can be more tactical compared to games like call of duty, battle field and alot of other fps or games like them. An example of this I can say to benefit cover based would be like the digger, Boomer and mortar in gears, or the abilities in mass effect. It can lead to more tame gameplay that's not who has the better reflex time, higher sensitivity, or weapon. It can come down to who can utilize the cover better defensively and aggressively.
Very well said. Cover shooters aren't inherently a bad thing in my eyes. Because games like Gears of War really made the mechanic take off in popularity, but it made sure to keep it fresh and interesting with each game iteration.
I'm glad that you mentioned how the cover in The Last of Us works as more than just a place to hide from bullets. In TLoU, you're usually trying to avoid getting into firefights as much as possible since you never have enough ammo for them. So the cover is much more of a stealth mechanic, allowing you to work to get as close to your target as you can so you can take them down without anyone else seeing. Just another reason why it's my favorite game.
The way to counter this problem is generally smarter and more agressive AI, forcing to change cover more often. Destructable environments could also help.
This video made me realize I haven’t played a cover shooter in years, guess I haven’t missed anything? :/
Spec Ops the Line is the only thing you'll miss out on.
@@distantsea The story is great, gameplay not so much.
@@andmillions The sad thing is that story only really works if you like military shooters, and if you are not playing it for the story. I usually avoid games like that but I heard this has a great story. Then it is kind of weird at the end the game tells you "you are only here because you wanted to be a hero". Like no, I am here because I thought this game will have an interesting narrative. It is still is a cool story anyway, and does some cool things, but it is such a slog to play through I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
Subscribed before the end of the video. So refreshing to see a guy who criticizes popular things in video games without sounding like a sulking nihilist without a sense of humor.
They should make it where when you take cover the backround gets really blurry. Taking cover would be used to reload basically.
Nice choices on the background music bro!
Hey look! It's the Rental 1886!
Hate to agree with that Gamingbrit fellow, but RE VI is the way to go for TPS, love all the range of mobility options there.
RE6 has good mobility, but almost no room to use it in. Its segmented health is also good for allowing long term deaths and mitigating bullet damage. The problem is that almost none of the enemies are built for the cover part of it, there's nearly no cover where they have guns, and ammo is far too rare. The stamina system also kills it, your last 2 health ticks by default permanently set it to 0, making the mobility irrelevant for when you most need it.
The game also fails to give the player any time to get used to the combat mechanics, like RE4 did, and almost every 5 minutes has an insta-death story beat that you just have to die to to understand. Or a boss without any feedback that it can't be killed and isn't taking damage, wasting your already limited ammo in a game where there's barely any to begin with.
Excellent video! Are you forgetting about Winback, though? I believe that was the first shooter a cover system like this.