Alternative to cover-based combat?

[Cranyx]

Often people complain of an over-abundance of cover-based combat in video games today, and these complaints are legitimate, but what exactly are the pther options for shooters aside from the Halo/GoW wall of bullet-absorbing meat?

I am not trying to defend cover-based combat, and it may just be that I haven't played any of the games that have created a different system, but I myself cannot think of any.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The other option is high mobility, preferably with somewhat high health as well. To put it in TF2 terms, imagine that everyone is playing as a character that moves faster than the Scout, but has as much health as the Soldier. That was the way the old Arena shooters worked, and it was great.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Play a game that isn't a shooter. There you go.

I think you may be referring to way to make shooters better even if you didn't mention them specifically. In that case, why not have a shooter based around the same things as Sonic games? Why not make it about moving as friggin fast as possible and make it so a single bullet, while unlikely to hit, will do massive damage? Think of its as the ultimate speed trip flying through the level bullets everywhere dodging matrix style around the level.

 

[DJDarque]

Using cover in shooters isn't a bad thing. Dodging behind walls and such is an effective tactic. It's the "press [insert button] to glue yourself to this wall" style cover that it annoying. I say go back to old style shooter where we could just run around and there was regular, not-chest-high-walls-everywhere cover.

 

[gussy1z]

it depends on the game. It worked for rainbow six, it sucked for GTA.

 

[Souplex]

What's wrong with Halo superhumanism? It makes games fun!

 

[Radeonx]

Run and gun, non cover based combat?

What's wrong with Halo superhumanism? It makes games fun!

And this.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Concealment based combat. You have to use the environment to put yourself in position to kill your enemy before they see you. Cover doesn't stop bullets, it only hides you. I don't know, it's a suggestion.

 

[ELD3RGoD]

Rainbow Six cover was good. Even in cover you were still really vulnerable. Killzone 3 has first person cover systemy thingy and then there are the old school unreal fast paced stuff.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Often people complain of an over-abundance of cover-based combat in video games today, and these complaints are legitimate, but what exactly are the pther options for shooters aside from the Halo/GoW wall of bullet-absorbing meat?

I am not trying to defend cover-based combat, and it may just be that I haven't played any of the games that have created a different system, but I myself cannot think of any.

Wall of meat is the main other one, but stealth-'em-up is pretty fun too. Emerging from the shadows only to snap some unsuspecting fool's neck, the difference from cover based combat being that ideally the other person never fires a bullet and that if you're stealthy enough you don't actually need cover. Then there's the ever popular "If you kill someone, you're doing it wrong" mindset fostered by some games. These are popular in things that aren't shooters, but aside from that last one, I don't see a problem with them being adapted for shooters... And even with the last one, there's probably some way to incorporate that without loosing the essence of shooter-dom.

Oh wait. Portal.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

It's really hard to do something like this. Because what fun would be a game in which you can't take cover, but you can't soak bullets? Honestly, it's one of the other. The exception I guess would be a game like Operation Flashpoint, but in that case it's mostly sniping and then calling a medic over.

Also, ITT: people who skimmed the OP.

 

[DevilWolf47]

Stealth combat where you can either play cooperatively or switch between perspectives of two operatives who need to find a way past enemies without being identified? We haven't gotten any good stealth-em-ups recently, and i'm missing the style of play where you had to implement strategy because you were horribly outnumbered and outgunned and had to use stealth and cunning to survive any encounter.

 

[Souplex]

Run and gun, non cover based combat?

What's wrong with Halo superhumanism? It makes games fun!

And this.

Exactly. That's one of the many reasons why ME1 is better than ME2.

 

[Cranyx]

One shooter that gets near universal praise is the half-life series. Sadly, I have not yet gotten a chance to play them, but I was wondering what style of combat they use in those games?

 

[WorldCritic]

Innovative new idea, instead of hiding behind chest high walls to protect yourself, YOU must protect the chest high walls.

Whenever you get into a gun fight you must make sure as many chest-high walls survive as possible and once you've made sure that the chest-high walls are safe to stand chest high another day you must move on to liberate the next area of chest-high walls until you eventually battle the dictator who is determined to harness the power of the chest-high wall and stop him from harming them ever again.

Or maybe you could just go back to run and gun shooters. Whatever works.

 

[StellarViking]

Whenever you're getting shot at or are damaged, your character holds up his hands and says "TIME OUT!"

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

One shooter that gets near universal praise is the half-life series. Sadly, I have not yet gotten a chance to play them, but I was wondering what style of combat they use in those games?

At their heart, the Half-Life games are still old-style arena shooters. It's a combination of moving quickly enough not to get hit at all, and also being able to tank a reasonable amount of damage. However, like all arena shooters, the tankable health doesn't mean that multiplayer is free of one hit kills, which can only be prevented by the maneuverability.

 

[Souplex]

One shooter that gets near universal praise is the half-life series. Sadly, I have not yet gotten a chance to play them, but I was wondering what style of combat they use in those games?

It uses ignoring any improvement or innovation that has come since the first game in the series debuted.