Alternative to cover-based combat?

Recommended Videos

gardyna

New member
Jun 7, 2010
83
0
0
I think that cover based combat is a great mechanic if handled properly. the main problem why I think lot of people don't like it is becouse it's so newish that there are only wery few Level designers that know how to create great levels that utilize the cover based mechanic to it's full extent. most level designers for cover based games fall into the pitt hole of just litter an open feild with chest high walls how bout using real walls and shoot round corners use the cover system to seamlesly move around the battlefield from cover to cover.
if you can create flow and clear forward momentum in those sections I think it would make for a pretty awesome game

in short it's a great mechanic that wery few designers have been able to master
 

Vern5

New member
Mar 3, 2011
1,633
0
0
How about the complete opposite of a cover-based game?

You stand out in the open and try to absorb as many projectiles as possible. Each hit strengthens you and you can return every projectile you've absorbed with lethal force.

Who says innovation is dead?
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Cranyx said:
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.
Blocking rockets with your face and taking it like a man... Quake style.
 

Rayne870

New member
Nov 28, 2010
1,250
0
0
Cranyx said:
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.
Both styles have their places. Blends of the two are also interesting. The biggest problem with cover based combat is level design, too much of the cover is put there to be cover rather than being naturally occurring cover. Vegas 2 seems to be the closest to the ideal mix of cover and open combat with tactics, for the type of game it is. Meat shield mechanics are very fun, and that's what made things like Bullet Storm and the older arena or frag fest games great.
 

number2301

New member
Apr 27, 2008
836
0
0
It would feel strange and unnecessarily limiting to me to play a modern game without a cover system nowadays, but my ideal would be a shooter with a cover system which isn't defined by that cover system.

You know, sometimes there are chest high walls, sometimes there aren't. It'd also make ambushes less predictable.
 

technoted

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,031
0
0
Wait, you're classing GoW as a bullet absorbing game? I love that game but 95% of it his looking at Marcus' face as he crouches behind a wall.
 

CrashBang

New member
Jun 15, 2009
2,603
0
0
It's no entirely bad unless an entire game is based around it, like GeOW. Actually, I don't hate GeOW, it just gets a bit repetitive
Cover-based shooting is a great tactic to be used in shooters, just make sure it's not the only tactic. Another great option that should be integrated into a game? Stealth! Take cover, fire off a few shots, duck down and flank them, taking them out Solid Snake style
Stealth and cover-based combat work well together. Let's see more of it
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
I like cover based shooting, but to twist my arm for something else then Fallout 3 & New Vegas mashed a few ideas together that could work. A little assisted targeting, a bit of run and gun, some ironsights and some sneaky sneaky you can't see me. You'd have to balance the different tactics for an MP but the bare bones are there.
 

Vegna60

New member
Apr 11, 2011
8
0
0
Instead of static cover system, how about a form of shield that the character carries.
Heavy fire, just bring it up and push forward.
Too exposed, protect one side as you run to a better vantage point.
Too many, leggit with the shield on your back and get out of there.

Maybe a riot cop game wouldn't be too great, but still an alternative.
 

TheKruzdawg

New member
Apr 28, 2010
870
0
0
Souplex said:
Radeonx said:
Run and gun, non cover based combat?

Souplex said:
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.
I didn't mind the cover based shooting in ME2. Until you get up to a high level in ME1 (at least in all of my experiences) simply trying to run around without taking cover or just stand there is a quick way to get killed.

However, I wish they had kept the medigel health system instead of the regenerating health. I gave me a reason to explore everything to look for supplies. Also, where did the grenades go?!?
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Just off the top of my head:

Shields one can carry
Suppression fire capabilities (able to make the bad guys you're shooting at duck behind cover and stay there til you stop)
High mobility
Higher damage (ie, 1-2 shot kills instead of half a clip)
Special abilities (ie, Crysis suit powers)

Any of these can be used to counter the tedium of cover-based mechanics. It's just unfortunate that that's never going to happen.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
TheKruzdawg said:
I didn't mind the cover based shooting in ME2. Until you get up to a high level in ME1 (at least in all of my experiences) simply trying to run around without taking cover or just stand there is a quick way to get killed.

However, I wish they had kept the medigel health system instead of the regenerating health. I gave me a reason to explore everything to look for supplies. Also, where did the grenades go?!?
The grenades were dismantled and turned into heatsinks. Didn't you hear?
 

TheKruzdawg

New member
Apr 28, 2010
870
0
0
Agayek said:
The grenades were dismantled and turned into heatsinks. Didn't you hear?
That's too bad. There were plenty of time when I could have used some of those grenades. I liked how they glided where you were aiming. A new way of using them. It was fun. Especially if you got them to detonate directly under someone when you had the High Explosive upgrade.

Oh how high the enemies would fly...
 

kittii-chan 300

New member
Feb 27, 2011
704
0
0
a game where the cover isnt a defense, its an attack. your charater can throw chest high walls and plant pots at people by usin the force.
or game where instead of shooting people you have to convince them to commit suicide.
or mecha combat
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
TheKruzdawg said:
Souplex said:
Radeonx said:
Run and gun, non cover based combat?

Souplex said:
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.
I didn't mind the cover based shooting in ME2. Until you get up to a high level in ME1 (at least in all of my experiences) simply trying to run around without taking cover or just stand there is a quick way to get killed.

However, I wish they had kept the medigel health system instead of the regenerating health. I gave me a reason to explore everything to look for supplies. Also, where did the grenades go?!?
In ME1 you took cover, but you ignored the cover system. In ME2 they took out the ability to duck and shove crates around and whatnot. Made the game feel slower.
 

MASTACHIEFPWN

Will fight you and lose
Mar 27, 2010
2,279
0
0
Non recharging health, other alternitives to combat itself, for instance, I may start a project from a comic I'm writing which takes the POV of the main character, and Instead of fighting yourself, You have to use your soldiers.

That's just an idea though. Cover based combat isn't bad in my mind, but I do like the occasional Halo, Quake uber fast paced combat game... holds a place dear to my heart.
 

TheKruzdawg

New member
Apr 28, 2010
870
0
0
Souplex said:
In ME1 you took cover, but you ignored the cover system. In ME2 they took out the ability to duck and shove crates around and whatnot. Made the game feel slower.
I've played ME1 a few times through now and I never knew that I had the ability to shove boxes and stuff around. I've just been trying to maneuver into the best spot possible before the AI flanks me and makes me fight without any cover. Since it's been awhile since I played ME2, I forgot that you can't duck anymore. I liked that feature in the original. Especially when I was trying to snipe.
 

Laser Priest

A Magpie Among Crows
Mar 24, 2011
2,013
0
0
Running straight at the enemy and firing your gun and then hiding behind a wall or running away to find a health kit when your health drops. In other words, the exact same thing only with more stupid.

People like to complain. If a lot of them do it, it doesn't mean that they're right.