Are Cover Mechanics Pointless?

[porous_shield]

Like some others have been saying, I like cover systems in stealth games where you can squeeze up against cover and make sure you aren't seen or you can take your chances and just crouch.

In most games I greatly dislike cover mechanics. I hate running along and then getting glued to cover or not being able to get out of cover instantly when the need arises so I'd much rather just crouch. Being glued to a wall is especially bad when one button does multiple things.

The other thing I hate about many cover mechanics is some games over reliance on chest high walls. You walk into a room and there just happen to be a bunch of chest high walls strewn about without any attempt to make the room feel organic.

 

[Zak757]

It sure as hell doesn't need a "press button to stick to things" mechanic. The new Tomb Raider did cover mechanics excellently. Whenever you entered a combat situation, Lara would automatically lower her posture when in close proximity to a chest high walls, or place her back against any close walls. Leaning was done with the aim button.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

I would say, no. It kinda gives you a 'guarantee' of protect that hiding behind a box in a FPS won't. And if the bullets actually come from the gun and not the camera, you can't really take advantage of lying behind something and firing through it.

It'd honestly say it adds to a shooter for the most part, but that's basically only Third Person Shooters, and Ubisoft FPS' (Like Farcry or Rainbow Vegas:2, since you go third person in that fps.)

 

[Bravo Company]

I think Red Orchestra 2 multiplayer really make cover mechanics a necessity, because while you can just crouch behind an object you'll be a much larger, more conspicuous target if you don't use the cover mechanic. It also reduces the rate at which you get suppressed and is invaluable for automatically hiding you away while you are reloading (which happens often and takes a while) and finally, is necessary for large heavy weapons such as anti-tank rifles and heavy machine guns that require you to deploy the tripod on a hard surface to have any sort of accuracy and recoil management.

I remember Splinter Cell also made it so you were a lot harder to detect when in cover against a wall, that was really useful.

I really like the idea and implementation of RO2's first person cover shooter, and I feel that they did a great job with it. However, I never use it. I feel so clumsy whenever I actually use the "glue me to the wall" button and popping up to take aim feels like it takes forever to me. I find myself never using that button. You can still use the anti-tank guns/heavy machine guns/rest your arm without being glued to the wall, just be close enough for the icon to appear.

The most recent cover based shooter I've played was Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway, and I really dislike how you HAD to be in cover to not be "in danger" I was killed a couple times because I was crouched without line of sight on some enemies but since I wasn't "in cover" they still killed me. I wouldn't have disliked it as much if they would've had a first person cover system similar to RO2 ( I know BiA:HH was a few years before that but still...) or if I could use iron sights while in cover.

 

[Netrigan]

The press button to stick to wall mechanic is, thankfully, starting to be phased out as developers have figured out how to dynamically do the same thing by having aim pop you in and out of cover from a crouch.

Going back to the old days of Doom and Duke 3D and the like, there was always cover-based shooting, but it was far easier to use horizontal cover thanks to strafing keys, while manually popping up and down from a chest high wall was seldom worth the effort. So I for one welcome the ability to use any kind of cover effectively... so long as the developers remember to mix up combat situations so the game isn't a long, uninterrupted string of whack-a-mole.

 

[Something Amyss]

I like the capacity to peek around corners, but "press button to stick to cover" is sort of meh. I don't hate it, but I'm not in love with it.

 

[Netrigan]

I like the capacity to peek around corners, but "press button to stick to cover" is sort of meh. I don't hate it, but I'm not in love with it.

I only really like it games with a dynamic cover system. As I'm in two Watch Dogs threads at the moment, I'll point to it as a game with a pretty good cover-based system since you easily turn corners and sprint between cover and the like.

Although it seriously needs a crouch button as there's a few times where I died because the game decided it didn't recognize something as cover. Happened a fair bit in Convoy Missions, because once a car exploded it was no longer viable cover... seems to me it's the perfect cover because it's already been pre-exploded

 

[Evonisia]

Cover systems are usually pointless, they're just trying to capitalise on the fact that Gears of War did it the best (I'm looking at you Uncharted) and utterly failing to realise why Gears of War did it so well.

Better level design is required, and Gears of War was inventive with it's cover with rock worms, debris, walls you activate yourself, different lighting and enemies, cover which had holes in it and more. Variety is wonderful, and most games just don't offer it. They just have chest high walls or walls you stand behind.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

I like a good cover system, and I think that they hold an important role in tactical games, such as Tom Clancy games (Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, GRFS and so on). This is largely due the fact that is makes sense, I mean in a game without a cover system, you have to hide behind a wall, then expose pretty much your full body to shoot, rather than leaning out. What I don't like, however, is how in some games, such as you have to press a button to exit cover, which very often gets you killed during fast paced firefights and emergencies. I also find that having to hold a button to remain in cover doesn't work (as in Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 and 2, don't know about other RB Six games) because one's finger tends to get numb or cramp, so you may ending breaking cover at a bad time. I think that Splinter Cell: Blacklist (which I have just completed about an hour ago) does it well, I think. You press one button to enter cover, but then you can simply walk away from it, but it doesn't let you accidentally step to the side of the cover you are in. And if you want to break cover without moving, simply press the cover button. You can obviously switch from cover to cover with a button too, which works well. I beleive that GRFS works in much the same way, but from my memory, it seems to work better and be more refined.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I loathe sticky cover mechanics. As well as breaking the flow of a game I would posit that there's no game with sticky cover that could not have achieved better results without it. The fact that there are great games out there that work well without sticky cover show that it can be done.

Pressing a button to have the character take action by themselves is immersion breaking for me. It is me telling the game to do something and having it carry out instructions. This is epitomised in SC: Conviction/Watch Dogs where a push button moves the character between cover as well. You point and click and the character follows the instruction. Or SC: Convictions takedowns, which, while effective, is the computer killing my opponents for me. I push a button and sit back while aiming and shooting are all handled automatically.

I really dislike having control taken away like that. I'm no longer in control of the character, moving, jumping, hiding around bends, firing weapons/powers intuitively, but an observer watching things happen on screen (even if I did prompt those things to happen). If I hide behind cover, then peek out, stand up/duck down, break line of sight or remain hidden, I am still in control and can move off immediately, without pause to act or react as need be, rather than have to press a button first so the game "releases" me from cover first which interrupts the flow of things and ruins immersion.

So yeah, I hate sticky cover, even if I enjoy the rest of a game that incorporates it. I think it's unnecessary and there's not a single game with it that wouldn't have been better without it. Sticky cover plus endless rooms of chest high walls connected by corridors is the most tedious sounding shooter I can imagine.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I love it in third person shooters. It feels good in Gears of War especially, I found that being "glued" to the wall felt bad, or wrong. I like the secure feeling it can bring too, but I also like the idea of cover being fragile where you can't just spend all your time safe and snug behind a wall.

I hate in first person games however. It always feels awkward and more trouble than it's worth. I rather prefer just standing or crouching behind cover. I think a system like the Call of Duty three choice crouch system works best for FPS games. Being stuck to a wall in a first person perspective like Killzone and possibly Far Cry feels so claustrophobic.

 

[renegade7]

If done well, it adds a sense of fluidity and uninterrupted flow of action.

If done poorly, it's the most annoying thing in the universe (Looking at you Mass Effect 1), with your character randomly deciding to suddenly sprint up to a surface...that's completely exposed.

There's also good instances where shooters have just avoided them entirely. Marathon comes to mind, when most projectiles were slow enough to be dodged but there were still walls and pillars that worked as cover. That kind of gave it a more thoughtful aspect where you had to plan out how you were going to move through a room, especially on Total Carnage difficulty when two hits meant you were dead and this was before regenerating health.

 

[Vigormortis]

Pointless? No. Depending on the game such systems may be integral to the play experience.

However, I prefer a game that expects me to be resourceful enough or adaptive enough to make my own cover. A game that says, "You don't want to get shot? Then go get behind that wall, for gods' sake."

This is not to say I think cover systems shouldn't exist at all. I know plenty of gamers that like such systems. And more power to 'em, I say. I like such systems in the stealth games I play. But for me? I prefer a crouch button and strafe keys. Especially in my first person games.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I don't really like cover-based shooters, but that's more of a personal preference of mine. I feel very restricted when sitting behind cover, and my first instinct in a fight is to be evasive and move around, rather than staple myself to a chest-high wall and wait it out. Having some form of passive cover is alright, though; weaving through tight spaces and ducking behind walls is great for dynamic tactical play, but the kind of cover that you magnetize yourself to in order to avoid damage, such as in Mass Effect or Uncharted, feels very restrictive. It makes battles really repetitive, too; fights all have the same general strategy, i.e. sit with your back glued to a wall and take potshots at the enemies.

That being said, it's not exactly pointless. In "realistic" shooters, cover is basically the only way you're not going to die, since bullets fly quickly and without warning and your character can take maybe 2 or 3 hits before dying, and thus enemies with good accuracy can wipe you out quickly and easily if you're exposed. The dependence on cover in some games is born pretty naturally from the other mechanics, and without changes to such mechanics cover isn't going anywhere.

 

[Something Amyss]

I only really like it games with a dynamic cover system. As I'm in two Watch Dogs threads at the moment, I'll point to it as a game with a pretty good cover-based system since you easily turn corners and sprint between cover and the like.

Although it seriously needs a crouch button as there's a few times where I died because the game decided it didn't recognize something as cover. Happened a fair bit in Convoy Missions, because once a car exploded it was no longer viable cover... seems to me it's the perfect cover because it's already been pre-exploded

I know what you mean about crouch. I've been playing GTA V a lot, and I'd love to be able to crouch or, especially for some missions/jobs, go prone. Cover's sometimes dodgy, and it'd be nice to be able to make do yourself.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Be interested to know your opinion a la Metal Gear Solid, ie pressing up to walls, leaning, jumping out etc.

Would you call that a cover 'system'?

I'd call that a movement system, it would be a cover system if pressing against a wall rendered you arbitrarily invisible to guards who plainly have line of sight. As it is it gives you ways to navigate spaces, but doesn't at any point make you unspottable if you do something stupid.

I'm not a fan of cover systems, maybe it's because I grew up in the Quake era, but the idea that I need a button to tell me I'm behind a solid object is insulting to me. It reaches absurd levels in stuff like Gears of War, where the 'cover' mechanic is basically crouching, except you can only do it at predefined points.

 

[II2]

I think it's down to execution and to genre.

Well done "snap to" cover switches that are responsive, have a decent range and animate well are actually a real blessing in stealth focused games. Alternately, having it switch to 3rd person in an otherwise first person game for a cover snap actually works really well, too... See Deus Ex: HR, etc.

Action games tend to suffer for it I find. Gears of War did it just about perfectly, as an idea, but I don't think the overall experience was necessarily enhanced by focusing on that. Pop and stop shooting gallery action doesn't strike me as being as fundamentally interesting as a shooter or action game with more expansive and fluid movement. In the extreme, you've got Tribes, who took run and gun to fly and slide and gun and it's just fucking wonderful. The game has very few hitscan weapons, so the combat is very fast and skillful for shooter fans, without being frustrating to new players, since moving around the world with that sense of freedom is just FUN. Landing hits becomes even more rewarding, since you're dealing with trying to predict where the target is going to BE, not where it is, against the tractory of projectile or exposive AOE weapons from where you are at any given moment screaming through the air.

Admittedly, that's down to taste, but I think there's great merit to opening up, rather than locking down how players maneuver the world, in most cases.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

I think with the case of MGS people are describing it wrong... the 'cover' here isn't from bullets, it's from sight!

When Snake presses up to the wall he makes himself a smaller target, visible from less angles to the cover, and reducing his Shadow so he is harder to see. MGS5 has the ability to shoot from here now (and possibly 4, but I haven't played that) so you could argue the traditional cover system is used too, but it's more for stealth.

Actually, sneer sneer, it's been possible to shoot from cover since game 2, it just wasn't practical since you can't aim. I wouldn't argue that it's not useful for stealth, just that it's useless in combat.