Auto-aim, cover, health regen in shooters: why the hate?

Recommended Videos

freedomweasel

New member
Sep 24, 2010
258
0
0
Eric_Autopsy said:
Cover systems: Don't really have a problem with those, although I would like to see a "lean" button in atleast ONE console game by the end of this year.
MOH has a lean/peak button in the campaign. If you hold L2 (on PS3) and move the left stick around your lean/peak in that direction, it's pretty slick.

Personally I don't really mind any of them. I remember wishing I could hide behind cover and peak out back when I started gaming, so I'm glad it's being implemented now.

Auto regen health works better when it regens your shields and you still need health packs like in Halo:CE. I loved the health system in that game. In games like MOH it doesn't really make sense, but it makes the game more fun to me.

Maybe they could have some system similar to Bad Company 1, where you hit yourself with an epi-pen type thing, but have it limited. Or rely on asking your teammates for health/med packs.
 

JeanLuc761

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,479
0
0
Hosker said:
I hate PC users always saying the mouse and keyboard is more precise. It all comes down to what you use more.
I play FPS games way better with a control.

Anyway, I only have a problem with auto aim, it usually makes the game too easy.
The mouse/keyboard IS more precise, and that's fact, not opinion. Yes, it does come down to what you prefer, but m/kb has clear advantages in that area.

OT: I hate auto-aim in PC shooters, but that's only because it's not necessary. Console games require it to compensate for the joystick, so that's fine.

Cover systems, I really like (when implemented properly). If it's there just as a "Oh look, we did the cover system too," I don't much care for it, but if it's Gears of War style where it makes sense and really benefits the flow, I love it.

Health regeneration...I despise. Completely. Shield regeneration was fine in the original Halo, no problem with that at all. When everyone started to take shields out of the equation and allow players to regenerate to 100% in 5 seconds, I really started hating it. It removes most of the challenge from the game, encourages "run and gun" mechanics, and is just plain unrealistic. Yes, I know medkits aren't realistic either, but at least they make you play more intelligently (hello Half-Life 1&2).
 

Outright Villainy

New member
Jan 19, 2010
4,334
0
0
Irridium said:
Thats it, and its boring.

Regenerating Health - It stops the game from being intense and fun. At least for me. I'd much rather games use the segmented health system that was in games like Far Cry 2(had the best one I believe), Chronicles of Riddick, Resistance: Fall of Man(the first one).

It adds the best of both a health kit system and regenerating health. You have a bar you must manage, meaning you have to play smart, and since your health regenerates each bar separately(say you have 4 bars, 2 and a half get taken out, so it would regenerate the second one, while the others are still out), you aren't stuck with the "1 hp" situations that fuck you over in most games that require health kits.
This, I love. I played condemned 2 lately, which had a similar system. It's the kind of system I really want to see more of, because it strikes a fine balance. Half life 2 does a decent job of spacing health packs too though. It's just the Modern warfare style I don't like.
 

PumpActionJesus

New member
Feb 6, 2009
92
0
0
CSS was perfect... u dont need a cover system to take cover kiddies
auto aim is a pure fail for people who crnt aim.
health regen shouldnt be needed unless for making the campaign flow easly

They are only added to dumb down fps's... and looks like it worked, how many peoples first console experience was halo or cod, because its simple and takes no skill.

Noobs ruin gaming. Never going to get anything other than WOW clones from MMORPG's

Never going to get rid of the samey FPS's for shooter.

Its just how things suck :/
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Netrigan said:
gmaverick019 said:
i'd love to see even half my pc elitist friends i know jump on a console and beat me at it since the pc is "superior" to all, in which hell they could choose the game and console and id be cool with a 1 v 7 or 8. regardless of the actual hardware itself, it takes a complete different mindset
a rather one-sided challenge as you'd be going up against someone with minimal gamepad experience, a device he considers inherently inferior. Of course he's going to get owned.

While you could use someone's gaming rig, plug in a controller you're familar with and go up against PC people with the tools they prefer and see how you fare... you know, a pretty much even fight unless they're right about your controller.

I'm a PC-to-console convert and I've come to enjoy the superior movement controls of the gamepad but I wish the percision aiming of the mouse in virtually every game I play. I'm gradually getting better and might even be able turn off those aim assists in the near future but it's night and day. And I'm not even that good with a mouse. The gaming gods can pretty much hit any moving target in their range of movement while running in the opposite direction. I've never, ever, ever have seen a gamepad player come anywhere close to that level of skill.
yes it was my point to come across as that, and like you said, its about what they "prefer", just because you can't use something doesn't automatically make it bad. Thats what i fucking can't stand about the elitism that stems from kb+M combo is they become these ridiculously stuck up kids saying "MEH! KB+M DOMINATES ALL NO MATTER WHAT AND IF YOU USE SOMETHING ELSE YOU ARE BAD!"

(now i dont hate the kb+m combo, hell i use it for about 75% of my games, but i just hate the amount of elitism that it stems)

while that is somewhat true, in the pc world all controls are modifiable, as in every mouse/keyboard is different from the other, so i've seen people struggle like hell to do what you said while i know a few people who can do it with their opposite hand (literally, i have seen it done) so there is super small debate there on what can and cant be used. but for practical purposes ill be inclined to agree, in quake/unreal tournament style gameplay (while i dont hate quake, its gotten very old and boring, to me at least) the mouse has ridiculous amounts bettter precision and speed.
 

Wutaiflea

New member
Mar 17, 2009
504
0
0
I'm torn on the subject to be honest.

I can understand that for a lot of people, auto-aim and health regen take a great deal of the challenge out of a game.
To a person who is a crack-shot on a game, auto-aim probably feels like an insult and health regen practically makes them unstoppable. My husband always turns auto-aim off if he can for this reason.

For me though, there are a lot of games I simply would not have been able to complete without auto-aim and health regen, but as this is due to the fact that I am utterly crap at these games, it makes me wonder whether the difficulty of a game should be dumbed down for normal people, just to make it accessible to people like myself, who couldn't hit a barn side-on.

The only problem with cover-based shooting in gaming at the moment as far as I'm concerned is that its becoming all too common.
 

Foolishman1776

New member
Jul 4, 2009
198
0
0
My answer to all of this is simple. I dislike autoaim because it negates cover. I like cover because it keeps me alive, and I dislike health regen because I prefer health packs.

In all seriousness, though. I actually find myself less accurate in games (like Fallout 3) where autoaim is forced on me. With a mouse there is no reason to have autoaim, unless you use a crappy mouse, in which case, go to the store and buy a five dollar mouse that will be better than your current one.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
I used to play Jedi Knight against this guy who used a keyboard/mouse/gamepad combo. Don't know how he did it but he was damn good. He'd use gamepad for melée and mouse/keyboard for distant... not sure how he handled force powers. I was about as good as I ever got and he owned me everytime we played. He was easily the best player of our group.

If anyone figures out how to attach precision aiming to a gamepad this discussion would be over. Bioshock proved you could attach a complex control scheme to a console shooter with 16 active weapon/powers instantly available. While on the PC it was always a complicated mess of controls. I owned it on both and it was the first game I preferred the console version over the PC.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
jopomeister said:
If they claim to be realistic, they shouldn't contain Auto-aim or health regeneration. -Looks at MoH-
If they claim to be realistic, the person buying them should get an automatic enrollment in the marines, now there's arealist shooter. People don't want realism in games, they just want the game to be realistic enough that you can suspend your disbelief. No one complains about the concept of health at all, being unrealistic. Shoot yourself in the leg, and then see if this magic box with a cross on it can instantly make you better, doesn't exist. Likely never will. I'm with health regen as a good idea, keeps the game moving.
 

teisjm

New member
Mar 3, 2009
3,561
0
0
wondering how easy the auto-aim would make it if you used a splitfish fragFX controller...

 

zaiggs

New member
Sep 18, 2010
93
0
0
I find auto aim to be kinda cheap sometimes, especially when it interferes with multiplayer. I also find that auto aim can actually mess me up ie.) I'm about to snipe someone but the auto aim draws my cross hairs aside when someone runs in front of me.

Cover systems are nice sometimes when done properly. Games like Gears and Rainbow Six Vegas had very good cover with very few problems resulting in me dying when I was clearly in cover. Other games like Kayne and Lynch: Dead Men had terrible cover systems where there was little to no way of making sure that you were actually in cover. I like that some FPS don't have cover systems though. Games like Halo and CoD would be very different if they had cover systems... not sure if it would be better or worse. Someone should make a mod to find out. ^~^

Regenerating health... sigh. I find regenerating health to largely make no sense. In games where regenerating health is a part of the character (Wolverine or Master Chiefs shields) then it's fine. But in games like CoD where it's supposed to have at least some sort of basic base in reality, regenerating health sorta brings me out of it. It's kinda weird and out of place as real life is not like that... or is it?
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
If it's a repeated mechanic, it's become a cliche. Drop it/re-work it. Don't just clone it with new graphics and think no-one notices.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Auto-Aim: It might be necessary in some games. The alternative is slowing the perceived action down (Halo). I only gripe when they start putting it in PC games or ports of console games because the designer is too lazy to actually adjust the difficulty (play the original Vice City, and then play it on PC. Holy shit is the PC version much easier).

Regenerating Health: This is a game flow decision. Neither system (Limited vs Regenerating) health is strictly superior than the other, but the problem now is that regenerating health is the lazy man's copout for so many games.

If you want to establish a health/risk management sort of game (Left4Dead does this), then limited health is best. By eliminating that element, you are in fact limiting your design space (for better or worse). Fact is; I have yet to play any game that features regenerating health that maintains any form of tension (unless the regeneration rate is very slow).

Cover: This should be more about "Snap to Cover" systems, because even Doom featured cover. Really, this mechanic turns every game that features it into nothing more than a glorified game of Whack a Mole. Only with guns. And the moles shoot back.

If you regenerate health (most of these Cover-Shooters do this) then there's a good chance that most of the enemies do not. In these games, you can win via attrition every time. It looks great as a showboating exercise, but there certainly isn't much of a genuine challenge in it.

Mass Effect 2 directly demonstrates this; I was able to clear it on the highest difficulty without a hitch.
 

Eponet

New member
Nov 18, 2009
480
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Regenerating Health: This is a game flow decision. Neither system (Limited vs Regenerating) health is strictly superior than the other, but the problem now is that regenerating health is the lazy man's copout for so many games.

If you want to establish a health/risk management sort of game (Left4Dead does this), then limited health is best. By eliminating that element, you are in fact limiting your design space (for better or worse). Fact is; I have yet to play any game that features regenerating health that maintains any form of tension (unless the regeneration rate is very slow).
How do you feel about out of combat regeneration?

It does have some merits in that it allows the designers to know that the player will be in the same state at the beginnning of each encounter, and thus tailor things appropriately. Additionally, it also avoids some of the issues that come with regenerating health (Winning via popping up and down doesn't work, and the tension of each individual situation remains the same)
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Eponet said:
How do you feel about out of combat regeneration?

It does have some merits in that it allows the designers to know that the player will be in the same state at the beginnning of each encounter, and thus tailor things appropriately. Additionally, it also avoids some of the issues that come with regenerating health (Winning via popping up and down doesn't work, and the tension of each individual situation remains the same)
Well this is, again, a game flow decision.
Games that lack strong exploration incentive (for any number of reasons) should use out of combat regeneration to keep the player moving, or to free up his/her attention for other matters (Gears of War does this constantly by showboating graphics/events).
Having to hunt around for health is only tedious when the level isn't designed with exploration in mind.

I actually had fun scrounging up Healing Items in Deus Ex, if only because you can drop them into the environment and not have them look so out place (unlike, say, a glowing magical box laying in the middle of the hallway). Used in this context, limited health provides a reward for the player instead of a tedious chore.

In a strictly linear game (again, like Gears of War) limited health would require the player to backtrack through "spent content". I actually do this frequently in just about every Halo game I've ever played (not for health, but specific weapons).

How does this relate to out of Combat Regeneration? Well, adding that feature in still limits the design space; it's a compromise. You ensure a consistent "default" state to promote pacing and gauge encounter difficulty, but at the same time, you still run into some of the trappings of regenerative health (linear level design vs exploration).

Healing out of combat may improve the tension of individual encounters, but not the experience as a whole.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
Hosker said:
I hate PC users always saying the mouse and keyboard is more precise. It all comes down to what you use more.
I play FPS games way better with a control.

Anyway, I only have a problem with auto aim, it usually makes the game too easy.
Fair enough if you hate people saying it but it is true. I do play console and PC FPS and I am relatively good at both. I know offline and online are different but I have managed to finish Halos on Legendary and Gears on highest setting amoung other big titles. Yes the mouse is more precise. The controller has riggid settings my mouse can go between 800 DPI and 2,000 DPI(on normal sensitivity and with +400DPI increments) and has 2 different sensitivity settings. Also games like TF2 can have you set in game sensitivity per class and even change it so aim is slower when you go into a scope. With stuff like that available on PC you can't compare with precision from a technical standpoint.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
Chech said:
I think that aim-assists is vital in any console FPS. It makes up for a lack of precision of the controller as for Halo: Reach, I have noticed very little impact from aim-assist on the multilayer game. Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe that the sniper or beam rifles have aim-assist (if they do, it is not as predominant). I personally think that the guys at Bungie have made the aim assist in Halo: Reach spot on. Just enough to give you a helping hand but not enough to allow any ham handed troll to get a head shot with a DMR half way across the map.

As for cover systems.... Well, in GOW, it got tiresome very quickly. Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 + 2 however; the system in that was very good because I found that you never spent too long in monotonous whack a mole fights and that it was far more intense than games such as GOW. Same goes for Mass Effect 1 + 2. There are more plenty more gunfights in the second game but they never felt too repetitive. It was only on my 3rd play-through on Insanity that I started to get bored but that was only because the fights dragged on so long and I spent 3/4 of my time waiting for regen....

Now, health regen is something that really grates me. I have no issue with shield regen as in Mass Effect 1 or Halo: Reach. That being said, what does annoy me about the shield in Reach is that it accounts for about 4/5 of your health. However... I think that in multilayer, this works perfectly well. Now, as for Mass Effect 1, they got the balance between health and shield just right. Your shield recharged, your health didn't. It meant that you had to plan ahead and that you couldn't go wasting medi-gel willy nilly and it also meant that if you were shit, you would die a hell of a lot more often. That is way it's suppose to be.
If you were shit, then you'd play on Casual where health DOES regen.

and between medical armor mods (basically the best mods in the end game) and soldier/shock trooper/krogan battlemaster talents, there was plenty of health regen to go around.
 

ShasoRmyr

New member
Apr 12, 2010
118
0
0
Auto aim. I hate people saying consoles need auto aim. They don't, controllers are precise enough. That said I don't hate them, sometimes it feels tacked on though.

Cover Systems. I like em' when their done well. Tacked on they can ruin a game. Also companies need to remember that you can take cover without a button sticking you to something.

Health Regen. I think it's a good mechanic if you want your game to flow. The main alt to this is stack health with pick ups. This leads to a game being incredibly easy, or the flow dieing every once in a while while you do the scavenger hunt. For example in Dead Rising at first I have to drop what ever I'm doing to search for health because my inventoury is small.
My favorite health regen though, is the slow kind in Bad Company 2. It's mainly there to get you back into the fight after a close call. I do think that Modern Warfare 2 is way to fast.
Now my favorite health system was the one in Resistance: Fall of Man (the first) it was both regenerating and required health pickups. This made sure you weren't to careless, but didn't screw you over in a big fight.

Edit: to clarify I'm talking about single player. as far as multi-player I'm mostly the same, but unless you can soak up a lot of damage like in Team Fortress 2, then you need health regen. (Again I much prefer a slow regen)
 

LogicNProportion

New member
Mar 16, 2009
2,155
0
0
I like Health regeneration...in the right genre, and auto-aim is actually a big help sometimes.

However, I dislike the cover system greatly, or at least, how it's played out in most games that have it. 'Chest high walls' syndrome.