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

[Korten12]

Its actually interesting, MAG on the PS3 has no aim assit, I think I figured out maybe why one of my friends has a bit of trouble with the aiming at times.

 

[Talshere]

I apologize in advance if this has been addressed already, but why is there so much contempt for these shooter game mechanics?

Auto-aim: Basically it adds a little extra precision to console FPSs, right? Because the all-superior mouse and keyboard aren't the standard control scheme for a console? So what's the problem? Sure, if it's magnetizing everyone's reticles into instant headshots, there's a problem, but the latest instance of it for me has been Halo: Reach and I'm not really any better at headshots because of it. Controllers lack precision in some ways. Also EVERYONE has it, so it's a level playing field. A wash.

Its not, because some people would be that good without it. Its a classic case of dumbing down. We dont think you can cope so we will cope for you. It demotes the idea of being good. Also, auto aim isnt for snipers

Cover systems: It's a pretty logical type of mechanic, correct? We would take cover where we could, blind fire, all those things. I agree that if it turns every fight into a long-range game of whack-a-mole or you have an overly magnetic back it's bad, but a "cover system" isn't the problem, it's the way it's implemented. Obviously, this is more of a TPS mechanic, but I still see a lot of commentary on it.

Because its always dont the same way, and its wasnt that inventive the first time? Look I have this MASSIVE gun that can level a small city MWAHAHA.....Damn he hide behind a wall!
Also quite often you become unhitable despite the fact that from your opponents elevated position he should still be able to hit you. People ***** about the cover system in kane and lynch, and yet they should keep their heads down, but its by FAR the best and most realistic implementation of cover for a long time. Good cover based system are ones where you dont realise your using it. You pelt upto a fallen log and dive prone behind it, then run to your left to the nearby wall and lean out to fire, like CoD4:1. Having an actual function to take cover is just stupid in an FPS.

Health regeneration: Also, shield regeneration. Ultimately, how a game balances the difficulty of making a kill is a choice of the designers. What matters is balance. Health regeneration is only a problem if it makes getting kills unreasonably hard when weighed against the other demands of the game. I like it. It means that finding cover can be a viable way to survive a fight and puts emphasis on efficient attacks. Especially good for a game with special weapons to grab. Then again, another game with quicker deaths and faster respawns can be fun too (TF2?). It's all about how it works for the game.

Feel free to add your own gripes about shooter game mechanics, defend those that come under fire, or ignore the entire post if this has been done to death.

Health regen remove the risk of playing. Its makes it MUCH easier. Oh no my frontal assault has failed, you know what Ill do, Ill hide behind a wall for 3 seconds and its like it never happened -.- Stupid system. It works providing you are still at risk like Halo 1 on legendary difficulty, but in Gears of War youd sit taking fire, emptying your clip into someone, dive behind a wall become immune and suffer no penalty's for your callous play.

 

[SalamanderJoe]

For heal regen, I like to take/think the Brothers in Arms approach, where very close bullets cause the nerves and red screen, and then you die from a bullet that actually hits. That's the way I like to think. However it really doesn't count for Modern Warfare 2's 'jam' every time you get scathed.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Auto-aim can be turned off in a lot of games, for campaign anyway. I finished MW2 without Aim-assist and found that it made it a much better game because it added to recoil of weapons, encouraged burst fire and shooting smart. The most annoying thing with auto-aim is that you can hold down the trigger and for a longer amount of time the shots will still connect because auto-aim is compensating for the recoil. This always took me out of the game and I'm glad that it can be fixed.

I do find it annoying at times during Multiplayer though, where it can never be turned off. I think all console shooters should have an Auto-aim disabled matchmaking selection or server choice for those that want it. A lot of recent shooters have communities asking for this, but the devs never seem to hand it over.

I've always liked cover but I would like to see more variety in it. I think that Gears of War did cover best back in 2006 by making it the center of gameplay, since then it hasn't really changed or improved much, just copied. What I would like to see a purely First Person game use cover. That means that to look over cover you'll have to raise your head. Difficult, sure (and maybe it's already been made), but done right and it'll be a lot of fun.

As for health regeneration, well many people seem to forget why it's there. It exist to be able to facilitate a small amount of health that allow for a quick flowing and less forgiving style of combat. The sort of game where making a mistake once, or maybe just not being that good at aiming or movement means that you die. A more fast paced game where you can't rely on your health to get you through a part of the game, your aiming and abilities are what you need to rely on. For these games you need small amount of health, but because of this the typical health meter and medkits have to be removed. If you want the players to have a short amount of health and die quickly than you will need to either have a large amount of medkits lying around the map or be needlessly punishing to the players across all difficulties.

Both type of games are better played on the higher difficulties anyway. In Health-bar games the higher difficulty makes you die quickly so you can't rely on your buckets of health to see you through the game. On the regenerating health games, you die so quickly that being able to recover means almost nothing.

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

I find that hard to believe considering that a large amount of enemies (Scions, Harbinger, YMIR Mechs, Praetorians, FENRIS Mechs, every biotic, Varren, Krogan, Husks, Geth Hunters and numerous bosses) either knock you out of cover constantly or flank/fly over your cover, or both. Actually on Insanity it feels like the only group of mooks that don't flank around you are The Collectors. Also, some enemies do have health/shield regeneration and can even bring it back faster than you can without the right abilities.

It's true that a large amount of ME2 is spent hiding behind cover and regenerating, but there are also plenty of opportunities on Insanity difficulty for this to not be enough to survive.

 

[rsvp42]

I like the Halo version of Auto-aim... Or in its case, Aim-assist.
It lowers your sensitivity a bit when aiming at someone, making it easier to make a accurate shot.

This is right on. I really should have said "aim assist" in the first post, but alas. The problem with a controller when it comes to aiming is that the sensitivity needed to make a decent turn isn't suited for making small adjustments. Any system that gets around that is a good thing. So yes, in Halo: Reach, when your reticle is on an enemy, the look sensitivity goes down a bit to make aiming a little easier. I think Bioshock did something similar, where look sensitivity was different for making a turn than it was for aiming within a current field of view.

I agree that any system that inhibits a player's ability to aim is bad, but one that compensates for the controller's shortcomings is good. All in all, a controller is a great all-purpose way to enjoy a wide variety of games, but it's not perfect, so that's what aim assist is all about.

 

[lizards]

i have always prefered console controls over pc to be honest

and autoaim? really? why the hell should a game AUTOMATICALLY aim at somone for you? why should that happen? while yes everyone may have it it still just takes away from the game

and hell generally im a sniper and any game i can i turn it off anyway just because it messes me up

 

[rsvp42]

Auto aim is complete and utter shit. It is basically trying to cover up a flaw in the system. The fact that auto aim even exists or needs to exist proves the point that consoles should include keyboard and mouse support. You're actually giving people a watered down aimbot hack and that is all it is.

I just don't agree with that. Yes, a keyboard and mouse offers a certain kind of precision that can be great for FPSs, but the controller is a simpler, more ergonomic input method for sitting on a couch. It also doesn't require extensive key-mapping to be optimized. Two people playing Xbox have the exact same control setup at their disposal, while PCs encourage more customization, but ultimately a greater imbalance I would think. Each has its virtues, but that still doesn't solve the problem of how to improve the console FPS experience with a controller. Effective aim assist is a great way to do that.

 

[nub the samurai]

I don't really mind auto aim and cover systems, as long as the cover system is done right and the auto aim doesn't give too much of an advantage at long ranges. Health regen however prolly needs some work. I think Killzone 2 did health regen best where your health regens, but it will only fill up to 3/4 of your max health. This made it so the medkits that medics dropped were still useful without completely taking away health regen.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I find that hard to believe considering that a large amount of enemies (Scions, Harbinger, YMIR Mechs, Praetorians, FENRIS Mechs, every biotic, Varren, Krogan, Husks, Geth Hunters and numerous bosses) either knock you out of cover constantly or flank/fly over your cover, or both. Actually on Insanity it feels like the only group of mooks that don't flank around you are The Collectors. Also, some enemies do have health/shield regeneration and can even bring it back faster than you can without the right abilities.

It's true that a large amount of ME2 is spent hiding behind cover and regenerating, but there are also plenty of opportunities on Insanity difficulty for this to not be enough to survive.

The only enemy out of that lot that consistently gave me trouble was Geth Prime, and only because of his endlessly respawning floating drones that could break your cover.
Every other enemy has some exploitable pattern or weakness or simply wasn't interested enough in killing me to make a difference.

I suppose it's more accurate to say that it wasn't "without a hitch"; I did die on a few occasions. However, I don't consider a combat game to be even remotely hard unless it kills me more than twice on any given segment. ME2 never did that, and it's all thanks to the cover system.

Oh, and woe be to you who didn't take Assault Rifles Training when you got the opportunity (unless you started as a Soldier); the Vindicator is easily the most useful standard (non-DLC) weapon for the game, acting as a second sniper rifle that's effective against shields.
It won me the game on Insanity (as an Infiltrator).

 

[Snotnarok]

Autoaim aside I feel all of this stuff has over-saturated the market and needs to be watered down with some different gameplay mechanics. You know MEDKITS that sinful thing that was cast out of FPSs so no one has to be careful or think out a fight a bit more?

You get your ass kicked you just hide behind a wall. It's a fine gameplay mechanic when it isn't in EVERY shooter made. The only few games that deviated from this are Bad Company 2 (you had to rely more on medkits to regen), Section 8 (shields that lose effectiveness) and Metal Gear 4

I replayed F.E.A.R. and it's expansions recently and it was really refreshing to know that your fuck-ups were limited. They were generous with medkits but you were never sure when you'd see another and the enemies REALLY chewed you up. It was a nice breath of fresh air to not be regening health

 

[Chechosaurus]

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.

I never played it on Casual so I didn't know that there was health regen on that difficulty. Also, as far as the regen armour mods go, it was a choice between that, more shields, more health, damage resistance and others so I had the option to throw health regen out the window (which I did). Also, I never played as a Soldier and whether or not your team mates regen health is besides the point. The fact of the matter is, you could pretty much choose to have health regen and if you ignore it entirely, Mass Effect 1 has one of the best health systems I can think of.

 

[rsvp42]

Autoaim aside I feel all of this stuff has over-saturated the market and needs to be watered down with some different gameplay mechanics. You know MEDKITS that sinful thing that was cast out of FPSs so no one has to be careful or think out a fight a bit more?

You get your ass kicked you just hide behind a wall. It's a fine gameplay mechanic when it isn't in EVERY shooter made. The only few games that deviated from this are Bad Company 2 (you had to rely more on medkits to regen), Section 8 (shields that lose effectiveness) and Metal Gear 4

I replayed F.E.A.R. and it's expansions recently and it was really refreshing to know that your fuck-ups were limited. They were generous with medkits but you were never sure when you'd see another and the enemies REALLY chewed you up. It was a nice breath of fresh air to not be regening health

I can see how medkits or similar items would be good in single player, but health regen rarely means that "no one has to be careful or think out a fight a bit more." You'll still get your ass handed to you if you don't plan properly or aim with skill. In multiplayer, it's the difference between letting people play the game or spend time looking for medkits or getting killed more often. And if the game is generous with medkits, then there might as well be health regen because what's the difference between running to cover to press the medkit button or running to cover to get some health back naturally? In the end, it's a question of how it's all balanced. If there's a health regen system that means getting back to 100% in two seconds, then it's broken. Otherwise, the only real argument is how it affects player immersion, but I feel like players have accepted stranger things than that.

 

[Woodsey]

Why the hate for cover systems and health regeneration? Overuse. That's it. They are used too much in current generation of shooters, and of course many instances are implemented poorly due to Sturgeon's Law

Expanding on that, too many shooters rely on them as pretty much their only mechanics. Include cover in your game by all means, but don't rely on it to carry the game.

Auto-regen is also perceived as too easy, although 1-2 hit kill systems I don't have a problem with. Better is when they create a hybrid between regenerative health and a health metre.

 

[Snotnarok]

Autoaim aside I feel all of this stuff has over-saturated the market and needs to be watered down with some different gameplay mechanics. You know MEDKITS that sinful thing that was cast out of FPSs so no one has to be careful or think out a fight a bit more?

You get your ass kicked you just hide behind a wall. It's a fine gameplay mechanic when it isn't in EVERY shooter made. The only few games that deviated from this are Bad Company 2 (you had to rely more on medkits to regen), Section 8 (shields that lose effectiveness) and Metal Gear 4

I replayed F.E.A.R. and it's expansions recently and it was really refreshing to know that your fuck-ups were limited. They were generous with medkits but you were never sure when you'd see another and the enemies REALLY chewed you up. It was a nice breath of fresh air to not be regening health

I can see how medkits or similar items would be good in single player, but health regen rarely means that "no one has to be careful or think out a fight a bit more." You'll still get your ass handed to you if you don't plan properly or aim with skill. In multiplayer, it's the difference between letting people play the game or spend time looking for medkits or getting killed more often. And if the game is generous with medkits, then there might as well be health regen because what's the difference between running to cover to press the medkit button or running to cover to get some health back naturally? In the end, it's a question of how it's all balanced. If there's a health regen system that means getting back to 100% in two seconds, then it's broken. Otherwise, the only real argument is how it affects player immersion, but I feel like players have accepted stranger things than that.

Now see that's where your wrong, with single player there's been several medkit systems that were all interesting. In FEAR you could hold up to ten medkits that healed 60 or so HP, you could use them whenever you want and it was really something different. Or Red Faction 2 where you just held up to 3 med kits at a time, in multiplayer people would drop healthkits when they died.

In multiplayer it doesn't have to be a old school medkit floating in set spots, it could be a random drop from people that restores a 40-80HP per pick up. That's what added to the tension in FPS games with medkits, you didn't just hide and heal, you had to run your ass away and get a medkit before your friend respawned and found you


There's lots of ways to implement this and none of them have to be the standard. Just imagine if ONE fucking game did it differently. It would be great for something different for a change and not EVERY damn game had you just go hide and recover your HP.

You're hurt? Then you gotta go take a risk and run out there and grab a healthkit, no amount of hiding will restore that HP! Guess that that'd help level out? Campers.

 

[Corporal Bill]

The "real" CoD's allowed for leaning

By "Real" do you mean MoH?

 

[jowo96]

First one I don't see the problem with if it's done well

Second two are purely over use, an awful lot of games seem to just copy and paste systems from Halo or Gears of War (which copied and pasted from Killswitch but I don't know how many people know that game)

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I just don't agree with that. Yes, a keyboard and mouse offers a certain kind of precision that can be great for FPSs, but the controller is a simpler, more ergonomic input method for sitting on a couch. It also doesn't require extensive key-mapping to be optimized. Two people playing Xbox have the exact same control setup at their disposal, while PCs encourage more customization, but ultimately a greater imbalance I would think. Each has its virtues, but that still doesn't solve the problem of how to improve the console FPS experience with a controller. Effective aim assist is a great way to do that.

Aim Assist and Auto Aim are too different things. Aim Assist is what you have in Halo Auto aim is what you have in current Call of Dutys on Consoles and recent one on PC. Auto Aim aims for you and is basically a watered down aim bot which is a hack while aim assist helps to cover a flaw in the system without creating an imbalance. You seem to have the two mixed up.

The customisation on PC does not really lead to an imbalanced. I managed to do just fine with my standard Dell ball point mouse on CoD2 when other people had proper gaming mice. I also know some people who play Heavy in TF2 prefer ball mice for turning. So customisation does not imbalance things it just allows you to mold it to suit yourself. So I would not straight out say controllers are more ergonomic.

One thing controllers do have over kb+m is movement which is why for consoles the controller mouse combo which is out there would be best. It wouldn't suit PC due to need for a desk but would make it better for console if this innovation was improved and implemented. This probably won't happen due to the monopoly that exists on console hardware/peripheral upgrades.

While I am not saying one is overall better than the other the kb+m is superior when it comes to aiming and that is a fact. The mouse will always be more precise at aiming and than analog stick. The only thing that is better than a mouse is an actually gun peripheral(eg Time Crisis/Wiimote) but these present their own unique problems which is not really for this discussion.

 

[Meestor Pickle]

The "real" CoD's allowed for leaning

By "Real" do you mean MoH?

Haha! No, I meant back when it was United Offense and number 2, while 4 was really good it just wasn't the same, and it's just my view that number 6 didn't live up to the series.