How cover system ruined third person shooters

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

Yet Rockstar is the only one that does...

DMC4 is one of the laziest sequels I have ever played. They give you the most fleshed out battle system, but half a campaign to use it in. The world is so bland compared to DMC3's, and only some of the enemies are fun to fight. Bayonetta has too many long cutscenes, confusing boss setpieces, drawn out shoot 'em up/bike sections, quick time events, a badly told story, too few enemy types (including bosses that are reused as lesser enemies) and a lot of boring level design. I know there's a lot more to complain about, but I don't care to think about it.

That's what happens when Capcom loses all their talent. Bayonetta's story is amazing schlock and cheese, loved every second of every cutscene. Bosses aren't reused unless you're talking about mini-bosses or Jeane. Spectacle fighters aren't about level design and even then they had enough fun and variety with it.

Oh god... I never implied Crushing was a test of high skill. I only mentioned it because Inu said I might have a problem with the sensitivity and brought up Uncharted. I knew you were gonna butt in with more of your pretentious shit.

You keep talking about skill. I don't remember ever mentioning skill. My argument in favor of a mouse and keyboard was always ease of use and speed.

Then why did you reply to inu-kun that you beat the game on Crushing when he said he didn't have trouble headshotting enemies with a controller?

The point inu-kun and I are making is that controllers allow for more than enough aiming precision to competently play a shooter.

I don't think so due to the simple fact that Souls combat is not very marketable, it's hard for casuals players and doesn't look as "exciting". Even the definition of Souls like is a bit hard, the slow combat is the most obvious gameplay point but besides that there's: Big open levels to explore have always been, minimalistic story telling is new but games like Nioh don't do that and grimdark design which is also not new.

Souls has gotten pretty popular with Dark Souls 3 selling over 4 million depending how accurate VGChartz and SteamSpy are. The combat is easier in a Souls game to master than say Bayonetta. I feel like an average gamer can get more feeling of accomplishment out of a Souls game than Bayo even though Souls is initially harder. How many gamers do you think got good with dodge offsetting in Bayo? I guess the best way I can put it is that Bayo is meant to be played to mastery whereas Souls is meant to be played to victory.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I know there's a lot more to complain about, but I don't care to think about it.

That'd be a first.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The other reason they keep using it is because not everyone who buys open world jack-of-all-trades action-adventure games is into shooters and wants to deal with analog aiming. It also has to do with the long, successful history of the series. They put it into Max Payne 3 as well because players keep telling them it's okay by selecting it in RDR and GTA. Probably most of the GTA V players on YouTube use it. Controller users do like that garbage.

I believe it's the DEFAULT option in Rockstar's games. The Mass Effect games don't have auto-aim and they're freaking RPGs.

That's a low standard for a largely boring genre. It could honestly learn a few things from the Souls series, like interesting level design and world progression.

Bayonetta's story, like Platinum's other stories, is trash. I like cheese too, if it's good cheeese. Total Recall and RoboCop are good cheese.

In a spectacle fighter, you come for the combat system, and that needs to deliver first and foremost. And the Souls series can learn a lot from Bayo's combat...

Total Recall and Robocop aren't cheesy movies, they have cheesy moments.

It was my way of telling him that I was able to pull of headshots too. You yourself know that the enemies in Uncharted take a lot of bullets to the body.

It's still slow and imprecise enough that it has led to all kinds of badness in game design.

The headshot thing was only really necessary for Uncharted 1, which I forget because that game is really just a tech demo IMO.

The "realism" push led to just about all of the problems with the shooter genre last-gen, which probably started on PC as it took shooters a bit longer to grow on console. Didn't the CODs and Battlefields gain initial popularity on PC? Why would console players need such bad game design elements when we played early shooters like SOCOM on PS2 just fine without such elements?

 

[BrawlMan]

And about 5 years from now, everyone is going to realize the Souls series ruined action games. That's not saying the Souls games suck but there's so many games copying them now and possibly even creating a "Souls-like" genre god forbid. Action games are losing their fast-pace, fast movement, combos, and technical mastery because devs are copying the Souls formula just like what happened to shooters and open world games.

Hack and slash games killed themselves with disappointing releases like DMC4, DmC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and Ninja Gaiden 3. The cost of developing for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was another factor. Japanese devs had trouble keeping up.

The thing I don't get about disliking is controllers is that even if they are harder to master in matter of aiming... doesn't this just add to the difficulty and immersion? Aiming a gun is hard, the surgical precision available with a mouse is sort of ridiculous when you think about it.

Wrestling with slow controls isn't immersive. Animations are immersive, but not clunky controls.

I like you Ezekiel, but I am calling bullshit on most of that. DMC4 wasn't perfect. In fact, it was clearly rushed; yet 4 sold 2.9 million units. The best selling game int he entire franchise. Is 3 best the series? To most people, including myself, yes. Whatever issues 4 had, could have been fixed with a possible 5,but we all know that went down. You are on the money with DmC reboot and Ninja Gaiden 3. Though II didn't help matters either (the game was broken at launch), and nobody wants to remember Yaiba.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Mass Effect didn't start sixteen years ago, on the PS2, and it's not a jack-of-all trades sandbox game.

If all you have is a combat system, that's a tech demo. Most of the hack and slashers are dull. I could never play one an entire day, because they don't have compelling enough worlds.

Thus, they're cheesy.

Socom wasn't that popular. It didn't make shooters mainstream.

You miss my point like every single time. The point wasn't when Mass Effect started, the point was that if Bioware RPG gamers can handle shooting on a controller just fine without auto-aim, then why the fuck is Rockstar still using it? Same with my point about SOCOM. If console gamers got along just fine without auto-aim way back on PS2, why would devs need to come up with bad mechanics to fix an issue that obviously wasn't there to begin with?

A cheesy movie is Big Trouble in Little China, not Robocop. And, that's not what a tech demo is.

The first thing I do when rating my enjoyment of a game is ask myself what is taking up most of my game time. If that thing isn't enjoyable, then why am I playing the game? Bayonetta having the best combat in the business and being probably 90% of my game time is just awesome (especially when compared to most games). Most of your time playing a Souls game is combat and it's really not that good, control-wise and all it's pretty good/smooth but it's too simplistic for it to be enjoyable for me. That's why I'm not a big fan of the series. I've said numerous times I'd wish the Souls games would go straight to survival horror, keep the bosses, but have few but majorly threatening enemies populate the levels. Then, most of the game is not combat and the tension level is very high. Same thing with most RPGs out there, there's so much fighting and most RPG combat systems aren't good, at best you're hoping the combat is "good for an RPG" but that's still unacceptable, spending that much time with an average at best combat system is not good. I don't like Witcher 3 because I didn't enjoy any of the actual "playing" of the game from combat to just freaking moving Geralt. Witcher 3 would've been so much better if it was just an adventure game and I didn't have to put up with any gameplay. So, to conclude, I'll take a game that does only one thing gloriously for 10 or so hours over a game that's 50 hours where only half of the time was enjoyable. The quality of my time spent is directly proportional to how good/bad any game is IMO. Bayonetta is a game I'd rate a 10 because I loved every second I spent with it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I already explained it to you. You just don't want to accept my answer.

PART of your answer may be right; the part in that Rockstar's games have sold successfully and they don't want to remove features some gamers may like. Fine, that makes perfect sense, but you can keep auto-aim in the game without making it the default setting. Also, that reasoning is stretching really thin as to why MP3 has auto-aim as previous entries didn't have it. However, the other part of your answer saying open world gamers aren't into "shooters" and don't/can't aim with analog sticks is bullshit. Firstly, a very large majority of open world games involve lots of shooting. You think GTA is the one fucking open world game with shooting that brings in open world gamers that don't like shooters? Secondly, there has to be a bigger percentage of RPG gamers that don't like shooters (vs open world gamers that don't like shooters) that figured how to shoot just fine in Mass Effect with analog sticks.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

No, but GTA V is the one that sold 80 million copies, owing partly to being as accessible and easy as possible. Rockstar has always done auto-aim. It has become a staple of their games. They're not gonna drop it. Just as Nintendo will probably not drop auto-aim from Metroid Prime 3.

Thus, it is a dev/pub trying make their product as accessible as possible and not...

Rockstar wouldn't still be using auto-aim if controller users didn't tell them that it's okay.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Huh? Controller users ARE telling them that it's okay by buying so many copies and using the feature. Like I said, most of the YouTubers use auto-aim. They use auto-aim because the controller isn't quick and precise enough for them. Even players with thousands of views, who take themselves seriously, are using it. Just search "deathmatch."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TclOp5gf-Os

I bet some of the people here use it too.

Are they supposed to not buy the game because it has an OPTION that they don't have to use? People use auto-aim because it's the freaking DEFAULT setting. And, obviously most people prefer the easier option especially in any form of competition.

 

[gigastar]

Don't be ridiculous, cover didn't ruin shooters.

Walls and terrain did.

Remember in the original Doom, where you didn't have line of sight on every monster in the level right from the get go? What kind of developer makes a game like that? All those stupid corridors, dragging out fights and blocking movement and bullets.

The only good shooter, third or otherwise, is one that takes place on a completely flat surface with no blocking features, where only speed, twitches and pure ADHD matters.

So im guessing the prospect of Serious Sam 4 must make you hard, eh?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I turned the auto-aim in RDR off right away. It's not complicated to find the option. Anyone who has played a few modern AAA games should find the auto-aim atypical. If it bothered them, they'd look for an option to turn it off. But it doesn't bother them.

Most gamers don't care about options, they just play a game as is. If auto-aim wasn't the default setting, it would be used far less. It's sorta like how people leave the "soap opera" effect on their TVs because that's how they come.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Just find out fantastic video that sum up everything wrong with cover system. except he praise vanquish which imo a terrible game.

even games like max payne has cover system now. its such a lazy design. theres the reason why third person genre is not strong today.

what are your thoughs?

discuss

Finally watched the OP video. The question I'm left with seems to be, how one makes a compelling shooter without it becoming too absurd. There are only a few good examples I can think of:

-Max Payne has the bullet time which is a stylish way to make dodging bullets actually possible.

-Half Life 2 did things with physics puzzles.

-Crysis gives you a power suit with different abilities, and you can grab and throw most objects, rig explosive traps, etc.