Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline Celebrating the Death of the Braindead Cinematic Cover Shooter

Deathsquid

Learned
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
382
They weren't even a shooter game dev, which makes things kinda even worse because by going to console/shooter they killed Myth and pretty much the whole RTT subgenre that wasn't aimed entirely at aspies. A few of my friends still rage about this to this day.

Epic games?
ARGH. Also, I can't believe they gave Unreal 2 to be developed by some bunch of clueless idiots. Fucking Epic.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,226
They weren't even a shooter game dev, which makes things kinda even worse because by going to console/shooter they killed Myth and pretty much the whole RTT subgenre that wasn't aimed entirely at aspies. A few of my friends still rage about this to this day.

They were. Marathon, Marathon 2: Durandal and Pathways Into Darkness. All FPS. Marathon was also the first mouselook FPS, if I recall.
 

Deathsquid

Learned
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
382
They weren't even a shooter game dev, which makes things kinda even worse because by going to console/shooter they killed Myth and pretty much the whole RTT subgenre that wasn't aimed entirely at aspies. A few of my friends still rage about this to this day.

They were. Marathon, Marathon 2: Durandal and Pathways Into Darkness. All FPS. Marathon was also the first mouselook FPS, if I recall.
Oh right yeah. Somehow never ran into these in my neck of the woods at the time so it completely slipped my mind.
 

Deflowerer

Arcane
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
2,052
Cover shooters would be fine if they had:

a) Destructible cover
b) Squad tactics
c) Non-moronic AI

I mean, if you have the player sitting behind cover a lot of time, there must be decisions to make and brain cells occupied by something more interesting than waiting for some mole to pop out behind a cover.
 

Cross

Arcane
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
2,983
You're thinking modern. Back in the 90s and early-mid 2000s PC dominated the shooting scene, and absolutely was the trend setter.
Of course PC FPS were initially the trend setters, because there has to be a starting point somewhere. But as you pointed out yourself, console FPS at the time didn't sell very well. Not until they morphed into the modern FPS as we know them today, at which point they vastly outsold PC FPS.

Again, do you really think it's a coincidence shooters adopted these traits the moment they became primarily designed for consoles?

No, I'm not absolving these developers from making the shitty design decisions they did. I'm saying the modern FPS is as much a result of selling out as it is a tacit admission that playing a fast-paced shooter with a controller isn't exactly ideal.

What are you trying to prove
I'm saying that Gears of War derived its gameplay mechanics (cover system, restrictive over-the-shoulder-view, slow movement speed) from previously released console games, and these gameplay mechanics are what facilitated its slow-paced gameplay. Furthermore, these gameplay mechanics came from Japanese games, an entirely separate branch of game design, yet they ultimately arrived at the same conclusion as the modern FPS: slower-paced gameplay, with a strong separation between moving and shooting. This is coming from someone who enjoyed Resident Evil 4 and despises Gears, but it's important to recognize the evolutionary chain here.

Furthermore, the idea that Gears of War popularized the cover shooter is revisionist history. Take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_system
In 2005, CT Special Forces: Fire for Effect featured a cover system inspired by Kill Switch.[15] Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, released in 2007, also began development that year,[16] and took inspiration from Kill Switch for its cover system.[17] In 2006, several shooters featured Kill Switch-inspired cover systems, including Rogue Trooper, a third-person shooter released in May based on the eponymous comic book series by 2000 AD, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas,[18] a first person shooter released in November that switched to a third-person over-the-shoulder view when initiating cover,[19] and Killzone: Liberation, a third-person action game released in October.[1] Other third-person shooters to feature a cover system that same year include WinBack 2: Project Poseidon, released in April,[20] and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter.[21]
The cover shooter exploded in popularity in 2006 and 2007. Gears of War came out in november 2006. Games obviously take several years to develop. It's next to impossible for Gears of Wars to have meaningfully influenced games that came out less than a year after it, and it's even less possible for Gears of Wars to have meaningfully influenced games that came out before it. In fact, most of the cover shooters mentioned here came out before Gears. This was a design trend the industry was already headed towards long before Gears of Wars came out.

Sigh. What dumb shit are you trying to argue that it is proof of?

It's not a coincidence, no: that shit caters to the mass market. You do realise it does the exact same on PC too? it is dominating, no shortage of PC tards eating it all up. Selling more than Duke Nukem and Quake ever did. Shit modern games get no shortage of sales on steam. They're all over the charts, silly. Ya know why? Mouse and keyboard simply HAS to have regenerating health etc hurr durr. /s :roll of the eyes:
What on earth gave you the idea that Steam was some bastion of retro gaming? Most people, regardless of platform, primarily play whatever is recent and popular. Modern FPS design has reigned supreme for over a decade, so long that most gamers barely even realize other types of shooters exist.

This argument would only be convincing if triple-A developers were still making games reminiscent of 90's shooters, and they were selling significantly less than the modern FPS. But they don't make the former type of game anymore, so we don't have anything to compare things to.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Here is Ash's core argument that I think people ITT might be missing:

For much of the 1990s, most players played first person shooters on PC using keyboards.

Keyboards are even more awkward to use than gamepads in a first person shooter.

Despite this, these 1990s first person shooters were very complex.

Therefore, modern gamepad-using console shooters could be just as complex and still play well. "But gamepads!" isn't a valid excuse for them being dumbed down.​

I think there are counter-arguments to be made for why this argument is simplistic/wrong, but somebody needs to make them.
 

DosBuster

Arcane
Patron
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
1,861
Location
God's Dumpster
Codex USB, 2014
A possible reason why shooters were dumbed down was perhaps there was pressure to have the most amazing graphics possible which ended up taking most of the memory away from other things.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,160
Didn't the last Call of Duty fail? That might be why the cancermatic shooter craze slowed down.
 
Last edited:

Ezekiel

Arcane
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
5,371
A possible reason why shooters were dumbed down was perhaps there was pressure to have the most amazing graphics possible which ended up taking most of the memory away from other things.
I think it's just because they were envious of RE4, failing to understand why the over the forced shoulder view made sense in that particular game, and because people found the cover systems of games like Kill Switch neat and cinematic.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,160
A possible reason why shooters were dumbed down was perhaps there was pressure to have the most amazing graphics possible which ended up taking most of the memory away from other things.

Except none of those shooters have the most amazing graphics possible.

The reason those shooters were dumped down is that dude bros are fucking retarded.
 

Cross

Arcane
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
2,983
Here is Ash's core argument that I think people ITT might be missing:

For much of the 1990s, most players played first person shooters on PC using keyboards.

Keyboards are even more awkward to use than gamepads in a first person shooter.

Despite this, these 1990s first person shooters were very complex.

Therefore, modern gamepad-using console shooters could be just as complex and still play well. "But gamepads!" isn't a valid excuse for them being dumbed down.​

I think there are counter-arguments to be made for why this argument is simplistic/wrong, but somebody needs to make them.
I think you can acknowledge the achievements of early first-person games while also acknowledging that the mouse is a superior control method.

Besides, while many players might have preferred only keyboard control, the developers had different ideas, and presumably designed the games around those ideas:

http://www.gamers.org/games/quake/quaketalk.txt

-> <_Avatar_> romero: Will control be improved upon?
-> <Romero> control in quake is awesome.
-> <_Avatar_> and will combat really be more hand to hand?
-> <Romero> you will want to fight someone hand-to-hand because you can
-> pummel them off cliffs. Depending on your orientation to your
-> target, you will hit them differently.
-> <_Avatar_> good
-> <_Avatar_> what about logitech's controller?
-> <Romero> the Wingman Warrior is good for DOOM, but useless for Quake.
-> <_Avatar_> would you be better off using that or the mouse?
-> <Romero> the mouse is the definitive quake controller.
-> <_Avatar_> ew.. so we'll never get beyond the mouse? Not that that's a
-> bad thing..
-> <Romero> when you use the mouse, you'll totally agree. it's awesome
-> control.
-> <Romero> it's so good, that VR helmets really suck compared to it.
-> <_Avatar_> I know a vr helmet would suck
-> <_Avatar_> I was arguing with some poor guy that thought it'd be cool to
-> be realistic like with VR.. do a 360 and strangle yerself!!
-> <_Avatar_> Romero: How bout lookin up and down?
-> <_Avatar_> Has that been decided on yet?
-> <Romero> the mouse controls everything.
-> <_Avatar_> even circle strafing and running back and forth??
-> <Romero> it's funny to go back & play Heretic & Dark Forces with look
-> up/down.
-> <Romero> totally horrendous compared with quake's control
Though ironically, mouselook in Quake is disabled by default.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,160
I remember when i first discovered how to turn mouselook on in Quake. It felt so amazing i instantly couldn't believe i had been playing with keyboard only up to that point. Sorry to all the old skool fanatics here, but mouselook just makes too much god damn sense in a shooter.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,226
Here is Ash's core argument that I think people ITT might be missing:

For much of the 1990s, most players played first person shooters on PC using keyboards.

Keyboards are even more awkward to use than gamepads in a first person shooter.

Despite this, these 1990s first person shooters were very complex.

Therefore, modern gamepad-using console shooters could be just as complex and still play well. "But gamepads!" isn't a valid excuse for them being dumbed down.​

I think there are counter-arguments to be made for why this argument is simplistic/wrong, but somebody needs to make them.

"Just as complex"? Nope. Consoles can't handle the gameplay complexity PCs can offer with zero compromises. Said compromises rarely have to be major though, and often aren't. I wasn't arguing for complexity though, but rather whether it can handle simple frickin' shooters. Which is such a dumb, pointless argument. Even if one is oblivious to decades of console history, the thousands of shooters released on them, and the actual capability of the hardware, you even have to be really sheltered to recent events...or simply retarded. We just had PREY released last year for goodness sakes. DOOM the year before that. Both were dumbed down, yet Prey is like 10x the complexity of the braindead cover shooter, and Doom x4 the speed of it. So even the modern multi-million dollar high-risk/reward game industry disagrees with you.

Sorry, I don't even care for consoles as a product in this day and age, they should all be thrown in a landfill. I just get ticked off by widespread arrogant ignorance and stupidity.

Though ironically, mouselook in Quake is disabled by default.

People are averse to change, id probably thought they'd play it safe. Both mouselook and analog sticks (both incline from keyboard looking and d-pad looking) were rejected by plenty PC and console gamers at first. Hence why pretty much every PC shooter post-mouselook becoming commonplace still optionally supported keyboard looking for years after, despite it being totally redundant.
 
Last edited:

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
lol even you can't stay on your message

OK, not "just as complex", but more complex than they are.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,226
lol even you can't stay on your message

I've never once argued consoles can rival PC gameplay complexity in its entirety with zero compromises. That's just impossible, the keyboard offers a shitload of keys while pads only have a few buttons. PC has more RAM and so on. Shooters though, they're dead simple. Quake for instance was move, look, shoot, change weapons and jump. Couldn't even crouch. A fucking SNES controller could handle that (albiet without hotkeys or mouselook, both of which are optional in the PC version anyways). You'd get raped hard online of course, just as keyboard-only lookers did back then.

"OK, not "just as complex", but more complex than they are."

Than they are? I'm arguing that they're for a matter of fact capable of more than what certain ignorant people on this board perceive them to be, because these people are incorrect and clearly lack context. What they "are" capable of is already established by decades of console history, including even recent games like Doom and Prey as already mentioned. If they weren't very capable of more than the brainless third person cover shooter then those two games wouldn't exist on consoles, nor would the thousands of other non-shitty non-cover shooters, period.
well, Doom reboot was a bit shitty but that's beside the point. It wasn't a cover shooter.

Seriously, I don't know how this could be such a hard concept to grasp for certain people. I know you've never left your seating at your desktop in your mother's basement, but it's really not difficult. :P
 
Last edited:

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
Obligatory:


Personally I think most control schemes are lazily implemented and bound by convention now, I think of flailing in Witcher 2 compared to beautiful combos and footwork of Severance, an i'm not fucking impressed. Once again not evolving, not iterating, just giving the bare minimum to play.
 

TheRedSnifit

Educated
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
55
Most third person shooters are cover-based because third person shooting is awkward when you're moving, especially up close. That's why Resident Evil 4 plants you to the ground whenever you aim, why Dead Space and Gears only let you slow-walk when aiming, etc. Cover mechanics are a more "realistic" way of forcing the player to remain relatively static. The problem is that cover systems by their nature are extremely limiting, so cover shooters have wildly less variety or interesting encounter design when compared to RE4 and the like. But modern gamers aren't going to accept a game that makes you stand still to shoot, so I don't expect much progress here.

The video posted above highlights the other issue, which is that TPS is the go-to genre for devs who come up with a story concept but not gameplay to match it.
 

SumDrunkGuy

Guest
I'm ready for third person shooters to die off. That being said I'll never say no to a Vanquish sequel, if god allows it to happen.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,226
Most third person shooters are cover-based

Most Third person shooters aren't cover-based. Most of the past decade consists of cover shooters, but there was a decade and a bit of third person shooters being made before then, many pretty decent. Overall it's more like half are.

The gameplay is an afterthought to the story like that video explained, as well as muh realistic/cinematic gameplay, and lastly uber accessibility. These are the three reasons the braindead cinematic cover shooter exists. Uncharted in first person and with no cover shooting would match Shitty Dawg's cinematic vision for the game far less, what with no intricate animation of the main character during gameplay, and engagements wouldn't revolve around cover, cover shooting being realistic in concept. And without the simple accessibility of popamole, not everyone could play the games.
 
Last edited:

Master

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,160
Most third person shooters are cover-based because third person shooting is awkward when you're moving, especially up close. That's why Resident Evil 4 plants you to the ground whenever you aim, why Dead Space and Gears only let you slow-walk when aiming, etc.

Its not awkward man. Its the same as FPS except youre wielding a dude instead of just a gun. Its possibly even easier because you have a bigger FOV. RE4 and DS do that ground gluing thing to create tension because theyre "horror" games. Yeah its the cheapest thing ever but it works.
 

TheRedSnifit

Educated
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
55
Most third person shooters are cover-based

Most Third person shooters aren't cover-based. Most of the past decade consists of cover shooters, but there was a decade and a bit of third person shooters being made before then, many pretty decent. Overall it's more like half are.

The gameplay is an afterthought to the story like that video explained, as well as muh realistic/cinematic gameplay, and lastly uber accessibility. These are the three reasons the braindead cinematic cover shooter exists. Uncharted in first person and with no cover shooting would match Shitty Dawg's cinematic vision for the game far less, what with no intricate animation of the main character during gameplay, and engagements wouldn't revolve around cover, cover shooting being realistic in concept. And without the simple accessibility of popamole, not everyone could play the games.

Well yeah, I said most TPSs are cover based, not were cover based.

But it doesn't really contradict what I said, most (not all, I know there were some exceptions) older TPSs had auto-aim (Tomb Raider, SOCOM), most with manual aiming like Winback made you stand still to shoot. Cover systems are just a shittier, modern version of stop 'n pop.
 

Cross

Arcane
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
2,983
Most third person shooters are cover-based because third person shooting is awkward when you're moving, especially up close. That's why Resident Evil 4 plants you to the ground whenever you aim, why Dead Space and Gears only let you slow-walk when aiming, etc.

Its not awkward man. Its the same as FPS except youre wielding a dude instead of just a gun. Its possibly even easier because you have a bigger FOV.
Older TPS had a bigger FOV than FPS. The opposite is arguably true for most modern TPS. There is quite a difference between this:

MaxPayneDemo.jpg

versus this:

maxresdefault.jpg

One of the reasons why these games have such a strong reliance on cover is because they cripple the capabilities of the player character, be it their movement speed or their field of view.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom