Is the fact that you can see EVERYTHING coming at you. That's not how "taking cover" works. Third person cover mechanics of today take away the fun and tense moments of peaking out of cover slightly to get a general idea where an enemy is. This simple aspect would make games like The Last of Us....much more tense and atmospheric.
The problem with health packs in video games is that you just have to pick them up. In real life, you have to apply the tourniquette and bandages yourself. It would make video games much more tense and realistic.
The problem with health packs in video games is that you just have to pick them up. In real life, you have to apply the tourniquette and bandages yourself. It would make video games much more tense and realistic.
whiskeystrike
In games where tension is supposed to be an important factor..it be good to utilize any means to make your games impact the player. Of course health systems in games are going to be "Unrealistic" it has always been because the idea in the game is that the protagonist gets through obstacles without experiencing a death or major injury. That doesn't mean that other aspects can't be changed to improve gameplay.
It might not be realistic, but what matters is whether or not it's fun. So currently, due to the camer angle, it seems like you have above average capabilities.
It's not really a problem, but a design choice. It wouldn't be hard to zoom in on the player when taking cover - thus limiting their view, but would it be fun? I think it wouldn't be a hard thing to implement, so my point is that I wouldn't label it as a "problem" per se.
I dont think that additional peripheral vision is a problem, it seems abit more of an intentional design decision to have such mechanic in place. I think the problem with 3rd person cover mechanics is that they are never implemented all that well, at least most of the time. Getting in and out of cover is often too contextual - where you have one button that interacts based on your proximity to a wall, and where the game gets such proximities messed up, or just simply going from cover to cover feels rather sticky or over-convoluted over the seamlessnes of what a 1st-person shooter offers.
It might not be realistic, but what matters is whether or not it's fun. So currently, due to the camer angle, it seems like you have above average capabilities.
It's not really a problem, but a design choice. It wouldn't be hard to zoom in on the player when taking cover - thus limiting their view, but would it be fun? I think it wouldn't be a hard thing to implement, so my point is that I wouldn't label it as a "problem" per se.
trugs26
I understand where your getting at. allow me to sujest something though... Let me start with saying that my view on "fun" and "quality" are two separated things. Everything has the potential to be fun for someone, but quality? Quality is an entirely different medium. Quality applies to me to things like...music, atmosphere, presentation, graphics, technical aspects and, game feel. I can sit here and say I had fun playing Superman 64, but does that make a quality title? Point is, if you going to be a form of entertainment that is supposed to cater to an audience that wants a game based of the sheer survival of a just man, a fragile regular dude who made it through some messed up awful times, I believe its totally valid to be upset for not being a game that its supposed to be, despite it being fun. I probably am going to enjoy or even love Resident Evil 6 and Dead Space 3, but in no way shape of form will I say they are "quality" survival horror titles when they are not. Tension you feel from peeping out of corners without the cover mechanics is completely stripped now that you can see everything over your natural field of vision and there are far less chances of scare tactics to be applied instead of grossed out scenes or your typical death scenes that you encounter when your life is zero. I apologize if it sounds complicated, but its the way I think. Its things like this that is way Resident Evil 4 is still considered the best in the franchise....because while it gave you more ways of fighting back...it still maintained a sense of it being a survival horror title. I would personally feel "ripped off" as a gamer for buying a product that did not try at all to be what it supposed to be marketed as and I believe that gamers should complain more about it.
You can do anything in third person, in first person you are severely limited.
Theres a reason why Max Payne 3 and Vanquish are by far the best shooters this gen, because they include mechanics that you cant do in first person.
crimsonman1245
But in those games it's okay...your playing as a protagonist who has above average of normal abilities. The games are marketed as shooters...hell in both games you can slow down time, but stuff like that should not apply to all games, especially when they are trying to apply a certain kind of atmosphere. Something a simple as a camera angel fix changes everything a game is trying to be...hell at least make it an OPTION for the hardcore crowd to get a bit of extra meat out of their games.
More realistic cover could be just as fun, or even funner. It would increase tension if you couldn't see what the enemy is doing. The current standard of third person cover gives it all away and the current enemies can't properly flank you properly or change position without you knowing. In realistic cover you would have to try and anticipate what they will do. A good workaround could be a peaking function, where you can see what they are doing quickly for a second but in that time you are vulnerable to damage.
The problem with health packs in video games is that you just have to pick them up. In real life, you have to apply the tourniquette and bandages yourself. It would make video games much more tense and realistic.
whiskeystrike
The Last of Us is going to work on first aid and bandages that you prepare yourself with the minor crafting it has. Besides it's much better health that way than regen... the problem with you not being able to see everything is that it makes the game a lot harder and some people just don't like to deal with the frustration. I mean people are still complaining that Dark Souls is too hard.. even though it's not.
I'd say close the camera in tight on the player in cover, but pull it back and nudge it slightly in the direction of incoming fire (or to cover the area of incoming fire, when being fired on by multiple enemies). If done subtly, it'd be natural feedback for the player on where to look, without allowing them to line up their shot beforehand.
Well it depends on the game design. The huge problem with games like Rainbow Six Vegas, is that cover is grossly overpowered compared to running around in first person; thus the game becomes one that is about sticking to cover, and gaining a massive FOV compared to first person. Even the lean left and lean right buttons can be massively better at the end of the day. In Human Revolution it worked, being a game that adopted MGS's stealth system over Thief's.
They should zoom in the camera in so that you can't see above/beyond the end of the wall/cover.
Only when you peak out should the camera move to reveal what's beyond the cover.
FeedOnATreeFrog
Agreed...good example is FPS games with cover systems (Crysis 2, Killzone 3), due to the view you can't see above unless you aim, etc. Should be applied to 3rd person shooters.
my only problem with cover mechanics are how quickly you can get out of cover.
Most games have the character stuck to the wall once you go into cover. I hate being stuck to the wall after going to cover, it should be fluid movement to go in and out of cover.
In Gears it has wall bouncing, wish some games could expand on that.
my only problem with cover mechanics are how quickly you can get out of cover.
Most games have the character stuck to the wall once you go into cover. I hate being stuck to the wall after going to cover, it should be fluid movement to go in and out of cover.
In Gears it has wall bouncing, wish some games could expand on that.
AtlanticRock
umm, what..your issue is how quickly you can get out of cover, yet want to expand on something you just said you have a problem with (wall bouncing) which is the fastest way out of cover!?
That's why you posted...which, well..... make no sense. lol Stop quoting people for no reason. that still makes no sense..lol, when since i agreed and expressed my opinion towards his.
my only problem with cover mechanics are how quickly you can get out of cover.
Most games have the character stuck to the wall once you go into cover. I hate being stuck to the wall after going to cover, it should be fluid movement to go in and out of cover.
In Gears it has wall bouncing, wish some games could expand on that.
soapandbubbles
umm, what..your issue is how quickly you can get out of cover, yet want to expand on something you just said you have a problem with (wall bouncing) which is the fastest way out of cover!?
I don't have a problem with Wallbouncing... I like wall-bouncing... it makes getting in and out of cover quicker, whereas in other games once you cling to the wall you're immobile for a couple seconds. I want seemless movement to and from cover.
Log in to comment