Im personally having mixed feelings for this game. To me it looks like a Gears of War where the bugs are Orks and with bigger chainsaws. None the less I'll probably still buy it (because its got spess mahrines), but i wanted to know what the audience had to say about this GOW Remix.
I'd imagine the storyline would go something along the line of a group of elite space marines sweeping in on a ork horde in their CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS and finding Chaos influence. Of course they obviously BLAME THE VICTIM planet for dressing so sexy.
Eventually, they discover it wasn't Chaos or Orks, but DINOSAURS EATING COCONUTS.
The Game-play is not going to be like Gears of war. It looks similar asthetically speaking, but it's not. In Gears of War, you take cover when being shot at. When you are a Space Marine, you ARE cover.
Yeah the no cover system is a nice touch... kinda...
I mean most games don't have one but purposely not having one seems like more of an effort than just missing it on your ideas board.
Most FPS games these days have a cover system. Even if it breaks the flow of combat, like it does in bulletstorm, which would have been so much better if they used the old style of health packs instead of health regen and cover, which broke the pace of the game too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I hope that, at the climax, the Chaos dude gets torn in half by the Ork warlord in a twist ending (oh, you were forgetting about him? well BAM Ork in your face!) and you fight HIM as your final boss, not a whinyboy marine or daemon.
Melissia wrote:Most FPS games these days have a cover system. Even if it breaks the flow of combat, like it does in bulletstorm, which would have been so much better if they used the old style of health packs instead of health regen and cover, which broke the pace of the game too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I hope that, at the climax, the Chaos dude gets torn in half by the Ork warlord in a twist ending (oh, you were forgetting about him? well BAM Ork in your face!) and you fight HIM as your final boss, not a whinyboy marine or daemon.
I hope this game doesn't have COD/Halo-styled regenerating health it works good in FPS's where its hard to dodge bullets, but it works badly in action games (Brutal Legend comes to mind, although I love the game the
strategy elements and regenerating health makes the action worse).
Melissia wrote:Most FPS games these days have a cover system. Even if it breaks the flow of combat, like it does in bulletstorm, which would have been so much better if they used the old style of health packs instead of health regen and cover, which broke the pace of the game too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I hope that, at the climax, the Chaos dude gets torn in half by the Ork warlord in a twist ending (oh, you were forgetting about him? well BAM Ork in your face!) and you fight HIM as your final boss, not a whinyboy marine or daemon.
Cover based FPS games are still an exception for now. Cover based third person games on the other hand are pretty much standard. Cover systems for FPS games exist in what? The afore mentioned bullet storm and the rainbow six games?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Godfrey wrote:Well i was surfing the inter-web the other day and came upon this-
Im personally having mixed feelings for this game. To me it looks like a Gears of War where the bugs are Orks and with bigger chainsaws. None the less I'll probably still buy it (because its got spess mahrines), but i wanted to know what the audience had to say about this GOW Remix.
There is virtually nothing on the game out for real info. No one could really have a realistic opinion beyond what the first gameplay trailer looks like.
Melissia wrote:Most FPS games these days have a cover system. Even if it breaks the flow of combat, like it does in bulletstorm, which would have been so much better if they used the old style of health packs instead of health regen and cover, which broke the pace of the game too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I hope that, at the climax, the Chaos dude gets torn in half by the Ork warlord in a twist ending (oh, you were forgetting about him? well BAM Ork in your face!) and you fight HIM as your final boss, not a whinyboy marine or daemon.
Cover based FPS games are still an exception for now. Cover based third person games on the other hand are pretty much standard. Cover systems for FPS games exist in what? The afore mentioned bullet storm and the rainbow six games?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Godfrey wrote:Well i was surfing the inter-web the other day and came upon this-
Im personally having mixed feelings for this game. To me it looks like a Gears of War where the bugs are Orks and with bigger chainsaws. None the less I'll probably still buy it (because its got spess mahrines), but i wanted to know what the audience had to say about this GOW Remix.
There is virtually nothing on the game out for real info. No one could really have a realistic opinion beyond what the first gameplay trailer looks like.
It's gameplay looks a bit like God of War with third-person shooter elements mixed in (which would be awesome).
Cover based FPS games are still an exception for now.
What world are you posting from? Certainly not Earth.
All of the most popular FPS games these days use a cover and regeneration system. CoD uses it, MoH uses it, BF uses it, Homefront uses it, CS:S uses it minus the regeneration (cover is vitally important to survive in CS:S), Bulletstorm, Crysis, etc.
In fact, out of the most popular FPS games, the only one that I can think of that really doesn't use a cover-based system is TF2. Quake, Unreal, and etc also do, but they're a dying breed these days. Hell even Duke Nukem is switching to health regen and cover based shooting.
Those are shooters with objects that bullets don't go through. Cover is when, like in Rainbow Six, there is interface for putting your back to a wall/crouching next to a wall and shooting out from it.
Most games do indeed use some sort of regeneration system.
Yes they are. Just because they don't have a button specifically for hiding behind cover and instead force you to hide behind cover manually doesn't mean that they're not cover-based.
Yes they are. Just because they don't have a button specifically for hiding behind cover and instead force you to hide behind cover manually doesn't mean that they're not cover-based.
The hell is a "non" cover based shooter if the only thing that makes it cover based is the presence of terrain? The cover mechanic is a programmed game mechanic wherein a player interacts specially and in a designed fashion with cover. The presence of a fething box does not make a game cover based. No first person shooter has ever not had terrain.
Melissa,
when someone says "cover-based-shooter" they mean it has a "snap-to" cover system, not that it has cover that you occasionally need to get behind; every shooter has that, it wouldn't be a shooter without it.
The gameplay is Darksiders with more shooting, and/or that Transformers game (Transformers: War for Cybertron, which was awesome) with more melee. The shooting will likely be VERY similar to Transformers, and melee will be much like Darksiders.
Yes they are. Just because they don't have a button specifically for hiding behind cover and instead force you to hide behind cover manually doesn't mean that they're not cover-based.
The hell is a "non" cover based shooter if the only thing that makes it cover based is the presence of terrain? The cover mechanic is a programmed game mechanic wherein a player interacts specially and in a designed fashion with cover. The presence of a fething box does not make a game cover based. No first person shooter has ever not had terrain.
TF2 springs to mind, as does Quake 4, and so on. Pretty much health regen combined with ample cover means it's a cover based game. Frankly, to me almost all (there are very rare exceptions) health regen style FPS games are cover-based.
Yes they are. Just because they don't have a button specifically for hiding behind cover and instead force you to hide behind cover manually doesn't mean that they're not cover-based.
The hell is a "non" cover based shooter if the only thing that makes it cover based is the presence of terrain? The cover mechanic is a programmed game mechanic wherein a player interacts specially and in a designed fashion with cover. The presence of a fething box does not make a game cover based. No first person shooter has ever not had terrain.
TF2 springs to mind, as does Quake 4, and so on. Pretty much health regen combined with ample cover means it's a cover based game.
So a health regen mechanic makes it cover based? I don't think you get to discuss game mechanics any more if you're equivocating a health mechanic as a cover mechanic and ignoring the presence of cover or cover mechanics when discussing what makes a cover mechanic a mechanic. This is done.
Frankly, to me almost all (there are very rare exceptions) health regen style FPS games are cover-based.
And to everyone else they're not. Isn't democracy great.
I think the term cover-based implies having a 'stick to cover' mechanism like the one in Rainbow Six: Las Vegas
I think the way Melissia is using it implies that cover is used heavily in the game.
I am all for using cover in the game but many people just stand/run about in the middle of nowhere and go to cover only to regen health before coming back out again.
Having non/slower-regenerating health would force player to stick to cover more and although it would be more cover intensive the game would be a bit less... well stupid frankly.
And to everyone else they're not. Isn't democracy great.
Right, everyone gets a chance to be wrong, today is yours
Hi! I'm Mellissa. Did you know that what defines a game as being cover based is the health mechanic? True story! It has nothing to do with the presence or use of cover! Button to stick to cover? Maybe the ability to lean? Something that lets you dash between chest high walls? Irrelevant. No health packs = cover based game!
Next week I'll be describing how anti lock brakes are defined by what kind of road surface you're traveling on! After that i'll "cover" (lol!) how the definition of pudding is based on color of container used!
Melissia wrote:TF2 springs to mind, as does Quake 4, and so on.
TF2 and Quake 4 don't have terrain?
Damn, I was seriously limiting my skills by playing within the cordons of all those collision boxes.
Melissia wrote:
Pretty much health regen combined with ample cover means it's a cover based game. Frankly, to me almost all (there are very rare exceptions) health regen style FPS games are cover-based.
Melissia wrote:TF2 springs to mind, as does Quake 4, and so on.
TF2 and Quake 4 don't have terrain?
Damn, I was seriously limiting my skills by playing within the cordons of all those collision boxes.
Melissia wrote:
Pretty much health regen combined with ample cover means it's a cover based game. Frankly, to me almost all (there are very rare exceptions) health regen style FPS games are cover-based.
Halo? Really?
TF2 does have terrain, just like every other FPS game in recent memory. Or distant memory, unless you consider some space sims FPS games. But in TF2, cover is far less important than in most other FPS games, especially those in modern settings. What is important for a cover-based game is that the way the game is designed strongly encourages people to use cover... duh, right? Pretty much all of the modern style games do this. Oh sure, there's no mechanic that causes you to stick to cover, but that's a minor technicality. You go into cover or you die, pretty much. In TF2 and the older style games, cover isn't as important due to their playstyle.
Oh, and I did say there were exceptions. But, as usual, asking Dakkanauts to read is like asking an Ork for a peace treaty.
TF2 does have terrain, just like every other FPS game in recent memory. Or distant memory, unless you consider some space sims FPS games. But in TF2, cover is far less important than in most other FPS games, especially those in modern settings.
You're not very good at tf2 are you.. Terrain and map control is absolutely vital to TF2. It's what differentiates good engineers, medics, snipers and demomen from bad ones.
What is important for a cover-based game is that the way the game is designed strongly encourages people to use cover...
No, whats important to a cover based game is the existence of a cover mechanic for utilizing said cover. Thats the industry accepted definition of the mechanic and style of play.
duh, right? Pretty much all of the modern style games do this. Oh sure, there's no mechanic that causes you to stick to cover, but that's a minor technicality.
It's only minor because you hate being wrong and love to invent definitions for things on the fly to suit your opinions. Realistically the presence of a cover mechanic is vital to the existence of cover based gameplay as thats what differentiates it from games that aren't cover based.
Oh, and I did say there were exceptions. But, as usual, asking Dakkanauts to read is like asking an Ork for a peace treaty.
Saying there are exceptions to a made up rule that you invented five minutes ago doesn't make it right.
Melissia wrote:What is important for a cover-based game is that the way the game is designed strongly encourages people to use cover... duh, right? Pretty much all of the modern style games do this. Oh sure, there's no mechanic that causes you to stick to cover, but that's a minor technicality.
What is this vague concept of "modern style games"? What games are you referring to? And...
Melissia wrote:
You go into cover or you die, pretty much. In TF2 and the older style games, cover isn't as important due to their playstyle.
...how are they distinct from TF2?
Melissia wrote:
Oh, and I did say there were exceptions. But, as usual, asking Dakkanauts to read is like asking an Ork for a peace treaty.
My point is that the "exceptions" are not exceptions at all, and that you're arguing as though a particular rule exists where none does.
Stop dodging the point and admit that you're wrong.
Hrm. I don't think I'll bother clicking "show this post" this time.
dogma wrote:What is this vague concept of "modern style games"? What games are you referring to? And...
Most of hte recent CoD series comes to mind, having popularized the modern warfare style games in the sense of pop culture at any rate, what with their sales being in ridiculously high numbers). The recent MoH reboot is similar, as is the BFBC series and the upcoming BF3, as well as Homefront and a few other games. CS:S is this as well, perhaps even the trend setter, although with CS:S, cover is often of questionable use as a good twitch player is usually better off regardless of cover.
Which essentially makes up the list of the most popular FPS series out there today aside from TF and Halo. Fun times for all?
dogma wrote:...how are they distinct from TF2?
Players in TF2 survive more punishment but don't regenerate health (aside from the Medic at any rate), instead replenishing health through picking up health kits and through the actions of their teammates (Which is also why it's far more team-based than any of the other series mentioned previously). Movement is also rather different, with many classes having the ability to move in erratic ways such as rocket jumping, the scout's double jump, the spy's cloak, the demoman's charge, etc. While there is very limited cover, it's just not used the same way as in most modern games. You don't lay prone next to a rock to avoid being hit by a rocket, no, you sidestep the rocket and jump to reduce damage if the rocket is aimed at your feet. Sure, you'll dive behind a wall if there's a heavy/medic team coming down a cooridor, but that cover isn't gonna let you sit there and take potshots at him, no, your team's gonna have to make decisive action to deal with it.
Etc etc etc. TF2 plays dramatically different from games such as CoD, BF, and MoH, game series which, by and large, are quite similar to eachother in gameplay.
dogma wrote:My point is that the "exceptions" are not exceptions at all
Then you have no point.
dogma wrote:Stop dodging the point and admit that you're wrong.
That would require me to be wrong in the first place.
dogma wrote:This..
Pretty much health regen combined with ample cover means it's a cover based game.
...is what you said.
Yes. "Pretty much". Synonym to the phrases "To some degree" and "Sort of". Because the definition isn't a simple one, as simple definitions when it comes to these kinds of games are frequently stupid. I mean hell, many people call Penumbra a first person shooter because of their overly simplistic definition of an FPS game, which is such a hilariously bad mis-characterization of the game that I really wouldn't know where to start aside from slapping them across the face.
Once again mellissa proves that she exists in a special fantasy world where she can never be wrong and definitions exist to suit arguments that change at her whim. Yawn.
Well this went well.
I'm glad my attempts to defuse the situation went perfectly...
Maybe later i'll try peace in the middle east, things can't get a whole lot worse and at least they have better weather than here.
purplefood wrote:Well this went well.
I'm glad my attempts to defuse the situation went perfectly...
Maybe later i'll try peace in the middle east, things can't get a whole lot worse and at least they have better weather than here.
Attempting to diffuse a situation where Mellissa is wrong is like trying to defuse a bullet. It's best just to get out of the way.
Melissia wrote:
Etc etc etc. TF2 plays dramatically different from games such as CoD, BF, and MoH, game series which, by and large, are quite similar to eachother in gameplay.
Yes, it does, but you didn't answer the question.
Why is TF2 not a cover based shooter, while games like MW are cover based shooters?
Actually, no, don't answer the question, I won't read your response as there is no point in engaging with you. You are emotionally committed to underlining your own misplaced feeling of rightness, and so are useless in this context.
Melissia wrote:
Yes. "Pretty much". Synonym to the phrases "To some degree" and "Sort of". Because the definition isn't a simple one, as simple definitions when it comes to these kinds of games are frequently stupid. I mean hell, many people call Penumbra a first person shooter because of their overly simplistic definition of an FPS game, which is such a hilariously bad mis-characterization of the game that I really wouldn't know where to start aside from slapping them across the face.
You think phrases have definitions?
Yeah, there is no point in discussing anything with you. Either your aren't very bright, or you're a troll.
I already answered the question. Sure, you don't agree with my answer, but I still answered it.
And if you think phrases such as "cover-based shooter" don't have a definition, shouldn't that be the position you're arguing? As it is, you don't appear to have a position to begin with aside from simply disagreeing with me and attempting to insult me, no matter what it is I say. Which is hardly showing much of the maturity you appear to be trying to claim you have...
I thnk a game with large amounts of cover and an emphasis on staying in cover is merely just that.
I would say that a game with a mechanic such as 'stick to cover' or 'lean' is a cover based game.
I disagree with Melissia's definition of 'Cover based' shooter because for me as cover based shooter needs a certain mechanic such as 'lean' or 'stick to cover' but i can understand her point.
Anyway, I think the gaming genres are pretty well defined. You have MMOs, (possibly the most easily distinguishable) RPGs, FPS and so on. However, since the FPS Genre has such a huge library of games, further organisation is required. So in the FPS category, you will have sub-catagories, like 3rd Person Shooter, Squad Based Shooter, Cover Based Shooter, etc. So, in order for them to even bother to have a Cover Based Shooter category, SOMETHING must set it aside from all the others. A stick-to cover system is something unique to these games, and often vital for success. Gears of War being the most easily recognizable as such. So Melissa, MY argument is this: Most FPS Shooters (Such as MW2, CoD, BF, etc) is that 'cover' is simply part of the world, and you cannot interact with it in any instance, except to stand behind it to block in-coming fire, but it can be argued your still not really interacting with it. So, in order to be labeled 'cover-based shooter' the focus must be the cover/terrain. It becomes vital to play the game effectively.
Anyway, I think the gaming genres are pretty well defined. You have MMOs, (possibly the most easily distinguishable) RPGs, FPS and so on. However, since the FPS Genre has such a huge library of games, further organisation is required. So in the FPS category, you will have sub-catagories, like 3rd Person Shooter, Squad Based Shooter, Cover Based Shooter, etc. So, in order for them to even bother to have a Cover Based Shooter category, SOMETHING must set it aside from all the others. A stick-to cover system is something unique to these games, and often vital for success. Gears of War being the most easily recognizable as such. So Melissa, MY argument is this: Most FPS Shooters (Such as MW2, CoD, BF, etc) is that 'cover' is simply part of the world, and you cannot interact with it in any instance, except to stand behind it to block in-coming fire, but it can be argued your still not really interacting with it. So, in order to be labeled 'cover-based shooter' the focus must be the cover/terrain. It becomes vital to play the game effectively.
And you don't have to ahve a way to directly interact with the terrain for the focus to be on cover and fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an on topic note I like their ideas on combat mechanics.
Oh, and I see a weirdboy! And Guardsmen, on your side apparently, given that it was facing the enemy.
Cover based shooters are typified by the REQUIREMENT of cover usage rather then the existence of cover. In a cover based game not using the cover provided will get you killed extremely quickly so to succeed you are required to use the cover, this means the game was designed to heavily feature cover and thus is to some degree cover based.
In contrast game that are not cover based may still have cover, as it is pretty much impossible to completely lack in cover unless you are in a totally flat open field, however you are equally if not more likely to succeed by disregarding said cover and assaulting instead (something that is evidently a big part of Spacemarine).
I think the source of confusion here is that all games with a stick to cover mechanic are cover based shooters in the fullest sense whereas not all cover based shooters have a stick to cover mechanic.
Goddard wrote:Then why bother having a Cover Based shooter category if every FPS has cover in some form or another?
Because ... feth it, just read my previous post, too lazy to retype it:
Melissia wrote:TF2 does have terrain, just like every other FPS game in recent memory. Or distant memory, unless you consider some space sims FPS games. But in TF2, cover is far less important than in most other FPS games, especially those in modern settings. What is important for a cover-based game is that the way the game is designed strongly encourages people to use cover... duh, right? Pretty much all of the modern style games do this. Oh sure, there's no mechanic that causes you to stick to cover, but that's a minor technicality. You go into cover or you die, pretty much. In TF2 and the older style games, cover isn't as important due to their playstyle.
Put in bold for emphasis. Just like some RTS games take elements from RTT games (DoW2 is an oft-cited example), not all FPS games are strictly in one subcategory or another.
Looking forward to this game, and hopefully information about the multiplayer will happen soon: if it's multiplayer, I'll buy it immediately. If it's single player only, I'll buy it used in a few months.
On the topic of cover-based games, I have to agree that actual button-based interaction with cover is what makes it a "cover-based" game. Otherwise you can argue that ANY game ever made that involves moving around is cover based-any action RPG, any shooter, any adventure, hell, even the LEGO games. Just being able to hide behind something does not make the game based on cover-it means there are places where you can make strategic decisions to regen health or hide when the action is too thick. If you have a function built in that lets you go into cover (hitting the 'A' button in Rainbow 6: Vegas, for example) and fire from being in cover, while it's a strategic build of the game, it is cover-based. Sorry Melissia, I'm one more who has to disagree with you on here. Not doing it to cause a disagreement, just adding in more information to the equation.
timetowaste85 wrote:On the topic of cover-based games, I have to agree that actual button-based interaction with cover is what makes it a "cover-based" game.
Eeexcept that just because you have a button to hide behind cover doesn't mean it's a cover-based game. You can have that button but balance the game in such a way that hiding behind cover is not beneficial. For example in CoD, which is sort of meandering from one side of the fence to the other depending on which game in the series it is; in Black Ops cover is less beneficial because many if not most weapons penetrate some levels of cover, so that you can kill someone even if they're ducking behind a wall. Or in TF2, there's cover, sure... but there's so many explosive weapons available and there's little to no penalty for firing on the move as well as perfect accuracy with the sniper rifle, so cover doesn't grant much protection compared to, say, BFBC2.
Hell, BFBC2 often feels more cover-based than R6V2, because of how horrible the stick to cover system is in R6V2-- you can easily be behind cover and still get killed quickly by someone who is firing at the wall you're hiding behind in the latter game, while going prone in the former game usually prevents this.
At any rate, you can easily have a game with a stick to cover button, where cover is useless.
timetowaste85 wrote:Looking forward to this game, and hopefully information about the multiplayer will happen soon: if it's multiplayer, I'll buy it immediately. If it's single player only, I'll buy it used in a few months.
By multiplayer, sorry I wasn't too specific, I meant I wanted a Co-op mode.
And sorry Melissia, I still disagree: when cover is specifically built into the game as to the point of actually having a button to make it function as a tool...that's cover based to me (and a lot of the other people on here). Just having boxes to hide behind randomly is a normal part of almost any game. Would you call Borderlands, X-men Legends, LEGO Star Wars or Spiderman: Web of Shadows "cover based?" Hopefully not-they're action RPGs where you can hide to regen health and they are useful, but they don't play an integral part of the games.
Just because using a button to duck behind cover isn't always beneficial, that doesn't mean it should lose its "cover-based" label. Halo, and games like it (because I haven't played TF2 or anything past Quake 3 and many others of a similar vein) allow cover to be used, but they aren't built in to be so necessary to the specific game as to have functions built around them-they're just part of the scenery that you can use to hide behind from time to time (or all the time, if you're so inclined).
timetowaste85 wrote:And sorry Melissia, I still disagree: when cover is specifically built into the game as to the point of actually having a button to make it function as a tool...that's cover based to me (and a lot of the other people on here).
That doesn't mean that cover is useful or necessary, so how does that make it cover-based?
You know, seeing as a COVER-BASED game should, you know, revolve around USING COVER, right? But if a game has using cover as being useless, then how is it a cover-based game? It's not. It's not a cover-based game, it 's just a game that happens to have cover and a mechanic by which you can stick to it. But cover isn't important, so it's not the basis of its gameplay. Your definition does not logically compute, it's overly simplistic and frankly nonsensical.
It looks like we're running two camps here: Cover-based being does the gameplay revolve around the effective use of cover, and cover-based being does the gameplay mechanics involve a stick-to-cover system.
Dshrike wrote:It looks like we're running two camps here: Cover-based being does the gameplay revolve around the effective use of cover, and cover-based being does the gameplay mechanics involve a stick-to-cover system.
A mechanic isn't necessarily having a button to do something though. It can just as easily be a heavy emphasis (through something else like weapon damage) on cover. The point is the definition of mechanic is a touch vague...
Dshrike wrote:It looks like we're running two camps here: Cover-based being does the gameplay revolve around the effective use of cover, and cover-based being does the gameplay mechanics involve a stick-to-cover system.
I would sum the argument as a parralel of the RAI vs RAW argument, one camp says that cover based games are defined by the developers obviously intending the use of cover to be a key part of the game whereas the other says that cover based games are defined by the developers implementing a feature that is little more than a giant sign saying YOU ARE MEANT TO BE USING COVER.
Pretty much all of the modern style games do this.
So again, why have a seperate category if nearly all FPS shooters 'encourage' use of cover?
That is not enough of an explanation to seperate the genres. Gears of War is (in my opinion) the most well-known COVER BASED game out there. The reason it is labeled as such is because the 'stick-to-cover' mechanic is essential to playing the game. You don't go one fire-fight without jumping/standing/kneeling behind something. Other games, like Halo/CoD are MUCH more agressive in their play-style. In Halo, don't tell me you don't see people bouncing around shooting untill one person is dead.
A mechanic isn't necessarily having a button to do something though. It can just as easily be a heavy emphasis (through something else like weapon damage) on cover. The point is the definition of mechanic is a touch vague...
From a developer's POV, a mechanic is actually not that vague. It is tool/system intentionally designed for the game (usually for the player to use). Reloading your gun? Shooter mechanic. Stats/attributes? RPG mechanic. CTRL + 1? Strategy mechanic. Dialogue wheel? RPG mechanic for dialogue. Empathizing an aspect of the game is not a mechanic. In fact, many different games use gameplay mechanics from different genres. Mass Effect 2 uses a shooter mechanic for its gunplay. Borderlands uses an loot-mechanic similar to Diablo.
Stick-To-Cover System? Intentionally designed for the players to use. Does that necessary mean it is useful in the game? Not in the slightest bit.
Mel mentioned R6:V2. the Stick-to-cover system is not well implemented because: your character still had pieces of him sticking out that the AI took advantage of.
Pretty much all of the modern style games do this.
So again, why have a seperate category if nearly all FPS shooters 'encourage' use of cover?
That is not enough of an explanation to seperate the genres. Gears of War is (in my opinion) the most well-known COVER BASED game out there. The reason it is labeled as such is because the 'stick-to-cover' mechanic is essential to playing the game. You don't go one fire-fight without jumping/standing/kneeling behind something. Other games, like Halo/CoD are MUCH more agressive in their play-style. In Halo, don't tell me you don't see people bouncing around shooting untill one person is dead.
Because it wasn't always so, before CoD (no cod did not INVENT that type of game, it just popularised it) the majority of games were just FPS and the subgenre of cover based FPS was created to describe these new games, now however the vast majority of games are cover based shooters due to their aim for realism.
However there is clearly no point in arguing with you goddard, you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Until I actually saw the thread, I gave no thought to "cover based" vs "utilizing cover." Reading other peoples' posts I agreed with the group that I felt was logical. I didn't think my argument was at all nonsensical, it just wasn't agreed with by you. I provided examples of games that utilize cover but don't make it an important necessity of the game. If the developers build an actual cover-function into the game, it is implied that they intend it to be a cover-based game; even if it ends up being something that you personally find useless. But I won't bother trying to change your mind any further, because it'll be a waste of my time. Let's just leave it at "I don't agree with you, and I won't, but it hardly makes any difference-call it whatever you want to make you happy." And I'll do the same
Because it wasn't always so, before CoD (no cod did not INVENT that type of game, it just popularised it) the majority of games were just FPS and the subgenre of cover based FPS was created to describe these new games, now however the vast majority of games are cover based shooters due to their aim for realism.
I don't recall CoD ever being labelled as Cover-based - not trying to be argumentative, but as far as I know, it was only described as an FPS.
However there is clearly no point in arguing with you goddard, you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
What? By 'unwilling to listen to anyone' you mean one person: Melissa? I don't know what exactly prompted you to say that. Defending my position is not listening?
Because it wasn't always so, before CoD (no cod did not INVENT that type of game, it just popularised it) the majority of games were just FPS and the subgenre of cover based FPS was created to describe these new games, now however the vast majority of games are cover based shooters due to their aim for realism.
I don't recall CoD ever being labelled as Cover-based - not trying to be argumentative, but as far as I know, it was only described as an FPS.
The original call of duty game was cover based as far as I recall.
Goddard wrote:
However there is clearly no point in arguing with you goddard, you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
What? By 'unwilling to listen to anyone' you mean one person: Melissa? I don't know what exactly prompted you to say that. Defending my position is not listening?
By refusing to listen to the opposing party you are essentially denying all form of reason, I myself have made several points that agree with Melissia that are apparently invalid because they agree with her (oppose your views).
I would sum the argument as a parralel of the RAI vs RAW argument, one camp says that cover based games are defined by the developers obviously intending the use of cover to be a key part of the game whereas the other says that cover based games are defined by the developers implementing a feature that is little more than a giant sign saying YOU ARE MEANT TO BE USING COVER.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was your only post in the thread before you said I don't listen to anyone. And I think that this quote is ambiguous to either side of the argument.
Edit: Doh, missed one.
Cover based shooters are typified by the REQUIREMENT of cover usage rather then the existence of cover. In a cover based game not using the cover provided will get you killed extremely quickly so to succeed you are required to use the cover, this means the game was designed to heavily feature cover and thus is to some degree cover based.
In contrast game that are not cover based may still have cover, as it is pretty much impossible to completely lack in cover unless you are in a totally flat open field, however you are equally if not more likely to succeed by disregarding said cover and assaulting instead (something that is evidently a big part of Spacemarine).
I think the source of confusion here is that all games with a stick to cover mechanic are cover based shooters in the fullest sense whereas not all cover based shooters have a stick to cover mechanic.
I would agree with this. The only thing I would add: pretty much all FPS have world objects that you can use as cover. Having these objects about does not mean the game is cover based.
Take the Battle Online – Form your own Space Marine squad or Chaos Space Marine warband and face off in 8 vs 8 online matches. Gain experience and unlock new weapons and armor to customize the Devastator, Assault, and Tactical Marine classes.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Take the Battle Online – Form your own Space Marine squad or Chaos Space Marine warband and face off in 8 vs 8 online matches. Gain experience and unlock new weapons and armor to customize the Devastator, Assault, and Tactical Marine classes.
woohoo!
That sounds pretty damn fun...
This game looks much better than it did a few months ago...
I looked at the article and wrote a scathing retort at his stupidity...then realized I'd only be able to sign in with my facebook page since I don't have the other accounts that can be used. I don't really wanna bash the guy and have him show up at my door...
God, he was stupid though. Do they really let people like that type on the internet?
Never mind. After some users I've seen on here, they certainly do. Thankfully, most of them have been MODblocked
I think the most interesting bit was where he said that THQ pointed out that 40k has its own diverse background for longer than Gears, then he mentions that they have taken Orks from LotR.
Clearly this guy has never really thought about where people get their ideas... probably hasn't even asked either.
Hell, I like gears, but some of the asinine comparisons he is making don't even make sense.
Does he think gears is the only 3rd person shooter in existence? Personally, I'll bet the game will be closer to Transformers:WFC with more melee than gears, and/or Darksiders with moar guns.
Oh well i'm not particularly fussed that the flamer and combi-bolter isn't in the game...
They seem to have done a fairly good job as it is and though i would like to see those weapons in it i won't not get it just because of that.
Sorry to delve back into a pointless debate, but a cover based game is a game where cover is emphasized to a point that it makes up a huge part of the game like gears of war, rainbow 6
While call of duty or battlefield, where cover is necessary, it is not emphasized to such an extent.
They both need cover, but the only difference is the button to auto take cover. Thats what defines the game. They both have guns, explosions, vehicles etc, but the only difference is the auto cover button.
Anyway, probably only going to rent this game, looks like fun, but doubt it would keep my attention more than a week
timetowaste85 wrote:I looked at the article and wrote a scathing retort at his stupidity...then realized I'd only be able to sign in with my facebook page since I don't have the other accounts that can be used. I don't really wanna bash the guy and have him show up at my door...
God, he was stupid though. Do they really let people like that type on the internet?
Never mind. After some users I've seen on here, they certainly do. Thankfully, most of them have been MODblocked
That one line shows me just how little you know about the internet.
