Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

It will be awesome.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:Those are not cover based shooters.

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.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:Those are not cover based shooters.

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

Melissia wrote:

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.

Halo? Really?

Aww, I think I've offended someone, so he decided to post a strawman argument. Cute But I think this is going a bit too far off topic.

Melissia wrote:Aww, I think I've offended someone, so he decided to post a strawman argument. Cute But I think this is going a bit too far off topic.

A strawman requires misrepresentation. Shuma basically just paraphrased your argument.

And yes, when you say things that are nonsensical it is offensive. In fact, that particular tactic is the foundation of trolling.

dogma wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:Aww, I think I've offended someone, so he decided to post a strawman argument. Cute But I think this is going a bit too far off topic.

It's effigy or tar and feathering. When no one takes you seriously and everyone says you're wrong it indicates something.

dogma wrote:A strawman requires misrepresentation. Shuma

... misrepresented my argument? Yes he did! He has a habit of being a blatant troll like that.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:A strawman requires misrepresentation. Shuma

... misrepresented my argument? Yes he did! He has a habit of being a blatant troll like that.

This..

Pretty much health regen combined with ample cover means it's a cover based game.

...is what you said.

If you won't even regard your own posts with honesty, posts which anyone can read, then I don't even know what you're doing here.

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.

As a side note (or perhaps as a main note, with everything else being a side note), any more dev diaries yet?

Not that i have seen, though i haven't been paying close attention so it's possible some snuck out whilst my back was turned.

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.

Chowderhead wrote:No. Only more CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS.

Whoever has that image, post it. You know the one.

ChiliPowderKeg:

CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT-ception.

purplefood wrote:CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT-ception.

Maybe.

You think that's air your breathing?

Kasrkai wrote:

purplefood wrote:CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT-ception.

Maybe.

You think that's air your breathing?

Classy...

purplefood wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:

purplefood wrote:CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT-ception.

Maybe.

You think that's air your breathing?

Classy...

Not air... Exhaust fumes from all the CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTs

Captain Godfrey wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:

purplefood wrote:CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT-ception.

Maybe.

You think that's air your breathing?

Classy...

Not air... Exhaust fumes from all the CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTs

You have to realize the truth...


THERE IS NO CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT.

Yes there is.
It just isn't out yet.