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.

Lets uh, stay on topic : )

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.

Box art



Just a dude with his chainsword and lots of faces to feth up.

I have heard that the red head thing is a bloodletter and NOT a tryanid.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Box art



Just a dude with his chainsword and lots of faces to feth up.

I have heard that the red head thing is a bloodletter and NOT a tryanid.

I think it's a squig.

New video and screenshots here!

http://www.destructoid.com/new-video-screens-for-warhammer-40-000-space-marine-201876.phtml

And Collectors/Preorder info!

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/space-marine-collector-edition/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Zomg another one!

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-warhammer-40-000/714213

Goddard wrote:Lets uh, stay on topic : )

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.

New webiste is up!

http://www.spacemarine.com/home

And you don't have to ahve a way to directly interact with the terrain for the focus to be on cover and fire.

Then why bother having a Cover Based shooter category if every FPS has cover in some form or another?

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.

8v8 SM vs CSM, and Cleanse (horde) mode

Supposedly there's a survival mode.

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.

Actually i now agree with Melissia...
Though i can still understand the logic of the other argument.

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.

Eeexcept that just because you have a button to hide behind cover doesn't mean it's a cover-based game.

That's actually what DEFINES a Cover-Based shooter.

Goddard wrote:

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?

Goddard wrote:

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.

woohoo!

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...

Also, co-op is confirmed, I asked the community manager-- they're gonna talk about it more soon.