Let's Speculate: Cover-Based Shooter

Is it just me, or is anyone else already getting tired of cover-based shooters? You snap into some cover position, line your crosshair up, pop up and unload a clip into a guy, then duck back into the magical protection of your crate. Occasionally someone will lob a grenade and you have to find another spot. They’re like whack-a-mole shooting galleries, with the only real challenge coming from trying to aim precisely without a crosshair (while ducked). I’m sorry, but I can only take a few short hours of this before I really don’t want to see the mechanic for another year. And yet, more otherwise interesting games come to us every year designed around cover-based shooting. What to do?

Let’s try to fix it. Let’s concept design an alternative version of a cover-based shooter—something to stand out from the crowd for its gameplay.

I like verisimilitude in my games. I feel pretty cool when I am stalking through crowds in renaissance Italy, trying to stab a guy in secret and flee the scene before it gets hairy. What I don’t like is pumping some bastard full of bullets only to have him stumble, then start firing back at me as if nothing happened. I don’t want hundreds of bullets to bounce harmlessly off the top of the car behind which I’m hiding until I pop out, absorb a few bullets, kill one guy, and duck back until the red leaves my screen. I want smaller battles, with more finite enemies. I want a more methodical pace to the battles, with moments of silence and heavy breathing pierced by powerful, weighty blasts. Think shootouts from good westerns instead of John Woo films. How shall we accomplish this, then?

Animations are going to be key.

First thing: no more enemies that can absorb tons of bullets. The guys in this game are going to go down pretty fast. I want more realistic damage modeling. Maybe you don’t even have to kill a guy to take him out of the fight. Maybe he’s shot in the shoulder and he’s a wuss so he’s given up and is trying to stay out of it. Maybe another guy takes a shoulder shot, and does try to keep fighting but with different animations. Maybe he then takes one in the stomach and just lays on the floor screaming for 15 minutes. We need to have a huge number of sort of random possibilities, so it doesn’t feel like you’re mowing down wave after wave of the same coked out guy.

The next thing we need to fix is the aiming system. In a modern cover-based shooter, you generally pop out of cover, line up your shot to where the other guy’s head is when he pops out of cover, duck back down, and wait for him to pop up again so you can also pop and put one in his brain socket. Rinse and repeat till they’re all dead. This is where the challenge is supposed to come from, but I’m sorry, it’s just not interesting. It’s boring. Just give the player a sizable circle in the middle of the screen instead. Your character will auto-aim at any enemy caught within that circle. Oh, you want to get this guy next? Ok, no need to fidget with the controller lining it up perfectly while other guys empty clips at you. Just show us the one you want to hit and we’ll help you. You really just want to see guys die and sh*t fly around anyway, so why put aiming in the way of that enjoyment? Instead, the game should have a LOT of animations. Many multiple animations for every action, so that every time you do an action, there are a multitude of subtle to easily noticeably different ways it can play out. Coupled with the ability to take guys down quickly, it becomes less of a pixel-perfect aim game, and more of a spectative action movie. You can get your entertainment from simply watching the fights play out.

Does it sound too easy now? Let’s add challenge then. Cover is interesting, but I’ve always wondered why you can take careful aim, and shoot an enemy in the foot that’s sticking out a bit from behind his cover to kill him, yet you have a magical 180 degrees in three dimensions shield when you are ducked down. Take that away from the player. If you see an enemy pop out from cover and take a little time lining up his shot before firing, that’s your cue that he’s aiming at some small part of you sticking out that he can see from his position. This is where blindfire becomes important. You were busy getting ready to aim at a different guy, but then you see this asshole lining up a deadly shot from across the way. Just press your blindfire button and you stick your arm up and pop off a few at whoever is not behind cover. You will not be accurate, but the enemy AI will be cautious enough to duck back down into cover. They’ll never just stand there letting you take potshots. Crisis averted.

Finally, with all this realistic violence, varied animations, and cautious enemies, we need everything to have heft. The weapons, the characters, and the physics should feel weighty and part of the world. Also, beefy gun sounds.
So, with cautious, smart AI, different levels of cover protection from different types of objects, more realistic casualties, a large aiming zone, and lots and lots of varied animations, our little cover-based shooter becomes a slower-paced game of position and suppression management while watching all the cool stuff happen. Throw in grenades, destructible cover, and other regulars if you want. I’m curious as to the number of enemies that would balance the challenge and fun with this style.

Well, sorry for the longwinded post, but I’d love to hear thoughts.

What you want is a sim fps.
Have you considered ARMA 2? It's pretty much the best FPS Military sim out there atm. IF you want realism that is...

For your aiming query...there is an upcoming game called "red orchestra 2", gameplay preview. This game will use a first person cover mechanic that you should like, not to mention its aiming for realism too!

Lastly, EVERY game needs to have destructible environments. If you played bfbc-bc2 then youve tried the frost engine. The fact that you can destroy COVER is a HUGE thing for fps games. It's hard playing BfBC2 then playing CoDBO and shooting at environments and nothing happens =(

Essentially the perfect fps will be...ARMA2 realism + BFBC Frost Engine + Red Orchestra 2 FPS Cover mechanic.

edit: yknow what? add in tribes jetpacks! go all out!
edit2: aaaand you wont find this game on a console...ever.

If you look at the origins of the cover-based system, you understand a bit more about why it works the way it does. Basically, in the old days, the best you could hope for was the ability to lean around the corner and hope that the in-game physics didn't cause you to shoot into the wall you were trying to hide behind. "Snap-to-cover" eliminates this problem. Sure, it's a bit gimmicky, but it works for its intended purpose.

Oh, and it sounds like you need to spend some quality time with SWAT4 and ARMA2.

I don't believe that cover systems were ever intended to address problems with the player being able to hide behind/shoot around walls; it has been possible to use cover since Wolfenstein 3D by strafing in and out of corners. Consider contemporary console shooters like Halo or CoD, which demonstrate that it is very possible to use 'cover to regenerate HP' mechanics without explicitly implementing a cover system for the player (the AI should perhaps still use cover if only to appear more convincing).

I suspect that the reason cover shooters have become so popular is because it is far easier to design AI around cover, where you have a neat little graph structure you can manipulate to ensure enemies don't a) Rush blindly towards the player all the time, b) Stand around in the open like dolts, or c) Take illogical and awkward cover positions that don't even face the player and make the AI look silly. You can reduce a huge amount of complexity by thinking in terms of cover nodes rather than in terms of a fully-3D environment.

I agree that the mechanics evolving around cover systems, such as the 'poke my head out two times from the top, then two times from the side, then two times from the top' thing, are kinda dumb. Although these games masquerade as 3D shooters, they in fact have more in common with whack-a-mole than they do with Doom or Quake or other games we might associate with the FPS genre (which, in my opinion, is mostly about movement in two dimensions to dodge projectiles, obtain optimal range to mitigate enemy attacks, and obtain optimal range to attack opponents). I also agree that the game you describe would be much more fun to me than Gears of War.

Cover based shooters can quickly turn into Hogan's Alley. I think they key is what the AI is doing. Are they flanking you or just popping up from cover?

I'll take this over infinite respawning any day, fwiw.

I think i heard Josh Viel say something during SpoilerWarning which really resonated with me: They reduce every encounter down to a binary choice - either you die or you win.

Fundamentally, while it makes the game easier for the majority of people and more accessible, it makes the game boring. You're reset after each encounter (even during an encounter) - having to fight waves of enemies has no more of a consequence than starting the game/level afresh compared to how it is in more traditional shooters (and other types of games)....

SWAT 4.

It tends not to bother with cover because there isn't much room for a shootout; whoever survives the first exchange is the winner and since you're playing SWAT, that means there's another exchange in the next room. Maybe. Your intel wasn't all that good. Probably best to wire under the door and have a look around, or call to your sniper element to see if he can see in through the window. You get three teammates to whom you can issue commands, from the very basic "hey, follow me" to "wait for my mark, then blast that door open, toss in a flashbang, and clear it while I flank through the other door."

It can be incredibly intense. Your objective is typically to take in all suspects alive, and to that ends you have an assortment of lethal and non-lethal weaponry and even a "shout" button that orders the suspect to drop their weapon. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they won't. Sometimes they'll act like they're going to and then suddenly open fire. Sometimes you can radio to your sniper and he can shoot the gun out of their hand through the window. Sometimes they will surrender, but if you ignore them too long they'll pick the gun back up and run while you're not looking. Enemy locations are regenerated each time you play so you can't memorize enemy positions, either. On top of all that, the game has some of the best vignettes I've seen outside of a Valve effort. It's beautifully written.

Non-lethal multiplayer is a blast, too. You need to cuff someone for it to count as a point, so Vent inevitably echoes with panicked cries of, "I'M BEING ARRESTED!" Then some wiseass always starts packing a gun and ruins it for everyone.

The biggest complaint about the game was always how meticulous it was. Screaming old lady? Cuff her and call her in, you don't know who she is or what she plans to do. Won't surrender peacefully? Pepper-spray her, if SWAT's been called in there's no time for a conversation. Restrained an armed hostile? Great job, now call them in, then find their gun and call that in too; it'll be evidence in the trial (not included in game). Teammate take a bullet? You'd better believe you need to call that in so they can get an ambulance over there.

Once you really get all that down, there's nothing quite like a nice clean operation with no fatalities and no mistakes. It's like the opposite of a cover-based system.

Every few months or so we seem to have a brief GWJ revival. Seems to be one of those games where just the mention gives people a nice warm fuzzy.

I need to get SWAT 4. I loved SWAT 3 passionately, but never got 4 which is now impossible to find here.

Other than that, I enjoy cover shooters. They can get pretty tense in games where the cover takes damage. Red Faction Guerrilla was one where taking cover was no guarantee of indefinite survival. On easy it was actually safer to run and gun.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I need to get SWAT 4. I loved SWAT 3 passionately, but never got 4 which is now impossible to find here.

It's on D2D in North America, not sure about elsewhere. That's where I picked it up.

Duoae wrote:

I think i heard Josh Viel say something during SpoilerWarning which really resonated with me: They reduce every encounter down to a binary choice - either you die or you win.

Fundamentally, while it makes the game easier for the majority of people and more accessible, it makes the game boring. You're reset after each encounter (even during an encounter) - having to fight waves of enemies has no more of a consequence than starting the game/level afresh compared to how it is in more traditional shooters (and other types of games)....

This is why as much as I enjoyed Gears of War and loved Uncharted I spend far more time with Halo and BFBC.

Wait, how are those games any different? In Halo Reach, 90% of the daily achievements are "kill X number of Ys in Z way." Firefight mode is literally, "kill stuff till you die or win."

Arronius wrote:

First thing: no more enemies that can absorb tons of bullets. The guys in this game are going to go down pretty fast. I want more realistic damage modeling. Maybe you don’t even have to kill a guy to take him out of the fight. Maybe he’s shot in the shoulder and he’s a wuss so he’s given up and is trying to stay out of it. Maybe another guy takes a shoulder shot, and does try to keep fighting but with different animations. Maybe he then takes one in the stomach and just lays on the floor screaming for 15 minutes. We need to have a huge number of sort of random possibilities, so it doesn’t feel like you’re mowing down wave after wave of the same coked out guy.

Does this realistic damage modeling extend to the player? I love an FPS where the player is more or less toast after one shot. Not only more realistic but also great at raising the stakes.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Wait, how are those games any different? In Halo Reach, 90% of the daily achievements are "kill X number of Ys in Z way." Firefight mode is literally, "kill stuff till you die or win."

Maybe he meant the original Halo? Not sure if BBFC has regenerating health or not though.

Duoae wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Wait, how are those games any different? In Halo Reach, 90% of the daily achievements are "kill X number of Ys in Z way." Firefight mode is literally, "kill stuff till you die or win."

Maybe he meant the original Halo? Not sure if BBFC has regenerating health or not though.

No. I meant that I prefer those games because you either fight against good AI (Halo) or people (BFBC) and the quality of combat is far superior to running to cover and then pop and shoot. Yes, they each have "Horde" modes, but even in those modes the AI is better than in the cover based shooters, generally.

easy sunday wrote:

Does this realistic damage modeling extend to the player? I love an FPS where the player is more or less toast after one shot. Not only more realistic but also great at raising the stakes.

Project Reality, a BF2 mod, does this. They start with the basic principal that if you get shot, it's going to f*ck you up. You vision goes red, you can barely move, and you'll likely start bleeding out. That's right. Unless your team medic spends some quality time with you (no throwing down magic med packs or the defibs of life) you will bleed out and die, screaming the entire time.

PR also handles being suppressed wonderfully well. If you're being shot at and you're behind cover you can't just pop up and pick off someone. When bullets impact near you it throws off your vision for a few seconds. Basically, your only choice is to hit the dirt and crawl away.

The problem with fragile players are story based games. In a story based game the story teller cannot account for the protagonist dying half way through the story. If a single random bullet can and does kill you, than the pacing of the story telling gets interrupted quite often. Not good.

My problem with cover based shooters is the abuse. Take Mass Effect for example. You walk in a corridor and there are 20 boxes and walls just strewn across the floor in a particular pattern. It becomes obvious that a big firefight is about to erupt. The game is incapable of organic gameplay. It's so dependent on its own tropes that it is one giant spoiler after another.

MoonDragon wrote:

The problem with fragile players are story based games. In a story based game the story teller cannot account for the protagonist dying half way through the story. If a single random bullet can and does kill you, than the pacing of the story telling gets interrupted quite often. Not good.

I think that's a really valid point. SWAT 4's vignettes and Arma 2's open world where you basically create your own stories allow for a more fragile player. In most story-based games, you're essentially a super hero defeating impossible odds and you can't do that if one (errant) shot can kill you. I think that's why Arma's single player, story-driven campaigns can be so frustrating at times.

MoonDragon wrote:

The problem with fragile players are story based games. In a story based game the story teller cannot account for the protagonist dying half way through the story. If a single random bullet can and does kill you, than the pacing of the story telling gets interrupted quite often. Not good.

The place where it works, in my experience, is in stealth-based shooters. The Splinter Cell series is the best example. Story-based and you're easy to kill, but you can thrive from the shadows.

The other problem with fragile players is that no one enjoys dying on the same part for the 20th time.

There are apocryphal stories of people playing Thief: The Dark Project as a sword-fighting game. Yes, it's extremely challenging if you play that way.

Interestingly, stealth games were some of the first to employ "cover-shooter" mechanics, in order to support wall-hugging and peeking around corners.

easy sunday wrote:

Does this realistic damage modeling extend to the player? I love an FPS where the player is more or less toast after one shot. Not only more realistic but also great at raising the stakes.

I thought about it, but honestly I'm not sure. I can see arguments for both. That would probably come down to testing and balancing.

MoonDragon wrote:

My problem with cover based shooters is the abuse. Take Mass Effect for example. You walk in a corridor and there are 20 boxes and walls just strewn across the floor in a particular pattern. It becomes obvious that a big firefight is about to erupt. The game is incapable of organic gameplay. It's so dependent on its own tropes that it is one giant spoiler after another.

Exactly. Hardware is at a point now where we can definitely do more organic gameplay. I understand developers do have to think about game spaces and pacing and such, but that shouldn't be transparent to the player. Assassin's Creed's free run mechanic is a perfect example, where the technology is at the point where the videogame climby bits look just like regular architecture. Developers still have to be aware of the mechanic and make sure we can (or sometimes can't) traverse an area, but the player doesn't need to think about it. It seems organic. A lot of cover shooters feel the opposite for just the reason you describe. Lines of boxes facing each other in every room.

I have a copy of SWAT 4 Gold that I left in the US, actually. I do love that game. Don't think I ever finished all the expansion pack scenarios though... I guess my point for talking about the realism though was really just to speed the shooting up a bit. I definitely feel that precision and mad skillz still have a place in traditional FPS type games. I just don't think those concepts should be applied to every kind of action game as they so often are. 3rd person games, and especially 3rd person cover shooters give you an opportunity for other kinds of gameplay. Watching your character interact with the environment is one of those, which is why I think they should emphasize animations and employ a different shooting mechanic (the big targeting circle I mentioned, for instance).

Anyway, it seems some other people around here are open to the idea of a new (more organic?) style of cover shooter. Any defenders of the current standard?

Arronius wrote:

Anyway, it seems some other people around here are open to the idea of a new (more organic?) style of cover shooter. Any defenders of the current standard?

The current method is gimmicky, but only because game engines don't deal well with emergent use of terrain, e.g. the animations don't line up properly if you try and press up against, say, walls of varying heights. Then you have the problem of guessing player intent with a limited set of inputs. The reason why you "stick" to cover is that the game doesn't know if you mean to simply lean out further, or if you're intending to leave cover entirely or what.

So yes, I'm fine with the control system, but I would love to see better use of adaptable animations to conform to more varied terrain. That is, I'd like to see set piece battleground that are more than just a series of columns and 3-foot tall obstacles.