I don't know exactly which game 'invented' this, but I reckon it could have been Gears of War. And like the automatic health regeneration (apart from Star Luster on the NES I think the first game made it really popluar was Halo 2) it spread over lots of shooters but primary third-person shooters. I got used to it, for a long while, but hell I loved Max Payne 3 for its fast paced gameplay. So much that I re-played the first two games (and realised how surpassing the writing is over the third game, but gameplay-wise it was a blast!). That was when I slightly got bored by the statics of modern third-person shooters but not really annoyed until I played Quantum Break.
For those who aren't familiar with the gameplay of Quantum Break (those who are familiar with it can skip this paragraph):
It's not that QB don't offer a cover system but the hero interacts automatically, means he ducks when behind wall remnants, tables or the like, like Lara Croft since Tomb Raider (2013). This works because it doesn't change anything; no controls (you aren't 'glued' to the wall), no shooting mechanics are changed etc. pp. Everything stays exactly the same except you just are less likely to be hit. So you can play it like any other cover-based shooter but you are encouraged to do not.
How does the game encourage you to not use cover (most of the time)?
Most games simply let you no other choice because enemies are tough, aim well and hit hard. The moment you enter a room you recognize if there's a fight gonna start or not because potential cover is well-placed in that 'arena' (it kind of feels less organic and very... well, game-like). And if you do not use cover you are likely to die. Automatic health regeneration often benefits the cover usage: there are no medical supplies you can use while running guns blazing, or picking anything up that refills your health bar on the way after clipping an enemy enroute to the next cluster of lead-deserving bad guys.
The only way is to avoid fire, means sitting behind a wall and doing nothing. In Quantum Break you have many time-altering abilities to survive or use 'cover' dynamically: you can slow down time, you can build a bullet eating time-bubble around you, you can sprint 10 meters in half a second and you can temporarily freeze enemies (in Max Payne 3 you only have bullet time but also painkillers you can use to survive and out-heal some damage without using cover).
It's refreshing and such a blast to play. I remember first person shooters to be exactly like this, for instance Soldier of Fortune, Quake, Unreal or more modern one like FEAR, RAGE, Hard Reset, Doom or Titanfall... they were and are so dynamic compared to many other third person shooters. And I don't think these modern ones don't HAVE to be like that. It's not a 'feature' per se and shouldn't be.
I tried The Devision, Mafia 3 and re-played the Uncharted series, just to name a fewremember, I only discuss this specific mechanics, not the overall gameplay, plot or writing. And I realise that the fun is noticeable downscaled.
I don't really see a reason why you 'invent' such heavy encouragement of cover-usage as it really slows down the pace of the gameplay. Why would you want that in general for an action game? A well-placed slow intermezzo should be allowed to bring down your adrenalin after or before the (next) climactic shootout. I remember it 'looking cool' to fire blindly over a cover or to see a different animation and my character somewhat interacting with the environment back then. But why building the gameplay around that?
Hence, my question: do YOU still like that? Do you endorse slowing down the pace? Is it a more relaxed gaming experience? What are you thoughts on this?
For those who aren't familiar with the gameplay of Quantum Break (those who are familiar with it can skip this paragraph):
It's not that QB don't offer a cover system but the hero interacts automatically, means he ducks when behind wall remnants, tables or the like, like Lara Croft since Tomb Raider (2013). This works because it doesn't change anything; no controls (you aren't 'glued' to the wall), no shooting mechanics are changed etc. pp. Everything stays exactly the same except you just are less likely to be hit. So you can play it like any other cover-based shooter but you are encouraged to do not.
How does the game encourage you to not use cover (most of the time)?
Most games simply let you no other choice because enemies are tough, aim well and hit hard. The moment you enter a room you recognize if there's a fight gonna start or not because potential cover is well-placed in that 'arena' (it kind of feels less organic and very... well, game-like). And if you do not use cover you are likely to die. Automatic health regeneration often benefits the cover usage: there are no medical supplies you can use while running guns blazing, or picking anything up that refills your health bar on the way after clipping an enemy enroute to the next cluster of lead-deserving bad guys.
The only way is to avoid fire, means sitting behind a wall and doing nothing. In Quantum Break you have many time-altering abilities to survive or use 'cover' dynamically: you can slow down time, you can build a bullet eating time-bubble around you, you can sprint 10 meters in half a second and you can temporarily freeze enemies (in Max Payne 3 you only have bullet time but also painkillers you can use to survive and out-heal some damage without using cover).
It's refreshing and such a blast to play. I remember first person shooters to be exactly like this, for instance Soldier of Fortune, Quake, Unreal or more modern one like FEAR, RAGE, Hard Reset, Doom or Titanfall... they were and are so dynamic compared to many other third person shooters. And I don't think these modern ones don't HAVE to be like that. It's not a 'feature' per se and shouldn't be.
I tried The Devision, Mafia 3 and re-played the Uncharted series, just to name a fewremember, I only discuss this specific mechanics, not the overall gameplay, plot or writing. And I realise that the fun is noticeable downscaled.
I don't really see a reason why you 'invent' such heavy encouragement of cover-usage as it really slows down the pace of the gameplay. Why would you want that in general for an action game? A well-placed slow intermezzo should be allowed to bring down your adrenalin after or before the (next) climactic shootout. I remember it 'looking cool' to fire blindly over a cover or to see a different animation and my character somewhat interacting with the environment back then. But why building the gameplay around that?
Hence, my question: do YOU still like that? Do you endorse slowing down the pace? Is it a more relaxed gaming experience? What are you thoughts on this?
