PDA

View Full Version : Cover System?



Lo Bruto
11th Aug 2008, 01:12
First of all, let's suppose DX3 will be like the original one in terms of realism in gameplay ( a bullet to the head is lethal ; to the arm make your aim less steady ; etc. )

I don't know why, but some games ( RS Vegas ) ruined my gaming experience. I can't think of a realistic shooter without a cover system. I agree with people saying the cover in the RSV series is not THAT realistic, since you can see the whole background. This issue was 'fixed' with the High Stakes mode in RSV2. The camera is focused on the guy's torso and head, and to look around you have to peak around corners.

I'm the one who says that DX3 is not a Military simulator. And don't need to be one.
But I also think that a cover system IS necessary in realistic games nowadays and without one the game will end just like IW and that Arcade-style crap.

jordan_a
11th Aug 2008, 02:15
Here perhaps? (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=75113)

Lo Bruto
11th Aug 2008, 02:30
No.
Cover during a huge firefight is nothing like sneaking to make a silent kill.

Jimmy Rabbitte
11th Aug 2008, 04:42
You mean like the AI?

What do you mean by cover system? AFAIK every fps lets you hide behind ****.

Romeo
11th Aug 2008, 05:04
No.
Cover during a huge firefight is nothing like sneaking to make a silent kill.
I love stealth too, but it doesn't mean the combat has to suffer. By your logic, we should simply remove ranged weapons, as they arn't necessary when stealth is absolute.

Blade_hunter
11th Aug 2008, 18:21
Taking cover is about moves lean, prone and other features like this, no ?

military simulators are fully realistic, like the game Red orchestra, DX is semi realistic, but it has some military / spec force games features, a cover system is a feature from those games, and the infiltration tactics can be used in both genres.
In DX 1 we have some cover features, the prone move can be an interesting addition to the other moves.

Jimmy Rabbitte
11th Aug 2008, 20:47
Taking cover is about moves lean, prone and other features like this, no ?

military simulators are fully realistic, like the game Red orchestra, DX is semi realistic, but it has some military / spec force games features, a cover system is a feature from those games, and the infiltration tactics can be used in both genres.
In DX 1 we have some cover features, the prone move can be an interesting addition to the other moves.

I don't know, it'd be pretty hard to go prone in a trench coat.

Lo Bruto
11th Aug 2008, 22:24
I meant an active Cover System.
You press a button and you character dive for cover, or put his back on a wall and blind fire.
Just like RSV.

Tsumaru
11th Aug 2008, 23:59
So after saying how Rainbow Six Vegas ruined your gaming experience, you're advocating a system like that for a game which is first and foremost an action-RPG and not a realistic shooter?

jcp28
12th Aug 2008, 00:58
So after saying how Rainbow Six Vegas ruined your gaming experience, you're advocating a system like that for a game which is first and foremost an action-RPG and not a realistic shooter?

I think he means one more like the fixed cover position in High Stakes mode. I admit it didn't look like the main point of his post, since he was just saying we should have a R6 cover mode period. However, I think that was the system he wanted to advocate.

As for me, I could care less. DX isn't a realistic shooter, but on the other hand, I could see the main character having this kind of training.

Lo Bruto
12th Aug 2008, 03:10
So after saying how Rainbow Six Vegas ruined your gaming experience, you're advocating a system like that for a game which is first and foremost an action-RPG and not a realistic shooter?

DX was not a kind of realistic shooter?
In my opinion any shooter where a slug to the head is lethal, is semi-realistic at least. It's not like UT or Invisible War. Did you get it?

DX may be an RPG, but it's a FPS in the first place.
And "FPS" breaks into two categories, Realistic and Arcade.

Romeo
12th Aug 2008, 06:27
Well, actually it's fragmented into a number of catagories, with realism/arcade just being one scale in which to judge them. Personally, I've hated almost every cover system, save for Army of Two and Gears of War, which actually felt like a real firefight (Well, they felt like paintballing, which is the extent of my warfare experience), even moreso than "true" sim-shooted like R6. However, I noticed when playing Call of Duty 4, whether there's a system in place or not, you'll take cover. Besides, pulling into third-person provides an unfair advantage in the sense you can see people when the can't see you.

Lo Bruto
12th Aug 2008, 07:08
Besides, pulling into third-person provides an unfair advantage in the sense you can see people when the can't see you.

I agree 100% with you, Romeo.
That's why I mentioned the 'High Stakes' mode in V2. The camera focus only on your torso, and you have to peak around to spot where the enemies are.

The cover system of GoW is also a great example.

Tsumaru
12th Aug 2008, 08:48
DX was not a kind of realistic shooter?
In my opinion any shooter where a slug to the head is lethal, is semi-realistic at least. It's not like UT or Invisible War. Did you get it?

DX may be an RPG, but it's a FPS in the first place.
And "FPS" breaks into two categories, Realistic and Arcade.

Actually, I disagree on all of these points. I can't really remember if UT isn't headshot-lethal (I know the sniper rifle certainly is) or IW (I thought it was only the hugely duked out Templars who were resistant; and that was the point) - but assuming what you say is correct, in my opinion that just emphasises the suckiness of IW; not illustrate the realism of DX1.

In my mind, an FPS simply cannot claim to be realistic without physics, bullet drop and all that. You would also need to be cut to pieces by guns easily - as would the enemies. Even if Deus Ex was a FPS first and foremost (which I will address below), it is not in any way a realistic one if you ask me. You can stand up to heaps of gunfire, and so can the enemies. Just because there is lethal headshots doesn't mean it's realistic - it just means it doesn't suck giant hairy balls.

I always played the game feeling that Deus Ex was actually an action-RPG in the first place. Emphasis is placed on augs, skills, storyline and the ability to make choices - including gameplay choices (stealth, non-lethality etc). These are all elements of an RPG. FPS' usually have a completely linear storyline, no customisation of character in the slightest, and they just give you hundreds of guns to slaughter with. Stealth certainly isn't a major part of any FPS I've played, let alone non-lethal alternatives. Here are a few other websites/groups which class Deus Ex as an action-RPG, or at least as something OTHER than an FPS first and foremost:
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex "a cyberpunk-themed action role-playing game"
Eidos http://www.eidosgames.com/games/info.html?gmid=109 They classify it as "action-adventure"; which is a lot closer to action-RPG than FPS.
Warren Spector himself http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20001206/spector_01.htm This one I can't quote, but he defines it as "genre-busting" and "part-" for both. However, reading his explanation on each part, it comes off as FPS being hardly the major point in my opinion. You will note that FPS has a "however" and points out how it differs from the FPS genre, which RPG does not. You will furthermore see that what it DOES have of the FPS genre is predominantly focussing on the first-person part (which is not a distinction from RPGs, if you take a look at Oblivion for example). Reading about the preparation for the game you will also notice how he drafts a "Rules for Role Playing" as a guideline - emphasising how intimate the nature of an RPG is to the construction of Deus Ex.
I get the impression both while playing and while reading about the game from external sources that Deus Ex is only an FPS in so much as it's first-person, and you can shoot guns (and in that case - you can also probably play the entire game without shooting a single gun). More predominantly it comes off as being an action-adventure game with strong RPG elements set in a modern world (thus guns instead of swords... although note the number of melee weapons).



I believe if DX3 was constructed as a realistic shooter, you would completely lose the feel of the game. I, for one, don't want to play where I have to be scared of every single bullet that comes at me - and that's what realistic shooter means to me. You will only be able to take a few hits, and then that's the end of it. A degree of realism is good - you don't want to be able to stand there and still be fine after the enemies unload three mags each into your torso. But at the same time, I personally with a game like Deus Ex want to feel that physical superiority. I want to be able to jump right over their heads, come down and slash them to pieces with the absurdly unrealistic Dragon Sword. And if I take a few rounds in the back while that happens - oh well, I guess I'm gonna need to keep to the shadows now until I can find a medkit or whatever.

In terms of cover, as I haven't played High Stakes, I can't comment on that. But I do feel a system like Rainbow Six Vegas would be completely out of place in Deus Ex. Even if it is fixed to make you first person still. It just would feel completely wrong to me. I can see prone working in the game, but I also don't think it would need to be applied much (if at all). Not unless the AI was really supremely good and it could be used in terms of hiding in the shadows or something - maybe crawling along a rooftop where crouching would have you seen. But this would end up being too tedious if that was the case. I think the DX1 system worked really well. Most crazy gunfighting manouevers and cover systems and stuff only really implement well in third person if you ask me. I could feasibly see a Max Payne type system working for a Deus Ex game - but obviously it has to be third person then.

Blade_hunter
12th Aug 2008, 09:57
In UT the only weapons that not allow HS are the pistol / assault rifle and the miniguns, for balance only the snipers and razor jack are the only weapons that allows the HS
And in any shooter a slug in head is lethal it's false Old games haven't this feature and the game HL2 a headshot isn't lethal I need to fire dozens of bullets to take dawn a soldier like HL 1.

About FPS we have 3 categories not two, Realistic, Mid range and Arcade

DX is a mid range FPS in the FPS part about the cover system is a new kind of move. active or passive system is a special move
the basic moves in a FPS are considerated the the moves allowed in Duke Nukem 3D
And about max payne moves and tomb raider mover or what we want we can keep the first person view but we must see our body like FEAR
DX is have an infiltration part like Thief games an active and no games have a cover system, cover is a move, and this move make us "covered"

if we use a button to make us covered and use the jump key to see upside the crate and fire, and the srafe buttons to lean it's not a cover system it's a cover action that allow moves and stay covered

When I see some vids of GOW or even R6 Vegas they don't use a cover system it's a move that allow other moves based on the cover move.
In DX 1 when you are on heavy fire you go behind a wall or a crate and fire when you are ready.

ikenstein
12th Aug 2008, 11:47
clear sky is out an a couple weeks and i think it has a new cover system. if it is good deus ex 3 should use it.


just hope they get some better translaters than they had for shadow of chernobel, but i'm not holding my breath 'What awaits you, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, in the Zone that changed?' lol

Romeo
13th Aug 2008, 04:37
I agree 100% with you, Romeo.
That's why I mentioned the 'High Stakes' mode in V2. The camera focus only on your torso, and you have to peak around to spot where the enemies are.

The cover system of GoW is also a great example.
Well, in Gears it's not really an advantage - you're expected to take cover for that advantage, but now that you mention it, yes, R6V2 was a pretty fair system.

Bloodwolf806
15th Aug 2008, 19:24
A cover system is a must.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:14
Perhaps we should make a poll for this thread...

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:26
I meant an active Cover System.
You press a button and you character dive for cover, or put his back on a wall and blind fire.
Just like RSV.
That would be idiotic. It's like having a button to land a plane in a flight sim. Seriously.

I agree that there should be some new moves. Since DX3 will run on Underworld engine, they might as well keep a few of the Lara's moves. Except, maybe trim them a little, so that they don't look like you are worried more about getting 10s from Judges than about getting the task done.

But there shouldn't be a button to dive for cover. You press a button, character dives and rolls in direction you pointed. Yes, with all the confusing camera tumbling along the way. It's your job to try and make sure that this results in you being behind cover, and not in a middle of empty room surrounded by men with machine guns who are under strong impression that your diet is low on led.

There should be no cover system in FPS. Ever. There should simply be more freedom to move.

On a side note, a body awareness system is a must for DX3.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:31
Although you were a little mean in your explanation, K^2, I do agree with a certain aspect: Diving for cover only works in third person. In first-person, it would be too confusing. But your comparison of a button to land and cover is idiotic, K^2. For one, we do have buttons to land, smart guy. Secondly, we only have so much to work with in videogames, so if you want more realism, enjoy diving behind your coach K^2, the rest of us will appreciate the standard button-system.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:57
There is a difference between pressing a button to land and using buttons to control landing.

I'm fine with using buttons to control a dive for cover. I just don't like the idea of pushing the button, and letting the game decide where the cover is and going for it all on its own.

jcp28
15th Aug 2008, 21:04
There is a difference between pressing a button to land and using buttons to control landing.

I'm fine with using buttons to control a dive for cover. I just don't like the idea of pushing the button, and letting the game decide where the cover is and going for it all on its own.

That makes sense, but it'd still be cool if there was some way to duck behind a wall if you were being fired on. I have played games like what you have described, and I ended up getting pretty mad after 5-10 minutes of trying the same thing and falling off a ledge/getting shot up/whatever.

But the more I think about it, the more useless it seems to me to have a tactical-shooter style cover system in what is essentially an RPG that happens to have some shooter elements. Some of the shooting elements could be more fleshed out, but unless your character was a professional soldier, it wouldn't work here.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 21:11
There is a difference between pressing a button to land and using buttons to control landing.

I'm fine with using buttons to control a dive for cover. I just don't like the idea of pushing the button, and letting the game decide where the cover is and going for it all on its own.
There is literally computer programs for commercial jets which are activated by simply pushing a button in case pilots become incapacitated. So... No. lol

El_Bel
15th Aug 2008, 21:25
Leaning is very good cover system.
Dodging for cover should be done like in Unreal 3. Double tap the direction button.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 22:09
There is literally computer programs for commercial jets which are activated by simply pushing a button in case pilots become incapacitated. So... No. lol
Which are only possible with Class III ILS and GPS and only on certain airports. And these aren't used for anything other than dire emergencies because they can fail so easily. If, say, US Govt pulls the switch on GPS, which they have done once, after 9/11, this system is screwed, because it won't even be able to find the runway. There is a good reason why you aren't allowed to land on a runway unless you can see it, even if all your Nav equipment tells you its right there.

I'm trying to get my Private Pilot's, so I had to study all that junk. Though, I haven't done any landings myself yet, so its all just from theory.

ewanlaing
15th Aug 2008, 23:19
I think these can be dealt with simply.

Since the game is first person, and will be probably use the standard first person control system (WASD and mouse), then you can simply choose your own cover and crouch behind it.
That's about as realistic as the game can get I think. Things like Gears of War and Rainbow Six are, as someone already pointed out, in fact LIMITING your options for cover, and are therefore less realistic (and, less Deus Ex!).

That's my view anyway.

Also, hi everyone.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 23:46
Right. That's what we did in DX and IW, and that's how DX3 should be. The only question is if maybe some new moves can be added to make it more realistic or more tactical.

For one thing, I think air ducts are unrealistically huge. I don't think they should be gotten rid of, but maybe make them smaller and add a crawl option?

Romeo
16th Aug 2008, 00:03
I think these can be dealt with simply.

Since the game is first person, and will be probably use the standard first person control system (WASD and mouse), then you can simply choose your own cover and crouch behind it.
That's about as realistic as the game can get I think. Things like Gears of War and Rainbow Six are, as someone already pointed out, in fact LIMITING your options for cover, and are therefore less realistic (and, less Deus Ex!).

That's my view anyway.

Also, hi everyone.
I wouldn't say that Gears of War limits your cover options at all. However yes, as I pointed out, people find cover in games like Call of Duty anyways. As long as the environment is adequete, cover shouldn't be an issue.

Blade_hunter
16th Aug 2008, 03:27
For cover we can use the crouch - prone - lean functions for dodge moves like unreal games or max payne for example

The thing I never want it's that crap of view autoswitch * la R6 vegas because it kills the immersion....
Moves in 3rd person shooters can be applied by staying in the first person view, I always think about it and the upcoming game mirror's edge is a proof of my think.

Some special moves like the special dodge moves must be accessed by a skill (Agility)

Tsumaru
16th Aug 2008, 05:05
your comparison of a button to land and cover is idiotic, K^2. For one, we do have buttons to land, smart guy. Secondly, we only have so much to work with in videogames, so if you want more realism, enjoy diving behind your coach K^2, the rest of us will appreciate the standard button-system.

Romeo that was a touch abrasive, I think you should apologise. ;)

gamer0004
16th Aug 2008, 06:31
For one thing, I think air ducts are unrealistically huge. I don't think they should be gotten rid of, but maybe make them smaller and add a crawl option?
I'd love to have a crawl option, but I've been looking around and air vents often actually are very big.

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 06:46
mirror's edge is a proof of my think.
Indeed. If anyone doesn't know what Hunter's talking about, find a gameplay trailer of Mirror's Edge from E3. That game pushes body awareness idea to the limit, and it works. Eidos guys should definitely erm... borrow a few ideas from that game.

I'd love to have a crawl option, but I've been looking around and air vents often actually are very big.
For reference, in DX they are half of the character's height. I know that some really big buildings have ducts that big, but this is not realistic for most smaller buildings. Usually, there'd be only one shaft that big, and the rest would be just big enough for a skinny and flexible person to crawl through.

CarloGervasi
16th Aug 2008, 07:13
I personally prefer "just put something solid between you and the bullets" to "press something on your keyboard to be glued to a wall in a cinematic, hollywood, totally non-realistic position, ie with your back to the wall, looking at the camera instead of where the bullets are coming from". I would like the proper animations to be done for the AI to look like it's using a cover system, and for the player so that when I'm taking cover behind a wall, I'm not holding my pistol with both arms fully extended, but other than that, no cover system.

EDIT: I do, however, support body awareness to it's fullest degree. Not being able to see myself in a game that's using the first-person perspective, something that's built for immersion, is kinda weird IMO.

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 07:37
This is roughly how it worked in IW. When you hugged a wall or any other cover, the arms went in closer to the body. That happened even if you backed into a wall.

jordan_a
16th Aug 2008, 18:13
The cover system is linked to the camera right? So if it's a 1st person one, leaning should be enough.

---

New! Cover system (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=79054)

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 19:42
The cover system is linked to the camera right? So if it's a 1st person one, leaning should be enough.
See, this is part of the problem. If you can't see the guards, it doesn't mean they cannot see you and cannot shoot you. They can. Body awareness, and all that. This means that even if you are just sitting behind some box, unable to see the guard, some part of you might be sticking out and getting shot at. Which is why additional cover options would be good.

jcp28
16th Aug 2008, 20:38
Romeo that was a touch abrasive, I think you should apologise. ;)

lol. Nice to turn his own back on him, eh?

Abram730
26th Oct 2008, 05:36
something like this (kinda Pascal :lol:) but you get the idea.

function Cloaked(target, range);
If target.cloaking then cloaked;
....GetLightValue(target).........

if Cloaked(target, range-EyeMod)

Laokin
27th Oct 2008, 04:47
I disagree with most people in this forum about this issue, but it's been well discussed already.

Anyhow, with that said -- I believe a conext sensitive cover system is a must. Crouching and leaning doesn't cut it... not without having some kind of dynamic height crouching associated with the object your hiding behind. Now, it shouldn't snap you to the wall... you should still be able to freely move about, but say there is a low wall and your moving into it and acrossed it, your character should automatically duck to keep his head low, while displaying an animation that you are infact leaning on the wall.... since your traveling into it anyhow. In other words.... Army of Two. It features an auto-cover system, all you have to do is crouch, and he will look like he's behind cover but not hinder your movement like Gears of War. This introduced new problems though. On said problem, would be the camera snapping to the wrong side of cover. This could still be a problem if you locked it in first person. Anybody who has played paintball and took it serious for a little bit will tell you, you must learn to shoot with both hands. While in cover in real life, if you are on the left side of the object, you must shoot lefty.... or you will be twisted/hamstringed, and expose more of your body to fire. Seems easy enough to debug.... and add a new animation in instanced like this ofcourse. The bottom line is, the cover system hasn't been done right just yet -- but is INFACT needed for the future of immersion. Crouching behind a box with a static head height really breaks immersion for me, as in real life..... I'd make sure A.) my cover is adequate, and B.) I'm low enough not to be seen. GoW and GTA4, were made to be Arcade style shooters... While R6V was obviously plugging in the new hot feature, instead of innovating it a little further.

The main purpose of cover, is to simulate a realistic battle environment. You want battle to play out.... well, believable. Crouch/lean combo is clunky and not very well thought out for modern day shooters. In short, it's just a little old school... even if the new school isn't perfected yet, that is definitely the course that should be pursued.

You don't have to snap to 3rd person, you don't have to assign movement to a different range based on context action.... you just have to make cover believable. In reality, it would seem like you just ducked down behind a box... but if you were to perceive it from 3rd person.... your avatar MUST look like he is infact in a life or death situation.... not so, how do we say... casual like James Bond shooting 7 people whilst he is on one knee in the middle of a ball room with no cover..... this just doesn't feel real. I know if I was getting shot at and I was out numbered.... the minute I exposed myself -- I'd get dead.

This doesn't mean I want to see leaning go... it just needs to be reinvented. A step in the right direction was made with Medal of Honor Airborne. In MoH:A, you have a 4 axis lean. Left, Right, Up, and down.... the only problem is, up and down should be automatic relevant to the height of the object you crouched behind. Holding a modifier, and pushing strafe could lean you..... or you can just go Q and E, but I'd like to see leaning as a standard mouse 5. While you hold the lean key, you can still move... still aim, but aiming to the left would lean you to the left.... analogously. The issue is... how do you stop the player from doing the fish out of water "flop" when moving and leaning at the same time. You can make leaning context sensitive... automatic... when near the edge of a wall. This is the future of cover systems. Less push this button... and more automation.

Anybody... trained or untrained, were to hear gunshots... instinct tells them to get down. You don't need to be trained to know... hiding behind things = survival, it's instinct.... so even if you game isn't military.... and it's in the shoes of the average Joe, he should still get low, you can justify lack of training by giving him a scared/nervous/unprofessional frantic panic induced style of animations..... just keep him low during the fire fight.

This doesn't change the difficulty much.... other than allow the A.I. to proceed to become more realistic... while at the same time, allowing you to play it seamlessly and as simple as just crouching behind a box... or standing right at the edge of the wall.... by the corner of a hallway. You can make it so if you literally put your back to the wall, and are within a game unit distance, you auto slim to the wall.... then have to strafe left and right to keep your lower profile.... and if you push left and reach a corner... with your back to the wall, you could do a tactical peak, and if weapon drawn... allow you to literally blind fire.......(not GoW that lets you Aim your BLIND fire... how contradicting) or lean out and fire from a slim/low profile.

For people saying it doesn't get much more real then crouching behind a box..... that's where your imagination fails you... nothing is impossible, technology moves forward. It just takes the genius to finally get it right.

Stop the hate and hope that somewhere some one with the ability to program with talent... has the same thought process as me. It's a simple If/Or programming instruction. The game engine must be able to store variables into the environment.... these variables would tell the animation system what height to crouch at... or what interaction the player model will have with the wall. Then the A.I. needs to be programmed on a real line of sight.... and be thoroughly debugged. The light system should be incorporated.... but not like DX 1, it shouldn't be the be all end all in stealth... it should just be another variable in the distance you can be without being seen. In other words.... you make a level at night, it's very easy to move unseen at night in real life.... try it, it's super simple.... but that doesn't mean that some one who can look directly at you wouldn't see you. For one, you probably wouldn't cast many shadows.... for two, you can't differentiate color without light.... so objects can literally blend together... mind you, if you were just standing in a shadow in a hallway... you would be spotted 100% of the time in real life. Myth busters busted this.... the only way you can be invisible is in 100% blackness.... 0% light. I must also point out... it's not very common to see rooms of concrete with no windows.... and if you do see them, they are often just a closet. Security... ALWAYS has flashlights.... so don't think the light system should be back in that respect. It should be 90% cover, whereas there should be a % multiplier for light/cover combo... while light should just give you a closer range to not be seen... but nothing point blank on it's own.

mr_cyberpunk
27th Oct 2008, 04:49
Cover systems suck.. Implement the one that Brothers in Arms 1 used as that beats all other cover systems EVER INVENTED! and the game was an FPS stuck in First Person.

This third person crap is just flavor of the month at best.

GmanPro
29th Oct 2008, 17:56
Going third person for just a few seconds at a time doesn't bother me at all. I don't know why everyone thinks it is the end of the world. Fallout 3 is doing something like this, when you use VATS to pwn someone it will zoom out to third person and show you looking all badass in slowmo. Which is what I think EM is going for here with this third person stuff. So long as it is used sparingly and properly then it CAN be really cool and cinematic.