The New "Auto-Aim" - Half Walls

10 years ago auto-aim was scoffed at, today 99% of games use auto-aim (on console at least).

The next step towards simplification and removal of challenge is 'half-walls'. ME2 was the first game I noticed that the challenge was pretty much gone, just duck behind wall, wait, back into the action.

Do people actually like this mechanic? The only "cool" thing I see about it is seeing your avatar looking like a BA, other than that it pretty much ruins games.

Think about it - with a half wall game the AI HAS TO stay back. No more FPS style where the enemies actually try to advance on you, and put pressure on you.

The cover system is awesome. Good to see more and more games implementing it.IronBass

So you like easy games? Or are you refuting that claim?

Seems like another "remove options from the player" console mechanic.

Enemies don't have to stay back - it just happens that developers make them that way.

I don't see why a game can't have cover system and relatively fast enemies that advance on player, forcing them to move around the enviroment rather than sit behind the same wall. It happened sporadically in ME2 - definitely some of the funnier fights of the games

I miss feeling like a ninja, even Halo did it well and that is a console game.

Half walls are all about making the game easier, and slowing it down. No more "jump, jump, aim down on head, stab guy next to him"

I understand that moving an cursor around is a pain on the consoles, but is the solution to just create tiny fields of necessary movement (for the cursor) ala half walls and corridors?

So you like easy games? Or are you refuting that claim?

Seems like another "remove options from the player" console mechanic.

haberman13

i love cover mechanic games.

sometimes it's done well sometimes it's not.

you take the good with the bad.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

10 years ago auto-aim was scoffed at, today 99% of games use auto-aim (on console at least).

The next step towards simplification and removal of challenge is 'half-walls'. ME2 was the first game I noticed that the challenge was pretty much gone, just duck behind wall, wait, back into the action.

Do people actually like this mechanic? The only "cool" thing I see about it is seeing your avatar looking like a BA, other than that it pretty much ruins games.

Think about it - with a half wall game the AI HAS TO stay back. No more FPS style where the enemies actually try to advance on you, and put pressure on you.

AncientDozer

I would suggest a compromise, because I do agree that blazing guns is dopey.

Why can't we get a combo of a good cover system and dynamic combat? Crysis 2 did it well, yet the "blockbuster" console games are all ME2-ified. So the solution exists, it just seems that your first point is the real issue.

I don't see your point: there's nothing stopping devs from implementing more aggressive AI (ie using flanking, grenades etc. to keep the player from turtling) in games with chest-high walls. In fact even in ME2 (which isn't exactly a bastion of TPS/chest-high wall goodness) there were enemies capable of busting you out of cover (especially the goddamn Praetorians), and IIRC Killzone 2 and Gears both had pretty solid AI on the harder difficulties.

Enemies don't have to stay back...Even in ME2. Some of the enemies advance on you. I'm not seeing the problem. mrmusicman247

90% of ME2 is sitting behind a wall waiting. Yes, a few krogans advance on you, revealing just how terrible the shooting mechanics actually are.

I hate this trend in games. Instead of being able to duck and lean around the environment at your discretion, they have automated it into a cover system; that you have to rigidly abide by.

So you get instances were you want to use something as cover, but the developers decided not to support it. And they have taken away your control of functions such a lean, so you cannot do anything about it.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Enemies don't have to stay back...Even in ME2. Some of the enemies advance on you. I'm not seeing the problem. haberman13

90% of ME2 is sitting behind a wall waiting. Yes, a few krogans advance on you, revealing just how terrible the shooting mechanics actually are.

You mean cover? I like it, half walls may be right though, I hate when it's just a random block in the middle of nowhere.SaltyMeatballs

I don't get the lingo, what the hell is a half wall?

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Enemies don't have to stay back...Even in ME2. Some of the enemies advance on you. I'm not seeing the problem. mrmusicman247

90% of ME2 is sitting behind a wall waiting. Yes, a few krogans advance on you, revealing just how terrible the shooting mechanics actually are.

ME2 is my example. Your inability to counterpoint this exposes the opposing arguments weakness.

Fact is, cover mechanics simplify games, and make them an incredibly boring waiting game.

Beyond that, have any of you played Halo? Is the combat not 1000x more exciting than generic cover shooter X?

I don't get the lingo, what the hell is a half wall?

Masculus

Really? You don't understand what a half wall is, even having never heard the term?

Or ... is this an attempt to deflect the argument into proof-texting?

God. I love the internet. Now taking cover while being shot at is bad. Sweet. Like any other game mechanic if it's done well it's great. If done poorly, It's bad.

There is no all good all bad way. It's all about it's implementation.

I don't get the lingo, what the hell is a half wall?

Masculus

Goldeneye on the N64 has some of the most generous auto-aim I've ever seen.

This isn't a "new" thing for the consoles.

Half-walls are an unfortunate side effect of cover systems. Cover systems are neat but really overdone.

God. I love the internet. Now taking cover while being shot at is bad. Sweet. Like any other game mechanic if it's done well it's great. If done poorly, It's bad.

There is no all good all bad way. It's all about it's implementation.

heretrix

The so called "best games on console" are all half wall ducking games with poor implementation. Why can't we choose where to find cover? Answer: devs can quickly turn out corridor shooters with no AI, I mean really most AI in these games are just turrets with human models.

I like cover too.

The problem I think the TC has really is AI.

We need AI that is smart enough to deal with players in cover. Drop grenades BEHIND the cover, flank properly, use team tactics, etc. But we don't really see that type of AI in cover shooters.

Why? I think AI programming in games is still lagging behind a bit. We need better AI algorythms and better software engineers to create and implement them properly.

Also, we need the consoles to upgrade. Better AI REQUIRES more CPU time.

So I think that cover brings both realism (I mean, in real life who the hell goes charging at a bunch of well entrenched guys with guns?) and it COULD bring in new challenges and require new sets of skills.

But the TC is right, in that with the current state of AI, a cover shooter is just plain old easier.

Goldeneye on the N64 has some of the most generous auto-aim I've ever seen.

This isn't a "new" thing for the consoles.

Wasdie

If you haven't beaten Goldeneye with auto-aim off you haven't played it!

And actually I agree, AI is the real problem, finding cover makes sense (though the magnetic 'cover here only' is also awfully annoying) it's the "I'll just hang back here" AI that basically turns these into bar-based shooting galleries.

Dull. Dopey. Not fun.

I think games being overly scripted is more of an issue than chest high walls are. That said, I don't think comparing it to auto-aim is fair. if you want to play an FPS on consoles, you basically need auto-aim. It's just the nature of the beast.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Goldeneye on the N64 has some of the most generous auto-aim I've ever seen.

This isn't a "new" thing for the consoles.

haberman13

If you haven't beaten Goldeneye with auto-aim off you haven't played it!

I would rather smash my head against a wall than suffer that frustration.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Goldeneye on the N64 has some of the most generous auto-aim I've ever seen.

This isn't a "new" thing for the consoles.

Wasdie

If you haven't beaten Goldeneye with auto-aim off you haven't played it!

I would rather smash my head against a wall than suffer that frustration.

Hahaha, yeah, I did it in college - missed a lot of classes, but loved every minute of it. (maybe I was actually just swearing constantly to myself, its been awhile)

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="haberman13"]

90% of ME2 is sitting behind a wall waiting. Yes, a few krogans advance on you, revealing just how terrible the shooting mechanics actually are.

haberman13

ME2 is my example. Your inability to counterpoint this exposes the opposing arguments weakness.

Fact is, cover mechanics simplify games, and make them an incredibly boring waiting game.

Beyond that, have any of you played Halo? Is the combat not 1000x more exciting than generic cover shooter X?

they have to make the cover system work naturally with the game world, instead of changing the game world to fit with cover systems.

I think red orchestra 2 does this well.

I think games being overly scripted is more of an issue than chest high walls are. That said, I don't think comparing it to auto-aim is fair. if you want to play an FPS on consoles, you basically need auto-aim. It's just the nature of the best.

DarkLink77

they have to make the cover system work naturally with the game world, instead of changing the game world to fit with cover systems.

I think red orchestra 2 does this well.

Jankarcop

This is the answer!!

Cover = good, I use it all the time in BC2

Regening health + dumb AI + half walls = bad (Gears/UC2 for example)

RO2 has the perfect system, total free reign, with various options for cover (prone/mount gun/duck/look around wall)

10 years ago auto-aim was scoffed at, today 99% of games use auto-aim (on console at least).

haberman13

Anyway, I'm not too against 3rd-person cover systems in games... It can be nice in some games, like GRAW on consoles, where getting hit once can mean you lose (GRAW 2 on consoles was insanely easy though...).
It definitely makes lots of games simple even on their hardest modes, though that's because most of those games insist on having the player, usually without some sort of science-fiction-inspired healing system, to instantly repair their flesh.

If a developer is competent and programs the AI to actually do something about the player sitting in one place (beyond throwing an explosive...), the ability to hide behind cover shouldn't really be considered a "cheap" feature.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

I think games being overly scripted is more of an issue than chest high walls are. That said, I don't think comparing it to auto-aim is fair. if you want to play an FPS on consoles, you basically need auto-aim. It's just the nature of the best.

IronBass

Goldeneye on the N64 has some of the most generous auto-aim I've ever seen.

This isn't a "new" thing for the consoles.

Half-walls are an unfortunate side effect of cover systems. Cover systems are neat but really overdone.

Wasdie

its not new to PC either, DOOM had very heavy auto aim as well.

A lot of games with cover system are hard, and cover certainly makes more sense than trying to awkwardly crouch against a wall with games that have no fluid way to attach to walls or cover. Play Autarch's Sanctum of KZ2 on Elite and tell me if the cover system makes that easy...

Oh, goddamn it, you know what I meant. :PDarkLink77

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Enemies don't have to stay back...Even in ME2. Some of the enemies advance on you. I'm not seeing the problem. haberman13

90% of ME2 is sitting behind a wall waiting. Yes, a few krogans advance on you, revealing just how terrible the shooting mechanics actually are.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Enemies don't have to stay back...Even in ME2. Some of the enemies advance on you. I'm not seeing the problem. dkdk999

90% of ME2 is sitting behind a wall waiting. Yes, a few krogans advance on you, revealing just how terrible the shooting mechanics actually are.

Lol, of course he hasn't, he's probably basing all this off of easy, I doubt he can beat KZ2, GeoW, ME2, etc. on the hardest difficulties. Cover doesn't just completely take away difficulty, it just the games make more sense, as no one just stands still or runs around in circles and shoots someone.

"chest high walls" is a better term, "Half walls" doesn't make sense.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

10 years ago auto-aim was scoffed at, today 99% of games use auto-aim (on console at least).

The next step towards simplification and removal of challenge is 'half-walls'. ME2 was the first game I noticed that the challenge was pretty much gone, just duck behind wall, wait, back into the action.

Do people actually like this mechanic? The only "cool" thing I see about it is seeing your avatar looking like a BA, other than that it pretty much ruins games.

Think about it - with a half wall game the AI HAS TO stay back. No more FPS ****where the enemies actually try to advance on you, and put pressure on you.

AncientDozer

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Goldeneye on the N64 has some of the most generous auto-aim I've ever seen.

This isn't a "new" thing for the consoles.

Half-walls are an unfortunate side effect of cover systems. Cover systems are neat but really overdone.

AncientDozer

its not new to PC either, DOOM had very heavy auto aim as well.