Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Decline popamole

Machocruz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
4,318
Location
Hyperborea
I'd reckon average Gears consumer didn't care about mechanics, just saw a game with impressive spectacle and marketing onslaught. Game became big because of those things plus good critical reception. Popamole combat proliferated because of the nature of game companies to emulate distinct features of monetarily successful games in the hopes that those features will make their game a success regardless of whether or not it works in concert with other aspects of their game. I have yet to see any of these companies present evidence that this is causation and not mere correlation, but there you go.
 

KILLER BEAR

Educated
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
133
What I'm curious to know is why is Gears of War blamed for introducing third person auto cover mechanics, when it was first featured in WinBack. But according to sources, WinBack took the concept from Metal Gear Solid anyway. So who's to blame now? :M

AFAIK the mechanic was introduced by Kill Switch, but it was definitely with Gears that it became really popular.

MGS doesn't have cover shooting BTW.
 

Gentle Player

Arcane
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
2,334
Location
Britain
Gears of War had a profound visceral and emotional impact on me: I nearly burst a blood vessel when I saw, splashed across the box cover of my new copy of UT 3, "from the makers of Gears of War!". I understand why they did it (then again UT 2k4 was only three or four years older, was it not, and had hardly faded into obscurity), but still... :argh:
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
You've got to be kidding, dude. It's low bar, not high. Slow movement speed including inability to shoot while sprinting, a considerable lack of variables at play including the very basics such as the inability to crouch and jump on demand. Cover-based etc.
This is why I asked if you played the multiplayer, the multiplayer component was a different thing that it's single player.
 

Soulcucker

Savant
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
235
The main problem with Gears is the encounter design in the single player where the designers were too afraid of frustrating the player. Mechanically both in terms of design and execution (minus a few issues like button overloading) Gears is far above average, playing the MP or horde mode at a high level is probably required to appreciate it.

Complaining about not being able to shoot while sprinting or the inability to jump on demand really shows a lack of understanding of Gears' design. Having well defined modal states for the player is key to making the cover system work, a cover system that forces the player to consider positioning and the timing of their movements in the open. Allowing the player to shoot while sprinting or to jump on demand would erase the constraints of the cover system and thus any strategic considerations that the cover system forces on the player. Granted this is the codex so it is not surprising to see a bunch of meme criticisms (often with a kernel of truth) snowballed together to prove that Gears is essentially a light gun game with pretty graphics :roll:.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Complaining about not being able to shoot while sprinting or the inability to jump on demand really shows a lack of understanding of Gears' design

>trying to appear informed and monocled in the defense of a on-rails, utterly simplistic, uninspired and monotonous cover shooter.

Learn to read, popamole kid. I never "complained" about not being able to sprint while shooting etc. I simply stated those are some of the things that attribute to the skill cap being low, as far as shooters go. I would have pointed out those aspects in detail in my initial posts, otherwise. Furthermore even if I were to make a big deal over those things it'd be valid. They were given as examples of a lack of variables in play and a low skill cap. I don't need a damn lecture that giving the player freedom to do things is not always a good idea in relation to the rest of a game's design, not that the rest of Gear's design is worth waving off the introduction of any particular mechanics. It'd be more interesting and engaging if the developers just came up with a bunch of systems and mechanics at random and threw it all together to see what happens, balance and consistency be damned.
A game consisting entirely of State A (popping moles from cover) and State B (moving to the next piece of cover) is not a fucking good thing. It's not far removed from Tic Tac Toe. Do you play that on the regular too? Oh sorry, some elements of combat also make use of dodging, that must make it worthy of defense. :roll:

The main problem with Gears is the encounter design in the single player where the designers were too afraid of frustrating the player.

The main problem is it is garbage entirely for-profit game design, and low standard cucks like you that support that practice.
 
Last edited:

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Having well defined modal states for the player is key to making the cover system work, a cover system that forces the player to consider positioning and the timing of their movements in the open.

-Enemy aggression, placement, accuracy etc does that. Any shooter with aggressive and moderately intelligent AI, such as STALKER, forces you to time and really consider movement between cover. You don't need to remove 90% of typical shooter design in the process.
Again though, I was merely pointing out that those things set the skill cap low. Plenty games I like don't let you shoot while sprinting. STALKER is one of them.
-Making the "cover system work", and that's mostly all the game consists of (i.e making the game tic tac toes' distant grandson) is not a respectable design goal.
-Play moar games.

To be fair it plays more like Chess rather than Tic Tac Toe, but there are any number of more interesting alternatives if that is what one is after. And that's only referring to the multiplayer, which is clearly the stance you are coming from. I'm primarily focusing on the singleplayer which has no merit whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Hoplopfheil

Literate
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
27
Location
Deimos
What I'm curious to know is why is Gears of War blamed for introducing third person auto cover mechanics, when it was first featured in WinBack. But according to sources, WinBack took the concept from Metal Gear Solid anyway. So who's to blame now? :M

AFAIK the mechanic was introduced by Kill Switch, but it was definitely with Gears that it became really popular.

MGS doesn't have cover shooting BTW.

Negative, Ghost Rider. Operation: Winback (1999) beat it out by 4 years. There were other games in the intervening years that allowed taking cover, and shooting from cover (like Splinter Cell), but Winback more or less codified all the elements we expect now. Kill.Switch just popularized it.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Kill Switch was utter shit too. I thought the game was a financial bust though and didn't manage to popularize anything. Perhaps not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Switch_(video_game)

As a relatively straightforward third-person shooter, the most distinguishing characteristic of Kill Switch is its cover system, a mechanic that has the player character taking cover behind objects and around corners in a manner similar to Namco's own Time Crisis series of light gun shooters

:lol:

I used to play Time Crisis at the arcade to pass the time, as I'm sure many kids of that era would have. It was the light gun gimmick that was the selling point, otherwise it was mediocre and certainly had nothing on "real" shooters/games of the time.

Kill Switch was regarded as having a thin plot and simplistic level design, but the gameplay mechanics such as the cover system were considered engaging.

Exchanging gunfire with bots from behind cover with little to no other variables in play is "engaging", apparently.
 
Last edited:

Soulcucker

Savant
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
235
CyberP I mean autismo Ash, playing semantic games is no way to argue, even on the codex. Though regardless of how you try to spin your argument about sprinting it still shows how little understanding of the game you have when you think that erasing or minimizing the very thing that forces strategic thinking on the part of the player will raise the skillcap.

A game consisting entirely of State A (popping moles from cover) and State B (moving to the next piece of cover) is not a fucking good thing. It's not far removed from Tic Tac Toe. Do you play that on the regular too? Oh sorry, some elements of combat also make use of dodging, that must make it worthy of defense. :roll:

-Enemy aggression, placement, accuracy etc does that, dummy. Any shooter with good aggressive moderately intelligent AI, such as STALKER, forces you to time and really consider movement between cover. You don't need to prevent the player from shooting while sprinting, remove the ability to crouch, or anything of the sort in the process.
-Making the "cover system work" and eveythig revolve entirely around it, and that's mostly all the game consists of (i.e making the game tic tac toes' distant grandson) is not a respectable design goal.

Reduces down to Tic Tac Tow :roll:, this statement reminds me of when people think they are smart for saying that X sport is just about putting Y in Z all while leaving out the how. It is cute how you leave out any consideration of which piece of cover one should move to, when should one leave cover, should one use grenades to flush out enemies or should one flank, should one try to rush for a power weapon, should one try to meat shield, all the various type of play-counter play interactions, ect, ect. Making the player's state discrete is about making choices consequential, if you could shoot while sprinting or jump it would reduce the need of the player to calculate a risk/reward heuristic before/while positioning. Gears is about dynamic moment to moment combat with plenty of play-counter play, I fail to see why you make a comparison with STALKER. While a great game, the combat in STALKER mostly revolves around resource management and picking off enemies from a far (or wall leaning), it is not a shining example of dynamic combat that makes use of cover. Having a game revolve around a narrow set of mechanics is fine, though I suspect a kitchen sink style modder such as yourself will have a hard time understanding that both depth and breadth based designs have worth.

-Play moar games.

So have you actually played Gears' MP or horde past wave 30?

The main problem is it is garbage entirely for-profit game design, and low standard cucks like you that support that practice.

Only a commie or a cuck would make his labor available for free and then proceed to decry developers for pursuing profit while he lives off donations and food stamps. So which are you?:russia: or :selfhate:
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Making the player's state discrete is about making choices consequential, if you could shoot while sprinting or jump it would reduce the need of the player to calculate a risk/reward heuristic before/while positioning.

Still ranting on about an example that was merely given as to one reason why the game's skill cap is low, to highlight the low number of possible variables in play...
You do know that there's strategy involved with every multiplayer game right, and that GoW set a very low bar on an objective level purely on the grounds that combat is so stationary and there's very little variables involved compared to other shooters that the player has to master and form new winning strategies or counter-strategies with. The majority of the strategy and skill involved in GoW is based on cover positioning and cover positioning alone. That was my point, and it's a big reason why it is generally derided among the old school, in case you missed it.

I suspect a kitchen sink style modder such as yourself will have a hard time understanding that both depth and breadth based designs have worth.

Lol, you've got to be kidding. Gears has neither depth nor breadth. Additionally I am know for offering both depth and breadth, do not speak of what you do not understand. Complexity is only simplicity multiplied, and ideally the majority of new additions to the stack adds both breadth and depth.

I condone your bravery for coming out as a popamole fag, but now someone should host an intervention for your poor cuckolded soul.


So have you actually played Gears' MP or horde past wave 30?

Yes. Can I sign up for MLG and free mountain dew now?

I henceforth consider your opinion on anything gaming utterly redundant. Enjoy popping your moles.
 
Last edited:

Soulcucker

Savant
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
235
Still ranting on about an example that was merely given as to one reason why the game's skill cap is low, to highlight the low number of possible variables in play...
You do know that there's strategy involved with every multiplayer game right, and that GoW set a very low bar on an objective level purely on the grounds that combat is so stationary and there's very little variables involved compared to other shooters that the player has to master and form new winning strategies or counter-strategies with. The majority of the strategy involved in GoW is based on cover positioning and cover positioning alone. That was my point, and it's a big reason why it is generally derided among the old school, in case you missed it.

Skillcap is defined by far more than the number of variable in play. Just on the strategic level a game with few variables but with a large/deep permutation space will have a higher skill cap than a game with many variables but a small/shallow permutation space. One could also go on discussing how execution skill or game economy or many other factors affect skillcap. I would guess that most of the oldfags that deride Gears do so because it is an emblematic game that they associate with the decline of gaming and the rise of the modern broshooter.

Lol, you've got to be kidding. Gears has neither depth nor breadth. Additionally I am know for offering both depth and breadth, do not speak of what you do not understand. Complexity is only simplicity multiplied, and ideally the majority of new additions to the stack adds both breadth and depth.

I condone your bravery for coming out as a popamole fag, but now someone should host an intervention for your poor cuckolded soul.

Go back to your cuckshed and finish up GMDX 9.0, we only enjoy your autismo in game form.

Yes. Can I sign up for MLG and free mountain dew now?

I henceforth consider your opinion on anything gaming utterly redundant. Enjoy popping your moles.
I would advise you not drink mountain dew if you are living off donations and food stamps, dentist visits can get expensive :positive:.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Go back to your cuckshed and finish up GMDX 9.0, we only enjoy your autismo in game form.

"We" as in the different bands of cuck, furry and manchild I piss off when I bash their decline, and now it's your turn. Don't try to appeal to the masses. I doubt anyone else is going to claim GoW is anything noteworthy.
We all probably have a one-off guilty decline pleasure, but Gears of War faggotry is an objective case of poor taste, sorry. ;) If somebody were to bash my guilty pleasure I would let them have at it and acknowledge the decline-enabling.
 

Durandal

Arcane
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
2,117
Location
New Eden
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
Out of interest for this thread I "appropriated" a PC copy of the first Gears of War. I've only played about one hour on the second difficulty (Hardcore?) and I can't really see this getting any better down the line, though I will try.

Not really liking the bulletspongy nature of the enemies. The difficulty descriptions said Hardcore mode was intended for those who can score headshots, but it takes about 15-25 shots to the head with the Lancer or that burst fire weapon the Locust drop regardless of the damage boost a perfect Active Reload is supposed to grant, making me wonder why I should even bother with aiming for the head. The Active Reload is a pretty cool gimmick, though I feel it's too easy to consistently get perfect reloads.

Despite all my squadmates telling me to flank everything, the element of surprise is lost when it takes a zillion bullets to kill one grunt anyways, so the stealthier option would seem to be to sneak up on enemies with your loud chainsaw bayonet, except the enemy AI must be psychic considering they somehow know the position of the big burly man trying to flank them from behind without even looking at him. Flanking more or less works when the enemies are kept occupied by your allies, otherwise it just gives you the advantage of being able to shoot at enemies without them being protected by cover, even moreso through blindfiring.

The chainsaw bayonet is only really effective against enemies around corners and those trying to vault over cover, but that's understandable given its instakill nature. I don't know why you'd use the melee attacks on other weapons though.

I did notice enemies can be crippled by shooting them in the legs who can be promptly finished off with a stomp or apparently used as body shields with the pistol (have yet to try it out myself), though I don't know how useful that is given that the pistol feels rather weak. I don't know whether I'm supposed to be aiming for the legs or head.

The basic combat seems to follow this loop of 'pop out and shoot some enemies in the head until you tank too much damage and then pop back as your health regenerates and you reload your gun', which feels like it can get pretty repetitive. Now one thing I did notice is that it's possible to reduce damage taken by moving to another piece of cover where you're exposed to less enemies and are thus able to deal more damage before you have to sit back and regenerate. Most encounters thus far seem to allow this. Grenades also allow you to bypass the protection cover grants to enemies by blowing them up or flushing them out, but there's this GODAWFUL delay between pressing the throw button and the grenade actually being thrown which makes it unnecessarily more dangerous to throw an aimed grenade than it already is.

The overall design does strongly encourage you to utilize cover, though it doesn't do much to encourage one to flank all the time because playing it full popamole style works just fine thanks to the regenerating health. Games like FEAR and (at times) Wolfenstein: TNO which primarily featured hitscan enemies made flanking appear like an obviously more effective choice as it let you avoid hitscan damage by letting you get the drop on enemies before they could even aim at you, made even more obvious by the fact that health in those games was limited and thus should rather be preserved. By playing offensively and putting yourself at more risk, you can offset a whole lot of potential damage.

Add regenerating health into the mix, and there's way less reason to worry about getting hit. You'd think that regenerating health would encourage one to play recklessly, but GoW asks the opposite from you given how quickly you get damaged outside of cover, since health management is too much for console casuals. It's possible to play offensively in GoW, it just doesn't seem to encourage you to do so by design, so your squadmates have to tell you about it, which is kinda lazy.

The AI isn't too noteworthy either. They can utilize cover much like you, but they're not as aggressive as I had hoped. They don't seem to know how to flank you either, so chalk that up as wasted potential.

I hear that the MP and Horde mode are supposed to be this game strongest points, but I assume that the community for the PC version of this game is really very dead and I don't know if I can maintain enough energy and motivation to get to Horde Mode as the campaign is already boring me to fucking tears. I don't know if the campaign can do something interesting with its barebones gameplay concept to the same extent other games with cover systems like Shadowrun and nuXCOM can, and I don't know how much bullshit and halftruths this post contains given that I've not yet finished the game, as everything else about the game is just off-putting, so stay tuned.

I wish I was playing Vanquish, or Binary Domain.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn GT-I9301I met Tapatalk
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom