Why do games like Gears and Kill.Switch get credit for inventing cover...

[disolitude]

MontanaHatchet said:

This game obviously wasn't a commercial success, and there's nothing to indicate that the cover system was a big part of gameplay. Even if it featured this, it means nothing if it's just a passive feature. I haven't played Kill.Switch, but Gears has an almost perfect cover system, and it's the focus of the game.

The PS2 was not mediocre, it just so happened that it was the most popular console at the time and Sega couldn't keep up. Sony made one of the greatest consoles ever (the PS1), and its sequel did well. Sega made a console that disappointed on so many levels, and its sequel suffered. Sega killed Sega, Sony shouldn't be blamed for being a competitor. I hate when people let their fanboyism take over and say things like that.

Im sorry...but had you played headhunter you'd know that cover is the vital part of gameplay. it is not used as in Gears(hide behind rock till you shoot everything) but instead it is used as a stealth tool and for when the firefight gets intense. Worse of all...the game has a roll feature...cover and roll, wasn't that the #1 innovation that Gears gets credit for. Don't get me wrong, I own both gears gamesand like them very much, but its sad when a game and its features get overlooked in history by pretty much everyone...no matter how rare it is.

Also, in 2001 PS2 was mediocre...it was an amazing console overall when everything was said and done, but a 2000 and 2001 gamer was much happier with the dreamcast than ps2.