superchunk said: 1) yes over the head is better for 3rd person games. Simply a better view point. 2) I'd say both would be better. A crouch option when needed and a more realistic cover option when its there... including the ability to lay flat behind stuff... because you know some things are not always crouch height. 3) NINTENDO lock-on is best!!! Yes, having to force aim is a PITA, but its necessary for quality multi-player gaming. It adds a level of difficulty that is simply better. Now, pre-Wii Nintendo always used assisted aiming in games and when playing stupid AI, who cares. Aiming isn't what kills you anyways. But with Wii-mote or mouse controls, aiming isn't an pain and it really just makes sense. I'll take forced aiming with better controls any day.

2.) True, both would be best. But I really think it's a waste of a button when a person can just get behind something without a button to assign them there.

Lock-on does work surprisingly well. But it depends on how it's implemented. I liked it in the PSP Socoms. But it was annoying in GTA4, because the player still nearly stopped everytime the character wanted to shoot. And the zoom in was annoying, I don't want to zoom in, cutting off my range of vision, everytime I shoot. Espescially when my enemy is right in front of me. I think a hybird of free aim & lock-on aiming is best.

What you are xxplaining in the OP is one of the primary reason why I only play arcadey shooters.

You know, medal of honor airbourne, is a game that used sixaxis controls. I remember playing it and having a blast on the PS3. There was cover system but you had to crouch. To shoot above the cover you had to tilt the sixaxis controller as you want, for example, to shoot above the cover, tilt the controller up.

It was brilliant, and pretty much covers all your points except for shooting down the sights. It was a realistic kind of game so you had to shoot down the sights, the enemies are very very powerful so you almost get only one chance.

Jay520 said: superchunk said: 1) yes over the head is better for 3rd person games. Simply a better view point. 2) I'd say both would be better. A crouch option when needed and a more realistic cover option when its there... including the ability to lay flat behind stuff... because you know some things are not always crouch height. 3) NINTENDO lock-on is best!!! Yes, having to force aim is a PITA, but its necessary for quality multi-player gaming. It adds a level of difficulty that is simply better. Now, pre-Wii Nintendo always used assisted aiming in games and when playing stupid AI, who cares. Aiming isn't what kills you anyways. But with Wii-mote or mouse controls, aiming isn't an pain and it really just makes sense. I'll take forced aiming with better controls any day. 2.) True, both would be best. But I really think it's a waste of a button when a person can just get behind something without a button to assign them there. Lock-on does work surprisingly well. But it depends on how it's implemented. I liked it in the PSP Socoms. But it was annoying in GTA4, because the player still nearly stopped everytime the character wanted to shoot. And the zoom in was annoying, I don't want to zoom in, cutting off my range of vision, everytime I shoot. Espescially when my enemy is right in front of me. I think a hybird of free aim & lock-on aiming is best.

Well, if you used a mouse or wii mote, then you don't need to zoom in. The cross hairs from your pointing device is best for close/mid range shooting. Zoom would only be used when in really is only ever used, long range.

I don't know about the first 2 since I don't play TPS that much and I never really had a problem with the cover system or camera placement of the few that I did play.

But as for FPS I believe ADS is used to make the experience more realistic. In real life you don't just hip fire a gun and hit a dude 5 miles away lol. But keeping realism aside I think it more lends to the gameplay when you have low health. With the health that you have in most modern shooters, it would simply be game breaking if you could hip fire a weapon and take people out 10 miles away with a few shots. ADS helps mitigate that with increased recoil and slowing your character down to take people out long range while still allowing you to hip fire at close range.

This is something that you can see in Halo, the assault rifle is pretty useless compared to the other guns (like battle rifle or whatever that 3 round burst weapon is called) because you can only hit people close range with it. If it had ADS a lot more people would use it since they could hit people long range with it. Not that it matters in Halo anyway because it takes one trillion shots to down a guy which I personally dislike), so hip firing or ADSing doesn't even matter.

I think the mobility is somewhat of a downside one which was fixed by the stalker perk in MW3, I run it all the time and wouldn't mind it being default. In the end I'm up for whatever works, and ADSing works for me and for most people.

Also bioshock, another example of a good game where you don't need to aim down the sights.

DepthAlly said: Jay520 said: DepthAlly said: Goodness, no. Remove the cover system and you get rid of the tactical aspect of shooter aka the only thing that can get me interested in shooters. I hate mindless run and gun. Twitch shooters can pull it off because of their focus on skill, but it's not as fun as thinking. You can still use cover without the use of a button that makes you stick to cover. Crouching is not very useful in a lot of games when you want to shoot out of cover.

A simple fix. Whenever your character is behind an obstacle and wants to shoot something, the game should recognize the character's closeness to the cover & should meke him lean out. With current technology, it should be easy to recognize when a player is clearly close to an object for cover & needs a special maneuver to shoot, without needing to stick to cover. But like I said, both should be implemented. The problem with shooting out of cover is the player tends to expose his entire body when poping out.

Jay520 said: DepthAlly said: Crouching is not very useful in a lot of games when you want to shoot out of cover. A simple fix. Whenever your character is behind an obstacle and wants to shoot something, the game should recognize the character's closeness to the cover & should meke him lean out. With current technology, it should be easy to recognize when a player is clearly close to an object for cover & needs a special maneuver to shoot, without needing to stick to cover. But like I said, both should be implemented. The problem with shooting out of cover is the player tends to expose his entire body when poping out.

But that's why there's popping out and blind fire.

DepthAlly said: Jay520 said: DepthAlly said: Crouching is not very useful in a lot of games when you want to shoot out of cover. A simple fix. Whenever your character is behind an obstacle and wants to shoot something, the game should recognize the character's closeness to the cover & should meke him lean out. With current technology, it should be easy to recognize when a player is clearly close to an object for cover & needs a special maneuver to shoot, without needing to stick to cover. But like I said, both should be implemented. The problem with shooting out of cover is the player tends to expose his entire body when poping out. But that's why there's popping out and blind fire.

Oh you mean blind fire? I always thought that was a lame mechanic as well.

About #3, this is done to make the shooting more realistic.
Honestly, I like this system. It makes sense that shooting without aiming down the sights is inaccurate.