No, I was just referring to you saying that shooting out of cover causing the player to be exposed is a problem.

The thing I hate is that...we can't use the spirit bomb =/

#1 doesn't really bother me at all, but that could be because I can't think of any TPS games that DON'T do it that way, I've probably just mainly played ones like you described.

#2 I couldn't agree more. I don't know why every game needs a cover system. All it leads to is slower paced gameplay, and times where you get shot, take cover to regenerate health, pop up & shoot....rinse lather repeat....

#3 Doesn't bother me. I mostly play Call of Duty so in a game like that it makes sense to have hipfiring pretty inaccurate, but I also don't mind hipfiring being accurate like it is in Halo. I'm fine with accurate or inaccurate hipfire really as long as it's consistent.

I liked cover systems, but now I agree with you.

Hmm... As I almost solely stick to FPS rather than TPS, I find it hard to really sympathize with most of these points. At least I play the shit out of Dead Space 2, so let's take a look:

1) Placing the camera behind your right shoulder never bugged me at all and actually felt very natural. This may have a lot to do with the overall design, however. For instance, the elevators tend leave a bit more space on the right side of the door, allowing more space for the camera. The corridors are also often designed for you to walk slightly to the left, giving you a straight, uninterrupted view.

2) Can't comment a lot on this part. Dead Space don't use any cover system, but from the little experience that I gained from playing the Mass Effect 2 demo, the cover system actually worked great all around. This is also a very welcomed feature for the few FPS's that implements it (such as Perfect Dark Zero).

3) This didn't bother me at all. Having a third person view on a character that constantly is ready to take a shot just doesn't make sense both visually and realistically, in my opinion. But yeah, this is not actually helping gameplay at all, just making it feel more real.

@THE1

you are new to the TPS genre, so I will forgive you.

Let me just say something about #3 though. You know how seamless shooting is in Halo right? You can shoot whenever you want without zooming in which causes your character to stop or limiting your view. This is how old school TPS were. The camera was above the character and so were the crosshairs. Like Halo, you could shoot without causing a big change in character movement or camera change. It was seamless. With today's TPSs, not so much.

I'd say it works in games like Resident Evil or Dead Space, because of their style of gameplay.

I strongly agree with the first one.

The other two are debatable and really depend one what sort of experience the game is aiming to deliver.

Point 1 is why TPS have become too similar to FPS and I hate it. I know it appeal to the FPS crowd but not me.

Cover system is nice, I don't hate it, but I would love some variety. I am hoping RE doesn't just copy GeOW and do something about it.

Good read Jay, keep it up! :)

(Thanks for the link)

1. I couldn't agree more. One of the big reasons why I didn't enjoy the Starhawk beta, and ended up not getting the game, was the change from the traditional 3rd person view to the over the shoulder view. Drove me nuts. I went back to play a game of Warhawk for comparison and I had a ton of fun with it.

2. I don't mind a cover system if it's done well, but I suck when using them in many games, so I end up dying a lot more than I should.

3. I don't mind this. I like a mix of both, though.

Ratchet & Clank is my number one choice for 3rd person style shooting.