quote:

Originally posted by BreachAndClear:
Call of Duty is like that, but only for the player. If you watch what the AI does, they are doing the exact same kind of stuff that you can do in R6V; they're putting their backs to walls, they're blind firing, etc. There's no good way to incorporate a first person cover system with the flexibility of that seen in Gears of War or Rainbow 6 Vegas.

*points at Medal of Honor: Airborne*

There's your perfect first person cover system. It's even more flexible than GoW and Vegas as you can choose how far out you lean out of cover, and it doesn't add an unfair advantage of being able to see around corners without exposing yourself.

The only thing MoH:A doesn't allow is blindfire. On the other hand, blind fire is a tactic which makes little sense and it also happens to be near useless in all games which feature it.

quote:

Originally posted by VeryFluffy:
On the other hand, blind fire is a tactic which makes little sense and it also happens to be near useless in all games which feature it.

And CT ops don't blind fire because it's a waste of ammo.

Of course no game is realistic, but having 'realism' makes a game a lot more immersive, i.e. creates an illusion of reality. Some unrealistic things i can understand because of gameplay reasons, however there is no reason that a first-person cover system should not be implemented. And if the game has to be unrealistic, then why is it called Rainbow Six?

quote:

Originally posted by abnegnejs:
Of course no game is realistic, but having 'realism' makes a game a lot more immersive, i.e. creates an illusion of reality. Some unrealistic things i can understand because of gameplay reasons, however there is no reason that a first-person cover system should not be implemented. And if the game has to be unrealistic, then why is it called Rainbow Six?

Um learn what realistic means.

Other than that I think they should take out the cover system completely. Return the leaning peek.

At the very least make the cover system like in GRAW. It's a lot less magic.

I am against. I do not like being attached to a wall, or switching between 1st person and 3rd person.

quote:

Originally posted by DexLuther:

quote:

Originally posted by abnegnejs:
Of course no game is realistic, but having 'realism' makes a game a lot more immersive, i.e. creates an illusion of reality. Some unrealistic things i can understand because of gameplay reasons, however there is no reason that a first-person cover system should not be implemented. And if the game has to be unrealistic, then why is it called Rainbow Six?

Um learn what realistic means.

Other than that I think they should take out the cover system completely. Return the leaning peek.

At the very least make the cover system like in GRAW. It's a lot less magic.

GRAW in 1st person had a good cover system. To look around the corner you had to put your head out. Also that had lean in multiplayer, which was most excellent (I am talking 360)

quote:

Originally posted by malte0004:

quote:

Originally posted by DexLuther:

quote:

Originally posted by abnegnejs:
Of course no game is realistic, but having 'realism' makes a game a lot more immersive, i.e. creates an illusion of reality. Some unrealistic things i can understand because of gameplay reasons, however there is no reason that a first-person cover system should not be implemented. And if the game has to be unrealistic, then why is it called Rainbow Six?

Um learn what realistic means.

Other than that I think they should take out the cover system completely. Return the leaning peek.

At the very least make the cover system like in GRAW. It's a lot less magic.

GRAW in 1st person had a good cover system. To look around the corner you had to put your head out. Also that had lean in multiplayer, which was most excellent (I am talking 360)

GRAW's cover system even in 3rd person was a lot better than the Magic R6 cover system.

I would like to apologize in advance if I say anything anybody else already said. I just didn't want to read eight pages of complaints, before I said this.



The cover system cant be fixed.

I realized this somewhere between a game of paintball and SMOD for Hl2. if you lean to either side and try to put your cover/concealment inbetween you and your enemy, you'll do the same thing as the "fixed" version of the cover system, without the 3rd person camera.

So it really doesn't matter how much you try to modify the cover system, at its fairest it still isn't going to work any better than the lean keys did in the first rainbowsix games

quote:

you'll do the same thing as the "fixed" version of the cover system, without the 3rd person camera.

thats the whole point.

a fixed cover system is one that isnt a cheat (being able to see without exposing your head).

whether it is a 1st person only system, or a 3rd person system that doesnt reveal everything around the corner.

i like it the way it is. if you make something too realistic then it could really limit and narrow the target consumers, but would really weed out the non-rainbow fans and appeal to the true tactical guys. right now, it's the perfect mixture of the two.

quote:

Originally posted by IHateDells:
i like it the way it is. if you make something too realistic then it could really limit and narrow the target consumers, but would really weed out the non-rainbow fans and appeal to the true tactical guys. right now, it's the perfect mixture of the two.

I also like it the way it is.

quote:

Originally posted by IHateDells:
i like it the way it is. if you make something too realistic then it could really limit and narrow the target consumers, but would really weed out the non-rainbow fans and appeal to the true tactical guys. right now, it's the perfect mixture of the two.

im not trying to persuade you from liking the current system by any means, but you have to realize there are still many out there who are not comfortable with the way it is.

mostly because of the extra vision advantage being able to see past the wall without exposing any part of your body. many people consider it cheap.

while i agree with you that a "mainstream" appeal game should always try to cater to both sides of the coin, i will strongly disagree that Vegas is "the perfect mix" between real and fun.

IMO it throws out too much realism with not that much gain in fun. its the reason why the majority of the original fans feel like there is almost nothing left in Rainbow that appeals to them.

that is by far not a "perfect mix" if the game doesnt try to appeal to them.

there are better ways to achieve a balance than is currently offered. the game doesnt have to be a totally real simulator. no one is really asking for that. the game does however need to be flexible. and a WELL DESIGNED game will be naturally versatile in its game play.

i personally think vegas forays a little too far into the sci-fi/arcade realm than it should and it is throwing off the balance of real/fun. a good way to bring that balance back is to have as many options to change the gameplay for individual hosts.

however i strongly believe the 3rd person "see-all" cover system has no place in a "tactical" shooter. if a 3rd person cover has to be used, then i suggest using something like the one i submitted in the other post (where the camera cant see past the wall you are hiding behind unless you lean out).

the cover system can be great, and i think they mostly had the right intention, but the execution of it is flawed and far too much of an advantage with little consequence.

quote:

Originally posted by AntiPersonnel:
you're probably right.

in these forums there is a majority of fans of the REAL rainbow six, not the new found "typical" rainbow six target demographic ubi has put into place with vegas.

sort of in the same way for people who call themselves "Metallica fans". you have the typical fans (morons) and you have true fans of the band when they were actually good. a real metallica fan IMO will only consider owning 3 albums in their collection, the first 3 (some of the best metal ever written BTW, if youre into that kind of thing).

hahaha kinda weird comparison... but anyway: true that!

I like the idea of restricting the view if the player isn't peaking out, but people might find it to be pointless if they were to do that. Instead of going into cover, they might just ignore it all together. If they were to switch back to the Raven Shield peaking system, I don't believe that it would be nearly as successful as the one we have right now. There really isn't a good solution to change the cover system as of right now.

As a Vegas fan I do like the cover system. I would hate this game if it became like COD 4. Also on the realism thing, walk up to a door way and pear out so that only one of your eyes can see what's there. See quite a bit can't you? Remember if you want realistic then you need a game that can show you a field of view of 130˚ × 160˚ so I understand there have to be some concessions to the lack of field of view. But I do agree lining up people while looking the wrong way is silly.

A lot of the customisation in PEC would lose its value without the 3rd person aspects. Also, everyone in the game can utilise the cover system - so the unrealistic field of view is not unfair at all.

Personally, I like the cover system because vegas 1 & 2 are the first games I've played to feature it.

In terms of realism though, it is a game! It can never be that realistic - look down and check out your legs! lol.
The extra vision you gain while in cover could simply compensate for the loss/reduction of other second nature senses we have in real life.

quote:

The extra vision you gain while in cover could simply compensate for the loss/reduction of other second nature senses we have in real life.

LOL, no. it OVERcompensates this by a lot.

its very similar to saying, since its a game and you dont have the visceral interaction with your environment like you do in real life, we should have unlimited health ITS A GAME IT SUPPOSED TO BE FUN YAAAAY.

sure having unlimited health would be a lot of fun plowing through and stabbing people in the face... but should it happen?


i think they intended to do something like you say "compensate"... but IMO they went way over the mark and made it way too easy and too much of a handicap.

I personally like it.

I would not be against it being more visibly impairing. like where in E and Q could "peek" which partially reveals you but it isn't as drastic as a full fledged commitment.

This kind of system is really innovative realistic or not. And I personally would like it to stay in some fashion or another.

The thing is...in multiplayer it's often useless to use it anyways because most of the people are just run and gunning around or frag spamming.

you usually have a good point to make in your comments Anti, and I've just seen your lean and peek idea with action men - which I thought is a great idea (and it made me smile).

But infinite health is not a very apt comparison to the shortcomings of the cover system in my opinion!

I like realism in my games too, and usually find it most fun playing without respawns. However, I still appreciate that this is only a game...

i was just comparing then in the sense that both offer supernatural ability akin to comic book superheros.

if the 3pv "advantage" was nothing more than a wider perspective (to compensate for lack of realistic peripheral vision) it would still REQUIRE your head to peek out.

in which case it does not in Vegas. so thus it is classified as x-ray vision, NOT enhanced or "compensating" vision.

for any game, having x-ray vision is on the same level as having invincibility or some other kind of "superman" ability.