Junior Member
Senior Member
The game is tactical if you play it tacticaly and the game allow you to do that. Has for any game that are said tactical, it's only the player that play tacticaly or if doesn't he will get some hard time finishing the missions.
The game doesn't need a cover system as it doesn't fit this game and previous GR till Graw 2 did pretty well without cover system so why GRW can't make it without it ?
So for the moment the game don't have one.
Senior Member
Ok, i have to ask, why doesn't a cover system fit this game? The open world? If so why? I think it can work in any environment but im curious about a more descriptive reason. FYI i personally don't want to take cover in the middle of the grass, cover is meant for this areas where things become CQC in the town areas and such just so you know.Originally Posted by M_Ulukai Go to original post
Volunteer Moderator
Due to the scope and scale of an open world, a cover-based game would require that there be objects placed all throughout the world that you could use as cover when needed. Cover-based games usually change mechanics based on if you're in or out of cover, and encourage players to use cover by reducing firearm sway, increasing accuracy, and reducing recoil. Without these enhancements, there wouldn't be any point to use cover at all. You'd be much better off simply being more mobile and crouching behind cover like you'll naturally do in Wildlands anyway.Originally Posted by DMF-Lokiey Go to original post
Ghost Recon Phantoms is a fantastic example of this. There were a few "patches" that reduced the need to be in cover to some degree, and as soon as cover wasn't important, people stopped using it. I'm surprised you don't remember this, as the forums for GRO/GRP erupted with complaints about it when the shift from cover-based to run-and-gun was perceived.
So instead of implementing a snap to cover system, and all the mechanical changes that end up going along with it... The devs presumably went with the current system of not snapping to cover, which is more realistic and doesn't obscure the playable world with waist-high cover objects. Now, you say that these waist-high cover objects wouldn't be needed all over the place, but considering that there are all those mechanical changes I mentioned above when a cover system is in place... You kinda need to have them, or fighting in an open field will put a player at a significant disadvantage. We don't have the technology to make a game with a level of realism that would allow for things that you'd find in real life to detriment the natural and inherent disadvantage of fighting in an open field. Dropping to prone and crawling through tall grass doesn't typically work in games because grass density isn't high enough, or you're dead before you have chance to react anyway. We don't have the advantage of camouflage providing actual concealment from AI a lot of the time in video games, so little shrubs and smaller trees in a field don't really provide any concealment...
I just don't see it working well in a game like Wildlands for a plethora of reasons. Only some of which are outlined above.
Now, I'm locking this thread since we already have a thread on cover system mechanics and discussion.
