Third Person Aiming---please straight answer! Thanks in advance | Forums

[Lolssi]

After looking at the GRFS vids i think this game also had one of the best systems - when you were in cover you didnt stand close to the edge but like a foot and a half away from the edge. when you DID lean only the arms and head where exposed. in order to properly see around a corner you had to push towards it. you could do cover-to-cover runs. you could crouch (cant believe The Division and Watch dogs took this option away. it's SO needed). you could blind fire and blind toss grenades (something very usefull you cant do without a cover system). i think GRFS had a good cover system.

MGSV had one of the worst cover systems. along with Mass Effect 1. i used it still, often enough, but thank god i could switch shoulders and use ADS... ugh.

Blind fire another weird thing about 3rd person cover systems. I mean sure it is less accurate but how is it blind fire when you can still see where to shoot and aim to an extent? I always thought that was weird.
First time I played through Mass Effect I didn't even realise it had cover system I just pied the corners and used architecture as cover. To this day I still don't really use cover in that game. Sequels had more fluid combat but way more boring (at least second).

It doesn't matter who's doing the doing, the animations in Wildlands are dated, every single animation. It's stiff and indistinguishable from Mr. Bean. Fact.

Point was shouldn't it look realistic? Unless we want hollywoodesque triple barrel rolls and stuff.

[topeira1980]

Now let's be clear, a cover system is not strictly snap-to-cover. A cover system is any form of gameplay control that allows the player to make use of cover. Either a snap-to-cover feature (Gears of War), a lean to peek corners (SWAT4), or smooth movement to pop in and out (Quake). ARMA 3's cover system is very nice, if a tad overwhelming for newer players. Being able to adjust stances to work with nearly any cover found in the field is an amazing feeling when you get it to work.

But however 'faulty' a lean mechanic may be implemented, I would still make use of it. The difference between leaning and a snap-to-cover system, is the amount of control I have. With snap-to, I am entirely restricted by how the system is coded. With leaning, even if it isn't perfect, I can adjust position to open better angles while leaning. I have been killed a few times in ARMA3 because I tripped over the stances and stuck my head out at a bad time, but I still loved the mechanic. Because once mastered, it gave you a lot of options and a lot of control.

There is no mastering a snap-to-cover system. The extent of practice involved is the same as every other system - Tactically selecting cover, with the additional difficulty (and worry) of ensuring the cover will actually work within the system. Assuming it is even coded, the cover animation may cause your arm to jut out and be visible from certain angles, and when you peek you may be too visible from too many targets. And this is something no amount of practice will ever fix.

With ARMA3, you can better control exposure, even with just basic Q-E leaning. You just need to practice and think about where you are standing in relation to your intended target and cover. Something snap-to-cover never allows, because it refuses control in favour of doing the work for you, and often less effectively. The only real advantage snap-to-cover has over manual control is ease of use. That's it.

You don't need to think about stances or translation, the game does it for you. Just hit the button, snap against the corner and peek when ready. I do not want an easy system, I want a fun system. I want a challenge in the game. If it's easy, it won't be fun. I would rather die ten times to an engaging, difficult fight than win a thousand times to an easy one. The satisfaction of slowly edging a corner and tactically engaging targets as appropriate far outweighs the initial fumbling of learning how to operate with a system of manual control. I've seen it dozens of times, and snap-to has never, not once, given me the same sort of enjoyment as simply doing it myself.

--

And, yes. If given the option to lean, I will ignore snap-to-cover in most situations. The only reason I used it in The Division was because we had no option to lean or crouch, which forced the system's use in most situations, otherwise you would be denied cover. That is the result of denying the player the option for manual control. I'm not asking for ARMA 3 in Wildlands. Just let me lean properly.

ThePollie and I agree on almost everything except how much we love or have STC (stick to cover) systems :-P
i also want a challenging game with no regenerating health where stealth is imposrtant, not just fun, because it decreases the amount of enemies you might need to watch their fire if you get into an open fight.
even though i agree that a STC takes a lot less skill to implement, i think the challenge that a lean system gives in not "real". what i mean is - it is challenging because of how inaccurate your movement is in a game. not because IRL a person wouldnt know how to lean in the exact amount to see his target but not over expose. IRL an operative would be able to lean EXACTLY how much he needs to so his tip of his gun would stick around a cover to have a good LOS at the target. in a game it's harder to predict and execute as flawlessly because you are using a mouse or a keyboard or a controller, and because the game is in 2D and there's less situational awareness and grasp about your surroundings etc etc. a STC compensates and gives you the ability to act like an operator would - quick and efficiently. the same way there is no manual reload in games where you have to do a minigame to eject the magazine fast and enter a new one where you can "fail" the reload. an operator would know how to do that. that's not where the challenge needs to come from. same way you dont need systems to not fall down if you walk too fast without looking at your feet. it's not something that is challenging in real life. it's intuitive. if i hold a rifle in my hand and need to lean around a corner to see in a desired angle i will be able to do that in 0.3 of a second (approx). really fast. if i need to peak in that direction, take a poorly aimed shot and retreat to cover i will be able to do that in one second. in a game with lean it's harder to do that because of the controlers and the other reasons. the cover system allows to compensate for the lack of all the senses you got going for you. it makes things a bit trivial and evens the playing field, yes. i agree. but i dont think "how much you lean" is something that should separate the noobs from the pros.

it's a matter of perspectives, which we dont share on this particular subject... and that's fine.
we share the same opinion on everything else GR related :P

Blind fire another weird thing about 3rd person cover systems. I mean sure it is less accurate but how is it blind fire when you can still see where to shoot and aim to and extent? I always thought that was weird.
First time I played through Mass Effect I didn't even realise it had cover system I just pied the corners and used architecture as cover. To this day I still don't really use cover in that game. Sequels had more fluid combat but way more boring (at least second).


Point was shouldn't it look realistic? Unless we want hollywoodesque triple barrel rolls and stuff.

how did you pie corners in ME1 where you couldnt switch shoulders? how could you pie a corner from the left?! you couldnt. you could make your character enter the LOS of the enemy before you, the player, could see what's happening around said corner. that's a huge problem in 3rd person shooters. it's the reason i stayed away from them until R6:Vegas came out in 2006. today we also have a lot of games that allow as to switch shoulders, which, to me, is as important as cover or leaning systems. thank god GRW have shoulder switch.

[ThePollie]

I just woke up and haven't it in me to write another six paragraph post, so I'll address the "IRL Operatives" remark.

Real life soldiers do not often 'stick' to cover. It only offers a few advantages, namely to avoid angles that open if you took even that one step back when protection over visibility/return fire is a priority, and to brace your weapon against the wall.

The disadvantages include - Being next to a wall when a rocket or grenade hits it, making it very easy to kill you with either. Your weapon may very well protrude from around the corner, revealing the location to the enemy, who may now toss grenades. Your visual angles beyond the wall are severely reduced unless you're willing to step back and pie the corner. Otherwise it's either straight off to the side (which would be flanking you) or to peek the corner from against the wall (which exposes you dramatically as they can see your gun before you see them). The only way to avoid this would be to step back off the wall and to pie the corner properly. Shoulder-to-wall peeking is extremely bad form and often is a sign of an amature warrior lacking confidence that he's safe, clinging to the wall for security. That, or he's injured and can't stand on his own. Both are bad.

Snap-to-cover systems only simulate proper skill and handling of soldiers when the development team goes through all the effort of research and development to replicate this, and even then are limited unless willing to incorporate outside-cover mechanics to deal with the eventuality that players will need to step back from the wall. I've never seen it happen and challenge anyone to produce evidence otherwise.

[topeira1980]

I just woke up and haven't it in me to write another six paragraph post, so I'll address the "IRL Operatives" remark.

Real life soldiers do not often 'stick' to cover. It only offers a few advantages, namely to avoid angles that open if you took even that one step back when protection over visibility/return fire is a priority, and to brace your weapon against the wall.

The disadvantages include - Being next to a wall when a rocket or grenade hits it, making it very easy to kill you with either. Your weapon may very well protrude from around the corner, revealing the location to the enemy, who may now toss grenades. Your visual angles beyond the wall are severely reduced unless you're willing to step back and pie the corner. Otherwise it's either straight off to the side (which would be flanking you) or to peek the corner from against the wall (which exposes you dramatically as they can see your gun before you see them). The only way to avoid this would be to step back off the wall and to pie the corner properly. Shoulder-to-wall peeking is extremely bad form and often is a sign of an amature warrior lacking confidence that he's safe, clinging to the wall for security. That, or he's injured and can't stand on his own. Both are bad.

Snap-to-cover systems only simulate proper skill and handling of soldiers when the development team goes through all the effort of research and development to replicate this, and even then are limited unless willing to incorporate outside-cover mechanics to deal with the eventuality that players will need to step back from the wall. I've never seen it happen and challenge anyone to produce evidence otherwise.

oh, believe me - i know most of this. and there is another reason why operators dont turn their back to the fight and attach to a wall - it's just faster to already be facing the wall and the enemy with the gun up (if there is room to do so) and just lean, rather than turn 90 degrees and lift the gun quickly with little controll and start aiming from 0.
i get it.
what i really meant is if a cover system doesnt turn you with the back to the wall but rather keeps you facing the wall but a click on the AIM button will automatically cause you to lean - that, IMO, is better than free lean for the general public (not PC master race with our glorified QE buttons, all hale the QE god). this is how it works in FPSs and its strange to me that 3PS havent adopted this system yet (beside QB and ME:A soon to come). however in games where the player character lowers a weapon when its close to a wall and raises it if you step out side of it is almost as good, and that's how it works in the division, Mafia 3, watch dogs and i bet a few other games i probably forgot about.

its amazing how in all the GR:W footage i've looked at i couldnt see any animation where the character reacts to being close to a wall. in meh games the gun just clips right into the wall (like Fallout 4 or MGSV) but when it doesnt and there is proper animation - it looks real nice... which makes it feel nicer.

[ThePollie]

Precisely.

Though I would still rather the satisfaction and control of manual leaning mechanics. As nice as a flawlessly designed snap-to system could be, it will never have the same sense of accomplishment as simply doing it yourself. It would be fine for consoles, given limited controllers, but there's no such argument for PCs. We have plenty of buttons, especially with gaming mice allowing access to many more well within finger's reach.

[waky57]

3rd person view is unrealistic and cheating really it is like you are another person standing behind someone.

[ThePollie]

I agree, and I've always been personally against it, but it's not a particularly grievous issue for me. I would prefer first-person views exclusively, but I'm fine with the system as it has been presented thus far.

[EchoFiveKilo]

After looking at the GRFS vids i think this game also had one of the best systems - when you were in cover you didnt stand close to the edge but like a foot and a half away from the edge. when you DID lean only the arms and head where exposed. in order to properly see around a corner you had to push towards it. you could do cover-to-cover runs. you could crouch (cant believe The Division and Watch dogs took this option away. it's SO needed). you could blind fire and blind toss grenades (something very usefull you cant do without a cover system). i think GRFS had a good cover system

GRFS did have a great system. The animations were mo-capped by NAVY SEALs so that makes it even more authentic, I'm pretty sure they know how to utilise cover.

youtube has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

When aiming out from cover, your character would only expose shoulder, some of the head, and the firearm itself. Also, if you tried to blind fire, he would quickly fire a shot doing the same thing (exposing a little bit) and quickly snap back. No one in the military blind fires for real, only amateurs do that. Also, for example, if you were up on a balcony and tried to fire directly down beneath you, he would hold his rifle at an angle, and tilt it, exposing only a tiny bit of himself, and the rifle, as opposed to actually getting up and showing his entire body and head, while aiming down. It was a great system, I dunno why all the tacticool operators in this thread think they know better than a NAVY SEAL. The Division and Watch Dogs also had great cover. You could fire from the edge of cover as you would normally, but if you retract your character just a little bit back, you could expose even less of yourself, while your character tilts his rifle at an angle, to compensate for the cover in front of him.

Just look at how great the gameplay and animation looks in the above video (a 2012 game, let me remind you) and compare it to current GR:W gameplay. It is markedly disappointing that GRFS looks lightyears above Wildlands, which took a step back by removing the cover system.

youtube has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

[Cortexian]

When aiming out from cover, your character would only expose shoulder, some of the head, and the firearm itself.

No... You should probably watch the video you posted. SEVERAL occasions obviously show the Ghosts exposing their entire torsos out of cover while firing. Even in the few instances were the cover system collision model and the actual geometry collision aren't synchronized, resulting in what looks like "proper" animations, the Ghosts are exposing waaay to much of themselves in GRFS.

Also, the animations in GRFS are some of the most unrealistic ones I've seen in a game. Yes, it's true that the mo-capped some real ex-seals, but then they sped up those animations 300% to make it look super-duper-1337-oper9er. It looks really bad when they do this, and they also abused some of the motion caption animations by having the Ghosts utilize them way to often simply because those animations looked cool.

Also, if you tried to blind fire, he would quickly fire a shot doing the same thing (exposing a little bit) and quickly snap back. No one in the military blind fires for real, only amateurs do that.

Also no.

Almost every combat story I've ever been told by guys actually willing to talk about them, that I can couch for as real soldiers and/or special forces guys, involve stories of blind firing. As cool as it sounds to say that real soldiers don't blind fire and account for every shot, that's just not the truth. When you're on a two-way range, you stay behind cover whenever it's suitable. If that means you're in a hallway and there are bad guys at the other end, you stick a squad support weapon around the corner and pull the trigger until the enemies stop shooting back before you poke your own head out.

Also, for example, if you were up on a balcony and tried to fire directly down beneath you, he would hold his rifle at an angle, and tilt it, exposing only a tiny bit of himself, and the rifle, as opposed to actually getting up and showing his entire body and head, while aiming down.

This is actually correct.

It was a great system, I dunno why all the tacticool operators in this thread think they know better than a NAVY SEAL.

I don't think anyone is questioning the people they mo-capped, however you need to keep in mind that the Ubisoft developers are the ones who got final say as to what exact animations they chose to use from the real guys. The devs picked through what they had and chose the ones that "looked coolest" and used those for every instance that something vaguely similar needed to be done. In real life, there's so much variation and specific little ways to change up how you do things.

I had ZERO issues with the cutscene animations in GRFS. They were pretty fantastic, and that's where mo-cap really shines. It's great to get a baseline for actual movements as well, but the developers had to make so many adjustments to speed and limit the number of animations in the actual gameplay for obvious logistical reasons. This made some of it just look tacky and overtly "Hollywood".

[ThePollie]

Let's clear one thing up now - Modern soldiers are not accurate. They do not fire a few rounds and kill a few guys. Actual combat is incredibly wasteful of brass.

Find-Fix-Flank-Finish is combat in a nutshell. You find the enemy, fix them with a hail of suppressive fire, flank and finish them off while they can't move or retaliate. It is a process that has been around since the second World War and persists today because it works. It does dump a lot of ammo, but it works because of how much it dumps. When you are behind a rock and someone half a kilometer out is just raining lead on you, it's very difficult to stomach peeking out. Even if he's not pinpoint accurate, he's putting hundreds of rounds on your position. Odds are good at least one will hit, and that is all it will take.

Blind fire is not as effective, but your goal, again, is not to kill them outright. If I can just spray his direction, he'll start thinking twice about his odds of being hit and that may be all I need to reposition or get a clearer shot on a target no longer as dedicated to shooting me as he is avoiding being shot. You don't need to hit him, just convince him it's likely you will and he'll care a lot more about surviving than making you dead.

As for the video, yeah... No. A lot of those movements offered the enemy a rather clear shot at the Ghosts. And at times they were exposed even when they weren't peeking, which is hilariously stupid. I recall dying a few times in Gears of War because Marcus' obscenely large backside stuck out over the hood of a car. Not a good feeling. Admittedly, it's nice to see stealth-takedown animations that actually involved shooting a man and catching him to prevent a potentially noisy fall. I'd love to see more of that.