How Cover Systems Ruined Shooters 

I enjoy this comment

yeah but the atomic bomb expansion was just too op

Then don't cover you idiot, you complain that in higher difficulties you'll die too fast because of the increased damage, well if you wanted realism, there you go, try to take more than 1 bullet in real life.

@@marius3165 realism can be done well and poorly. It’s a video game, and cover based shooting is boring as shit. If you have to sacrifice cover and realism for fun, then do it, who cares. It’s gonna be a more enjoyable experience.

@@marius3165 it’s also a video game, and not every aspect has to be realistic; that’s stupid. Most games he showed here were not realistic. So why make your character have to hide at all times? Ur making one aspect realistic for no real reason. And that aspect is the most important; second to second gameplay.

Agreed. There are enough reasons to have to get out of cover in DI2 that I think it is actually pretty well balanced.

I love it in division 2

games like years of war that implemented an smart ai so you can't just stay on your "safe zone" locust will try to rush at you with their gnashers, launch grenades to get you out of cover, snipers and explosive bow guards will destroy you if you get out of cover too much, troikas will do supressive fire so you can't move without risking, boomers will kill you if you try to rush and finally but not less important drones will always try to flank you that's actually why i love gears of war cover mechanich so much because it's well implemented and it just works (this is just gears of war 1 other games in the saga even expanded this)

never played the division 2 just the first part

F.E.A.R had amazing AI

Just perfection.

Thanks for the tip. Now I need to play rough. Like Doom 4, or 2016 if you want to be technical.

I think the new Tomb Raider games handle the cover mechanic better than a lot of other games too. It's a lot more fluid. The bow added a lot to it as well. It's a bit too easy though.

Vanquish was released on the same week as a COD and Gears sequel with little to no advertisement. Barely anyone knows about the game who isn't a fan of Platinum's fighters because of this.

I've literally never heard of this game before, yet the gameplay I saw in this video looks fantastic. It's going straight in my cart.

I wish more people's heard about it, but yeah, as the other people say: it's not very well known. But it's a fantastic game that turns conventional cover shooting on its head. There are a few flaws, one would be that it's a bit short. And there is no skills or abilities to purchase like you would get in most other Platinum games. What you start with is what you end the game with, but using those abilities in different situations is what makes the game fun.

I just wanna see a character walk right through an area full of chest-high walls, and then NOTHING HAPPENS. The character just goes "Huh..." Then he walks into the next area, and there are enemies everywhere, throwing projectiles around that he has to dodge, like it's Doom or something.

The Platoaster just doing that in the Arkham games is like just mashing the attack button in devil may cry. It works, but it's not nearly as fun as using combo's. That's why a game like shadow of mordor's combat which imitated Arkham's worked because of all the abilities talion has, the aggression of the enemies and the responsiveness of the controls, and mad Max's wasn't that good because of the lack of interesting combo's and especially responsiveness in the controls. It's a shame because it does some things I like like charging up a more powerful attack and getting more points and damage if you time your counter just right.

remember that was revolutionary when it first came out, had reviewers drooling? did nothing for someone like me who was a big beat em up fan.

The Platoaster Is true that the freflow...y arkham...y combat get in every open world sandbox now but the problem not that is not fun or mindless, is just that doing it right is verry hard. In my count only arkham and shadow of mordor did it right (and maybe sleeping dogs as well but is still not quite there yet). Those kind of combat on high difficulty or challenge mode does still required skill, reflex and stragict thinking to counter alot different kinds of enermy at the same time. But the best thing that it really easy to pick up and play for more casual player and they still feel like a badass in a game.

just compare it to an actually deep beat em up mechanics like God Hand, where you have to master the dodges, juggles, thows, breakers, chargers, the peculiarities of each enemy type, all manually, all with intent...

At least AC Origins is breaking away with its mash till all's dead combat.

Yeah! Stranglehold!

"Giving the player the possibility to put some rocket on covers so it's propelled right on enemies" You're a fucking genius.

Turbo Button I think just cause 3 does that.

-Deflector shields that let you walk out of cover with impunity, for a time. -An energy absorbing mechanic that lets you absorb incoming weapons fire and convert it to ability power. -Abilities that let you move between cover and enemies faster and easier. -Some enemies with the same abilities, or resistance to certain abilities of yours, forcing combat variety. -Other enemies that either get in your face and are harder to deal with. -Environments that can be altered to your advantage, and used to make new cover/etc.

I am surprised in the 7th generation, after every game wanted to mimic the physics of _Half-Life 2_ that so few allowed us to move large objects we can use as shields while throwing as weapons.

Righteous, Rockstar & Remedy both tried that with Max Payne 3 & Quantum Break.

that's why multiplayer in gow is more fun, you're fighting against other players, they're not gonna let you hide behind your cover

Well most game do have something like that in place, MGSV enemies will toss grenades, while juggernauts can easily flank you and same with Uncharted. The last of us had zombies in it that didn't give a crap if you were in cover or not and would rush you making cover completely useless. I can tell he has never actually played Uncharted on a difficult setting or he would have realized that you can't just hide behind cover forever and the pop out when ever you want.

Gears of war 4 made the AI act more like players and they'll like rush you and charge you with shotguns if you sit too long

@@dhgmrz17 Uncharted is boring and mediocre nowhere near fun like Vanquish and Resident Evil 4

Dante butcher True legend.

Cover base shooters are both skill based and combo based. Each move you make WILL make or break your fate.

Facts as in the reason for the mechanic's implementation and the amount of skill involved. It's still subjective whether or not the mechanic itself is or isn't detrimental, regardless of why it exists or how easy it is to master. Some people like the mechanic, some don't. That's all there is to it. I personally dislike it if it requires you to use it, and I personally dislike shooters anyway. But I can at least say that there is no right or wrong when it comes to most mechanics, just preference.

@Yas I am bronze, I actually disagree with that, because if you're pretty good at shooting, as long as you take cover, you can takedown even snipers easily, by using any cover that let's you view them. But what I dislike is when people create a game that put's you on a power suit and the game itself is based on cover. It's by far the most stupid decision I've ever seen. Why the fuck do the MCs in Crysis need cover? Why the fuck do their aiming sucks as bad as CoD blind soldiers? They are using cutting edge tech for heaven's sake. By all means that should give them eneough survivability for them to run and gun against mere footsoldiers using only normal equipement. It makes 0 sense when a shooter gives you superpowers and have you act like just any run of the mill soldiers out there.

I disagree with the Turbo as well but i respect his opinion and the effort done to present it. Cover mechanics are meant for more things than just to help console players handle movement and aiming - the primary thing is to make shoot outs to happen in a way that feels more realistic. This is why most cover systems appear in somewhat reaslistic ways. you wont find it in Just cause, transformers or crackdown for a reason. a second reason is to allow players to handle cover better, peak over it easily, see around the left sides of cover, blind fire, too grenades from around both sides of cover, to understand when you are safe behind cover or exposed etc. its has many benefits. However, it makes the gun fights slower and more realistic, which Turbo Button is obviously not a fan of. I dont like shooters that play like arcade insanity. I prefer games like ghost recon: wildlands, rainbow six: Vegas, GTA:V, Gears of war and others. games that has firefights that feel more realistic in terms of how you move and fire (which, in reality - you dont). The fact that Vanquish has a cover system is super strange to me, but i havent played that game for reasons you can already guess. However, I think that static enemies + cover system + linear encounters like in The Order make fights really dull. Take out the regenerating health and you got a much better fights. Or open up the shooting arenas to allow flanking enemies.

Get on that Vanquish replay, dude. It's like twice as good the second time round when you know what you're doing.

Turbo Button it's one of the rare games were it's better the 2nd time round

Hey get back to work on narrating your next project ! No breaks ya hear ! Quality content knows no limits.

Cod? XP (although in some of their games the use of cover is quite nice) Bioshock? (have not really played much of 1 and 2) Titanfall if that's any good? About the use of cover can be a nice way for design if you are having a campagin, somewhat easy and keeps them where you want them to be. But sure then it comes down to all of the other things about it. Also not every character or game could be like that or behave in that way, although some could be better or to the example of max payne.

Raycevick how are you not an op protagonist in vanquish?

That’s part of what makes the gameplay so great

Some Warframes can make their own covers. Volt can deploy an electric shield, Nyc can generate a psychic energy bubble that absorbs incoming damage.

Nightshade And I want 5 millions dollars

I know this is a bit late here, but if you have a PC you should play Insurgency. It's fast-paced enough that it doesn't get bogged down, but lethal enough that strategic use of cover is important. More importantly, it has both hard and soft cover, and the careful selection between the two often means the difference between life and death.

Freedom's Flame Agreed. I play insurgency too

arma 3

Bring back health bars and you've got your dream game.

I like this too, reminds me of using cars as cover in GTA IV. If your enemies are shooting in your direction, they'll be hitting the car, and soon it'll be on fire, requiring you to find something else to hide behind.

There’s also enemies throwing grenades at you

Fair enough. I don't have as harsh opinions on Max Payne 3 as I do with many other games in this video, but I felt obligated to mention it in this video as the shift in mobility was something I definitely noticed playing the trilogy back to back.

Turbo Button cool. I haven't played Max Payne 2 so i might not be on the same page as you. I liked Max Payne 1 and 3 but don't now what direction the series went inbetween. Cheers.

teehundeart Max Payne 2 was just a very refined Max Payne 1.

Turbo Button I agree, the problem with MP3 was that the game basically *forced* you to use cover and punished aggressive players. Max Payne 1&2 = bulleTTime was your safety net Max Payne 3 = cover is your safety net

Max Payne 2 is the worst game in the series gameplay-wise. it's too shallow, and just drives the fun story forward. max payne 1 is a classic, and max payne 3 is super polished but people miss the idea of how it's supposed to be played.

SPUD lol

nice reference.

Pepper Millers I agree

Diary of a wimpy kid!

Og movie

Josh Bouman Same here. By the end of the game i was zapping through the game like a flash.

Yup but it’s because why would the Doom slayer even need cover

Lol. Play RE5 in areas with enemies with guns. There's the example.

enemies were slow in that game and most didn't have guns

Cover shooter is one part, having hit scanners only and re-generating health were the final nails in the coffin of the "grey urban shooters" of 2008-2016 or thereabout

immense disagree with that first one. blood gives you the tools to counteract those annoying hitscanners with ducking, area of effect attacks, ability to use traps, etc. all playing on lower difficulties does is lower the enemy count, their health and their damage, and by doing this theres no differentiating in encounters. it doesnt matter what technique you use because its all the same outcome, which was ironically doom 2016's, a game that didnt use hitscan enemies at all and was applauded for it, biggest issue. it essentially becomes a linear sandbox game and i dont really find that very interesting compared to chucking dynamite around a corner, using the flare gun alt fire and then finishing off the rest of the enemies by ducking and shotgunning them. next youre gonna tell me that doom is better on lower difficulties.

I disagree with reloading Old fps without reloafing had way better pacing because you fidnt have to wait for your gun to reload Same thing with regenerating health

My Guy yeah I agree, if you're playing gears like other cover shooters, you're playing it wrong.

Facts

Yeah as someone who played a lot of gears of war, the dude has basically no understanding of how gears of war cover mechanics worked. It did a cover system better than any other game because it wasn't just to sit behind and play wack-a-mole, it was honestly my favourite movement system of any game. Especially online, it was used super aggressively and it was all about the movement you could get from wall bouncing and going from cover to cover rather than just a way to hide from damage.

He almost fell into the right idea when he started talking about Wretches and Tickers, but then missed it again. There are a lot of other enemies that make sitting behind one piece of cover for the entire fight a bad idea. I mean I guess if he wants to make himself an easy target for literally anything that's not a standard Drone, that's his business. I also can't believe he missed obvious stuff like e-holes. Yeah I guess you can stick behind one wall and let every single enemy pour out from an e-hole if you want to, or you can actually move up there and go close it which is way more intense and exciting. Gears also puts a chainsaw on your gun, and you can't use that from behind cover, you gotta move up there and make real good friends with the Locust if you want to use it. Or if you want to stick an enemy with a grenade. Or do a curb stomp or other brutal melee finisher on a downed enemy before one of his friends get him up. And like you said, online play was mostly about being super aggressive with movement so you could get up nice and close with your shotgun. Good ol' Gnashers of War. Or you could just sit behind a single piece of cover and be really bored in single player and get destroyed in multiplayer. At the risk of having this comment read by an 18th Century aristocrat, the guy who made this video sounds like he's terrible at and/or doesn't know how to play Gears of War. Kind of missed the idea when he talked about how Uncharted is more fun on easy than on normal. Any cover shooter worth playing will have enemies on harder difficulties get more aggressive. Rush you more, flank you more, make staying in one place a really bad idea. A lot of those uninspired "hey cover shooters are the popular thing right now so let's make a cover shooter" clones will get that wrong, but for the ones who get it right, I find it way more fun to play on harder difficulties. All that said, I am 100% on board with shitting on The Order 1886. Man that game sucks. Shit all over it, it has nothing going for it at all.

By the end of the video he definitely mentions that the cover mechanic can be used to increase mobility and that he is not very good at it....he even shows video of multiplayer combat and discusses the Dev's reaction to players "exploiting" the cover movement speed (they call it valid)

Thought exactly the same

Vanquish isn't a covershooter, though. Just a shooter with cover.

It's good but would've been better if you could actually dodge bullets.

want to relocate to a vantage point or fall back when swarmed in a safer manner without having to hide behind every wall on the way, become an infiltrator in cloak through a firefight.

Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game. Currently playing through the original series, on ME2 right now and having a blast 😁

Play Infiltrator and flank the enemies without cover.

I also liked how you could grab enemies from across cover and execute them in 4, added another layer.

Yeah to be honest I don't know why I was so sure about the whole Kill Switch thing.

I seem to find you in almost every comment section lol

The Kill.Switch devs at the time even directly cited Winback as an influence, lol.

If you think deep enough, the true inspiration is Duck Hunt. If you break down the idea between Duck Hunt and the cover system, they seem to have similar set of rules.

the gears part it's true unless you are playing on other than easy dificulty i think gears it's way more complicated than the division

games like gears of war that implemented an smart ai so you can't just stay on your "safe zone" locust will try to rush at you with their gnashers, launch grenades to get you out of cover, snipers and explosive bow guards will destroy you if you get out of cover too much, troikas will do supressive fire so you can't move without risking, boomers will kill you if you try to rush and finally but not less important drones will always try to flank you that's actually why i love gears of war cover mechanich so much because it's well implemented and it just works (this is just gears of war 1 other games in the saga even expanded this)

Nah. I understand what you are saying but it’s too broad a stroke. Is (and were they at time of release) last of us and uncharted “a cynical cash grab”. Whatever your opinion, they were not cashgrabs. You are equaiting “clash clones” with a game having a certain mechanic. Homogenization I agree with but I don’t think really cod and counter strike sharing the same fundamental gameplay mechanics makes them clones/cashgrabs. And I also don’t think it has anything to do with being creatively bankrupt either. Where do you draw the line? Sure cod and battlefield are fairly similar, but also very different. Is the FPS mechanic done, since doom made it? A lot of the games here are very different but they share the same mechanics (uncharted, spec ops and gears), would you say all the games are similar cashgrabs?

And let's not forget the consumers who are fine with buying, playing and then throwing away 10 games that are exactly the same every year - or literally buying the exact same game every year (Call of Duty, Madden, Fifa...). It's a creatively bankrupt skill-less game industry for creatively bankrupt skill-less people. It works out at the end.

Yeah and some of us want more realistic....

Then I know you will really not like No More Heroes. It has some mechanics that are meant to be tedious to properly tell a story

@@SinArtavia If it hinders the game design it sucks as a game and that is far more important tha being "realistic"

@@teneesh3376 yeah but plenty of games can do that without having to stray away from what they were marketed as

@@juanmanikings yeah but it annoys me because I bought a game which was marketed as a realistic tactical shooter only for it all to change.

The hallmark of cover shooters and action is when you approach cover, you know action is going to happen.

Clairvoyant81 Only Uncharted 4 and one level in Uncharted 3 give you a fair shot at a shootout without relying on cover. You're crazy if you think the whole series gives you nearly as much mobility as Vanquish.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you stick to cover all the time in the Uncharted series despite all the fun things you could be doing, that is just as much your fault as it would be in Vanquish.

You can play a fat chunk of Uncharted 2 using minimal cover on the normal/hard difficulty settings. All you have to do is play aggressively and flank when there's openings, if there are no openings then you usually have the tools necessary to create one. You literally aren't playing the game right if you have your ass glued to cover the entire time and the only time it's every really a problem is on Crushing and that has more to do with Naughty Dog being completely incompetent at balancing their harder difficulties.

Adrian Wyatt isn't it the games fault for encouraging the player to abuse cover to skim through the levels rather than the player itself? I mean yeah sure you could look for opportunities and flanks or you could just sit behind a rock and it being 3 times more effective with minimal effort than you *looking* for a advantage

@Cynical Joker vanquish is different I'd argue. They give you so much mobility in that game that cover is the last resort. In Uncharted you move like a bag of bricks. It feels less natural to not be behind cover in that game while in Vanquish taking cover seems tedious and out of the way in my opinion.

Digital Blade that was part of the game, u know, cuz he is an old drunk

Watch some uncharted 4 gameplay

When you play a game where they can shoot you when your in cover you get a little more worried. Not like all the time but just enough.

If i'm not mistaken far cry and gears of war had flanking enemies.

The new Tomb Raider games throw seemingly endless grenades that fall exactly where you are behind cover, while flanking you, firing from multiple directions, and flanking you with melee enemies with tower shields that force you to dodge their sword swing and counter-attack immediately as that’s the only half second they’re exposed. I believe the newer Uncharted games do similar things to force you out of cover to scramble.

Man, have you even played max payne or last of us?

Medal of Honor had a leaning mechanic 1st then CoD & BF finally implemented it after MoH died. Sneaky bastards lol

Well, I wouldn't say Medal of Honor was the first game to have a leaning mechanic. The old ghost recon did and so did the first rainbow six game. Not sure what game was the first but it wasnt medal of honor.

By-far the best cover system in any videogame, is 'soft' and 'non-sticky', i.e' lean based. Wildlands is the only TPS I know that has that-and it's the best for it, whilst the cover-system in Far Cry 3 alone-makes it a better game than Far Cry 2. With that said, it should be context-sensitive, as it's a bit retarded [and not very immersive] leaning whilst standing in the open. MoH Airborne did that, and got away with it; as it's the first I remember [2007, maybe not before Rainbow 6]. I also remember-as flawed as that cover-system was, it blew my mind; and I could instantly tell it was the future-as it solved the most-pressing problem plaguing FPS's and making them unrealistic; how do you believably avoid incoming fire? Most every complaint leveled against cover-systems; is to do with the sticky-variety.

I disagree with Wildland's cover system. I personally hated it. I also only played the beta so they might have refined it since I played it. I found it to be difficult to tell when I'm in cover and when Im not in cover, or basically, when the character will lean out to shoot or when they'll just shoot the wall that they're standing behind because they aren't close enough to be "in-cover". I felt like it was a middle ground that just didn't work.

I played the beta too..it's basically unchanged from that. The weakness with it; is not being able to use the corners of doorways for cover-like you could in Far Cry, so overall that means it's not as good. I do think that and [sometimes-usually then] not being able to tell when you're in cover, is for the same reason the aiming feels shonky next to a dedicated FPS; third-person games just have more lagg, which means walking-not just aiming, always feels floaty. It makes it very difficult to position yourself properly-which again, is easy in FC. First person games MUST have great shooting controls, hence the lagg tends to be under control [and is why GTA V remastered is unplayable as an FPS on console]. In general, as I'm sure you're aware; as with Far Cry-a chan ge of animation informs you you're in cover, e.g; you hold your weapon vertically against the surface [Far Cry], or hunker-down [Wildlands]. I also think part of the problem; is that Far Cry-esp no#4 is just a more polished game. I've also heard rumour, that there was no cover-system in Wildlands-'till there was a fan outcry, so they added one-as an afterthought. Not sure if that's true or not, but not being able to use the edges of doors as cover, is a disappointment-esp as your enemies can. As a related sidenote, AI in Wildlands is better than in Far Cry-that's the first time I've seen enemies take cover in doorways, they're a lot less shy about taking you on inside buildings [almost never happens in FC] and I also like how bases come to life-with lights flickering on from one end to the other, followed by sending out patrols. All these improvements should be in Far Cry V, I just only wish/hope they'd go one step further; and have bases mutually support each other-so they can combine forces and really kick your arse. That, and a dynamic front line, with counter-attacks that aren't just randomized-but actually serve the enemies purpose; are improvements I'm still waiting for. Probably for a long time, lol.

Truth. One of my favorite shooters ever.

It had the most hassle free control scheme for it too. Hold left trigger wasnt it? As soon as you let go you released immediately.

vegas was a fun game that involves extensive cover play, for the same reason you just said: peeking out of the cover has a cost. but looking at the other examples in the video, i do think that the cover is too safe as a breather

Thanks, I tried to do those as much as possible

time crisis isnt third person shooter.

krypticavalanch I get that but it shows how to use the mechanic.

Just give the player health packs for him to collect that wasnt an issue when wolf3d and doom released i dont understand why they decided to change it later on At least in halo you have both health and a regenerating shield so there this design makes sense but games that only have regenerating health are just pointless

I haven’t had to stay in cover since me1 when using the vanguard class, just when abilities are on cool down

Even Mass Effect 2 (which is shown in this video as a "generic cover shooter") doesn't have an over reliance on cover, Mass Effect 1 is even less so since cover mostly gets you killed in it. Sure, you can use the cover and move along safely, but the time-to-kill is a lot lower than traditional cover shooters and different movement abilities mitigate reasons to use cover. The most obvious class that embodies this "fuck cover" attitude is Vanguard, but you can make other classes function similarly (PS, if any ME fan reading this hasn't tried a shotgun Infiltrator build yet, DO IT). ME3 definitely refined the formula the most in the trilogy, anyone who's played ME3MP knows that no one ever uses cover in high levels, not even the low HP caster classes.

Razorator EDI infiltrator with claymore shotgun and krogan vanguard with reegar carbine were so dope in me3mp

To his credit on this one, you can turn Mass Effect 2 into a "generic cover shooter" by picking the Soldier class. That's not a mistake I'll ever be repeating.

mjc0961 I still play quite aggressively as a soldier in ME2. On the PC at least. Aggressive play is harder on the consoles in general.

This video is the main inspiration behind my thoughts on an Eurojank game called Infernal, which I find to be an interesting hybrid between movement third person shooters and cover shooter. I just posted the only review on youtube.

What’s wrong with Bayonetta?

@@Mister_Don888 I'm just saying i prefer Vanquish

for me it only because limited engine force them to do that.

First cover not gear of war

Thanks! I'm hoping someone will notice the thematic ties a lot of them have to what I'm talking about at that moment.

Spec Ops the Line is the only thing you'll miss out on.

@@distantsea The story is great, gameplay not so much.

@@andmillions The sad thing is that story only really works if you like military shooters, and if you are not playing it for the story. I usually avoid games like that but I heard this has a great story. Then it is kind of weird at the end the game tells you "you are only here because you wanted to be a hero". Like no, I am here because I thought this game will have an interesting narrative. It is still is a cool story anyway, and does some cool things, but it is such a slog to play through I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

sry but no, cover doesn't engage the player to use tactics or create interesting decisions. Compare it with Resident Evil 4 or Doom Eternal where the whole games are about tactical decisions, ressource management and spacing. Waiting in a cover will not lead into any other decision than waiting or jump magnetic into an other cover without risk, but with the exact same situation as before. In a Singleplayer game, cover based shooting will never work.

The problem was fixed in uncharted 4, enemies can destroy the wooden cover you hide behind

@@Sultansekte Let's see, Ghost Recon Wildlands and Ghost Recon Breakpoint, The Division 1 and The Division 2. Need I say more?

Punisher was another cover-free TPS and it kicked ass.

This video is the main inspiration behind my thoughts on an Eurojank game called Infernal, which I find to be an interesting hybrid between movement third person shooters and cover shooter. I just posted the only review on youtube.

RE6 has good mobility, but almost no room to use it in. Its segmented health is also good for allowing long term deaths and mitigating bullet damage. The problem is that almost none of the enemies are built for the cover part of it, there's nearly no cover where they have guns, and ammo is far too rare. The stamina system also kills it, your last 2 health ticks by default permanently set it to 0, making the mobility irrelevant for when you most need it. The game also fails to give the player any time to get used to the combat mechanics, like RE4 did, and almost every 5 minutes has an insta-death story beat that you just have to die to to understand. Or a boss without any feedback that it can't be killed and isn't taking damage, wasting your already limited ammo in a game where there's barely any to begin with.

Very well said. Cover shooters aren't inherently a bad thing in my eyes. Because games like Gears of War really made the mechanic take off in popularity, but it made sure to keep it fresh and interesting with each game iteration.

LOL let's not pretend that uncharted has amazing encounter desing like RE4 has it's a passable TPS with amazing set pieces it doesn't engage you like a game like vanquish does

@@juanmanikings Well, Uncharted isn't much of a third-person shooter. They're action-adventure games. The appeal isn't that the shooting is groundbreaking, or that its core mechanics are super "deep". The appeal is they're more than the sum of its parts. They're an experience, not just video games. And I'm saying that as someone who isn't that much of an Uncharted fanboy. As for Vanquish, its a fantastic game, but its not infalliable. The melee combat was missed opportunity, the level design can be very restrictive at times, and its visually way too busy. It has some of the worst motion blur effects, and you can only disable it on the PC version.