The First Cover System?

[raphael_is_cool]

I know you guys are pretty knowledgable about games so I figured this would be a good place to pose this. Also, I'm too lazy to research it and find out myself.

Cover systems in games seems to have become a big thing lately, but I remember that such a thing was around a bit earlier than the likes 'Gears of War' or 'R6 Vegas'. My first memory of a cover system was 'James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing', which was a surprisingly good game at the time.

My friend says 'Thief' was the earliest he could remember but I can't be entirely sure he means actually shooting from cover as opposed to just wall-hugging.

With that all said, what is the first game you can remember utilising a cover system?

[Peanut]

The game that defined cover systems as they are today was easily Kill.Switch, which was an Xbox/PS2 game. Gears borrowed from that game in a big way, and ever since Gears, cover has become huge.

But the game that started it all? I dunno, you'd be hard pressed to find an actual answer, as so very many games have used cover. As far as what your friend said, which Thief was he talking about? If he's talking about Deadly Shadows, which is easily the best known of the Thief games, that came out sometime in 2004, so that's clearly not it, it's cover system was really very similar to the kind in Splinter Cell. And if he's talking the late 90's early 00's Thief games, I can't remember them clearly, but I don't remember there being any kind of extensive cover system used in those.

And on the whole subject of cover systems, you've got to define what you're talking about. Does your cover system need to involve blind-firing, or anything like that? If so, I'm going to go ahead and say Kill.Switch was the first one to pull off a cover-system that was actually an important game mechanic, but in terms of general cover? I mean, there are NES games where you need to take cover from enemies. It can go so many ways, it would be better if you had a more specific definition of "cover system".

[The Shelf]

Star Wars: Rebel Assault had sequences that used cover, and that's a pretty old game. It might have been Rebel Assault 2, though, I can't remember. And then there's all those old light-gun arcade games. That's all I can think of right now.

[raphael_is_cool]

I said 'shooting from cover'. Going by examples such as GoW I thought it would be simple enough to discern what I mean.

But to clarify, I specifically mean that there is a mechanic allowing you to 'attach' to walls but also fire round them, be it blind-firing or not. Most of the time there will be a button or action associated with it (even if it is to unattach), not just hiding behind a wall as you might do in any FPS. And no just wall-hugging without shooting (like the PS Metal Gear Solid if I recall).

My friend was referring to Thief: The Dark Project. But he admits he may be wrong (and he's also the sort of person to lie just to come off like the smart guy).

Thanks for the contribution. kill.switch looks like it may be the earliest definite one. I'd not even heard of it before.

EDIT: light-gun games is a very good point too, The Shelf. I think I'd discount them because they're rail-shooters though. Although maybe that's unfair?

[Spitfire]

Yeah I had Kill.Switch, so when Gears came out and everyone thought it was amazing and all new I was like "Uhhh" Kill.Switch wasn't a great game, it was actually pretty bad but there were things in it you could do with the cover that I liked more then Gears. Like walk while blind firing and such. The story was pretty lame to and the last boss was a joke.

[The Shelf]

Originally Posted by raphael_is_cool

EDIT: light-gun games is a very good point too, The Shelf. I think I'd discount them because they're rail-shooters though. Although maybe that's unfair?

I dunno, I don't think I would discount them. Gears of War effectively took the old duck-and-cover concept of the rail-shooters but gave you a little freedom of movement. Even with the freedom of movement that you have in Gears, the levels aren't very free-roaming. I'd call Gears the next logical step up from a rail shooter. The next logical step up from that would be a totally free-roaming version of Gears. Anyway, I think it would be worth finding out what the first rail-shooter to fit your description is if you really want to find the earliest example.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by The Shelf

I'd call Gears the next logical step up from a rail shooter. The next logical step up from that would be a totally free-roaming version of Gears.

I don't even know where to start with that comment, so I won't even attempt it.

[The Shelf]

Don't be silly. You know what I mean. Gears of War isn't full of wide-open spaces. You follow a pretty narrow path throughout the game. The only real difference is that you can move freely within that path. That's all I meant. I'm not saying Gears of War actually is a rail-shooter, just that it flows kinda like one.

[愛]

Uh, a rail shooter is a game like House of the Dead, or more recently Umbrella Chronicles. You have more freedom in Gears of War.

EDIT: Oops, didn't see the rest of the post.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by The Shelf

Don't be silly. You know what I mean. Gears of War isn't full of wide-open spaces. You follow a pretty narrow path throughout the game. The only real difference is that you can move freely within that path. That's all I meant. I'm not saying Gears of War actually is a rail-shooter, just that it flows kinda like one.

So you're saying a game needs to be like GTA to be considered more than "a step up" from a rail-shooter? The next step up from a straight rail-shooter is something like Contra. You've got freedom of movement on a 2D plane, but you're still being pushed a long a completely linear path.

In Gears of War, you're clearly going to be moving in one single direction, just like any other straight forward single-player game, but you're not forced to a single place and a single line, like a hallway. I can think of 5 to 6 places right off the top of my head where you can go in various directions depending on what kind of situation you're in, and the tactics you want to use. It almost seems to me as if you've never really played Gears of War.

That was my problem with your assessment, and I think I'm correct in believing it was short-sighted.

[The Shelf]

Originally Posted by Peanut

It almost seems to me as if you've never really played Gears of War.

Actually, I have. I'm not talking about GTA-type freedom, just a non-linear FPS where you can duck-and-cover like in Gears of War. I can think of numerous FPS's that fit this description but lack the duck-and-cover gameplay that Gears has. All I'm saying is that the next step up would be to take Gears and make it more open and large-scale.

[Dr. Doom]

Whether or not a game is linear is more determined by how the levels and story progress and flow and less by how you can interact with the immediate environment.