Should FPS games have a cover system.

Depends on the game.

Something like COD doesn't need it...but it works great in Rainbowsix Vegas 2.

I think it could work either way, though generally I think it's pretty important you should have some means of cover, especially if you're just a normal human. COD, for instance, may not have a cover system in which you press a button and crouch behind a wall, but instead your cover is all entirely up to you and your ability to crouch or lay down whenever you want.

So before Killzone 2 came out I was kinda skeptic about the cover system. I just got so used to having a crouch button for fps games so I thought that a cover system will only work in a Third Person Shooter. When I picked up Killzone 2 and started playing it I was pleasantly surprised to see and feel just how well the cover system works in that game. The only problem I had with it is that you had to keep the cover button pressed down in order to stay in cover and after a while my finger was hurting and numb. So after playing Killzone 2 I started think if every fps should have that cover system and my answer is, YES! 

To be honest I want cover in all the FPS games I play. I've been playing COD2 recently and everytime I get to a wall or some other object I want the AI to react to that and get into cover.

Depends on the game. COD4- nope. Killzone 2- Yep!

Depends on the game.  A cover system would just slow things down in a game like UT or Quake.  More realistic games could use some type of cover though.  Just as long as there is none of that old peak out from behind cover mechanic people used to run around with all the time in Rainbow Six multiplayer so none of your shots would hit them.  You'd see people running around the whole map, leaning.

Cover system in FPS = retarded.

You just don't need a button to stand behind a wall

It totaly depends on the pacing the developer wants to create. I predict, however, a lot of future shooters adopting mechanics similar to Vegas and Killzone.

I've loved cover systems since Winback for the N64, so I'm always a little disappointed when they aren't in games.

That said, I think it should be taken on a game to game basis. I understand that the design of certain titles just don't call for them, and all the desire I have for them doesn't make it a good idea.

I don't think ANY game should have cover systems.  If you're a good enough player you know how to hide behind cover.  I don't want some automated system that makes things more complicated than they have to be.  I especially don't like stop and pop gameplay.

Like 3rd person views in games, cover systems are popular because it helps noobs play.  They don't have to think about moving and shooting, they can take a breather and hide behind cover.

Let us dodge bullets again like we did throughout early arcade games, NES, SNES, and early 3d games!

r6v2 did it right

Definitely depends on the game. For most it's easy enough to just crouch behind objects or move to and between walls; there doesn't need to be a cover system. But for some games it can work well, like with Rainbow Six. It's a very tactical game so being able to move behind walls and scan the area works well, especially when it comes to opening doors and then popping out from behind cover to fire. You just couldn't pull off some of the moves without the system in place.

But I don't think it will become common in the industry anyway. There will always be a split unlike third person shooters where all of them seem to have it. For some games it just doesn't work, so I highly doubt it will become a universal thing.

After reading all the really great comments and thinking about it more clearly I actually changed my mind from Yes to Depends on the game. I can see how some fps games just won't work with a cover system. I though still feel that having a cover system for you and AI adds realism and strategy to the game. I can't recall any specific game right now but I have played numerous fps games that the AI has a cover system but you don't and I clearly remember getting angry at that like my character had some sort of phobia from walls or  any kind of cover material, or they give you the option to peek around corners but without the option to shoot. 

I think more realistic shooters should have some form of a cover system, I don't recall soldiers in WW2 standing in the open moving left and right to dodge bullets. More sci-fi esque shooters can do without it though. Hell, the Master Chief's shields do the job of cover for him.

Only if they make me feel like I, as a character, need the cover system. I don't want to be characterized as both the only savior of humanity, capable of twisting off a skull with the flick of a wrist, AND a weakling who needs to hide behind a tree and wait for mommy to kiss my booboo.

I think he was kidding....

I havn't liked a cover system in a FPS game yet because games Like Rainbow Six vegas really break the immersion by putting you into an unrealistic third person view. Then you have Killzone 2 which just has a wonky cover system you never use because it feels very tacked on and becomes too much hard work as it ain't ever needed.

When a game is in first person, it first of all needs to stay in person. And second of all, it needs to have fewer gameplay mechanics, and instead be more organic.

I don't really want a 'snap to' mechanic in most FPS, but it's pretty cool to be able to peak over whatever you're crouched behind without standing right up - I think Vietcong had something like that.

It's not cover mechanics per se that make games too easy, it's the combination of Invincible Cover + Regen Health + AI that never tries to flank you.

The only time I've seen it done successfully was RS:Vegas, and there you had to break first person and go into third.

Fuck 'a system'. So long as their is cover, it's fine. COD does not 'not need a system' it's just well designed enough that a regular crouch is your cover system when you combine it with all the stuff the developers have given you to hide behind.

Cover is an essential part of surviving any firefight, real or virtual, realistic, or otherwise. If the game's well designed enough that I can simply crouch or lean and it does the job, excellent. If you want me to press A to clamp my butt to a wall, so long as it's not buggy as fuck, that's excellent too.

It really depends on the game. A cover system in Call Of Duty, for example, would ruin most of the experience (for me at least). This is probably because with past experiences with Rainbow Six Vegas online, both teams just dig in and take lame pot shots at each other, and it really breaks up the action. If the game is tactical, it probably should have one.

If appropriate.
While I definately want Vegas to be first person and have a cover system, halo/call of duty definately would be worse with one.

And if you're meaning a first person cover system without breaking to 3rd, meh...not really.  It's sort of just, meh.  Tilt in shooters is a stupid idea.  Snapping in a FPS and tilting is even worse.

But you know, games sort of have cover systems by default.   IN halo for example, you can just crouch.  I realize this to be harder in toggle crouch games, but still.

Depends on the game, and how well its implmented.

(To Smug, because I can't find his post in here.) No, my experience with it is irrelevant within this context. I'll quote you, sort of:

"halo/call of duty definately would be worse with one....But you know, games sort of have cover systems by default.   IN halo for example, you can just crouch. "

Follow the logic, and you'll probably see what I see. (Regarding your opinion of the game, not mine.)

Are you refering to a first person view while in cover? I haven't played KZ2 so I don't know how well that sort of thing works. I thought Rainbow Six: Vegas handled the idea of cover well, but at that point it's not a true FPS experience. So... Depends on the game?

The Call Of Duty series would be infinately better with a quick, fast paced cover system.

Ultra realistic graphics deserve ultra-realistic game mechanisms!

The only game mechanic a hardcoded cover system would add to an FPS is 'Blindfire'. I don't know how, but if a developer finds a way of staying in 1st person view and pulling off a useful 'Blindfire' mechanic, I would be genuinley amazed. I don't think switching into 3rd person view for the cover mechanics does a FPS any favors. I use cover in every FPS, since it just comes naturally. It's all about the angles. The only thing I cant pull off, is 'Blindfire'.

So yeah, I would like to see a working and meaningful 'Blindfire' mechanic out of the 1st person view. I believe, it can't be done.

Question:  Did the greatest FPS have recovering health and/or covering system? 
Answer:  Hell no, UT2k4 had none of that.

I think the lean function featured in most pc fpses is enough, a button for quickly turning around and leaning to a wall would feel weird in first person view.

To give my opinion first person cover systems exists and blind fire is possible with games with a first person cover system.
The only thing I hate is games that does the same thing as in R6 las vegas, so switching the view in third person, that's awful, breaks immersion and it's imbalanced.
A First person shooter is about shooting things while in first person, that's the point of those games.
Now I think cover systems is a bit like leaning, the only change is the fact that the process is automatic and the interaction with the decoration is greater with fewer controls, now leaning can be done everywhere, not the cover system witch need an interactive decoration to perform
For the rest I think that cover systems isn't for all games, they suits some games with leaning, but they have to remain in first person.
 
For making a blind fire feature alone, well I think this is possible, but I never see a such thing, but it won't be automatic as with a cover system like in killzone 2

I enjoy how the Rainbow Six: Vegas series handles cover. Shoots out a third person view. I love those games. They did it well.

I don't think so. Most first-person shooters are inherently fast-paced. I usually strafe and move around a lot whereas with third-person shooters I'm happy to rock back and pick off enemies from one area.

no. everything has a damn cover system in it these days. Its like the police procedural of the videogame world.

I'd say that generally third person shooters should have cover systems and first person shooters shouldn't. But the upcoming APB is a third person shooter and won't have a cover system, while Red Orchestra 2 is going to implement what I think will be the first first person cover mechanic in a shooter.

Killzone 2 have a first person cover system, Call of Juarez have a good first person cover system, Yeah I've read about Red orchestra, I hope we will have a good first person cover.
KZ 2 is the first game with a true first person cover system ;) , but most developers wants to stick with a 3rd person one.
I find that stupid because this isn't a first person shooter anymore ... it becomes a third person cover shooter :(

First person shooter?  No.  Third person shooter?  If necessary.

Not really. I'm feeling that cover-systems amplifies the "head-shot effect" that Jeff talked about some time ago. Allowing the player to be totally safe from damage, and then popping out and shoot enemies in the head kinda ruins the experience. Combat becomes less intense and more tedious.

Games shouldn't play themselves.  So no.

Maybe they could put in some kind of a 'crouch' or a 'lean' system...