The End of the Tactical Shooter.

[4 IN 1 0]

For us, planning an assault for an hour then go into the mission and acturally get the job done no matter what shit hits the fan is FUN, for you its more or less just shoot-them-up(maybe in a realistic and tactical level, maybe not), thats the major difference.

[celery 8]

For us, planning an assault for an hour then go into the mission and acturally get the job done no matter what shit hits the fan is FUN, for you its more or less just shoot-them-up(maybe in a realistic and tactical level, maybe not), thats the major difference.

I don't buy that you look at the map for an hour before starting the mission. In reality you make a plan that looks sound, find out that your teammates die one by one at the same door, go back to the planning stage and rinse and repeat for that one hour until you get it right. I wouldn't call a game tactical when in practise you're doomed to fail the first tries until you know the mission by heart and do some parts solo at your own pace because your teammates are stupid and undependable. The procedure resembles puzzle games and some of the 8-bit platformers.

I did spend hours upon hours on Rainbow Six, H&D and Ghost Recon, so assuming that I don't get the idea of those games is false. I get what they're trying to do but that doesn't mean I can't criticize their shortcomings in retrospect.

[4 IN 1 0]

I don't buy that you look at the map for an hour before starting the mission. In reality you make a plan that looks sound, find out that your teammates die one by one at the same door, go back to the planning stage and rinse and repeat for that one hour until you get it right. I wouldn't call a game tactical when in practise you're doomed to fail the first tries until you know the mission by heart and do some parts solo at your own pace because your teammates are stupid and undependable. The procedure resembles puzzle games and some of the 8-bit platformers.

I did spend hours upon hours on Rainbow Six, H&D and Ghost Recon, so assuming that I don't get the idea of those games is false. I get what they're trying to do but that doesn't mean I can't criticize their shortcomings in retrospect.

No one force you to buy it:whistle:

[sic-disaster 311]

I dont agree with what you are saying about AI, Celery.

It will never be perfect and wishing it would be is just naive, you'll never get the perfect AI.

Right now it just comes down to personal taste. I too can get frustrated by GR or R6 AI because they do some amazing stuff (like when i lean around a corner in R6 sometimes and in the same second i get a shot in the head).

But all other things these games offer are great. GR frustrates me more because you cant walk up some hills in that game than some AI hiccups.

So let's drop that topic right now.

Tell me though, what is the contribution of that discussion? Are you saying we should accept that there are no more tactical shooters like that coming out, and settle for something like GRAW and Vegas? Because as i see it, we have no other options.

We can pick out every flaw in these old games, but what does it leave us with? Absolutely nothing.

It aint perfect, but there isnt anything better coming out soon either. And i'm not ready to give up on it just yet. If i did, i'd probably already quit gaming altogether.

Edit:

For example: we could also pick out every flaw that ArmA 2 has. But will we get all the options ArmA 2 offers anywhere else? No, so you accept those flaws and make do with what you've got.

Some are more troublesome than others. But those flaws as listed in R6 and GR just dont bother me at all, because i can see nothing will ever be perfect.

A game like Hidden and Dangerous 1 i play for nostalgic reasons, but the controls just feel weird now so it takes out most of the fun. But i wont let some odd AI-moments stop me enjoying what are some of the best tactical shooters ever created.

Edited July 29, 2010 by SiC-Disaster

[Baff1 0]

Red Orchestra 2 is coming out soon I expect.

I have high hopes for that game.

I certainly feel the planning phase of R6 set it apart from the other shooters (and that it was the daddy of the genre).

But I have enjoyed a fair few Tac Shooters that don't have one.

I don't feel that console interfaces offer the level of precison required to make games play that way. To offer the same unforgiving "this could screw up the entire plan" make or break tension everytime you take a shot.

But then I don't feel that PC gaming will be as abandoned by software developers in future as much as it is now. I think with current gen consoles looking more and more dated and equivalent or greater powered PC's being more and more the the norm that we will see the same return swing of gaming investment we usually do at some point or other before the next gen of consoles hits the market.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Baff1

[dmarkwick 261]

The problem is deceptively simple: all the publishers are relentlessly marketing their product for the largest market. They all want a slice of the same pie, which is a huge pie.

For companies that are willing to look at smaller pies, they get a fatter slice. So BIS do well out of a smaller market than the console FPS market. Only small startup/independant developers can do this, because everyone else is being steered by the publishers/shareholders. As soon as a company floats, it loses what made it good. Fact.

[Kings_25 10]

The problem is deceptively simple: all the publishers are relentlessly marketing their product for the largest market. They all want a slice of the same pie, which is a huge pie.

For companies that are willing to look at smaller pies, they get a fatter slice. So BIS do well out of a smaller market than the console FPS market. Only small startup/independant developers can do this, because everyone else is being steered by the publishers/shareholders. As soon as a company floats, it loses what made it good. Fact.

Thats essentially it.

Its about exposing your product to the largest number of potential buyers.

Currently in the FPS market these potential buyers are between ages 10 - 16.

I think that MW2 has actually lowered the average gamer age by several years because it is marketed for KIDS. COD has introduced children to first person shooters.

When I was a kid I played banjo-kazooie and mario-kart not FPS's rated for adults.

Big game developers are simply getting greedy they're essentially whoring for sales with a formula that appeals to the masses rather than take a chance (which may or may not pay off) and build a dedicated fanbase.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

They seem to think that adult gamers are a loosing market i guess. What other explanation is there? By dumping features in fps games they loose adults on one side but recruit kids on the other. I guess kids as potential buyers bring more to the table.

[Inkompetent 0]

To me there just exists a tiny, tiny handful of tactical shooters that I constantly return to when I want a 'smart' game to play, even if I do enjoy for example Battlefield: Bad Company 2 a lot.

Rainbow Six series up until Athena Sword, Ghost Recon, Sum of All Fears, SWAT 3, SWAT 4, Operation Flashpoint, ArmA (okay, I don't play this anymore. ArmA2 is ArmA but better in all ways), and ArmA2.

That's it. In a sea of many hundreds of shooters I can count a dozen of games.

Real pity, but it seems nigh impossible nowadays to get funding to create a tactical game. Seems like a lot of investors and distrubutors aren't happy with just earning money, but they all want to make the super-duper top-seller, so unless you already have the money to fund development with you are screwed (look at for example Ground Branch and Sky Gods), and yet we get realism-mods for every single moddable arcade shooter out there, and the mods are played by many, many thousands.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Inkompetent

[Kings_25 10]

To me there just exists a tiny, tiny handful of tactical shooters that I constantly return to when I want a 'smart' game to play, even if I do enjoy for example Battlefield: Bad Company 2 a lot.

Rainbow Six series up until Athena Sword, Ghost Recon, Sum of All Fears, SWAT 3, SWAT 4, Operation Flashpoint, ArmA (okay, I don't play this anymore. ArmA2 is ArmA but better in all ways), and ArmA2.

That's it. In a sea of many hundreds of shooters I can count a dozen of games.

Real pity, but it seems night impossible nowadays to get funding to create a tactical game. Seems like a lot of investors and distrubutors aren't happy with just earning money, but they all want to make the super-duper top-seller, so unless you already have the money to fund development with you are screwed (look at for example Ground Branch and Sky Gods), and yet we get realism-mods for every single moddable arcade shooter out there, and the mods are played by many, many thousands.

Thats exactly true.

It isn't about making a good game that will sell well.

Its about making a game that follows a preset formula that happened to sell 25 million. Its purely greed.

[sesdelta38 10]

I wonder....If they were able to successfully port Ghost Recon 1 to consoles, couldn't they make a tactical shooter that is like that for current-gen consoles?

I think tactical shooters can work on consoles if done right. But, people nowadays play so much Call of Duty and other mainstream shooters, that it would be hard to sell it.

Edited July 31, 2010 by sesdelta38

[sic-disaster 311]

The problem is that companies wont settle for anything other than the entire pie, instead of just a slice of it.

If you know that particular slice, it's still quite sizeable and it can still sell quite enough copies to be profitable.

The developers behind Ground Branch and Sky Gods knew this, but unfortunately werent able to convince any publishers of this fact.

That's why i'm really glad that TWI (who make ROHOS) now publish games themselves, starting with Killing Floor (which they helped develop to retail worthy status), then went on to put Zeno Clash in the American stores acting solely as a publisher and recently they also announced publishing The Ball, another winner, like RO1, of the Make Something Unreal contest and earning an engine license for UE3.

Which makes me think, TWI should help out Ground Branch after they're done with ROHOS, and truely become one of the last bastions of tactical realism gaming.

[Kings_25 10]

The problem is that companies wont settle for anything other than the entire pie, instead of just a slice of it.

If you know that particular slice, it's still quite sizeable and it can still sell quite enough copies to be profitable.

Haha I love the pie analogy that sums up exactly what I've been trying to say I just haven't been able to put it that simply :P

[dm 9]

)rStrangelove;1702382']They seem to think that adult gamers are a loosing market i guess. What other explanation is there? By dumping features in fps games they loose adults on one side but recruit kids on the other. I guess kids as potential buyers bring more to the table.

Which is ironic, seeing as more and more games are getting 18+ ratings these days...

[Inkompetent 0]

Which is ironic, seeing as more and more games are getting 18+ ratings these days...

And that the avarage age of gamers is rising.

However I think that the deal probably is that 1) They want to bring people into their franchise as mindless wallets as early as possible, and 2) Older gamers are more picky with what they buy, while teen kids convince their dads to buy any crap there is with a cool package.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

teen kids convince their dads to buy any crap there is with a cool package.

An 18+ raiting on a game is like a big STRAIGHT BUY sign for any kid. No need to look up features or DRM annoyances lol. ;)

[Big Mac 19]

The rating system with games, just like with movies is a joke. I was watching R-Rated movies since I was 6 years old and playing games meant for adults for about as long. All it is is an insurance policy of sorts against people who make a living by filing lawsuits..

[D00mbuggy 10]

There will always be niche markets to fill, like what ArmA II has been doing right now, and what Bohemia Interactive has been doing since they made OFP:CWC

[sparks50 0]

I always wondered why they didn't make a sequel to Swat 4. The VIP escort missions were great fun in MP.

[[aps]gnat 28]

A thinking mans shoot by virtue of its content will not be a title that you play once and after a month you feel like its time to buy another game. i.e. ArmA

So, game developers HATE games that the player can buy once and may sit on for months if not years playing its variations & depth out ........ its bad for sales!

Linear games of any type, that you can only really play once, are great for sales!

(free) Mods that increase the life of the game ..... are bad for sales.

You can see the trent for where the investors will want to put their money ......

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I understand that full on simulators are something very niche but at one point tactical shooters were the top selling shooters.

Even the original flashpoint sold around 2 million copies I believe, The first two SOCOMS were a runaway success, the original rainbow six and Ghost Recon games were extremely successful. Developers are forgeting what made their games great in the first place. Now everything is being dumbed down to be marketed to kids who scream at their parents to buy these games which shouldn't be played by them in the first place.

I mean how many of the 25 million MW2 players are over the age of 15.

If one of these recognised franchises actually went back to their roots I could see a huge influx of adult gamers who remember the old series buying it.

There is a drought of tactical shooters and I'm waiting for a developer to take advantage of that.

eg: Bringing out a new R6 that was true to the original, there would be a strong chance that not only original R6 players would buy it but also GR, SOCOM, OFP and SWAT fans would as well as there is nothing to compete with. thats just my opinion.

I mean look at Dragon Rising, it showed that there were people still out there (even on consoles) looking for a war simulator, unfortunately continuous broken promises and major gameplay elements were removed essentially dumbing down the game resulting in mediocre sales as well as a real assfucking for those desperate enough to still buy the game.

If someone actually cared and put in some effort a tactical shooter may completely redefine the shooter genre.

I was quite surprised back in 08/09 at how many console players were screaming for a game that was much more realistic than any ever seen on consoles for OFP DR. So this tells me that we aren't a minority. We are just a minority screaming for change so others can come out of the wood work.

[sparks50 0]

Gnat;1725483']A thinking mans shoot by virtue of its content will not be a title that you play once and after a month you feel like its time to buy another game. i.e. ArmA

So' date=' game developers HATE games that the player can buy once and may sit on for months if not years playing its variations & depth out ........ its bad for sales!

[/quote']

I dont think thats true. Many modern games use achievements and work on stretching out the playtime as much as they can.

And as long as there is some sort of meaningful upgrade in the sequel, the players that played the last game and liked it, will buy the next one.

Ive bought some games that I wouldn't have if it wasn't for the mods.

On the top of my head is CS and CS:S, hl2 dm, Unreal Tournament, Rfactor, ghost recon something.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Many modern games use achievements and work on stretching out the playtime as much as they can.

I tend to think they're only in there so you'll feel more inclined to keep playing it, to get the accolades. But in many ways you're playing blind to the "rest of the world".

[BadgerDK 10]

This thread entices me to go on with another bible-sized rant about how Vegas and Lockdown were the death of Rainbow Six, and how Advanced Warfighter fucked up Ghost Recon.

It's my Pandora's Box. To me, Vegas symbolises everything that is wrong about gaming today and i'd rather cut off my mouse-hand than play it, just for the principle of it.

Touching it is defiling my body.

But long story short, looking how things turned out for old R6 and GR, and with Dragon Rising too, i can only be damn glad those corporate cocksuckers dont try to restart the Hidden and Dangerous or SWAT franchises because that would be more than i could handle.

Mainstream gaming has destroyed the games i have loved most, and Vegas, Lockdown and GRAW1/2 are still casting a shadow on my enjoyment of gaming.

I'm up to the point of quitting, if it wasnt for ArmA 2.

EDIT: Since ArmA 2 and OA are already out, the only game that adresses our niche and has great potential of fulfilling our needs is Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad.

This and ArmA 2 will be my top two games. It's a shame our market is this small, that we only have two choices to play.

Other than that, we can only fall back on the golden oldies, but as years go by that gets more and more problematic. Like now, Rogue Spear is dying on me. I still love playing it from time to time, but now i'm getting problems and it just isnt playable any more with no hopes of improvement :(

I am 100% with you all the way, mate.

Let me know if you're interested in some SWAT 4 multiplayer.

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

After reading this, I'm starting to understand the situation.

People in this day and age would rather just play a game that requires no tactical thinking and just have their characters run all over the place shooting at other players. As result, we are left with a brand that's getting old and stale. I'm currently a console gamer and I never played TRUE tactical shooters. Because, I played Rainbow Six Vegas and GRAW.

However, if a developer can develop an TRUE tactical shooter that can work for ALL platforms without unnecessary dumbing-down, It would bring innovation back the shooter genre.

Now I know most people here are PC gamers, but before you criticize me for mentioning consoles when I say ALL platforms, you guys remember Ghost Recon 1. If you also remember, Ghost Recon was ported to the original Xbox. Believe it or not, the Xbox port of Ghost Recon 1 was VERY popular among console gamers, so much that people stilled played it before original Xbox games lost Xbox Live support in April. It had a lot of the features that PC version had (except mods and mouse and keyboard).

So in my view, TRUE tactical shooters can work on consoles. It's just that people would rather play run n' gun titles like COD. As I said, If a developer can an actual tactical shooter for consoles, than it could be popular and bring a back originality for the genre. But for now, that won't happen as long as developers keep bringing out the same old stuff.

I simply can't see that working at all.

[celery 8]

I simply can't see that working at all.

Have you heard of OFP: Elite?