Anyone remember when tactical shooters used to be good?

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
AdrianWerner

28441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#51 AdrianWerner
Member since 2003 • 28441 Posts

Nope, already explained.

The streamlined way that shooters are made today is better than that of old. Nobody likes going through menus. That's not realistic. Each time I enter a room in my house I don't have to open a menu, and select an option on what to do upon entering.

And how does it have more depth? Because instead of a menu I can now hit a single button, and give the same order to someone? I guess if you hit two buttons it's added depth? No.

treedoor

You can't do the same or give the same orders. In old R6 you had multiple teams, each consisting of multiple soldiers. The pre-mission planning allowed you to have control over all of them. You could to elaborate attacks when your troops would assaunt from multiple points of entry, into multiple rooms. Vegas doesn't "streamline" it, it simplifies this by throwing most of it away. You only have two guys and very little control over them, that's why in Vegas everyroom is perfectly sound proof, so even if granade explodes the guys from the other room won't hear it. That's why you don't really need to fear terrorists killing the hostages aside from few pre-scripted interactive cut-scenes. The original R6 design made it possible foryou to create an elaborate tactical plan and allowed the game to behave realisticaly. Modern RainbowSix doesn't. So it's not "streamlining", it's throwing the whole tactical element away.

Of course it's good idea to add contextual controls, the way SWAT did, but notice that even there it was a lot more complex than what RainbowSix: Vegas is offering. But this should be just additional option, that's the way those games should evolve, but adding additional options and making the existing ones easier to use. Progress should be making the tactical map controls easier to use, so not only you could set-up great plan before the mission, but then quickly use the same method to change plan on fly during the mission (Raven Shield did pretty good at this, but it could still be improved a lot), not throwing it and everything it allowed completely away.

Also..nobody likes to go through menus? Maybe on consoles, but on PC? With mouse? It sure as hell is more inuitive and faster than what Vegas did. In SWAT4 you just pointed a reticle on a door and the menu apeared from which you quickly chose what you want, in Vegas despite the options being far more limited it's actualy harder and more cumbersome to order your people around to do the very same things

It's archaic design, and that's why companies don't do it anymore. They make the same games with a more streamlined interface.treedoor

No, they don't make the same games. In effort of simplyfing controls they threw out all the tactical elements and controls away and since after this there was barely any tactics in it, they just removed realism as well..turning them into arcade shooters.

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
AdrianWerner

28441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#52 AdrianWerner
Member since 2003 • 28441 Posts

[
"Fun" and "dumbed down" aren't the same things. "Consistently entertaining" and "primitive" aren't the same things. "Complex" is different from "draconian." I adore tactical shooters and get a lot out of them, but there is no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding.Kevin-V

I'm sorry, but just because he loves dumbed down arcade shooters doesn't make tactical shooters archaic. I don't have problem with people enjoying arcade shooters, there's nothing wrong with that and I also play a lot of them. But his claim is different, he considers the whole styIe of gameplay to be archaic and thinks it should be completely replaced by what he likes. I don't mind him playing the games he likes, what irritates me is him thinking the styIe he doesn't like shouldn't exist anymore.

it's true that there is no no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding, but when those people try to enforce everybody else to only play games that are simple and "immedietaly rewarding"..then yes..that is a reason to be obnoxious to them,

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
jg4xchamp

64054

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#53 jg4xchamp
Member since 2006 • 64054 Posts

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]

[
"Fun" and "dumbed down" aren't the same things. "Consistently entertaining" and "primitive" aren't the same things. "Complex" is different from "draconian." I adore tactical shooters and get a lot out of them, but there is no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding.AdrianWerner

I'm sorry, but just because he loves dumbed down arcade shooters doesn't make tactical shooters archaic. I don't have problem with people enjoying arcade shooters, there's nothing wrong with that and I also play a lot of them. But his claim is different, he considers the whole s.tyle of gameplayplay to be archaic and thinks it should be completely replaced by what he likes. I don't mind him playing the games he likes, what irritates me is him thinking thes.tyle hedoesn't like is archaic and shouldn't exist anymore.

it's true that there is no ineed no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding, but when those people try to enforce everybody else to only play games that are simple and "immedietaly reward"..then yes..that is a reason to be obnoxious to them,

replace the lower case "L" with an upper case "i" Because "l" looks the same as "I" when you post them. Makes typing up CIass and StyIe easier. You just have to go against instinct when you're typing though :P

Avatar image for TheShadowLord07
TheShadowLord07

23083

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 TheShadowLord07
Member since 2006 • 23083 Posts

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

Is raven shield that hard? I want to try out this game along with swat 4 to see whats all the fuss is about. I'm just hoping the game is not that hard even on the easiest level.

cobrax25

its one hit kills for EVERYONE if I remember correctly. It requires a lot of planning and thought.

one shot = one kill?

Avatar image for Zanoh
Zanoh

6942

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#55 Zanoh
Member since 2006 • 6942 Posts

[QUOTE="treedoor"]

[QUOTE="doobie1975"]

no. they were boring and tedious. only egg heads liked them

AcidSoldner

This.

I don't care if you liked them. They got phased out quickly because of how archaic the design was. Just like beat-em ups

No, action junkies like you phased them out with your constant need for explosions every five seconds and health regeneration. Tactical Shooters of old were the thinking mans game where you actually had to use your brain to succeed (apparently this generation of gamers can't deal with that) and are far more satisfying than todays run and gun, aim assisted BS.

This + 1 here.

Avatar image for razgriz_101
razgriz_101

16875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#56 razgriz_101
Member since 2007 • 16875 Posts

no. they were boring and tedious. only egg heads liked them

doobie1975

key word in topic is tactical sure they take a bit of common sense (something the CoD generation lack) and a bit of getting used to.Online wise Rainbow Six 3 takes a nice big steaming dump on some of this gen's biggest "modern" shooters purely cause it actually forced teamwork a bit of sense and people generally didnt get angry and call each other every profanity under the sun.

Rainbow Six 3 is still a great game,great story the AI wasnt **** stupid and would actually panic and sometimes kill the hostage which was pretty insane.

Avatar image for Pessu
Pessu

944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#57 Pessu
Member since 2007 • 944 Posts
I'd still take raindow six rogue spear over any of those stupid new "tactical shooters" such as vegas. Oh man rogue spear is light years ahead of these games even if its old as hell.
Avatar image for Lable1985
Lable1985

1046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 394

User Lists: 0

#58 Lable1985
Member since 2008 • 1046 Posts
Shooters had tactics at one time!!!! :O
Avatar image for JLF1
JLF1

8263

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 JLF1
Member since 2005 • 8263 Posts

The problem is that we either get Halo or Arma 2 in game design this generation. There's nothing in between.

I want to play a deep FPS game but I don't want it to be like Arma 2, that game is simply too much for me to play right now as don't have time to loose hours into something I might not have fun doing.

Sure there are the few examples this generation of games that does something in between in varying degrees like Killzone 2, Stalker, Brothers In Arms and Far Cry 2 but those are rare and really far between.

Avatar image for AcidSoldner
AcidSoldner

7051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 AcidSoldner
Member since 2007 • 7051 Posts

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]

[
"Fun" and "dumbed down" aren't the same things. "Consistently entertaining" and "primitive" aren't the same things. "Complex" is different from "draconian." I adore tactical shooters and get a lot out of them, but there is no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding.AdrianWerner

I'm sorry, but just because he loves dumbed down arcade shooters doesn't make tactical shooters archaic. I don't have problem with people enjoying arcade shooters, there's nothing wrong with that and I also play a lot of them. But his claim is different, he considers the whole styIe of gameplay to be archaic and thinks it should be completely replaced by what he likes. I don't mind him playing the games he likes, what irritates me is him thinking the styIe he doesn't like shouldn't exist anymore.

it's true that there is no no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding, but when those people try to enforce everybody else to only play games that are simple and "immedietaly rewarding"..then yes..that is a reason to be obnoxious to them,

I completely agree. I have no problems with arcade shooters at at. In fact I love some of them; CoD4 and Quake 3 are some of my all time favorite mulitplayer shooters. The problem here is that the sub-genre of realistic tactical shooters is being butchered by developers who want to streamline the experience for newer players.

Want to bring in new players? Fine with me, the more the better but when you take a franchise like R6 that had you controlling multiple teams with multiple operatives, one shot kill mechanics and then change it to having only you and two operatives AND regenerating health; how the heck is that evolution? That is just utterly destroying the genre to conform to those who do not wish to learn the depth and intricacies of the genre.

P.S. Any games that label themselves a tactical shooter and has regenerating health is just....fail...so much fail.