Why did all the tactical shooters die? How could anyone not love this?

Be born earlier, and tell your friends to be born earlier too

>Vaperware
>Dead
>All strategy and logistics, no tactics
>Clunky as shit
>Dead
>Headshot from a mile away by a naked man with a SKS
ooof dead genre

>Ready Or Not
Not out yet
>Insurgency Sandstorm
Shit
>Squad
Not a tactical shooter
>Arma 3
Not a tactical shooter
>Ground Branch
Unfinished early access shit
>Escape From Tarkov
Broken battle royale garbage

what? thats the stupidest logic ive ever heard

Tactical shooters require good AI and good level design, two things that are kryptonite to modern gamers and developers.

>>Squad
>Not a tactical shooter
>>Arma 3
>Not a tactical shooter
Are you retarded

>all dead games
Hmm...

>Why did all the tactical shooters die?
Because nobody wants to play One Life to Live modes. If they wanted that, they'd just do a mass-shooting.

Do you even knkw what a Battle Royale is?

Fuck your tactical gay shit.

Why the fuck did Unreal Tournament die?

>making games is kryptonite to game designers
>lets make fortnite #45784325
I want off this ride

It's my brother who introduced me to these kinds of games with those early Tom Clancy games and Delta Force.
Now, I can't even find people who have the same tastes. It's all gacha and mobage now.

tarkov is still doing ok

Because at the end of the day its a gimmick of one gun which is accurate, one gun which explodes, and everyone going fast.

Its boring. Even CoD is more fun. It has no depth at all.

At least you have R6S even if it does have a lot of hero shooter elements.

Frankly, I feel like it's kind of a miracle that a game with tac shooter elements took off at all. There was a long stretch where there was literally nothing even vaguely tactical coming out or on the horizon.

Not him but absolutely no one uses tactics in squad or arma because there is no reason to. You spawn on a squad and shoot in the general direction of the enemy.

At best you have elements of strategy, set down by the SL and Com who say which squads go where, but they are all equally just blunt hammers smashing face on an objective.

And Arma is too clunky to do anything tactical, if two players get near each other you're more likely to clip through the world than shoot the enemy.

>damn bros why did tactical shooters die?
>here are some new tactical shooters
>UUUM NOOOO THEY DON'T FIT MY SPECIFIC CRITERIA SO THEY'RE ALL SHIT
You know who killed the tactical shooter? You did :^)

Attached: 1562701932126.png (825x635, 40K)

Maybe they should make real tactical shooters rather than games which appeal to no one :^)

>You spawn on a squad and shoot in the general direction of the enemy
>they are all equally just blunt hammers smashing face on an objective
Either you've never played Squad and you're talking out of your ass or you should stop playing it right now because retards like you are ruining the game

Quite clearly you've never played it or dont know what the definition of tactics is. Probably both.

>real tactical shooters
literally the only """""real"""" tactical shooters were SWAT 3 and 4. that's it
don't even try and talk about R6 1-3, all those games were shallow boring garbage that required no planning or tactics at all

>pixel shooting: the game
>tactics
user turning your settings to low and shooting at hexagons is not tactics

>don't even try and talk about R6 1-3
But user, Vegas was fun

twitter.com/VOIDInteractive/status/1161154541645119492
Alpha launches Monday

If Arma isn't a tactical shooter then what is?

If you want to feel the realism that much join the army faggot.

Well that came out of fucking no where

Thanks user, my dick is ready

AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Vegas was literally CoD with a squad gimmick, it singlehandedly killed the series

Yes that is all very true but user it was fun

It's true, anti-Vegas contrarians don't know what fun is.

that's why they make cod and battlefield games, because "real tactical shooters" appeal to no one
have a nice day

Wew, you really dont know what a tactical shooter is huh. Its okay you'll learn newfag.

tactical shooters don't exist, it's a marketing buzzword

Because God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal.

One of the reasons why guns changed the world is because even a woman or a kid can kill a man three times bigger than them, basically

It's such a simple proof as to why communists lie about wanting equality, and are only saying that as a path to power.

Because it's considered too slow. People want a brainless run and shoot game.

Attached: best girl.jpg (1280x720, 43K)

It's a milsim.

R6S is slow, yet it's one of the most popular shooters out now

Because you’re gay

I just hate how easy it is to die in these kinds of games. Its boring as fuck. Getting shot once or twice very quickly and dying before you can even see the enemy, or react to whats happening, etc. It's fucking boring. I have fun with these games some times, but playing something like Rising Storm Vietnam is just tedious and boring. The games last forever, dont feel good to play, are too slow, and you die too easily.

Wheres the fun in that? Im sure it's better if youre good at the games, but I admit Im not. And it just isnt fun. It is sad its a dying genre, but it just isnt fun for the average player IMO.

>war advice from a jew

Why americans like pew pew first person so much

I dont know about half of these but the ones I do know are more like autistic milsim than tac fps which I would say are like Raven Shield, PR pre .8, RO2. Insurgency might be the closest but it's designed to be intentionally unwieldy in gameplay hence autistic milsim.

>dying before you can even see the enemy, or react to whats happening
>Rising Storm Vietnam
Literally not what tactical shooters are. Tactical shooters are about planning, strategizing, and positioning yourself so that you're never in a position where you can get shot. Tactical shooters are closer to Splinter Cell and Hitman than Battlefield or CoD. What you're describing are just simcade multiplayer shooters.
Play SWAT 4 and Raven Shield

you're one confused zoomer.
>tactical shooters are about strategizing
>tactical
>strategizing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy's_Rainbow_Six_3:_Raven_Shield
what do you think it says under genre?

Siege is everything but a Rainbow Six game. It's Overwatch with tacticool gear.

Ground Branch is closer to Rainbow 6 1-3 with some really good gun customization and movement mechanics
Ready Or Not is literally SWAT 5, it's probably the most "tactical" modern shooter coming out
youtube.com/watch?v=0PH_f3zo5_A

>tactical shooters aren't about strategizing
Are you off your pills?

I'm patiently waiting for Ready or Not to come out next year.

Attached: 0o542.jpg (1280x720, 189K)

>Arma 3
>Dead

go learn the difference between strategy and tactics lil zoom zoom

yeah that looks like a carbon copy of swat 4 except for the dinky ass 10x10 pixel aimpoints. I absolutely loathe that, why even bother adding ironsighting at that point.

autism - normie - adhd
ArmA - sweetspot ( old BF) - COD

I think you should consider going back to preschool and help lower our national illiteracy rate

R6S doesn't even have doors, It's a fucking disgrace to the Rainbow 6 saga: youtu.be/fNpb8xfz32Y

the most tactical game ive ever played was cod2 s&d with wrm. i miss it so much. do the new cods even have s&d?

yeah ill see you there in 3 weeks, dont forget to bring me an apple

Aimpoints are aesthetic you tasteless zoomer

Attached: 601px-BHDCommando-6.jpg (601x255, 67K)

I want Poppy to break my neck.

"Tactical" shooters are just normal shooters with clunky movement.

get some reading comprehension brainlet

Wildlands was the best selling game of 2017 and Breakpoint will be the best selling game this year.

But tactical shooters are "dead" lol

>tactical shooters
You mean the trash zoomers play because they can't aim?

Quake is more tactical than anything you think is "tactical".

What is the planning phase in Raven Shield retard?
youtu.be/66OFxFcvP1Q?t=349
youtube.com/watch?v=0DWVXwbp8wo

>adding weapon sway to RS
like shitting on a painting and calling it an improvement

Anyone play this gem?

Attached: F29C8B69-7A57-49A8-8DC5-1A198C4EF050.jpg (1600x1069, 1.36M)

Spoken like a true zoomer who has only played R6S (a literal hero shooter) and thinks that it's a tactical shooter

too complicated for women and devs only try to pander to women these days

lol you idiot the entire planning phase you design the individual tactics for each room/door not a strategy. Seriously just go google strat vs tactics and learn yourself something.

>Everything I hate is the fault of this one specific group
Healthy mindset.

Ive played Squad for 500 hours and its true. All the strategy comes from where the SLs drop rallies and FOBs. Its just dropping spawn points and hoping your wave of grunts can kill more than they die. There are little moment to moment tactics.

Tactical shooter refers to CQB.

Rainbow six siege is a hero shooter.

Arma is a milsim.

>counter strike zoomies thinking their sooka blot spray simulator is hardcore
Omegalul

Explain why a hero shooter cannot also be a tactical shooter.

I've played ARMA dude, it's boring shit unless you're just fucking around with the helis.

These games exist for the kids who can't even handle the glacial pace of titles like fortnite, people who seriously want to sit on a building all day waiting for an NPC to pick up a can 2 clicks away so they can click on his head.

This kind of stuff might be more "realistic", but that's because in real combat you might actually fucking die. There are no stakes online.

But ARMA is more like a military sandbox/milsim than a tactical shooter, since the CQB gameplay sucks.
Tactical shooters would be the old Rainbow Six and SWAT games.

>Tactical shooter refers to CQB.
Get the fuck out faggot.

Here's my definition of a tactical shooter.
>a game emulating realistic close-quarters military or police combat that benefits from pre-planning, has doorkicking and is focused on PvE.
In this regard, it's the PvP and special abilities. It's not realistic, it's cartoonish. It may be classified as a tactical shooter but it's not what fans of tactical shooters like.

Same thing with insurgency and squad. I personally don't believe PvP games can even be tactical shooters because so much of what makes a tactical shooter is severe asymmetrical combat with legitimate elements of surprise that you only really get with prescripted AI. Every PvP game will inevitably result in people abusing little bugs and it becomes too fast paced.

Alpha's out monday

Slow paced shooters suck. I want to go fast and shoot rocket launchers.

Everyone with a semblance of taste.

>Arma is a milsim.
"Military sandbox" is a better way to describe it since it's a poor simulation of any one aspect

R6S could have done that if they didn't go full hero shooter, and had actual working DOORS. This way, people would have to plan their assault and clear rooms realistically by stacking up and flashing.

I was going to completely disagree with you about PvP disqualifiying a game from being a tactical shooter but you make a good point.

Out of interest, would you consider Frozen Synapse to be a "tactical" game even if it's PvP?

Attached: file.png (1280x798, 1.42M)

Would doors really matter that much versus the barricades that already exist?
Granted the debris of barricades make them really frustrating to kick open, but breaching charges fulfill the same single motion effect as kicking a door in and storming the room.
To me, it is pretty much just a visual thing, just like how windows don't have shutters or blinds of any kind, but can also be barricaded.

There are limited barricades that you cn put on a map, but with maps like the OG Rainbow Six buildings have doors literally everywhere (just like real life building and houses) which translates into "unknown" areas to the player has to clear one by one.
youtu.be/OTuaW9eQj0s?t=19

tactical realism units or clans can make PvP work but there are not many groups because people dont want to put in tge effort for weekly or biweekly training.

Yes. I consider frozen synapse a tactical shooter. PvP doesn't disqualify a game from being a tactical shooter but if the focus is on it then it always ends up discarding actual tactics. Turn-based games are great at avoiding this hurdle.

I should probably also say that squad management is a huge part of tactical shooters too. Another thing that seems plausible in theory in multiplayer but doesn't quite end up panning out.

There could some day be an FPS tactical shooter with PvP focus but I haven't seen one yet. You need hostage missions where something like 20 terrorists have to hold up an embassy and go through a series of steps to win while 8 counter-terrorists try to stop them. Or maybe bank robbers are trying to make a getaway Deathmatch will never be tactical. The bad guys need an ulterior motive.

No, every spot that would have a door simply has a barricade. In terms of numbers of entryways that is more down to map design than actual doors vs barricaded doors.
I agree that the close quarters rooms are the most interesting part, but even in your video it is apparent that not every map can have just repeated rectangular roughly 20'x20' or smaller rooms everywhere, and it just so happens that in a PvP setting, the long corridors/open areas become some of the hottest points of contest, despite such small rooms existing in every single R6S map. If you were fighting players instead of NPCs that don't even seem to hear you coming, advancing down the bedroom hallways would be much more contested than the actual bedroom entries too.

But having doors open new gameplay features like what Raven Shield had (you could open the doors all the way, or gradually opening them with your mouse well).
So you could either have a "hot" entry or a more reserved and methodical entry (applying the concept of "slicing the pie") like explained in OP's video.

Attached: Slicing-the-Pie-.jpg (1008x630, 42K)

But if you had barricades everywhere, then the defenders would have to break those barriers when they're positioning, instead of opening and closing a door and then wait to ambush anyone who passes near that room

I say to you that the same thing is already achievable with barricades. The main difference is that one side of the room doesn't get part of their their pie blocked by the opened door swinging into the room.
In the case of breaching charges, the entire door is opened instantly like your hot entry scenario, and when you smack the edges to break the barricade open, you can do that slow sweep just like in your pic.
In a slow entry with a door, unless the door automatically opens all the way to be flat to the wall, the immediate left or right corner will be blocked from view for the ones entering, but the ones defending from those corners can easily see them coming in and fire through the door to kill them before they even have LoS on them. Bulletproof doors alleviate this somewhat, but offer absurd cover for those entering the room, creating an even worse situation for any defenders in the back left/right corners of the room.

Is it a shooter? Do you use tactics while shooting? Then it's a fucking tactical shooter.

I hope they don't fuck it up.

But what about the planning phase of the defenders then? They would have to blow those barricades just to enter the rooms they want to defend, whilst with doors that wouldn't even be an issue

Hmm I'll grant you that, yes it is easier to locate where defenders might lie in wait when they have to barricade their specific location instead of having everything pre-shut, but this is hardly a significant factor when these games rely on information gathering beforehand anyway.
In R6S in particular, you'd drone a room even if there wasn't a closed door/barricade for the same reason you describe. Defenders will hide anywhere they think they won't be found, and doors only help slightly with that, which again, comes down more to map design and what angles rooms have for sight from outside than the actual door/barricade that would block the doorway.

>getting deployed on 20th

Attached: MLVDL0.png (776x718, 510K)