The Harsh Reality of Tactical Shooters...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 апр 2024
- Let's Talk about the AAA space investing - or rather NOT investing their efforts into the Tactical FPS space.
LIKE and SUBSCRIBE with NOTIFICATIONS ON if you enjoyed the video! 👍
💪BECOME A MEMBER OF THE CHANNEL - ruclips.net/user/BigfryTVjoin
💰 DONATE: streamlabs.com/bigfrytv/tip
👕 MERCH: bigfryshop.com
🖥️ BENQ Monitors: benqurl.biz/3Edd9ja
▶️ GET CONNECTED:
🎥 MoreBigfry: / morebigfry
🎮 Game Store | www.nexus.gg/Bigfry
🎮 Fanatical Game Keys | www.fanatical.com/en/?ref=bigfry
👉 Discord | / discord
🐦 Twitter | / bigfrytv
📷 Instagram | / bigfrytv
📱 TikTok | tiktok.com/BigfryTV
Outro Cover Done by: / @zulegmat 
Развлечения
You guys wanted a Real Talk, No Sponsor? Here you go. Let's drop some truth.
While a good video so far! Gotta pause on the "They don't really give a shit on our opinion until it affects the bottom line..." yeah, that's why AAA developers VERY MUCH care about opinions. They just don't care about the opinion of that .5% of niche gamers. They care about the opinion of the larger community, they care about MORE opinions vs the tiny sliver of people. It's like the star wars nerds who whine at every new release despite the star wars movie all making billions etc. We aren't making games for the hardcore niche fans, we make games for the broader population.
Otherwise yeah spot on, you NEED to consider the bottom line and tactical hardcore games don't cut it... Tarkov's numbers are hilariously more cheaters than legitimate players. ACTUALLY, there's been analysis run on it. Tarkov survives because cheaters keep buying new accounts lol. And NIkita dug that grave for himself by introducing more and more anti-fun mechanics. Not just hardcore mechanics, but mechanics to actively make the game worse and less fun.
i pretty sure you said this but AAA space dont take risks and that imo is making it drown in just sameness, another thing is replay ability to the point of addiction.
@@King_Scorpiontrue! I love that about Indy developers. They are usually the ones innovating and taking risks.
You play what you love to play...you do you bigman, we are here for it! 🤜🤛
@@skilledviolence9755 straight up. I can enjoy people having fun playing games I don’t like. Because if it’s not fun to them it won’t be entertaining for us.
1: Too much competition
2: Now a lot of new content just recycled games
3: Way to many scams.
It's not even scams, it's too many failures, end results doesn't matter, but like just isn't anything worth the money
I think lots of players who want tactical shooters have this incredibly strong pursuit of finding the perfect tactical shooter with realistic mechanics and tries to gatekeep the word "Tactical" and reject R6 Siege being branded as one. They don't realize that R6 is Tactical because you actually need tactics to win around and you can't just run and gun most of the time like in CoD.
@@soulinker3895 R6 is simply not a realistic tactical fps, but a hero tactical fps
@@soulinker3895 Although I wish Siege and Ubi didn't sell Rainbow Six's soul to e-sports, because that's what holding the game's true potential back.
Too focussed on MP and not SP/Coop
I think the main problem is the tactical shooter genre is relatively small and is almost always entirely divisive amongst the playerbase. There is not one game that most tactical gamers rally behind. It splinters off into sectors (Tarkov, Insurgency Sandstorm, RoN, Squad, etc.) and as a result splinters the player base and what people want out of a tactical shooter.
The other thing that I think most people don't want to admit is tactical shooters are fun when they work well and have stuff to keep you entertained. BUT most are janky, do not respect your time (Tarkov), or get stale after playing a lot. I mained Insurgency Sandstorm for over a year and a half, but now it doesn't even cross my mind anymore. It simply got too repetitive and old. I play Hell Let Loose here and there, but it's not something I'm dying to play every day.
I'd rather have fun playing Helldivers 2, The Finals, or other games that are more enjoyable and offer new experiences that are fun. That's the main problem with tactical games. They get taken too seriously, debates happen over realism/accuracy/tacticalness which tires everyone, and then people move onto the next game to get hyped about (Grayzone). Just for the cycle to repeat.
Well said, but also people expect a AAA realistic tactical shooter but only want to pay for a indie A game and then cry about prices
@@l.3626 That's a good point as well.
Yes, beside competition one also know right away what they get into. If they simply dont want Tarkov loot run survival they simply too hardcore to casual gamer and less and less people are into tactical shooter with all the grow up and stresss less fun for some. people simply want fun
Well said Feel exactly the same
I'm not entirely convinced on Tarkov not respecting my time. It's given me the most memorable gaming moments and I've met so many people out of Tarkov because of it.
The only part where it doesn't respect my time is the long load times and the cheaters.
Tactical/hardcore shooters cover just a small fraction of the FPS market. The audience is very demanding, and want their games to be very in depth with mechanics that would just require extra dev time compared to a casual one. These games are also difficult to get into as they are more complex, and the audience want it that way. Why would a "AAA" company want to spend more money on this type of game compared to a casual one, that would appeal to more people, and be easier to pick up and play.
i think rising storm 2 type is what they should look into, its fast paced but still hardcore. TBH CSGO is far from the most realistic FPS but its still tactical and hardcore, only thing none realistic about it is the damage gun have.
@@jmgonzales7701 The damage's offset by the recoil, there's a reason nobody goes rambo in Counterstrike it's because of the recoil.
Another thing that's overlooked is that most gamers simply don't care about realism in their games, all they care about is if the game they're playing is fun, that's why the casual shooters are more appealing than hardcore shooters, less realism tends to draw in more players compared to more realism. Heck you can even see the distain in some discussion forums because some people try injecting realism where it doesn't belong like the discussion forums for MechWarrior 5 Mercenaries.
I personally miss progression in tactical games, like weapons and clothes (realistic) and when you don't have that in a game I get bored faster.
Which is sad…
That is why I got a PC and been enjoying Tarkov since. Even tired after work I scav run no care in the world looking for items. Only game I enjoy playing playing anymore that I am able to do whatever if I'm either tired or want to try.
@@missjibb337I envy you, I can’t play that game I love it more than any other game but holy shit is it sweaty I get to fuckin mad
@@Prizm17try single player Tarkov mod. It's amazing. Changed the game for me. I live in a rural area with terrible internet.
So your younger than 30-35 or so....
lol
I NEED ME LUCKY CHARMS!!!!! 😁
@@Prizm17 it’s not for everyone that’s for sure haha. I learned two maps really well and that’s how I can survive solo. I’m not good very good so that’s the only upper hand I have in combat against the good players 😂
Nah, to me R6 lost identity a long time ago, I never thought it was hyper realistic, but man they turned it into a primarily dumb hero shooter .
yes, but you act like its easy...the game takes skill to be good at. not just shooting.
It's still very tactical yea, just in a competitive sense that u need to grind hours for fundamentals and knowledge before you can improvise tactics fast on your feet.
But yea those days of applying military handbook tactics in a game are long gone.
I didn't mind the goofy skins in the beginning because it was fun having an easter themed map and funny skins, halloween special game modes, but the more they did, the more "goof" you saw in a regular basis, IMO they should allow you to choose to display other player's cosmetics or not, that would solve the issue 100%
@@jcraftgaming76 Most shooters take skill to be good at. Most games in general, actually. So I don't get the point you're making.
@@plav032 Yea right lol. You know pissed I'd be if I paid for a Master Chief Op only for everyone to have the ability to not see the thing I paid for them to see? It's FPS it's not like I'm looking at Chief the whole time. I paid so YOU can see Chief fuck you up. So no, that's never going to happen
The harsh reality of AAA.
Which is why indies are becoming more and more relevant
Indies can be scummy and greedy as well though.
i think rising storm 2 type is what they should look into, its fast paced but still hardcore
Did i just see master fucking chief smash a barricade in with a hammer? What? The? Fuck!
Yeah. R6S is...taking a page out of Fortnite's playbook.
yeah they want to make money so they take route of fortnite ( well made game but skins and content they trying to add just isn't same theme and making them sake of making some bucks per say to spend on mistake useless nest AAAA game or into they own pockets ( ubisoft prockets ) )
A lot of these indie tactical games are missing that gameplay loop that gets people hooked. Sandstorm has the gunplay, but lacked the support. RoN, Six Days, Zero Hour, all great games, but they lack variety when it comes to replaying missions. Their controls aren't streamlined, etc. etc.
The standard we want out of a tactical game, is greater than what most indie teams have pushed out so far, and are too casual or too competitive-based when it's done by AAA teams.
It's a shame, but we've been spoiled by both rose tinted glasses, and seeing how the more dedicated AAA games are filled with content, and are being supported each season. That disonance in quality is just too high to ignore, but the tolerance that a lot of 'tactical players' have for anything that's not exactly their vision, is below the floor.
i think rising storm 2 type is what they should look into, its fast paced but still hardcore
Part of the problem of these tac-shooters failing to keep a consistent audience is because of the over-reliance on Early Access to fill out unfinished, 'bare minimum' gameplay loops. How often does a new tac-shooter come out and there's no story, no progression systems, and no deeper mechanics beyond going into the same handful of maps and shooting AI until the player gets bored (i.e. your Ground Branch, Operator, Zero Hour, Six Days). If *that's* the extent of the gameplay, then it's obvious players will eventually drift away into other games that offer a more fulfilling fantasy.
I don't think the issue itself lies in players drifting away--that's normal for any game, particularly non-Games as a Service games. But plenty of these games feel no need to offer anything beyond that bare minimum, and get inevitably dropped. IMO, Ready or Not's success can be attributed to it being one of the few games that *DID* develop that bare minimum gameplay loop into an actual story that gives meaningful context to its action. Tarkov's success lies in its deep gameplay loop of looting, stash management, and extraction--it's not "just going in the woods and shooting a guy." You didn't mention it in your video, but ARMA3 and ARMA:Reforger see success due to being modifiable platforms which encourage scenario-creation and, in theory, hold infinite potential for tactical gameplay.
And none of those games bothered to do PVP either which would give the game more longevity.
@@plav032 Didn't Arma 3 come with PVP as well?
lets clarify, we do not hate cosmetics and battlepasses, we hate when the core game development gets shoved aside for them.
Yeah, I agree.
But we also hate egregious cosmetics and microtransactions and shitty battlepasses. If I'm paying money for your game, your battlepass better look like Deep Rock Galactic's battlepass.
No, I hate cosmetics and Battlepasses as well.
Bro, my solution is: the indie companies should make Hardcore FPS games that focus on a singleplayer/coop experience against good AI, with tons of mods and procedural generated levels/player created levels, instead of trying to foster a massive community for a mostly multiplayer game on a niche genre.
I remember back in 2018 - 2020, Hideous Destructor the doom mod was a Hardcore FPS Sci-Fi like absolutely no other. You had an infinity of cool amazingly designed levels by the doom community over 20 years to play in, and you played as a single man fighting hordes of monsters of varying degrees of complexity using realistic strategies. Set up ambushes with turrets and explosives, vault and climb over places to get better angles, take enemies from further away/unexpected angles, medical systems, ammo and magazine management... I have not seen a hardcore FPS do what this little doom mod did.
And what did it accomplish? It made a very compelling hardcore FPS experience that you could enjoy by yourself or with friends for a long time to come. This, would solve the issue of Hardcore FPS games being dead in the water. Instead of focusing on growing a fanbase on an entirely or mostly multiplayer game, you design it to be a singleplayer/coop mostly experience. Another good example would be STALKER (which is lucrative and managed to stay very relevant over the years), or even the Singleplayer Tarkov mod. We just need devs to try this formula out and maybe the genre can thrive again.
10000% create a solid foundation with great AI, bullet physics etc and then build on top of it with moddable and customisable parameters and you’ve essentially got a tactical sandbox. Look at how long ARMA has been around. The multiplayer scene is so hard to break into it’s crazy to think that indie devs even try.
disagree. PVP competitive tactical shooters are the reason this genre is so captivating for many, I grew up playing SOCOM with clans and weekend tournaments and it was some of the best gaming I've ever had. I'm a die hard STALKER fan however, GAMMA is about the only tactical shooter I regularly play these days.
It's the same issue that indie RTS games suffer from. Everybody wants to be the next StarCraft so they focus on designing a highly balanced, often micro-intensive game with feedback coming almost exclusively from a small number of "hardcore" PvP players, while the campaign, mod support, mapmaking tools, AI and overall "fun-level" - all the things that the much larger crowd of casual strategy gamers want out of a game - are playing second fiddle, if they exist at all.
Designing a game around a small group of hardcore players is inherently going to limit your appeal to the masses, and especially for multiplayer games that's always a gamble.
meh. f singleplayer. waste of time
@@leoSaunders
Multiplayer games are a waste of time as well when they end up dead, like most of them do.
I find whenever a new tactical shooter is announced or is shown off, the community criticizes every tiny thing about it and the reception is generally negative, no matter the game. The tactical shooter community is small as is, and not a very lucrative genre of game to make, and anyone who tries gets put through the wringer by the community. "Not interested because of x or y", "Saw x in the trailer, so I'm out" are common styles of comments, for a community with no games and no major companies interested in making them, we are awfully picky and hostile to the small number of people willing to give it a shot.
For those of us who have had any real world experience with the gear and weapons being used, we all grow our own pet peeves with certain inaccuracies being shown. Personally, I absolutely hate seeing low hanging/saggy front plates, because I would be an absolute prick when it came to seeing my guys not wearing their body armor properly when I was in the military. With that being said, I have the sense to understand these smaller devs don’t always have the real world experience to know all these ins and outs. Even I still learn new things from time to time. What really matters though is how well you implement your mechanics though IMO. I’m not going to write off a game because the in game plate carriers aren’t fitted properly.
Isn't every community like that?
No. Every community isn't as small as this one is.
All of that passion resulted in profit, which led to greed. On the other hand, human beings are evolving. We live in a turn-and-burn world, constantly looking for the next thing. We don't pause to smell the roses anymore. Everyone bears responsibility for the tactical FPS's demise.
Dude I don't know what you're smoking, but all companies are fucking greedy, even the small ones they're trying to get a audience that will have less people leave their product if they do something scummy.
the SBMM in r6 is what ruins the game for me personally, i used to play daily around diamond and then took a massive break, but coming back is impossible due to the sbmm matching me with champs EVEN IN CASUAL.
my only options are to either buy a new account to reset my hidden MMR or genuinely get rammed for a hundred games until my mmr is lowered
Same... too long of a break I need to start at a lower rank then when I quit.
Most AAA multiplayer games currently focus on competitive gameplay, as much as I don't like it, this is what's popular now, so having an immersive AAA multiplayer game in 2024 is very unlikely.
But I still hope that there is a place for AAA tactical shooters on the single-player side of things, because as far as I know the single-player crowd tends to appreciate immersion and "realism" more than the multiplayer crowd.
I miss great single player focused military/tactical FPS games. We had it great with older Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Swat, and Operation Flashpoint games.
Can't even get something like Project IGI today. IGI Origins was cancelled in favor of yet another multiplayer focused game. Lame.
I bought Due Proccess twice: both times I couldn't find a match.
This is sad as fuck... the "Tactical Shooter Scene" (hahahah) complains and complains, but 95% of these games are dead.
So... where are the "hungry for tactical shooters" players? Probably playing R6 and crying all over it.
Exactly. I said the same thing on the previous vid, all these people complaining about “the state of Rainbow Six” yet NOBODY is populating games like Due Process or Zero Hour.
Zero Hour has more work into it then some shooters and people are out here playing Siege. It's like when people whined about BF1 and Tanneburg and Verdun existed. People want a tac shooter but then don't buy it lmao
I have own R6 for 7 years and I hate it. I bought ground branch and RoN and refunded both. I dont like the idea of the bare minimum. I was a Server admin for Ins 2014 and Ins Sandstorm, Day of Infamy, Ground Branch and they all shut down. these days im only playing ins2014 and Occasionally Arma 3. I don't see the point of playing these early access bare minimum games where it's the same map over and over bro. I think they need to flesh out more before we play them.
Honestly if someone likes seige, they can. Play the game u love and support who u want but there are smaller games that other persons are playing. even post scriptum
well those hungry players are playing game like project reality , army game's , tarkov , squad and that is it i think and also R6 like you mention but same time it isn't tactical in sense it is more cs go game sense there is esports side of it and they trying to make it into one well atleast tried to make it into that kind of game ( and also there is sub genre of tactical shooters and that is some survival games like dayz etc. and R6 also fails into sub genre because you know why )
but again even cs2 is dieing in that genre ( outside of real esport ) comp game modes because cheaters
Some food for thought:
Release tactical shooters on console not just PC. Until a few years back R6 was the only "tactical" shooter on console. Only the realease of Insurgency Sandstorm eventually breaking that reality. Just look at the introduction of Hell let Loose on next gen, if it was Squad, Post scriptum, or some other tactical shooter they would have carried the same success.
the issue is most of them don't even try because of the need to hit multiple buttons to do an action, or would they make it so you had to hit rb, lb, x for one action or have action wheels that are 4 pages deep. that and going to console didn't help insurgency sandstorm, unless PlayStation and Xbox have massive playerbases that are hidden from the pc side of things
I agree that's why they aren't that big in player numbers and I know it's hard to release on console but it is something to think about as the reason why siege is so big is because it's on PS4 ps5 Xbox one and Xbox series s and x
@@angelichero6236 true I do understand how hard that world be to put on console but when they are making a tactical multiplayer FPS they do need to think that being on multiple platforms will mean bigger player bases
@@evanhannah8770 and in most cases it also means having a second dev team strictly for the console side of things because the operating systems are different though similar like hell let loose did were they have 10-12 people only working on the console version only.
ik last I was on insurgency the crossplay wasn't making much of a difference on how full the servers were
so if lets say insurgency on PlayStation and Xbox have 2.5k players on average per console and pc is at just under 2k. do they have the income to keep supporting the consoles even if they originally sold a 100k console copies counting gamepass, etc. my guess is they didn't since embracer shut down the studio and just took their games and projects for themselves
@@angelichero6236 if only console manufacturers would actually try to improve upon controllers but nah they're content milking the consumers of their money with damn near the same controller design for over 20 years. I love stagnation, who doesn't?
There is currently 1 person playing Due Process according to steam DB 😅
If there were Tactical Shooters centered around Single Player and Co Op then they would probably preform better. While not on a big scale, there is a Single Player top down extraction shooter called Zero Sievert which is basically Tarkov in a STALKER setting. It can be played like Tarkov or as a Rougelite meaning your gear won't be lost on death but, anything you picked up during the raid will be lost (basically like a checkpoint system)
Wut no, look at player numbers of ready or not, game is dead
@@l.3626 you having a stroke?
@@l.3626 that is off topic to what comment was saying i guess you are bot
Popular, good, tactical shooters are few and far between. The one's that we have feel like they've been out for years. It just ain't where the money is, and sometimes it ain't even where the fun is either.
GAMMA is pretty much my GOAT, but ya know, if you're looking for multiplayer, that aint it. Super excited for Road to Vostok.
idk man, yes they went in hard with cosmetics in Insurgency, but I mean come on, you can only sell so many copies of the game and at some point the devs will need another source of income to keep developing and maintaining the game or not?
I think that’s what he was trying to say
And yet that extra source of income doesn't need to ruin the game's authenticity and atmosphere with Nicky Minaj skins
They are pretty cool though
Sell me a ton of cosmetics that fit the aesthetic and vibe of the game. I’ve bought most of the sandstorm cosmetics and while I don’t love all of them, none are pink bunny skins.
What's wrong with making a game, releasing it and then calling it a day? They could work on something different, and after a few years maybe do a sequel to the original thing. They could let us players host the servers again like it used to be normal some decades ago. No need to milk us constantly for pennies then. Content drought wouldn't be such a huge issue if proper modding were possible again either. But all of that has been sadly tossed out of the window in game design. Many players don't even know what they missed decades ago when online games weren't this restrictive.
Yeah boss hard disagree. Rainbow six siege is the mcdonalds of tactical shooters, it's not """better""" than anything else just because it has more players. It seems to me like you just don't like these tactical shooters so much and prefer them to be more arcady, like sandstorm and siege... which is fine, but you're kinda missing the point.
Ground Branch has near infinite customization with fantastic map design and an ever-improving ai system. I guess if the devs are too focused on making the game into a proper tactical shooter, they don't have time to jangle keys in front of their players with thousands of dollars worth of microtransactions for goofy ass skins that would fit better in a game like team fortress 2, or roblox. Games like ground branch and ron don't constantly keep you in the psychological Skinner box that you seem to enjoy, because they are what they are. I'm sitting on the main gb menu right now as I type this. I'm gonna go take a gun I've used for hundreds of hours onto a map I've played for hundreds of hours, and have a ton of fun because my enjoyment comes from clearing corners and breaching buildings, not grinding pointless levels in a ranked mode or creaming my pants over a new pastel green gauche gun skin. Not to mention the abysmal hitreg and network issues specific to siege.
If you enjoy futuristic super heroes with insane technology fighting each other with guns put together by children, exclusively blasting in full auto even around hostages, go for it. But if that's what you prefer, your criticisms of the more hardcore games is moot, complaining about lack of new content gives off the ADHD zoomer who cannot wait for the cheech and chong skins in warzone vibe.
Do these types of people enjoy games at all, actually? Or do you just enjoy the dopamine hit of watching bars go up and levels increase? Feels like you'd be fine playing Cookie Clicker. If you dropped the game when ranked mode was removed from sandstorm, why were you playing in the first place? They remove the ability for you to make a number go up, and now you're done playing with your toys. Interesting.
100%!
I don’t think Fry likes tactical games as much as he thinks he does. I mean it with no disrespect but he definitely is the zoomer that needs his keys jangled in front of him.
Arma Reforger somehow managed to rise from the grave and is sitting at a healthy 2k players regularly.
BC of community servers
In which we eventually discover that gamers are actually the problem. Yes really.
Why does a company not move in a direction that's better? Because instead of riding the rough waters and giving feedback, players choose to be obstinate children and GIVE UP.
Everyone relies on vote with your wallet, but never realize there's another side to that.
They can't make what you want if all you do is tell them you hate something new.
But nah. Everyone will just say "Ubisoft empty open world" and leave it at that.
Tactical? Wtf is tactical: most people couldn't tell you and the rest will argue about it.
Companies suck. Players suck more.
I agree. I don't agree with coming across as mean and petty about it, but that's just the side of me that doesn't like handling conflict. But I do agree. It's all too often that I see players just bashing and attacking a game mindlessly instead of actually critiquing it fairly. They act like it's just bad all around and dead when that just isn't the case.
The thing with vote with your wallet is when your wallet is empty you can't vote
I see too many people who spend too many hours playing games instead of working while not working while not wanting to spend any money on games. Good games used to cost 90$ 10 years ago, now with inflation they could easily cost 200$ and people don't want to spend that money BC greedy companies, guess what, nobody is going to make those games, AAA games just cost a lot and it's actually not greed
The vote with your wallet thing is a losing battle anyway.
It's mainly an ever-decreasing size of older gamers who want games to go back to the good old days where you paid for your game, and you got the finished game. No over-priced DLCs. No buggy messes, no battlepasses...
On the other hand, you have an ever-increasing size of newer and younger gamers who have never known any different and think the Triple A greed over-priced $90 horse armour DLC is the norm - which is basically is now anyway.
In the middle of that, you have some members of the first group accepting it's a lost cause, and accepting gaming is what it is now (note: BigFry, who seems to think Siege is good now). This only serves to shrink the size of the first group.
The second and thid groups often easily out-votes, out-wallets and out-voices the first group. The "vote with your wallet" cause was a noble cause, but it was always a losing battle. And Triple A companies are the ones who will profit, literally, from that.
@@Perseus7567 the thing about accepting the new version of the game is, acknowledging that it *is not* going to revert. And thus, the only person you're harming by refusing to have that *type* of fun, is yourself.
Your can hold the desire for an older game type while recognizing the merit of a design that replaced/ruined it.
This happened with Crysis 1, to 2 and 3.
Also with far cry 2, to far cry 3.
In both cases, an old design philosophy was "lost" for now.
Not saying you have to either.
But I agree overall with your sentiment and reasoning.
R6 was better in the first year. The player base was mostly xbox and playstation. The PC version of siege grew in popularity with things like discord becoming more prevalent and more people moving to PC. I guarantee you that in the last 5 years more gaming PCs have been bought or built then ALL time.
My Thoughts:
-I feel like players and devs are associating a correlation of Tactical Shooter to complexity and that can get overwhelming quickly.
-If a tactical shooter blows up like Tarkov, they will naturally dumb down their complexity or speed up the pace of play if they want to build a bigger playerbase.
-Tactical Shooters remind me a lot of CRPGs. They are built for a specific audience and you need to have something really special like a Baldur's Gate 3 or an Elden Ring to get non-tactical shooter players to get into the genre. (Edit: seeing the release for Console point also applies to this and I 100% agree. What made Larian and their CRPGS blow up is that they also release on consoles)
Exactly, I've always felt that tactical games seem to do the best community wise when the community is small but interested in the uniqueness of the game, a tactical shooters community dies when it's diluted by players who aren't interested in the community or really the games uniqueness.
In my opinion at the end of the day the problem is what gets me all jazzed up isn't what gets the majority of gamers jazzed up, and that's okay. I liked R6 Siege when it came out because of the fairly realistic damage model and tactical nature that I couldn't find elsewhere on console. But over time it felt more and more like an area shooter to me. The original operators felt like they had unique tools that gave them a specialization, but at the end of the day they're still a guy with a gun. Eventually to me it felt like the equipment took the front seat and became the focus rather than being a part of the individual's arsenal.
On the other hand, Siege has been supported for longer than I could ever have imagined. People like very distinct experiences being added that changes the game fundamentally so that's what devs do. There's only so much extremely distinct real world equipment you can add that keeps people interested. I'm not personally against devs adding like 10 variations of an AK to a game as long as they all fill a slightly different niche. For some people though, an AK is an AK and they'd be disappointed with that update. I understand what I like isn't necessarily flashy
most if not all tactical shooters, have 1 or 2 major flaws, and non pvp games will almost always die off. I have yet to see a tac shooter be at a level of a AAA game, which is where most popular games come from. Not to mention most indie studios cant support a 5+ year plan to continue to make the game better and grow the game at an acceptable rate of updates.
How do you keep making money without unrealistic outfits?? You do what CS does, weapon skins, gloves and thats about it. Once you add abilities/Character outfits no matter what, they will eventually make non-realistic outfits.
I used to play siege for a few years and I don't really like it anymore but I think it's less about how it's changed and more that I just burned myself early on. I'm glad it's still successful and clearly what they're doing is working.
Feel you bro. I played it from the sorta beta stage until heck, the second season. Got bored of it playing it SO much....haven't gone back
@@therealcybersheriff I was there from release all the way until the season they added big buff man who runs through walls and lady with funny hologram lol too many hours
@@shadowslayer7892 I was in the same boat after so many seasons and hours I burnt myself out, just recently started playing again and it's been a blast to play a couple matches every now and then.
I loved it until they added a character with wallhacks and moved on to cs because I couldn’t be bothered waiting 2 patches to make the character balanced
Direct Contact should be a wake up call if the indie tac shooter communitiy continues to go down this route of hatred and resistance to anything successful even if its all "casual".
I remember a few years ago, you addressed your viewers because they kept bringing up r6 and you were annoyed. You talked about how you didn’t like r6 because it was a hero shooter lol. Welcome back
Yep. Calls us hypocritical for not liking the game, meanwhile his opinions flip more than burgers at McDonalds.
Opinions change. If you think yours don't, that's a really bad sign.
@@Perseus7567 his opinion is right. Siege is a great game. And his opinion is allowed to change. It’s weird to think you have any say over a creators opinion
90% of indie games are unreal engine gun customizers with horrible gameplay around them. Thats why it looks dead, the easy creation with unreal produced so much garbage that it has has consumed 90% of the space. Unreal engine makes more indie games, but creates significantly more data garbage in the process.
I think the key here is Devs either
1. dont evolve
or
2. completely lose identity
its actually something that Helldivers does really well if you know their old games like Magicka. Their identity is "fun co-op with a skill based ability/magic system and friendly fire." All of their games keep this identity even though Helldivers is completely different from Magicka.They understand what they are good at. Tactical shooters can do this they just gotta keep that identity.
wait they made magicka? does that mean my helldiver can use the crash to desktop magick on himself
@@idiot2701 Well, they did patch it but there was a 1-2 week period where using any electricity-based weapon could crash your game thanks to a bug.
"How do you make a game that players want while answering to your shareholders?"
Over the years I've realized that the only satisfactory answer to this question is to not have shareholders in the first place.
or helldivers 2 per say they don't have shareholders and yet there are game that people are playing top 10 games on steam taking 4 place every day
@@dragonltu8349 I think not having (greedy demanding) shareholders is exactly why Helldivers 2 succeeded. You simply should not compromise AT ALL when giving players a game that they want. But the game companies with shareholders are simply incapable of thinking this way.
for me, as soon as i checked the info from a youtube vid about cheaters in multiplayer games like COD or fortnite, Apex and R6. its sad man. you can cheat on any popular game and dont get in trouble. multiplayer is really dead.
Ubisoft use to publish lot of tactical Shooter Ghost Recon Splinter cell Rainbow Six Vegas & Brothers in arms I just hope this new brothers in arms is true and it is coming out I'm massive fan of brother in arms series
We'll see. That's one franchise I'd love to have come back but I feel like I've heard that a new Brothers in Arms game is coming out multiple times in the past and it never happened. Still, I'm 100% on board with it happening because it's one of my favorite WW2 franchises.
Splinter cell is not a tactical shooter it's a TPS stealth game
@@saibot1246 So it's tactical? Stealth is tactical too, and the game doesn't necessarily need to be 1st either.
7:30 it wouldnt magically fix the core game but a recruit rush game mode with no operators, limited loadouts for each team, etc. No "gadgets", just equipment and lead
We need passion in the video game community. That of which is lacking in AAA studios currently as they want to stay alive and keep making money. They do things which they know works, no ambition, no imagination just another sequel.
I was born too late to enjoy the good old tactical game days, I played wildlands, squad, ground branch to scratch that itch. But after getting Helldivers I feel like I just stepped into something actually polished and amazing. I hope more people would make games for passion, for enjoyment, art, and the players.
Funny how Brothers in Arms, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SOCOM, even Operation Flashpoint all had actual singleplayers. Legit fun ones that you could play & even be cinematic in regards to BIA.
Why then do all these devs who cry about small player bases constantly try again & again for the multiplayer sphere?
The few that try singleplayer have surprisingly dumb ai or outright broken in the case of Ready Or Not.
Why can not one of them make a good singleplayer focused game?
“Ready for real talk, no sponsor!?”
Minutes later… “I do think Rainbow Six is leagues ahead of everyone else.”
Issue is that only 5% of tactical games deliver what's promised and can maintain a playerbase. And sadly those successful games generally only offer the same niches
It's like hating a cat for killing a mouse.
- Dad, why did they turn PUBG into Fortnite? I hate them!
- Come on, that's what nature does..
In regards to Ghost Recon, I think Ubi's biggest problem is not having faith in their own developers to make a _new_ IP. I think Wildlands on its own, independent of the Tom Clancy/GR name, would still be a fantastic game. Ghost Recon was one of my favorite games growing up and Ghost Recon 2 is my favorite in the franchise. Seeing it go from that to Future Soldier, now to Wildlands is wild. Not even remotely close to the same franchise I grew up on. But those games are still great games and fun to play. That's the issue. Ubi needs to trust their developers instead of slapping old IPs onto games that don't resemble their namesake.
8:25. You completely skip over the fact the trailer made the game look like it was going to be more in line of the OG Rainbow Six games. I distinctly remember the negative feedback when gameplay was shown from Siege being compared to Watch Dogs 1's fake gameplay trailer that released near that time as well.
We wanted to feel like the SAS storming buildings, not the justice league.
back then counter-strike was called a tactical shooter...
r6, insurgency were called hardcore tactical shooter and games where you lie in the dirt for half the round and have to run to the mission for 10 minutes because the map is so huge were called milsims.
today everything seems to be a "tactical shooter"...
"it's all the same"
Yeah, that's my issue with gaming nowadays. No matter how different one game tries to be from others like the finals for example.
It's still the same!
And that is why most of the games die at some point or even on arrival.
Another thing is, that the market is just over saturated.
If you want something like old-school R6 I think it would be a good idea to have a separate game where you only or mostly play as Recruit and make it gritty with many scenarios.
That’s a good idea! And not hard to implement with the current game.
R6 aint wht it used to be
He shouldn't even put R6 into the tactical shooter genre...
You're right. It's better
Of course, if you listen to his argument, they needed to change to expand.
R6 Siege is bigger and more successful now than it was at launch.
It’s hot garbage now adays 😅
@@hextech3161 buddy didn't even watch the video
You outlined the real point/question without really asking it.
Do you want a AAA developer who can give you a watered down tactical experience with loads of content, or do you want an Indie developer who has a solid hardcore tactical shooter that is starved for content and a bit janky?
At the end of the day, AAA devs have the money and player counts to make the best quality tactical shooters, but won't because it won't return the investment.
In other words, if people want a good tactical shooter, they have to invest in a lot of shitty subpar Indie ones. They need to support the smaller teams who have the vision, not the big publishers who only have the numbers.
I just cannot get on board with any game that goes the goofy cosmetic route.
Simple as
I recently sold my computer, and this video sort of sums up why. Games are not that interesting anymore. Any new game I get dies and any old game I go back to I get bored of within 3 days. The only games I've noticed I enjoyed are very niche single players like cyberpunk, or elden ring. Figured ide just find new hobbies and it's unfortunate because I love building computers and I love playing games.
Skill issue.
Sad to hear, really. But personally... if you did love gaming I'm not sure if it's neccessarily rational to give up one of the only ways to play games(besides console or mobile, assuming you have them). But it is telling.
Gonna say something true bigfry & you probably dont wanna hear it. There hasnt been a good "tactical" game in over a decade.
Ready or Not missed its point while hit problem after problem.
Operation Harsh Doorstop came off like a promotion scam & drake only made it worse repeatedly
Ground Branch ai sucked as did basically every "tactical" game coming out.
Not one of you ever stopped and seriously looked at what made SOCOM fun. It wasnt Mil Sim. It didn't have 300 customization options.
Same with Rainbow Six
Same with Spec Ops
Same with Ghost Recon
Same with SWAT
I fully believe that if SOCOM never existed & someone put it out today. Lets say the 2nd one even. You & all the others known somewhat or more in this sphere would shit on it and whine.
Ive sat ppl down to play Rainbow Six 3 & they have a blast despite the learning curve & planning phase.
You sit them down for Ready or Not along with the other "trending" tactical shooters & five minutes later they wont be able to tell the difference.
Its all the same tacticool/milsim slop that thinks 300 customization options makes up for braindead ai with wall hacks, lack of refinement, tactics no deeper than "hey I can lean" etc, etc.
Play rothers in Arms and its one core rule throughout all 3. The four F's.
No lean
No need for coop players to cover idiotic allied AI
No overly complex & pointless customization
Actually has a story worth experiencing
The list goes on.
I think JoshStrifeHayes said it best when talking about Hardcore PvP MMOs; players cry and cry for these kinds of games, then drop them immediately (often for trivial things IMO) or they don't get a player base because it turns out the average player doesn't like being treated like that (or having to work that hard to enjoy the game) and then the game dies or loses money and it's over.
I think we can say the Developers actually DID listen to players, and then the actions of players failed to give them the data and evidence that they needed to fight back against the MBAs and C-Suite, so you don't get what you want anymore. And then the community goes and makes it worse by trying to find any excuse to blame the devs instead of looking inward or examining cultural trends and accepting that as the answer.
I think my favorite example of this is Halo Infinite; when I point out that one of the primary causes of Infinite not doing well is that Arena Shooters are just not popular anymore and in fact the genre kinda died way back at the end of the 360 days people try to blame 343...but then fail to explain why the Unreal game, or Quake game or Splitgate didn't work out too.
This is why the future of gaming is with the indie game industry, not with triple A.
We will not be getting huge perfect games anymore, but more limited experiences.
@@Lornext The question is: Can people temper their expectations when it comes to the indie game market? When you're going beyond beat 'em ups, platformers, and other "simple" (with absolutely no disrespect meant to those genres) games and you're starting to deal with "hardcore" mechanics like tactical shooters, people have an expectation, and indie developers often fail to meet those expectations. You can't expect an indie developer to provide an AAA experience outside of the blue moon oddity or unless there's some super angel investor, which will never happen.
Given what's said in this video, it doesn't seem like the approach is helping indie companies much given the dead or dying player bases.
It's the same reason why so many major car manufacturers aren't making many manual transmission cars in North America. There's a vocal demand, but people don't actually buy them.
That and EPA & safety regs making it impossible to produce a light nimble sports car without a tiny fuel sipping engine. Only sports cars like this that are feasible are the GT86/BRZ & MX-5. Same reason everything is getting bigger and small 1/4 trucks no longer exist, due to trucks being generally heavier they are too fuel inefficient to pass EPA laws, and in order to meet the criteria to have a less efficient vehicle you need to be much larger and heavier, and then cost increases, so you increase engine size to compensate, and now you have a Chevy Colorado that is functionally the same size as a 90s 1/2 tonne Silverado.
I think that one of the big reasons tactical shooters are failing is because, at least for me, life is stressful and dark enough that when i get home, i just wanna play something fun and goofy and mindless. Which is why helldivers is doing so well.
That's why I play HD❤
And I'll disagree. People realize that at the end of the day, it's a videogame. You're playing it for fun, tone be damned. The issue is just that either the games are bad or lackluster and with some of the 'good' ones we have, they just aren't what we really want. But that *is* your opinion, as you acknowledge.
Helldivers 2 is more tactical than siege fyi
In simple terms, many developers of tactical shooter games focus too much on making the gunplay and graphics realistic, forgetting about the gameplay's fun and replay value. For example, games like Ground Branch lack excitement and have predictable AI, Zero Hour feels clunky and lacks polish despite continuous updates, Six Days in Fallujah lacks content, and Insurgency: Sandstorm made some bad decisions that hurt its success. Only RON remains solid, but it still has gameplay issues like long rounds searching for civilians or evidence. Due Process is also struggling, possibly because its visuals aren't appealing to everyone, and some players find memorizing maps in competitive games more rewarding.
RoN suffers the same problem as Zero Hour and Six Days. And the AI is arguably worse than Ground Branch.
@@OrionDawn15atleast they make decent firefight even it is unfair many times. Feel much better than avobe all
There are fun tactical shooters out there, but it feels more like a fad than an actual genre to be taken seriously. If these guys don’t set out to make money, they’re set out to close their doors in no time. There’s nothing wrong with that either because if a game is good, you want it to be supported. But look at what R6 was and what it is now. If R6 didn’t think like a company, siege would’ve been the biggest fumble in history.
if ubi think like a fanbase, they would bankrupt
@@YaToGamiKuro 👏👏
For me when it comes down to it, I don't care if the game has what is considered a "dead" player count. I still play insurgency because I can get a full lobby despite the "dead" player count. I would still play insurgency even if the game didn't have full lobbies bc of the coop mode; Because it's fun.
My arguments against R6 are not in bad faith. My arguments against R6 are the changes that continue to push out and alienate the players who helped them get to where they are. Siege at launch was definitely far from what R6 used to be, but it still held it at the core. Now? Now it's just not Rainbow 6.
But I think there are solutions that could help with that. I know how much people hate Fortnite and hate any time it's mentioned, but Epic Games new they had to do something so they could have their playerbase happy as a whole. They introduced No-build. A separate mode that's completely optional to play that removes building and leaves you to rely more on your gunplay skills. And I think that Ubisoft could pull off something in a similar vein with Siege. Have a separate Playlist of more grounded-in-reality gameplay. They can leave all the characters and skins in it, but change up equipment and abilities. A lot of possibilities and potential without altering the entire game to benefit only one side of the playerbase.
I honestly think this is more or a "tactical" genre problem. Kinda similar to "Simulator", where even dcs world struggles to pull in new players do to a super high learning curve, its the more arcadey games that have better longevity, Forza horizons, Overwatch, cod. Like it or not, Siege is doing exactly what it should be, and kudos to them for keeping the shooting interesting above all else
DCS is everything I'd ever want in a combat flight sim. Just don't have the time to learn to cold start an F/A-18, let alone actually learn to dog fight in the damn thing. This is why I love VTOL VR so much, its got just enough complexity and challenge to make it engaging, but not a chore.
@@plav032 Exactly! People enjoy realism up to a point, where it's still easily approachable
I think the reason people criticize the sponsorships so much is because it’s taking money from a company that pumps out garbage. Ubisoft is the same company that made Breakpoint, watch dogs legion, Division 2, tried to do frontlines, and now Skull and bones. It’s weird to go from hating on a lot of the slop and then taking the money from said slop producers
And saying good things about them when you'd have likely said more negative things because... y'know, sponsored.
@@OrionDawn15 exactly. It’s a big change up and just isn’t genuine
Are you gonna make a video for demo 2 on Road to Vostok? I think that it's starting to show the potential of the game and demo 2 is pretty good
To answer your question at 7:35: It's not possible. Ubisoft would never strip out operators and maps to appeal to year 1-3 players. But they might add a legacy mo... oh wait, they did add a "Legacy Mode" but they butchered it and then removed it entirely. Ubisoft put themselves into an impossible situation because they have shareholders to appease. Sci-fi operators and whacky cosmetics are inevitable when you have a profit goal; they HAD TO betray their own vision to keep up with content drops. Counter Strike and Team Fortress are timeless games that receive little to no content updates yet they have a staggering amount of players still. So it is possible, but you can't have greedy shareholders at the foundation of the project or it will suffer.
they also made a promise early on to make operators. so there's also the issue of do they take a sci-fi route to do that or do we get 15 versions of sledge just to fill out the numbers, or break a promise. since that always goes well with playerbases
The legacy mode was an event mode. Will probably come back around.
CS operates in a completely different profit mode than any other game. It exists as a money laundering scheme and that is how valve makes money off of it. Look at CS2. It's been a disaster from they start, VAC has literally been disabled, and yet valve doesn't care because the skin market is still making them incredible amounts of money. CS doesn't have to be a good game, or even a game at all as long as the skin market continues to be insanely profitable. TF2 is similar with it's market system, but also has a lot of community driven content now days.
@@Syphon_Drummer It's been 3 years and it wasn't even OG Siege. Also, what's the point if it keeps disappearing?
@@alexanderkempf9828 I wish they were permanent too.
I played R6 since beta, last time played was years ago during the second muppet April fools event, playing that event reset to default all my operators & load outs. Haven’t played since. Filled the gap with dumpster fire bf2042 & only recently started playing Insurgency Sandstorm when they released a PS5 edition. It’s great for console players.
Fortnite and CoD really damaged the gaming ecosystem, its so sad that we cant go back to the gold days
Yeah. Prior to 2014 commie revolution
Gaming wouldn’t be as popular if people didn’t find out you can make money by people simply watching you. Now everyone wants to play. Back when I was in school you got made fun of for playing video games and oddly enough that’s when games were good. Then it became the thing to do then they get shitty cause corporate just saw money and realize they don’t have to make good games anymore cause their market got a lot bigger so they don’t have to worry about making good games for us pioneers, they have another source of income, the closet nerds
I think the idea that there is no progression is key for playing any game. You want to feel rewarded for completing a mission and give u the boost to keep going but what do you do when the content is next to none or what happens if games are not even feeling complete.
You lose peoples interest and people fall out of love with the game.
Having just a progression that not only gives you new weapons but maybe different abilities or operators or just something new that just makes you feel hey I want to jump back into the same mission and try this out because its new and I want to try it out.
I think on scope of things in the tactical games genre there are more less progression based systems and less rewarding as they base their whole game of being tactical and guns being amazing and plot you in and expect you to have fun.
If I ever drove into making a tactical fps I would based it on something like ready or not meets splinter cell with randomly generated modular housing blocks that dynamically change how every play though goes and being randomly procedurally generated there are always new ways of playing the game tactically giving the player more tactical options rather then only plan A and more equipment and high tech like infiltration systems to navigate the mission based world would be a good game to keep players interested.
Milsim tactical shooters and competitive tactical shooters are very different imo. I play a lot of arma, ground branch, squad etc and while squad does have a competitive scene it’s very small. These will always fill a smaller niche than the competitive tactical shooters like R6, CS, and Valorant. These games are hyper focused on balance and being competitive, which draws in players and keeps them playing, but does nothing to fill the niche that some of us are looking for in games like arma
Games without a ranked system doesn’t go far.
I guess it depends on your stance on whether or not FPS design is a solved problem. It's easy to argue that the fundamental mechanic of FPS games, moving your crosshair over somebody and clicking on them, is so simple that it was solved long ago. If we look back through history, we shifted towards making movement more complex and physically demanding on player input. This ended up being a hit or miss situation because it basically introduced a minimum skill threshold that divides a playerbase between those who can do the complicated inputs and those who can't. You can continue this line of argument for many different basic FPS game mechanics until you've divided the FPS genre into so many niches that no game has enough of a playerbase to sustain their matchmaking/revenue/etc. It's possible to have some nitpicks or counterarguments here but I think I can reframe the question in a way that points out the numbers at play here.
How many FPS games throughout history have actually expanded the market? How many FPS games have introduced or otherwise converted people who weren't originally interested in FPS games? You can probably flip the script here and even ask yourself how you would sell an FPS game to someone else. I'm using term a bit loosely here but I think the gameplay experience as a whole is the most important part here, far more than whatever exists within the game only. The situation is kind of ironic because I can't think of another genre where the games/companies are this interested in essentially cannibalizing each other.
Tarkov got popular because the biggest creators who market it dont play it like a tactical FPS, but like CoD.
They maxed out their strength and would sprint at 25 MPH while parkouring into a building and then point fire everyone in the face.
Exactly. But it's "Tactical" because "Muh Guns and Muh Foregrips" lol
@@BigfryTV Tactical is a visual genre moreso than a gameplay one. If you go back and play R6 Vegas 2 again (one of the lauded icons of the tactical shooter genre) you'll quickly realize that the game plays nothing like your Ground Branch or Tarkov. I think that's what tactical shooter devs today miss; you need an enjoyable game, something with a story, progression, fun mechanics, etc. then you put the tactical gun customization and gritty visuals into that. But, those things are all hard to do on the scale people expect from the genre, and a lot of devs jump headfirst into it, without really realizing how deep it goes, then people get disappointed, and the next game that comes out draws even more skepticism.
We are largely trying to put the cart before the horse, so to speak, in the genre today. And, this becomes more apparent with every giant open-map littered with barely reactive AI that flops time and time again. Each flop gains crazy hype off the back of weapon customization, which gives devs the impression that, that is the place to start, and it's not.
Yes we know people like easy fortnite experiences....hardcore tactical games just don't sell themselves. Same old issue they've always had....Siege is still just siege to me whereas Raven Shield was actually Rainbow Six.
I had played r6 siege alot but by far I think siege doesn't only grow it also got a huge change swap of players. There are alot of players which abandoned Siege because the game feels and runs completely different compared to its past, making it worse in experience. But ones bad experience can be someone elses great experience. There are quite a good amount of reasons I have abandoned it after 2k hours of playtime.
theres just isnt a large amount of people who like full on tactical shooters
Older people aren't playing much at all nowadays, and young/newer gamers dont have any interest in tactical shooters.
Thats mo
Why are older people not playing?
@@l.3626 they get a life!! , kids, mortgage, expenses. Aka no time.
Like most of my old friends dont have time to play anymore
@@Dirt33breaks fair enough, thats not bad at all, I just think men are being scammed by society in all ways (taxes, woman), its not really worth anymore taking part in society (becoming rich and woman), living a low key cheap live seems way more fun compared what you said, kids, mortgaga woman.
Back in the days men were also allowed to have fun. I guess people start playing games against once they reach retirement and have too much free time
@@Dirt33breaks That, and they accepted that the gaming industry will never improve, it will only go down-and-down every year. It'll never return to the days where games were finished, launched complete and without bugs, had cheap DLC which had lots of content..
So, they gave up and got other hobbies, or only play a select few games here or there.
My list of Triple A titles decreases in size every year. Currently, I only have installed:
Red Dead Redemption 2.
Grand Theft Auto Online.*
Call of Duty Black Ops 3.
Hearts of Iron IV.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 (classic, 2005, not Collection)
That's my list of Triple A titles I have ready to play right now. You'll notice that all of them are from before 2020, and 5 of the 6 are from before 2016.
*Although of course GTAO is full of recent R* scummy-ness now, and I barely touch it. In fact, I will probably uninstall it soon.
That's purely because very few games from after 2016 are any good. I've just given up on the industry, it'll never improve. So, I just play a select few, mainly older games, and leave it at that now.
@@Perseus7567 ur novel deserves a reply even though i dont know what to say lol
But yeah i also think its impossible to create a full complete bug free game these days due to how complex they are now days, it can only get worse if shareholders are anything to do with it
There is little reason for a player to care about any shareholders. It's paradoxical, imagine prioritising the shareholders over the players and upsetting the players with such decisions and driving away a player base, losing the extra money wanted for the almighty shareholders.
You don’t have to care. But ignoring that the companies do is stupid and ignorant lol
@@BigfryTV Yea I know, I am agreeing that the studios exist in a tricky reality.
"too big to fail" its not exclusive to the gaming industry. A lot of companies regularly shoot themselves in the foot, one story I heard recently involved a company whose labor force was 60% contractors, they laid them all off thinking that after a few months they'd come back as full time employees for less money. Never happened, they now have 80% contractors because the staff that stayed got burnt out.
One of the largest problems with tactical shooters is how just wallhacks alone can take a 5/10 player and turn them into a 9.5/10 player because aim is much less important than information and information dictates tactics. You can have wallhack in a game like apex and still get dunked on by someone with better movement and aim despite having a BIG advantage. In a tac shooter the play has no movement tech or long TTK to outplay.
the exact opposite kills genres too heck it kills it even ... deader? look at arena shooters with their insane movement techs and big TTKs yet they are so mechanically hard to get to that most people don't bother when they'll have to get rekted by veterans for hours until they get the jest of it.
@@noobguy9973 I don't think this is true. This only happens with well established franchises that don't separate players by skill level. Quake took way too long to make a follow up game. It also was very similar to the older games so veterans would stomp new players out of existence. So in that instance, yes it killed the game. But games like Titanfall, Apex Legends,Halo ( Yes Infinite is not great) are insanely popular. Even CS GO and Valorant are not really tactical shooters in the way many milsim tactical games are because there is still a ton of movement tech and a high aim requirement.
There is a reason 99.9% tactical shooters are not popular. If a game has a low aim and movement requirement for success but also has very limited tactical variety...I'm not going to waste my time playing it. Look at how CoD MW has increased the aim assist so much to lower the skill ceiling as close as possible to the floor. It makes for a miserable experience.
My issue with the tactical shooter space currently, is that too many devs think they can slap a low ttk, some slower movement, and maybe some other hard core features in a game and call it a tactical shooter.
If you look at tactical shooters of old, it was more about employing tactics to solve problems. Look at the old R6 games, Ghost Recon games, SOCOM games, and SWAT games, or Brothers in Arms games. Hell, even Star Wars Republic Commando was a decent tactical shooter.
They gave you a squad of dudes and a problem to solve. They weren't invincible and neither were you, so you had to employ realistic squad tactics to complete your missions.
Ready or Not is the only game in recent memory that has given me a single player experience like I used to enjoy in the older tactical shooters. And single player is what makes a tactical shooter. You can play any shooter tactically in co-op or multiplayer. And even CoD has a hard core mode that forces you to play more tactically. But that doesn't make it a tactical shooter.
I’d like to see R6 make a playlist mode where it’s the OG operators only
is that master chief breaking down a door in the intro? looked adorable
This is partially why Helldivers 2 is such an important title. It could address some of the issues; to use its formula and mechanics across different types of games. I sure do miss the tactical games of the past though. They really were better.
At the end of the day its just a game which we all got different taste on, and sometimes as much as you want your favourite genre to be successful at the end you're not in the majority. developers focusing on where the majority of players are, because that's where their income comes from
Dude.. The reason World War 3 couldn't gain a player base because the servers were trash! it was soo bad that they had to scale it down to 40v40 in the free2play version and they still mess it up. Making people give up on it due to "first expression being everything" back then. Now they got completely beat and lost on what they were trying to do years ago by Battlebit.
As cool as Master Chief is, I don't want to see him in R6. I miss the good ol days when cosmetics fit the theme..
Arma 3 still has a healthy player base. I'm not into this R6 of recent years but to each their own. All games are "tactical" especially when competitive. Heck, minecraft can be tactical since a player thinks about what to do efficiently.
You notice how the tactical shooters that dont launch on console die while those that do launch on console are still around. I think it comes down to PC players dont actually support devs as much as console players. HLL and Insurgency Sandstorm are some of the biggest FPS on console and do extremely well.
HLL and Insurgency are also some of the only real tactical shooters on the console market. The reason so many pc exclusives die early is because they are competing with so many other games trying to do the same thing. Everyone talks about how HLL is doing good but they forget that HLL made it because so many other games didn't. Post Scriptum (squad 44), beyond the wire, The WW1 games made by Black Mill are all mostly dead only having a handful of populated servers at the best of times because they lost out in the race of WW1/2 tactical shooters. All the players who did play these all migrated to HLL or went to a different genre.
8:10 I don't think this is a fair point mainly because apparently the game did not launch in a good state and they had an entire season dedicated to improving the game. i dont know many of the details cause i didnt play the game back then but from what little i know, i dont feel what was said here is a fair point.
One major problem is the most of us console players are dying for these type of tactical shooters the tarkoves, the ready or nots we want games like arma , squad.. but most of those tactical games are made for pc only which most if not all of those studios never have plans for consoles... Which would be a huge market for them ...
I feel like technologically speaking, PC gaming is just the cheaper alternative at this point. No console war or PC MR stuff here, but just taking the goods and bads of both and comparing them, I don't see how people want to get new gen consoles.
IMO some tactical shooters spend too much time with fancy customization, and not enough on gameplay, so at the end of the day, all you can do is walk around and shoot bots.
i already knew this but i just had to really hear it. Thanks BIgFry
When it comes to post launch content, I would go down the DLC, Expansion route. It allows the devs to make more money after release, while keeping the aesthetic of the game coherent and they have to put effort into it, when they want people to buy it.
But I'm also more interested in singleplayer shooters, so yes, games like Ready or Not, Zero Hour or SWAT 4 is where I'm at.
But all in all, while I may not agree with all of your points, I see where you are coming from.
What also adds to the issue with Ground Branch, Six Days in Fallujah and Ready or Not is the fact that these games have issues with replay value.
There is a bunch of open ended content yes, maps you can replay dozens of times for better rankings. New ways to play the game. But lets be honest, how many people do that? Probably less than 25% of the people who check out the new content.
It's not the fact that there is no replay value at all but rather soft vs. hard replay value. What these games get and create is soft replay value, while games like Call of Duty, Rainbow Six Siege and Squad (as examples) create hard replay value.
There are just many more people playing, matches always play differently, cooperation often times plays differently. There's always joy to extract from those games. They create solid, hard replay value. A new map in Ready or Not or Ground Branch loses interest as soon as you played it three or four times. Especially since there is no true progression system. If the basic gameplay loop isn't air tight, you have major issues with the replay value.
To answer your Question make R62. However you have to take it back to Y2 or Y3. Make the anti cheat better, the controls, the hit boxes/detection. More guns and attachments and to balance them. Maps that are made for one side. Attackers or defenders. Do not get me wrong the ban system added was smart (operator and map ban).
the fall off of insurgency was really sad. it was the best chance we had at a real good main stream tactical fps. I too was huge into firefight and watched the whole mode die before my eyes, to where every single night became the same people playing.. then i stopped.
Squad is by far the best tactical shooter out there right now. And Galactic Contention? Total conversion mods for more content? Absolutely amazing
The thing I hate about missing is the double standard, everyone enjoys those good mods, but also always shits on companies wanting money BC of greed, but the same players have no issue consuming free content
Consuming free content could also be considered greed if you apply today's gamer logic
@@l.3626 you’re not wrong, but it’s also not hurting anyone the same way the greed of companies is. Micro transactions and incomplete games with battle passes are much worse than wanting to consume content
@@helpumuch6887 i see nothing wrong with micro transactions and battlepasses as long as not p2W
Incomplete games I mean ofc who doesn't want complete games, thing is people are just not paying enough, harsh truth
Rn people are just living in lala land and not based in reality
Squad Devs / company leadership is also super bad, they should buy so many talented models and monetize it, like galactic contention, get rights from Disney for a realistic star wars and make that a polished experience by hiring some mod Devs
I also have used tons of mods across many games, ultimately it's the Devs fault for not monetising their skills, clearly there is a demand for their skills, companies just exploit them or are too dumb to see their talent, everybody is doing their part
@@l.3626 yea that makes sense. Especially as people demand more and more from new games, and when studios employ hundreds of devs it gets expensive creating content and companies absolutely need to make money.
I also don’t have a problem with micro transactions as long as there is still plenty of cool stuff to earn in game, and non of the new stuff is pay to win. There’s def a rough balance to strike between making money and making your players feel like that’s all you want.
I definitely think studios should allow mods to be created and then offer those mod devs some cash to use their product in the vanilla game but, to use Skyrim as an example, people hated paying for each mod. Gotta find a way to do it differently, or just charge slightly less. Some games charge $10 for a simple skin
@@helpumuch6887 AAA just needs more money, modern games are just way more complex compared to 15years ago while while inflation also hit. Also people don't understand that AAA used to steal a lot of free money by settling down where the dev studios get free government money, that also drew up a bit.
People just don't understand how much money it needs to get a AAA experience, there is not a single game out there I know of that has not a lot of money and is AAA
It's like SpaceX rockets, no matter how good their engineers are, it's still a capital intensive business
Siege can do a lot and pretty easily… they could add more than that dusty ass game mode… they could add team death match, domination, capture the flag. Or come out with operations that act like the conquest game modes in hell let lose or battlefield. They can do A LOT but that would mean investing a lot. And they won’t do that.
My main problem with Siege probably supports your point very nicely: the most popular tactical “shooter” is now 5% gunfights, 55% abilities, and 40% staring at people with drones. The majority of people don’t want this kind of game, period. Ubisoft made Siege more accessible by making pressing or holding E and sitting behind a wall a majority of the gameplay, and now it’s holding up their entire company as their pile of flops grows. They did the right thing and it’s fucking sad.
I agree with you completely on all aspects. As someone who also plays everything available in the tactical shooter genre, I find it difficult to discredit R6 and the success thereof.
I do feel as though, aside from being third person, Ghost Recon Wildlands had fantastic PvP but that also died out as quickly as it came to fruition.
For now, I do have high hopes for PUBG’s extraction shooter variant/game mode as it could be the first real competitor for Escape from Tarkov; but only time will tell.
Overall, I appreciate your level-headed and realistic take on the tactical shooter space. Hopefully we have that unicorn of a game that is able to financially sustain themselves while remaining grounded in realism.