The Harsh Reality of Tactical Shooters...

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! 👍

▶️ GET CONNECTED:

[BigfryTV]

You guys wanted a Real Talk, No Sponsor? Here you go. Let's drop some truth.

[EscapeEFT]

1: Too much competition
2: Now a lot of new content just recycled games
3: Way to many scams.

[kling]

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.

[roguetexangaming]

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 .

[THEWULFF]

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…

[Terrydactyl]

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.

[deadhawk]

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.

[Captain.AmericaV]

The harsh reality of AAA.

Which is why indies are becoming more and more relevant

[maxhuyire]

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.

[fedaykincommando]

Did i just see master fucking chief smash a barricade in with a hammer? What? The? Fuck!

[odg]

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.

[Messothelioma]

lets clarify, we do not hate cosmetics and battlepasses, we hate when the core game development gets shoved aside for them.

[luisvidal]

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.

[justjozua]

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.

[Darek_B]

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.

[guncolony]

"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.

[tractordawg]

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.

[stevebutters]

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.

[luispmoraes]

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.

[takoshihitsamaru]

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.