PDA

View Full Version : What makes a good tactical shooter.



Arch-Enos
03-13-2015, 04:36 AM
Ill start by saying Center-of-screen fire is the right move

The original ranbow six looked a bit like this:http://www.blogcdn.com/news.bigdownload.com/media/2009/04/1999feature99.jpg your center of screen is your aiming and movement central location. THIS is what made it tactical, not only the reason you could have breach and clear charges, because of the movement and shooting options that gave it a true tactical shooter feel. Mind you this was 1999 and i was a 12 at the time, but i remember that and havn't seen it since. The center of screen is the key point to a good tactical feel:http://cdn3-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/gallery/5-first-person-shooters-that-dared-to-be-different/tom_clancy_rainbow_siz.jpg This loading screen is classic. This combined with great realistic sound effects of the characters movement; adds to the tactical feel as well.I think you should keep fixed character speeds and non perk related tactical combat, and great sound effects. Make the player models fully customizeable and add content for users to develop their own skins and hats/masks on pc. I know thats alot, but its a know way for success. The purchaseable content should only be for cosmetics and additional scenarios only, please don't release guns as purchaseable items, instead make them all unlockable within achievements in the game. If not thats ok, im only here trying to throw out some ideas and help realease another great Rainbow six game!
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/6/69686/2373128-rainbow_six_eagle_watch___screenshot_8.png

I would like to know what you guys think makes a good tactical shooter.

xB0NES
03-13-2015, 05:08 AM
Well, imo there are many things. Round based objective modes, non linear map design, full range of character movement, realistic ballistics and damage models, good AI, and many more. These are just the few crucials that I could think of off the top of my head.

Arch-Enos
03-13-2015, 05:32 AM
realistic ballistics and damage models.

I have to highlight that one because that's spot on. Damage models were obviously out of the question back then(1999), but i think they edit gore for rating purposes these days, it is a shame. if you remember the game soldier of fortune realeased not long after on February 29, 2000http://www.theisozone.com/images/screens/pc-40402-11324338234.jpg they can do things like this but even better but they chose not to. When it comes to a true tactical shooter i think it should be implemented more so than your typical counter strike call of duty, blood spots. maybe add a small entry wound for each pellet or bullet. just no full boar head chopping off obviously. i dunno it seems really overshadowed.

xB0NES
03-13-2015, 05:45 AM
Yeah, as I was growing up I always just assumed that more realistic damage models would come down the pipes, but for some reason it never really panned out. Arma 2 and 3 on PC are really the only exceptions to that rule, and it's frustrating to say the least.

Deschain17
03-13-2015, 07:02 AM
I think one of the most important things about a tactical shooter (the multiplayer aspect) is something most people wouldn't even consider, I imagine. IMO, spawn point placement to start matches with is of critical importance, and not in the way that most people think. My favorite Rogue Spear map was Chateau, because the spawn points were brilliant and it wasn't a case of "if you spawn at X, then you go to Y".

I *hate* tactical/strategy games that are based on simply memorizing the right set of steps to go through to win based on early or initial conditions. I call it "The StarCraft Effect". You find out what race your enemies are and based on the map and the races of you and your teammates, you follow the right general "list of steps" to go through to try to win. That's not to say that there aren't spontaneous differing decisions needed to win at high levels of play in StarCraft, but once you know a few key variables, a lot of what you do is mathematically/statistically determined and you follow the known path that will most likely bring success.

It removes a huge part of the skill equation, and I hate it. A great way to combat this is to have dynamically generated terrain/maps, which if implemented in StarCraft, would throw the entire competitive ranked StarCraft world on its collective head.

Dynamically generated terrain/maps in a tactical shooter such as Rainbow Six wouldn't have the same effect, but one way or another, I think it's critical that there not be set paths to follow or early "conditions" of any kind that can be followed every time to greatly maximize the chance of success. In other words, force people to really learn the game inside and out and force them to rely on quick decision-making to win, not...Following the right set of corridors based on what spawn point you started at or friendly/enemy group composition.

I despise the "go find out what race your enemy is and how they're starting their build so now you can follow the right list of steps to win this match" methodology that StarCraft is based on.

HUNK-RUS
03-13-2015, 12:55 PM
I do not know if this will harm the possibility of the game, but with the function to look through a small window helmet camera friend. Allowing other games to operate more harmoniously.

http://www.gamerulez.net/gallery/img/gallery2/big/swat_4_11.jpghttp://www.messer-ravensburg.de/images/ghost-recon-advanced-warfighter-2-pc-i8.jpg

deadpandave
03-13-2015, 01:02 PM
Although many of the above deal with the realism, the tactical element is surely only present when tactics can be introduced and understood by the team. With R6, the tactical element prior to launching the FPS element was key to understanding the layout of the building from the plans, and being able to co-ordinate who would go where, and what go-words were used to initiate the next phase of the assault. This was to the point of drawing arrows around the map, and creating custom checkpoints.

Training on these tactics would also be necessary, provided by some kind of generic house mock-up where the team could practice breaching a building. Who checks left, who checks right? Who goes through the door first and who covers the rear?

chumpy69
03-13-2015, 11:32 PM
A few things off the top of my head that it means to *me*:

1) if you try to fire your gun while jumping around like an idiot you should not be able to hit the broad side of a barn

2) if you try to fire a sniper rifle while sprinting, bringing up the sight to your eye, and than pulling the trigger in less than a second.... :)

3) realistic but not necessarily 'sim' mechanics. game should not be halo but it should still be fun to 'play'

4) well thought out maps. everyone remembers certain maps for better or worse in shooters they play. maps can make or break a game.

5) 0 or very limited spawns. there needs to be a sense of loss and knowing that you have to sit there and wait until the next round to start before being able to play again forces people to think a bit more than knowing they will spawn again and be in the action in 10 seconds.

Arch-Enos
03-16-2015, 06:30 PM
I despise the "go find out what race your enemy is and how they're starting their build so now you can follow the right list of steps to win this match" methodology that StarCraft is based on.

I agree, that's a very good point!
Randomly generated terrain would put a whole new spin on things, but it would have to go under HEAVY testing and improving.
and going on about realism, Realism and Tactics go hand and hand. There is no excuse, technology is rapidly improving, so why shouldn't games?
"Presentation" shouldn't be a large factor in a tactical game,ALSO If done well it should present itself, like the original RanbowSix did.


love the comments xD

BotToone
03-23-2015, 09:00 AM
I think one of the most important things about a tactical shooter (the multiplayer aspect) is something most people wouldn't even consider, I imagine. IMO, spawn point placement to start matches with is of critical importance, and not in the way that most people think. My favorite Rogue Spear map was Chateau, because the spawn points were brilliant and it wasn't a case of "if you spawn at X, then you go to Y".

I *hate* tactical/strategy games that are based on simply memorizing the right set of steps to go through to win based on early or initial conditions. I call it "The StarCraft Effect". You find out what race your enemies are and based on the map and the races of you and your teammates, you follow the right general "list of steps" to go through to try to win. That's not to say that there aren't spontaneous differing decisions needed to win at high levels of play in StarCraft, but once you know a few key variables, a lot of what you do is mathematically/statistically determined and you follow the known path that will most likely bring success.

It removes a huge part of the skill equation, and I hate it. A great way to combat this is to have dynamically generated terrain/maps, which if implemented in StarCraft, would throw the entire competitive ranked StarCraft world on its collective head.

Dynamically generated terrain/maps in a tactical shooter such as Rainbow Six wouldn't have the same effect, but one way or another, I think it's critical that there not be set paths to follow or early "conditions" of any kind that can be followed every time to greatly maximize the chance of success. In other words, force people to really learn the game inside and out and force them to rely on quick decision-making to win, not...Following the right set of corridors based on what spawn point you started at or friendly/enemy group composition.

I despise the "go find out what race your enemy is and how they're starting their build so now you can follow the right list of steps to win this match" methodology that StarCraft is based on.

I agree with your overall point, not just from a tactical perspective, but just from an entertainment prospective. This game won't last long if it lacks dynamic gameplay and becomes 'do this, then this, then this, now you win'. It should be spontaneous and ongoing, active combat where you have to think on your feet and not have some sort of premade forced strategy.