Are tactical shooters too niche? [DISCUSSION] | Forums

[Virtual-Chris]

Ghost Recon Wildlands had 25 Million Players... that's not niche.

Ubi has always had different franchises for different play styles... they have Siege and now the new game for the P2P crowd, they have The Division for thelooter shooter crowd, Far Cry and Assassins Creed for adventure, and they have GR for the Tactical Shooter crowd.

Breakpoint went off the rails by blending too much Division and Far Cry into the GR franchise.

[FcAc-No-Moe]

You are still too nice Chris, let loose ... it is invigorating

[Kean_1]

I think it's obvious Ubi's aim is to reach a wider audience but they are sacrificing what makes their franchise(s) unique (what long-time fans appreciate) in order to do it. That’s not really trying to cast a wider net but more of trying to tap into a larger segment. ….and hoping their fans tag along for the ride.

….but as far as the question whether tactical shooters are too niche, I'd have to say no with an exception. Too niche for Ubisoft? .....sure, I'd go for that as I think there is evidence that they have made efforts to distance themselves from the TC legacy of authenticity, etc. for a more cartoonish and sci-fi vision. The changes made to BP after release wouldn't have come to fruition if the game hadn't tanked and the community been so vocal.

Personally, I think there is a renaissance of sorts coming especially on console with more tactical, authentic shooters. PC has already seen plenty of titles in this genre. Some of them were named above by Mars like Squad, Insurgency Sandstorm, Ready or Not, Ground Branch, ARMA and Six Days in Fallujah. Off the top of my head there is also DayZ, Escape From Tarkov, Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum and Zero Six. Games DayZ are already on console but more are coming this year and next. Let’s not forget other titles like Sniper Elite which are very tactical.

Btw….

Insurgency Sandstorm just started private beta tests on XB and PS last week (current and last gen) and they will continue for several weeks. Leaks have revealed that we may be seeing a release in September of this title.

Hell Let loose is still slated for port this year according to a recent interview but will only be released on next gen consoles.

Six Days in Fallujah is also set for release on console although there is no confirmed date I am aware of. This will be single-player with control over your team as well as co-op IIRC.

Zero Six: Behind Enemy Lines is currently in alpha but still plodding along. The devs also plan to release this game on console as well. It is supposed to include a single-player campaign and competitive, objective based multi-player.

There are other milsim / milsim-like games that are either being planned for port to console or being developed for it.

If you take a step back and look a little closer at some AAA titles, you can see a bit of shift in some games to at least accommodate the more "hardcore' among us. CoD:MW 2019 is a good example. The toned down some of the more CoD-ish aspects and introduced a weaponsmith a lot of us tactical shooter fans could appreciate. Gameplay was still run & gun simply by nature, but this was a welcome change from the more wild direction the franchise had been taking. I’m curious to see what IW has planned for the next iteration once it becomes their turn again. …..especially after BF2042’s Portal announcment.

Speaking of which, the new Battlefield 2042 recently introduced us to the new BF Portal that will allow players to customize their own matches / scenarios. You can get as wild or as hardcore as you like. This was a "love letter" to longtime fans that will include assets, maps, etc. from BF1942, BF Bad Company, BF3 and BF2042 which players can use exclusively or mix and match. That shows me that they haven’t forgotten their fans of old while still trying to appeal to those who may new.

Something to note is that franchises like BF and CoD have t least included hardcore modes in their games. …..and while you may not be able to really call them tactical shooters, these options helped expand their reach to those of us who could appreciate aspects of the hardcore mode where we otherwise would have never been interested in their game. This is something I think Ubi could easily do with their games and we saw some of that potential with the changes they made after release (e.g. Ghost Experience). Unfortunately, they seem to have a hard time realizing the advantages of appealing to a wider audience. GW1 didn’t have any kind of hardcore mode even though many had asked for it. …..and when BP released, GW2 wasn’t any different.

IMO, Portal is the new game feature to watch. I’ll wager it becomes as popular or perhaps will even dwarf BF’s main game modes in popularity. When BF2042 was first announced, I hated the more wild elements they added but I knew they were trying to appeal to those who enjoy this kind of stuff. ….but when Portal was announced and the features revealed along with the confirmation that Portal will be something that will be grown over time, I was sold.

Why can’t Ubi do something like that with GR? Why can’t they be more innovative?

….too niche? I say no. I just think companies like Ubi are simply too narrow minded at times. WL was a glimmer of hope that maybe Ubi could actually take GR (with improvements to the enemy AI, team AI, weapons, damage model, etc.) to another level. .....and then came Narco Road, other odd decisions and ultimately, the coup de grâce known as Breakpoint.

[Keltimus]

It might be too niche, at least for sure in the eyes of developers. Great example was when the AI Teammate update dropped and we were told by the CMs not to worry that we won't have to micromanage our teammates. This baffled the majority of us because we've been requesting expanding the list of Teammate orders so that we can micromanage the team for so many years now.

[xxFratosxx]

Ubisoft is going where the money is. Once I seen Mario came on board to Ubisoft I knew it was getting casual. Even more casual when they tried to go full Zelda mode with that Immortal Fenyx rising game. I not saying Mario or Zelda is bad. Nintendo makes the money the right way. Its just some how Ubisoft want to implement casual experience with its shooters. Money talks when it comes to development.

[jmagnum50]

Personally, I don't know if many (and I mean many) people aren't into tactical shooters, they can be good additions to the genre. It's just that if many people are going to enjoy the tactical games if they're more about realism, and not about fun. After all, tactical games are video games, and I think developers like I UbiParis and Red Storm made the GR series much different than the first, and its expansion packs.
Now, Red Storm made Ghost Recon 1 (I think they also developed the PS2 version, I'm not sure) and it wasn't entirely realistic (I believe that is a good thing). The game was set in 2008, and one of the specialist weapons was the OICW, which the net says was cancelled years earlier. The Rifleman's weapon is called the M16A2 but in the PS2 game, it acted like the A3. Now, one thing that's truly unrealistic, is the demo man. One of his tools is the M136, but here's the thing. In the main game he carried 6 shots to the weapon (4 for Jungle Storm), and I wonder, is he carrying a bunch of AT4s along with the M4A1 (unlikely), or is using a specialized reloadable version, which doesn't exist, unfortunately.
All of this shows that even a great tactical game like Ghost Recon doesn't have to be entirely realistic. Sure, it would make for a nice aesthetic, but if the developers aren't careful, they may end up making a Ghost Experience update for something some fans might find too realistic to enjoy, in case they start losing players. Also, I think some people want more Future Soldier related items in BP (I think they wanted it in WL) and I don't think the U.S. gov't or the military issues cloaks, cross-com and warhounds like standard- issue M4s.
Anyway, That's my two cents. If you like more ARMA-esque gameplay in tactical shooters, good for you. I think that just because the GR franchise fluctuates in tactics and realism from time to time, I think it it's pretty much fine where it is. Have fun.

[Quimera2-98]

Ghost Recon Wildlands had 25 Million Players... that's not niche.

There is no way Wildlands had 25 million players, I gonna need a source for that buddy, because if that it is true, then it is a lot more than Cyberpunk 2077 (after the crash) or RDR2 when It was launch on PC after a huge success in the console. You gonna post a source buddy.

[Quimera2-98]

I think it's obvious Ubi's aim is to reach a wider audience but they are sacrificing what makes their franchise(s) unique (what long-time fans appreciate) in order to do it. That’s not really trying to cast a wider net but more of trying to tap into a larger segment. ….and hoping their fans tag along for the ride.

….but as far as the question whether tactical shooters are too niche, I'd have to say no with an exception. Too niche for Ubisoft? .....sure, I'd go for that as I think there is evidence that they have made efforts to distance themselves from the TC legacy of authenticity, etc. for a more cartoonish and sci-fi vision. The changes made to BP after release wouldn't have come to fruition if the game hadn't tanked and the community been so vocal.

Personally, I think there is a renaissance of sorts coming especially on console with more tactical, authentic shooters. PC has already seen plenty of titles in this genre. Some of them were named above by Mars like Squad, Insurgency Sandstorm, Ready or Not, Ground Branch, ARMA and Six Days in Fallujah. Off the top of my head there is also DayZ, Escape From Tarkov, Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum and Zero Six. Games DayZ are already on console but more are coming this year and next. Let’s not forget other titles like Sniper Elite which are very tactical.

Insurgency Sandstorm just started private beta tests on XB and PS last week (current and last gen) and they will continue for several weeks. Leaks have revealed that we may be seeing a release in September of this title.

Hell Let loose is still slated for port this year according to a recent interview but will only be released on next gen consoles.

Six Days in Fallujah is also set for release on console although there is no confirmed date I am aware of. This will be single-player with control over your team as well as co-op IIRC.

Zero Six: Behind Enemy Lines is currently in alpha but still plodding along. The devs also plan to release this game on console as well. It is supposed to include a single-player campaign and competitive, objective based multi-player.

There are other milsim / milsim-like games that are either being planned for port to console or being developed for it.

If you take a step back and look a little closer at some AAA titles, you can see a bit of shift in some games to at least accommodate the more "hardcore' among us. CoD:MW 2019 is a good example. The toned down some of the more CoD-ish aspects and introduced a weaponsmith a lot of us tactical shooter fans could appreciate. Gameplay was still run & gun simply by nature, but this was a welcome change from the more wild direction the franchise had been taking. I’m curious to see what IW has planned for the next iteration once it becomes their turn again. …..especially after BF2042’s Portal announcment.

….too niche? I say no. I just think companies like Ubi are simply too narrow minded at times. WL was a glimmer of hope that maybe Ubi could actually take GR (with improvements to the enemy AI, team AI, weapons, damage model, etc.) to another level. .....and then came Narco Road, other odd decisions and ultimately, the coup de grâce known as Breakpoint.

It is the same mate, you can keep naming how many mil-sim new franchises there are on the market, but that doesn't gonna change what audience/target are both aiming for and how many people gonna purchase them. From the mil-sim experiences you named, which one of them gonna sell the same quantity or with luck half than COD or BF?

I think you confuse the concepts. There's the immersion, there's the gameplay, and there's the replayability.

Immersion: in both COD and BF I am feeling immersive because you can see there was research behind the weapons customization, gears, story and world-building (this last it is not found in BF2042 because even then we have the same conflict Russia VS USA, so cliche, better I post a link at the end). Or environment destruction, that not only affect the gameplay but to the immersion about how all changes around you.

Gameplay: in both COD and BF the gameplay is an arcade and fast with health regeneration, but because one love that or the tools and roles you can play in BF, that it helps to every match be a different one at contrary than COD. The hardcore modes you posted before and the option to customize modes, it is nothing new because this was already at the start of the franchise but only for PVP modes, not PVE-singleplayer modes.

Replayability is Warzone and posts content launch in COD or Portal in BF2042. This depends on the taste of every player.

If something shows us in COD it is that the casual and bright colours sell more than the realistic and ground experience, just look at the post-game launch like skins, microtransactions and how ONLY WARZONE GET NEW CONTENT BUT NOT THE VANILLA GAME MODE.

Sure there gonna be more franchises that focus on grounded experiences aiming at the console market but that don't gonna change the not "niche" but small hardcore market.

At the end of the day even if how you said Ubi might be narrow-minded, they have to see what it is selling and what is popular in the community. What it is popular on Twitch or how wonders worked when Siege rise up to be popular with both tactical gameplay and immersive setting year one that turned to COD post-launch content level. But of course, the same way companies learned what make profits in the industry, they have to learn to first: innovate, not saturate the market and improve while keep being true to one franchise key and strong points. Activision learnt this with Ghost or COD Infinity, EA and DICE with BFV. Only rest to see if after BP a new GR return to roots. XDefiant it is its own thing even if it is called a "Tom Clancy´s game" so I wouldn't count that.

And someone pls, could quote him all of this? because I am not sure if I am still on his ignore list for whatever reason.

[Mars388502]

Personally, I don't know if many (and I mean many) people aren't into tactical shooters, they can be good additions to the genre. It's just that if many people are going to enjoy the tactical games if they're more about realism, and not about fun. After all, tactical games are video games, and I think developers like I UbiParis and Red Storm made the GR series much different than the first, and its expansion packs.
Now, Red Storm made Ghost Recon 1 (I think they also developed the PS2 version, I'm not sure) and it wasn't entirely realistic (I believe that is a good thing). The game was set in 2008, and one of the specialist weapons was the OICW, which the net says was cancelled years earlier. The Rifleman's weapon is called the M16A2 but in the PS2 game, it acted like the A3. Now, one thing that's truly unrealistic, is the demo man. One of his tools is the M136, but here's the thing. In the main game he carried 6 shots to the weapon (4 for Jungle Storm), and I wonder, is he carrying a bunch of AT4s along with the M4A1 (unlikely), or is using a specialized reloadable version, which doesn't exist, unfortunately.
All of this shows that even a great tactical game like Ghost Recon doesn't have to be entirely realistic. Sure, it would make for a nice aesthetic, but if the developers aren't careful, they may end up making a Ghost Experience update for something some fans might find too realistic to enjoy, in case they start losing players. Also, I think some people want more Future Soldier related items in BP (I think they wanted it in WL) and I don't think the U.S. gov't or the military issues cloaks, cross-com and warhounds like standard- issue M4s.
Anyway, That's my two cents. If you like more ARMA-esque gameplay in tactical shooters, good for you. I think that just because the GR franchise fluctuates in tactics and realism from time to time, I think it it's pretty much fine where it is. Have fun.

That's an really interesting point you have underlined, where to draw the line between pure brute milsim (like something along the lines of Arma) and and a more "mainstream" shooter or tactical shooter?

Some around here would prefer an Arma like GR, but I think it would be too much. Other, would lean to a lighter version of Arma (some mechanics could be worked differently if not totally left out) to make the game more accessible and easier for a greater number of people. Some perceive (a bit like me) that Arma can be resumed as follow: plan the mission, crawl half a Km, get shot once, die respawn. This could be a misperception (I played once or twice the game). But, I don't believe that I'm the only one having this perception.

Furthermore, GR games are about a special unit of unsung heroes that save the free world... realisticly speaking, well no that much. Military option are always the last resort and in the majority of cases it's the result of many other factors (1 example is 0 dark 30, the SEAL raid being the culminating point). If GR games want to be more realistic, their operations and missions would tend to be slightly different (I don't think I'm being clear enough here though).

I still think that the underlined question should be further discussed

[recklessnico]

A lot of the games coming out today are fast paced, battle royale-ish, cartooney style experiences. Although these have a place and a following, I feel they reach a larger audience (even though I don’t agree with or like that game style).

I tend to lean towards the tactical genere and enjoy the slow paced, methodical gameplay when it comes to military shooters, as I know a lot of us in these forums do as well.

I’m curious to hear what you think. Do you think Ubi has moved away from the tactical side of gameplay to reach a larger audience? I’m doing so, is it stating that the tactical shooter market is just too niche? Thoughts?

p.s. let’s play nice in here. K?

The better question is : would that be profitable?

In my opinion it would be, since there are no such titles besides indie studios with lackluster graphics and story.
Wildlands, although not the epitome of a tactical shooter, sold over 10 millions if I remember correctly so I don't see why another Wildlands-like game made by an AAA studio wouldn't sell too.