Are tactical shooters too niche? [DISCUSSION] | Forums

[Kean_1]

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

The way I see it, most who are asking for more authenticity / realism are usually asking in relation to certain aspects of gameplay, kit, etc. They are not necessarily asking for ARMA-like gameplay.

I get it to a point why ARMA gets brought up in conversations like this as the game pretty much defines what a milsim is in most people's minds, but it's an extreme example. Just as DayZ is an extreme example of a survival game which is also an extreme milsim in it's own right. I guess my argument is that there while I will agree there is a certain point where it may not make sense to add some things to a GR game, there is a heck of a lot of wiggle room in between. Personally, I don't think by providing players more control over their team AI means turning GR into a milsim nor does adding a better weaponsmith, a better / more realistic damage model, a more realistic magazine / ammo management system, etc. Some of these elements are what can add more depth to the gameplay and implemented in a way that doesn't necessarily require micromanagement.

For example, in regard to the mag / ammo management system, Ubi's "realistic reload" option is basically a mag dump. No other choice. However, another alternative might be to offer players an option in a speed reload vs. "tactical" reload. The advantage of a speed reload would be a faster reload speed but would mean dumping the mag and any remaining ammo in it as Ubi's realistic reload does. However, for gameplay balance, a tactical reload would be slower animation but the player would retain that mag and the ammo inside of it to use later. Now, an example of a compromise of adding such a system but making it less "milsim-ish" (less complicated) would be to keep the existing ammo pool the game uses now and simply add those remaining rounds retained in a tactical reload back into the pool. ......vs. a magazine inventory system where the mag is placed in the back of the line.

On console, the reload action could still be tied to the same button but could be distinguished by a short or long press of the button. .....for example, a speed reload is a quick press while tactical would be a long press. ......or one tap vs. two taps, etc.

That's just one example but IMO there is a lot of latitude that exists in some of these gameplay aspects that can be changed and even added as options that players could turn on or off if they wish. .....back to my earlier point of expanding the game to be more attractive to more players rather than one large group.

Personally, I thought Wildlands was a flawed game but a great foundation that could have been improved and expanded upon with more options, better AI, more control over the AI team, better ballistics, an expanded weaponsmith, improved vehicle physics, a better damage model, etc. IMO, WL fit the bill of a game that could be appealing to more casual players and the hardcore fans alike with the options available. It also had a formula at its core that I think resonated with a lot of people which is why it was a success.

[Kean_1]

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.

I agree. IMO, they should have focused their efforts on creating a Wildlands 2 instead of Breakpoint. It likely would have been more successful and taken a lot less resources to produce. It could have also been a much more polished game if they simply spent the time improving on what was already there, adding new elements, assets, etc. Another big factor was the limited time that they had between the release of WL and BP. I think a WL2 would have made a heck of a lot more sense given this constraint as well.

IMO, WL could have been the start of something good. It was the introduction of GR to an open world and had a core formula that worked. It just needed more work to make it a better experience. .....and all the feedback was there on how they could do that if they just would have listened.

[FcAc-No-Moe]

Their data may say NO but that is because they know that by making a mediocre copy of another game they can make money so why bother putting in the effort, time and money that it requires to make a decent NON-ARMA military shooter, I do also believe in my heart that there is a niche for old style GR-Like shooter and even if small, the niche is from people that have the money to buy it at full retail plus support it as long as the DLCs are decent.

[Conan.O.Awesome]

I feel the market for tactical shooters console is growing! I hope that Ubi and other AAA title companies see this and strive to sway more towards realism rather than gimmicks

[igrvks]

I personally think something like "Wildlands 2.0" would be the best direction for GR, take what was present and improve upon it along the lines Kean outlines just above. Hollywood realism/milsim-lite would be something I want to play after my workday or on weekends to unwind, full blown milsim is not really what I am looking for in a Ghost Recon videogame.

[ManticButton]

I personally think something like "Wildlands 2.0" would be the best direction for GR, take what was present and improve upon it along the lines Kean outlines just above. Hollywood realism/milsim-lite would be something I want to play after my workday or on weekends to unwind, full blown milsim is not really what I am looking for in a Ghost Recon videogame.

agreed

I don't want to have to press a button and do a quick time event to insert keys into a car every time I wan't to drive one in a video game nor do I want to provide realistic surgery every time I go to do a revive

any idiot can fly a plane in microsoft flight simulator and any idiot can drive a car in forza

[martbloke88]

The way I see it, most who are asking for more authenticity / realism are usually asking in relation to certain aspects of gameplay, kit, etc. They are not necessarily asking for ARMA-like gameplay.

I get it to a point why ARMA gets brought up in conversations like this as the game pretty much defines what a milsim is in most people's minds, but it's an extreme example. Just as DayZ is an extreme example of a survival game which is also an extreme milsim in it's own right. I guess my argument is that there while I will agree there is a certain point where it may not make sense to add some things to a GR game, there is a heck of a lot of wiggle room in between. Personally, I don't think by providing players more control over their team AI means turning GR into a milsim nor does adding a better weaponsmith, a better / more realistic damage model, a more realistic magazine / ammo management system, etc. Some of these elements are what can add more depth to the gameplay and implemented in a way that doesn't necessarily require micromanagement.

For example, in regard to the mag / ammo management system, Ubi's "realistic reload" option is basically a mag dump. No other choice. However, another alternative might be to offer players an option in a speed reload vs. "tactical" reload. The advantage of a speed reload would be a faster reload speed but would mean dumping the mag and any remaining ammo in it as Ubi's realistic reload does. However, for gameplay balance, a tactical reload would be slower animation but the player would retain that mag and the ammo inside of it to use later. Now, an example of a compromise of adding such a system but making it less "milsim-ish" (less complicated) would be to keep the existing ammo pool the game uses now and simply add those remaining rounds retained in a tactical reload back into the pool. ......vs. a magazine inventory system where the mag is placed in the back of the line.

On console, the reload action could still be tied to the same button but could be distinguished by a short or long press of the button. .....for example, a speed reload is a quick press while tactical would be a long press. ......or one tap vs. two taps, etc.

That's just one example but IMO there is a lot of latitude that exists in some of these gameplay aspects that can be changed and even added as options that players could turn on or off if they wish. .....back to my earlier point of expanding the game to be more attractive to more players rather than one large group.

Personally, I thought Wildlands was a flawed game but a great foundation that could have been improved and expanded upon with more options, better AI, more control over the AI team, better ballistics, an expanded weaponsmith, improved vehicle physics, a better damage model, etc. IMO, WL fit the bill of a game that could be appealing to more casual players and the hardcore fans alike with the options available. It also had a formula at its core that I think resonated with a lot of people which is why it was a success.

Absolutely all of this!

I personally think something like "Wildlands 2.0" would be the best direction for GR, take what was present and improve upon it along the lines Kean outlines just above. Hollywood realism/milsim-lite would be something I want to play after my workday or on weekends to unwind, full blown milsim is not really what I am looking for in a Ghost Recon videogame.

Yep indeedy. Take the best of both WL and BP (love the animations, control/camera, sounds and exploration mode mission clues idea from BP but story and helo classic controls from WL - the world in both are just great and the AI could do with a bit of a mash up and improvement), create a really good story and improve upon that with some more realistic and better RPG type mechanics (i.e. weight management/protection, reload like Kean stated, TTK, etc) and they could have quite some game.

[Mars388502]

The way I see it, most who are asking for more authenticity / realism are usually asking in relation to certain aspects of gameplay, kit, etc. They are not necessarily asking for ARMA-like gameplay.

I get it to a point why ARMA gets brought up in conversations like this as the game pretty much defines what a milsim is in most people's minds, but it's an extreme example. Just as DayZ is an extreme example of a survival game which is also an extreme milsim in it's own right. I guess my argument is that there while I will agree there is a certain point where it may not make sense to add some things to a GR game, there is a heck of a lot of wiggle room in between. Personally, I don't think by providing players more control over their team AI means turning GR into a milsim nor does adding a better weaponsmith, a better / more realistic damage model, a more realistic magazine / ammo management system, etc. Some of these elements are what can add more depth to the gameplay and implemented in a way that doesn't necessarily require micromanagement.

For example, in regard to the mag / ammo management system, Ubi's "realistic reload" option is basically a mag dump. No other choice. However, another alternative might be to offer players an option in a speed reload vs. "tactical" reload. The advantage of a speed reload would be a faster reload speed but would mean dumping the mag and any remaining ammo in it as Ubi's realistic reload does. However, for gameplay balance, a tactical reload would be slower animation but the player would retain that mag and the ammo inside of it to use later. Now, an example of a compromise of adding such a system but making it less "milsim-ish" (less complicated) would be to keep the existing ammo pool the game uses now and simply add those remaining rounds retained in a tactical reload back into the pool. ......vs. a magazine inventory system where the mag is placed in the back of the line.

On console, the reload action could still be tied to the same button but could be distinguished by a short or long press of the button. .....for example, a speed reload is a quick press while tactical would be a long press. ......or one tap vs. two taps, etc.

That's just one example but IMO there is a lot of latitude that exists in some of these gameplay aspects that can be changed and even added as options that players could turn on or off if they wish. .....back to my earlier point of expanding the game to be more attractive to more players rather than one large group.

Personally, I thought Wildlands was a flawed game but a great foundation that could have been improved and expanded upon with more options, better AI, more control over the AI team, better ballistics, an expanded weaponsmith, improved vehicle physics, a better damage model, etc. IMO, WL fit the bill of a game that could be appealing to more casual players and the hardcore fans alike with the options available. It also had a formula at its core that I think resonated with a lot of people which is why it was a success.

I totally agree that the Arma serie is an extreme example and I consider it as an extreme value as you wrote that caraterisize a milsim.

There is absolutely plenty of room for improvements and inspiration. It's still an hard exercise to please everyone around. For example, I recently realised that having the ability to "micro manage" your teammates is something that some players dread, even if originally it was part of Ghost Recon. This is something that I would personnally like, but others would find tedious. On the opposite: introducing weapon malfunctions is something that some have requested, but that I find a bit too much and quiet frankly tedious, even if it would add to realism.

My point is simply that Arma is the extreme of milsim, there's still much for improvements in the GR franchise and I totally agree with you on the fact that GRW could have been the foundation for something really interesting.

[vahndaar]

No, they're not too niche, in the same way that you wouldn't want every movie to be a popcorn summer blockbuster marvel movie.

They should double down and play into the niche and it should be accessible for its target audience.

Niche can be profitable but it won't necessarily be at the scale of those popcorn experiences however if you put out a number of niche products it absolutely can be just as successful if those products are of high quality and value.

We also cannot underestimate the importance of creative license, leadership and direction. Just like I love the movies of Spielberg, Fincher, Scorsese, Kubrick or Cameron it is very rare to have a movie you love and not know the director. Notice how some of the best games are the result of singular visions from the likes of Miyazaki, Kohima, Molyneux, Meier, Miyamoto or Spector.

I would suggest that if you're going to create a niche game or movie you need a figurehead that embodies and lives the values and objectives of that niche and has the passion and authority to deliver it.

I find that in games that creative vision is either absent or stifled by corporate interests. If you don't have a strong lead to temper that influence and push back then all you'll get is wishy washy flavourless content with no clear direction, market or point.

For example does anyone know who the creative director was for anthem, avengers or any of the other myriad of failed live service garbage that has dropped recently? That's my point. You need people at the top with the same passion as the target audience to fight to keep it niche.

I have noticed in the gaming industry recently we no longer know or have these visionaries, particularly in the west. We recognise brands and studios instead of the individuals.

However the trend of top Devs leaving and forming their own studios to reclaim that creative independence is definitely an encouraging one and harkens back to the 90s and 00s when smaller studios were pumping out quality content.

Here's an interesting point, if those devs passionate about GR left Ubi, formed a studio and build a true GR game without the brand, characters or legacy of franchise name would we support them? I know I would

For me I'm not as precious about the brand and history as I am about the gameplay experience it delivers. Give me a quality 3rd person tactical shooter with slick and rewarding mechanics and I'll be right there.

[DV20Katana]

Ubi is now in a position to make a big change for the positive in the next GR title. I hope they are taking on board what the community is saying and that we are craving a nice tense tactical shooter where (this is crucial) we have the OPTION (to keep both kinds of gamer happy) to have full control over ALL in-game UI, HUD and sound elements. This will make those of us who want to play without magic gadgets and superpowers an enjoyable play. The option to play without these arcadey "skill points" would also be very welcome.

We all got a whiff of just how much fun this is playing Wildlands without using skill points and with no HUD. Its the most fun I have had in a shooter in a long time.

We also hope for realistic flight and land vehicle handling. I hope Ubi does not ignore us, it will be a huge huge disappointment if the next title is a BP clone.

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.

Too true. And when in Gear mode its a bit of Borderlands thrown in as well! Its funny you mentioned Far Cry because when I play GRBP without any of the AI squad fools it is totally about 80% a Far Cry game.