Just an idea I had... not saying what number i give is right, but would be nice to scale a game from action shooter to tactical shooter...

Here's my 5 point system.... what you think? Should it be adjusted? What games do you think should fit where?

1. fast paced action shooters: Counterstrike, Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress 2

2. action shooters:

3. shooters: (mainstream) CoD series, MoH series, Battlefield series

4. tactical shooters: OFP Dragon Rising

5. battlefield tactical shooters: ArmA2 series, VBS2


feedback?

Make it so.
Same could be applied to flight sims.
-5 Study Sim: ROF, DCS titles
-4 Entertainment Sim: WOP, WOE
-3 Action sim/game: Apache Air Assault
-2 Flight game: Ace Combat, Blazing Angels
-1 Arcade game: Choplifter


You know, your system could be applied to anything, race sims, RTS etc.
Might go a long way to putting away some of the BS arguments and constant bickering.
I'm more of a "4" myself.

Where would games like the classic R6 go? They seem to be less 'action-y' than OFPDR but not as 'battlefield-y' as ArmA2.

I would have no problem putting Rainbow Six in with OFDR. Both are tactical, both are based on realism, but they don't take it to the extreme like Arma2 or the like.

.something?

I'd keep it as simple as possible if I were you. Maybe a half in there, that would still be better than defining a 10 pt scale.

I think a tactical shooter scale is a great idea!

It would make a great poll too ... just take the dictionary definition of "tactical" and apply it on a scale of 1 to 10 (or maybe even 100) to both the single and multiplayer portions of any shooters you've played.

Point 2 fits pretty well for the first 2 Soldier of Fortune. Run & Gun

I would Put CS in with CoD and the others.

admin removed

I believe the term tactical shooter is as old or older than the original R6, certainly far older than COD2 or anything on the source engine.

I'd disagree. Counter Strike Source is far more tactical than CoD4 and MW2 by a long shot. No respawns and team work can effectively be used. Also harder to play... much harder. I don't agree with OFP DR being tactical. My 5 point system for shooters (not vehicle based):

1) Fast pace action shooters. Examples would be stuff like Halo and UT.

2) Action shooters based in the real world. Examples would be CoD.

3) Slower paced but unrealistic shooters that don't thrive for realism. Counter Strike.

4) Light tactical shooters. GRAW 1/2 PC, OFP DR.

5) Tactical shooters or realism based shooters. SWAT 4, Red Orchestra, ArmA 2, Raven Shield.

I think you could get away with condensing it down to just a 3 point scale.

1. Action shooters: Halo, UT, Quake, COD, Counter-Strike, basically anything run and gun with no focus on realism or simulation.

2. Tactical Action: GRAW, OFP DR and Red River, Bad Company 2 (could fit into Action Shooters too, but I included it here because every game mode is objective based.) , SWAT 4, Rainbow Six. These games go for a realistic feel but stop short of simulation.

3. Tactical Simulation: ARMA 2, VBS2. These games focus entirely on realism and simulation.



5 points is too many. There's no need to have 3 categories for what are essentially all action shooters.

I'd disagree with this. I don't agree that SWAT 4 should be in the same category as BFBC2. SWAT 4 is just as realistic as ArmA considering the scope of SWAT type missions.

kicking this back up because of a discussion were having about some upcoming games.

You forgot turn based aswell\plan and go. Some of the best tactical small scale games I've played. My favourite.

Swat4 should be put in the Battlefield (Military)(civil servant) Tactical Shooting#5 with Ghost Recon, Advanced Warfighter, The original Amercican Army, Rainbow Six (Seal Team Six)and Full Spectrum Warriors Ten Hammers.

Not knowing all of them such as "After Ambush", etc... I certainly forgot some.

Creating a classification by numbers to validate the degree of Tactics involved is a genuine and valuable idea.

I completly agree with Flogger23m. It's almost "offensive" putting SWAT4, Raven Shield and Ghost Recon 1 in the same category as OFP:DR!
IMO, Raven Shield and Ghost Recon 1 are in the same category as ArmA2 since both are extremelly realistic - for example all these games model "one-shot one kill" (a thing that OFP:DR does not).
The diference between Raven Shield and Ghost Recon 1 and ArmA2 is that the later models much bigger maps and vehicles but other than this all these games have a similar level of realism.

I agree or prefer the "3 point scale" regarding tactical/FPS games but IMO, they should be something like this:

1. Arcade: CoD, Bad Company 2, Counter-Strike, HALO, Quake, etc...

2. Semi-realistic: GRAW, OFP DR and Red River, Battlefield series(?), etc...

3. Realistic: ArmA series, SWAT4, Rainbow6: Raven Shield (and older R6 games), Ghost Recon 1, etc...(or maybe not, unfortunally)

Zombie thread! This thing's over a year old. LOL



Plenty of one shot kills in OFDR.


I'd put all Rainbow's, even the originals and GR's in semi, or whatever is one step down from sim. Highly tactical, but more in strategy than execution like Arma and SWAT IMO. Maybe SWAT, mainly since you never know what to expect in SWAT.

I might not put OFDR/RR in with Arma, but I would before GR and Rainbow. And I love some GR and Rainbow. It's a cut above the last gen of GR and Rainbow as well.

and why i decided to forget this idea... too many opinions.

Of course, like they say, they're like a*&holes, but everyone thinks theirs is the only one that doesn't stink.

With "one shot one kill" I mean the enemy (AIs) against the player!! Yes, you can kill enemy AIs with one shot in OFP:DR but the enemy AIs can't (or at best VERY RARELLY can) kill you with one shot and the video that you posted proved and showed that (you can see that the player gets shot several times and doesn't die).
Besides in OFP:DR the enemy AI's precision is ridiculously too low (there's plenty of videos showing that). I won't get into OFP:DR is "good or bad" but what I say is that the enemy AI is much more harder, have much better precision and it's more realistic (executes better tactics for example) in Raven Shield or Ghost Recon1 than it is in OFP:DR. Have any doubts?? Play Raven Shield or Ghost Recon1 and you'll see what I mean -> If you stand still and watch the enemy AIs shooting at you like you can do in OFP:DR (and the video shows that also) you're dead!!

Too bad, it was a good idea!

It is a good idea. Even a very simplified version of it is a good idea.

Pergaps it would be easier if the requirements for each category were specified. IE:

1. fast paced action shooters:
- Small map/environments which are condusive towards a high amount of opposing force encounters / unrealistic single "player vs everyone" scenarios

2. action shooters:
- Similar to the fast paced shooter, but set pieces and events are created hollywood style. Similar to mainstream.

3. shooters: (mainstream/franchise) - Leaders of the FPS pack with high budgets.

4. tactical shooters: Shooters which attempt to convey realism where the player is acompanied by fellow fighters. May contain a method of issueing commands to teamates. Larger maps that other shooters providing downtime between engaements to strategize.

5. battlefield tactical shooters: Similar to tactical shooters, but on a larger scale.

Just an example. Once the categories are described, makes it easier to see what game might fall where based on what they meet.

Comparing SWAT 4 to ArmA2 smacks of apples to oranges. It sounds like you need two ratings for each game: CQB vs. battlefield and arcade vs. simulation? Maybe three points for each? SWAT 4 is 1 on the first scale (all CQB) and a 3 on the second (simulation). OFP:DR is a 3 on the first (battlefield) and a 2 on the second (sim-lite or serious arcade). Maybe even a third rating for just how tactical the co-op mode allows you to be? OFP:DR, with the exception of the first mission and maybe a couple of the FTEs, is no more tactical than those two-player missions in BF3. They're like progressive shooting galleries: go to location 1, plink; move to location 2, plink. And so forth.

Re: one shot kills in OFP:DR. Yeah, I second what ricnunes said. The AI rarely hits you, and when it does, you almost never go down in one shot. After several months on Hardcore OFP:RR, I migrated to the single-player campaign in BF3, also on Hardcore (or whatever that mode is called). For a game that's arcade rather than simulation, it taught me a thing or two about cover I'd forgotten after all that OFP:RR playing. The new OFP games allow a person to get pretty sloppy. The exact opposite of the first ArmA.

Battlefield would feel more sim-like if they just slowed the pace down. Everyone running around super fast sometimes makes me feel nauseous, that is how bad it is.

I agree with this one. I have always considered there to be FPS, tactical shooter, and then sim.