True...
Sad Komemiute is Sad.

Tis sad indeed.

What is your technical definition of "Tactical Simulation"?...So we all speak the same language!

Anything below strategic simulation I'd wager; squad level games.

I think Gunny was referring more to the level of realism.

For example, would you consider something like Rainbow Six Vegas to be a "tactical simulation"?

Oh, duh. Then my answer would be something striving for realistic pacing, tactics, equipment, and SOPs. Kinda like old TC games compared to new ones.

I think the genre is pretty much dead. We have had some attempts in the PvP/team VS team area, which are not as tactical as the co-op/SP missions that R6/GR offered. Even then, most of those recent games are more mainstream than their predecessors (RO2 and Insurgency). ArmA 3 really dropped the ball. Takedown dropped it so hard I can't even count it.

Ground Branch is progressing, but the pace is extremely slow. If it ever comes it, we'll likely have to a few more years. Aside from that though there really is nothing even on the horizon for the genre. On the other hand, flight sims have some decent titles (DCS, IL-2, FSX ect). Tactical shooters are in a really bad spot, and the genre really is dead.

My definition of tactical combat games: A set of situation mirroring reality, where the player must call on personal skills (not abilities offered by and facilitation supplied by the game) and personal intellectual concepts and constructions to overcome adversity and reach the objective!!!!...

That could apply to things like racing sims, too, so your definition might not be specific enough.

For me, the truest test of any sim or sim-like game is "will what works in real life work here, and what will fail in real life fail?"



The Jedi Master

I think the genre is just taking a nap.

We started with what? Doom and Quake? Certainly not tactical. Then started going more real. Then alot real. Then less real. And now where back at Quake with modern guns. Seems going back more real is a no brainier here. At some point some small fry is going to get the right mix and its going to go rather big. Not huge per day. But big enough.

If some ding bats just look at historical weapon balance with game weapon balance, real IMO becomes fun again. IE... L1a1 and sterling SMG's have a delightful natural historical balance that *could* directly translate to game land balance I should think.

Could that sort of big be ground branch? Who knows! But its going to be something some day. How many times can you play the same sort of COD before that mix gets really old. Seems like we all ready tipped over that point. Arma 3 and its future tech stuff seems to not quite have gone the right way. Oh I think its an ok game. But crap, what if it had been flashpoint 1970 instead? Or well anything else than the future thing. Simulating modern combat with the incredible lethal that is now, let alone future, well not so sure that equals a fun game. But I see why BI went with something other. That was the right call. The other part. Just for those guys sanity.

Doom and Quake are not tactical shooters and never made any pretenses about being that. They are simply straight up first person shooters. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

It started with Wolf 3D. By the time Doom came along we were already getting other players, and by Quake there were many types of FPS games. However, prior to Rainbow 6 I hesitate to call any of them really "tactical." They were like CoD in their level of authenticity. R6, GR, H&D, and OFP created and solidified the genre, but after Ubisoft bought Red Storm the writing was on wall for the Clancy shooters. Only Splinter Cell started under their watch, but I think it was already in development before the buyout.

Arma has stayed relatively close to the OFP formula only because BIS is still independent. When 2K bought out the H&D devs, that sealed the fate on any new H&D games.

The problem is marketing/business people don't know games, and they can't understand the nuances between CoD and GR. They see CoD's success and think that's what a "tactical shooter" should do as far business, and making $10m isn't acceptable when CoD can make $1bn.




The Jedi Master

That definition could be applied to racing sims too. Could you be more specific?

OFP was not that great compared to today's standard, but it was a healthy base to build on.

I am surprised that no one mentioned "Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising" which was so much better than Arma2 at the time. I thing that game despite some tiny bugs here and there was ahead of the curve. A lot of mechanics in this game are found today in Arma3.

Gamers are also biased and easily swayed by other gamers and so called "Previews, Reviews and other first impressions". It seems that franchises are like religion for players, all is needed is faith.

I remember when RO2 came out, a lot of people cried and expressed their frustrations about the game. Some guys that posted remarks criticizing the game in 2011, are pretending today, they could never play that game. If one did not play a game how one can criticize it?

Yet, a lot of RO2 mechanics are a lot more realistic to my senses that the ones I saw in Arma3, and since the inception of the "Armored Assault Free content pack" some gamers seem to rediscover that game.

Another factor that helps to misperceive games is the state of the players hardware. A lot of players think that any games can be played on a laptop or PC. The truth is that many games do not perform well on mediocre laptops or desktops. What is good to receive e-mails and write report on "WORD", won't necessary compute easily some moded tactical games. Moreover, it is easier to blame a game conception than your personal equipment.

There is a switch in the generation that plays game. The older mature gamers are fading away and a new generation is coming. Simultaneously, some gamers that were new several years ago to the genre are getting more experienced.

I am not sure it is at it's lowest point as I see it. The affluence of MMO's in the foreground could twist the perception and hide the bigger picture.

You and I had very different experiences with Dragon Rising. It was fun, but holy lord was it even clunkier and less finished than Arma.

Dragon Rising was fun on the side. Red River, however, was one of the biggest abortions of a game I've played in a long time. Playing coop with a friend we couldn't stomach it enough to bother finishing it.

The only reasons I got Dragon Rising was because it was on sale for 5 bucks and because it had a cooperative mode. The game overall though sucked. I never bothered with Red River.

I played Dragon Rising SP missions 2 months ago and found it less clunky than Arma2 or IF Liberation 44.

May be it has to do with the hardware or Win7. Some games might play better on Win7 than Vista or XP.

I think that the FPS genre can be brought back to prominence but it is going to take a while. On another note I don't really understand what the problem is with the Arma 3 being based in the future when games like Ghost Recon and several others have futuristic backgrounds that are touted as great games but Arma has always been built to be the framework for the modifications that are needed to help make a great game.

Beats me, Arma never was about playing "real soldier", it was about employing half-realistic infantry tactics in big open missions.

I can go to the range any day and shoot an AR, as long as they can make a Plasma rifle look entirely believable and plausible then it's all good (something game devs admittedly can't do well, it's clear most have never shot a gun, or even been outside sometimes )

Gunny it could be me being more used to Arma in general but DR felt more clunky and less deep. Was still an OK game though.

Panzer, if you thought DR was bad RR is basically the Atari ET of FPS games for me. It's bad.

BTW I was not ever stating doom or quake was a tactical game. Sure was not. But that was just a starting point. Indeed I would say Rainbow 6, swat 3 and ofp (which was at least along the a bit more real). Ro2 if you ignore RO1 (more real with RO2 less real) is probably the closest or a tactical FPS from the last few years. Although Arma 3 is certainly in the ball park. I just never get over the vehicles being so wrong with the infantry so much closer to right and vanilla game sort of crap mission design. But H @ D 2 most certainly got a good mix of entertainment vs realism.

But at some point its going to happen that a smaller studio will do a good legit fps more tactical game. They will not be chasing the 1 billion in sales maybe 100 million. Perhaps they will just be trying to brake even. But with the right mix of gaming elements could most certainly make a ding and force a change in course for the bigger guys. Keep in mind, the big fry's never or rarely ever make a truly innovative game. It always comes from smaller studios with a vision.

And yes... most game studios have no one at the wheel with any sort of military or weapon back ground. And even when some of them do, they end up chasing the safe money. Which does not propel things forward. Just bores gamer's, in particular older gamer's. After how many times do you go, crap! This new game is just like the other 10 I played before it. There is no attempt at much retention of "older" gamer's. Give em a reason to buy and they will buy. And don't ignore a huge demographic with MONEY!


BTW, my first encounter with a more realistic "game" was action quake mod for quake II. Running around with a HK mk23 and shooting folks with a shotgun was surprisingly refreshing. A simple mod with a small well balanced weapon selection. If memoery serves most if not all the weapons models where made by the guy that went on to make Counter Strike and all that craziness. While the early CS was not tactical per say, it certainly was in the sort of ball park. Lost interest when that left the beta mods and went commercial. Oh and better games where out. Like OFP.