Bl4ckD3tH
Originally Posted by CyberCam
I wish i had a gaming comp right now so i could get it when it comes out. I'm glad though they havent developed for the consoles and destroyed the series.
I wish i had a gaming comp right now so i could get it when it comes out. I'm glad though they havent developed for the consoles and destroyed the series.
Kinda figured but they didn't announce platforms so was being optimistic. Guess I'll just trade it in for one Ubisofts games coming out later this year that doesn't suck.
I have played AA does anyone know that
Americains Army. That is te only "tactical" shooter ive played.
Makes me wonder the word tactical in gaming has so many difrent meanings.
Hey U can even play CoD tactical if u want, if not your not a gamer. Just dofrent tactics.
Also looking to the vids provided, it doesnt look tactical but realistic. Doesnt mean u cant play it tactical.
What is a tactical game, vcan anyone tell me!
I feel your pain my friend, I also wish you had the money to get a PC to play it too, you seem to genuinely want a real tactical shooter. I realize that in this economy not everyone can afford a gaming PC and that fact that you have invested so much time & money in your chosen console makes it more difficult as well. I myself have 2x PS3's have invested a lot in them as well.
In this day & age every word seem to have more than one meaning. Take the words "bad" or "wicked" traditionally it meant something not "good", however, in this new age, those words can mean good as well, it all depends on context. I'll let you think about that.
Anyways, here what I dug up on "Military Tactics" to answer your question;
"Military tactics are both a science and an art. The main concept of these tactics is to maintain a positional army and hence easily control the army in any position and situation. Some practices have not changed since the dawn of warfare: ambushes, seeking and turning flanks, maintaining reconnaissance, creating and using obstacles and defences, etc. Using ground to best advantage has not changed much either. Heights, rivers, swamps, passes, choke points, and natural cover, can all be used in multiple ways. Before the nineteenth century, many military tactics were confined to battlefield concerns: how to maneuver units during combat in open terrain. Nowadays, specialized tactics exist for many situations, for example for securing a room in a building."
BTW... I just want to say that I don't believe that I'm better than anyone, I'm just an average guy, just like the majority of you. I'm just sick & tired of my fellow gamers being taken advantage of and big corporations swindling the average "Joe", in the name of profit. There's nothing wrong with profit, if it's done with class & honor (which seems to have vanished). It's seems to be lets show them this but give them that... we'll get away with it, type of attitude. They don't even have the decency to admit where they went wrong... it's just business as usual.
Last edited by CyberCam; 06-05-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Haha! Hell yeah brother! **** Corporations in general!
I Understand your point, and I have to agree. It is a shame that its everywhere in the game industry with exception of some small developers.
Thanks for your reply, you took your time its appreciated!
I too wish I had a gaming PC but its a hard time for me at the moment financially, however I can play Arma Cold War Crisis and the old superior Ghost Recons, Rainbow Six's, Brothers In Arms with there mods so that does me for my tactical fix
Seriously, you are acting like an elitist. Saying that Ghost Recon is casual and requires no thinking is a very ignorant comment. Yes, the videos of games you posted have more realistic shooting mechanics, but that doesn't make them more tactical or hardcore. Realism doesn't equal being hardcore. For example, Bayonetta is a hardcore game even though it is one of the most over-the-top games ever made. It takes true player skill to master the game, the game is very deep and the dodge offset mechanic takes hours to master. Just because Mount & Blade's combat is more realistic doesn't make the game harder or more hardcore. Bayonetta's over-the-top-ness doesn't inherently make it casual. God of War is a casual beat'em up game as you can button mash your way through the game, the mechanics are really simple and there really isn't anything to really master. The amount of skill a game requires from a player determines how hardcore or casual the game is, it has nothing to do with realism. The same thing goes for racing games, realistic racers aren't inherently more hardcore than arcade racers. The actual driving in the latest Hot Pursuit game is easier than say Gran Turismo but in Hot Pursuit, the player has to deal with spike strips, EMPs, Helicopters, etc. An arcade racer can take more skill than a racing sim, it just depends on the game.
I mainly play games to experience stuff that's not possible to experience in real life. I very rarely look forward to a realistic video game (I really only like baseball sims). I like being able to do stuff that's not possible in real life, that's the main part of the fun of video games to me. You can make a completely arcade-y, unrealistic video game just as hard or harder than the game's realistic counterpart.
Read my above comment, casual has nothing to do with realism. Vanquish is one of the hardest shooters out there and that game throws realism completely out the window.
Your taste in shooters are for realistic shooters, that's fine, but don't act like your TYPE of shooters are hardcore and the TYPE shooters someone else likes are casual. Just because this shooter or another shooter isn't super realistic doesn't make it more casual. I played the hell out of Gran Turismo 3 and I loved it, but I've had my fill of realistic driving games. I am now only into arcade racers because I want to be able drive in a way that is not possible with real physics, I wanna take turns without slowing down, I want crazy jumps, etc. Midnight Club 2 is as arcade as you get (jumping over rivers lol) but that game was harder and took more skill (really high speed with lots of traffic) than Gran Turismo 3.
Oh, and I love this new Ghost Recon game and I hate COD at it's most basic level. The online multiplayer is designed horribly in my opinion because the game rewards the guy sitting in the corner picking off a player here and there with killstreak rewards. I haven't played a COD game since COD4 but in that game, a player could camp for 3 kills, get a UAV, hunt for 2 more kills (since the enemies were displayed) to get a 5 killstreak, use the airstrike to get 2 more kills (7 killstreak), and then summon a helicopter and that guy could easy be the MVP of the match when he didn't even get a legit kill. That right there is a casual game. It has nothing to do with COD's actual shooting mechanics, just the game design itself.
The meaning of the word tactics hasn't changed, tactics themselves have evolved (battle tactics 100 years ago is much different compared to now). Tactics can be simple, like holding the high ground. Or they can be complex like a coordinated marine assault into a compound (using Intelligence info, plus satellite images, the strike team using cameras to get enemy positions as they move through the compound, a time-sensitive extraction, etc.). Ghost Recon Future Soldier is a tactical game, that is just a FACT. Running with a group a teammates is a tactic while using say 2-by-2 cover formation is a more advanced tactic, they are both tactics.
This game provides you with so many different kinds of tactics to use due to all of the equipment. Shooting itself is easier (more arcade-y) than ArmA 2 for example, but in ArmA 2, do you have to deal with data hacking, UAVs, sensor nades, jammers, stealth camo, stun mines (can you even stun the enemy in ArmA 2? tranq guns are real and being able to put enemies to sleep instead of killing adds just another layer of tactics into a game), cameras, EMPs, etc.? Yeah, the shooting itself in ArmA 2 requires more thought, you can't just run around and gun while having good accuracy, but that doesn't make the game inherently more tactical. To play this Ghost Recon game at a high level, you need to really think about what you're doing, what equipment to use, what class to use, which route to take, when to use cover and when not to, etc. A very good player in this game will own the average player both by out-thinking and out-shooting. The player skill difference between a good player and an average player is what makes a game hardcore or casual. The good player in this game will dominate an average player whereas the winner of a game like Super Mario Kart is determine primarily by luck.
The shooting in ArmA 2 is more tactical but that doesn't make ArmA 2 on the whole more tactical than this game. Ghost Recon might edge out ArmA 2 in overall tactics required because of all the equipment. I don't know, I don't play PC games because I hate keyboard and mouse controls; I mainly hate the digital inputs of keyboard, the thing was made for typing, not gaming and it shows. Walking, normal movement, and sprinting can all be mapped to an analog stick since it's analog but that requires 3 keys on the keyboard to accomplish.
A team playing Decoy can choose to rush the furthest objective point instead of the closest because the other team will probably send the most men to the closest and easiest objective point. That is a tactic. To defend an objective, you can place a jammer and some traps while the other team rushes in with sensor nades. With that setup on defense and that tactic by the attacking team, 2 defenders can easily take out 4 attackers. Then, the attacking team has to rethink their tactics. They can rush again with EMPs to take out the jammer and then toss sensor nades or have an engineer use a UAV to verbally communicate positions. Using a UAV alone will let you know there's a jammer there. The high level play between 2 top clans in this game is going to be very tactical, players will have to switch up classes and equipment to counter the other team. Any game plays very different when randoms are playing and when good players are playing against each other. Just because you've played public matchmaking and found there's not a lot of tactics being used doesn't mean this game doesn't have advanced tactics.
My biggest question is, in what time will new new game take place? I think its pretty safe to assume there wiill be a FS2, but if not, will the next game go even more future tech? I dont want it to be a halo game.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
AnArmyOfOne
