Can there be a solid middle between tacticool fps and classic shooter?

Insurgency or Red Orchestra?
Slower than classic but faster than milsim, decent gun gameplay,etc. Only the AI is fucking shit

Don't be such a homo.

/thread

What about consensual handholding?

No. Old-school arcade shooters and tacticool shooters are good for exactly opposite reasons. A good tacticool shooter requires you to advance slowly and always get the drop on your enemies, you are expected to be proactive and plan your encounters. An old-school arcade shooter, on the other hand, forces you to react and rarely allows you to prepare a detailed strategy for an encounter.

So, you're saying that tacticool shooters are really boring?

No hand holding in either Tacticool or Classic shooters, or any horrid hybrid of them.

You get it. This is what most people mean by "realistic" shooters. The only shooters that play close to actual combat are (increasingly) RO1/DH (not 2), Project Reality and Arma.

Only if you're a casual with ADHD.

And you're autistic?

I can give you an example of Counter Strike Condition Zero as the closest thing to such experience.

You're forgetting Delta Force, Hidden and Dangerous 2, SWAT, and Rainbow Six 3.

Are you?

That's like saying stealth games are boring compared to action games. Some might think that way but their opinion is incorrect.

Counter Strike

Joint Ops?

No, tomboys have a different flavor to them.

No.

Thief was boring af fam.

Joint Ops is pretty much arma.

is a shit game

Not really it's not nearly that autisitc not to mention that it doesn't open a for any action you want to do..

That's what feminists do.

Squad and PR both exist to brigde the gap between milsim autism and a classical shootan gaem
at least post ArmA or some shit

You aren't fooling anyone Holla Forums

doosex

...

...

Would that not just be Counter-Strike?

probably something like battlefield, unfortunately

that being the best flavor

I was thinking futa.

Unironically Call of Duty.
Black Ops 3 has some pretty fancy vertical movement.

Yes, but what elements does it take from tactical shooters?

No, classic shooters are about speed, many enemies that defy laws of physics and shit while taktikool shooter are about slowly and methodically taking out charlies.

Nothing. You can't combine tactical shooters and CPMA. That's like wanting a SWAT 4 with bunnyhopping and grenade launchers, or Tribes with only hitscan weapons, no explosives and no skiing, the best middle ground between more realistic (using the term lightly here) shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty and older, faster shooters like Quake I have found is Black Ops 3.

What is Rainbow Six: Siege
Yes, yes, I know. But the game, believe it or not, is actually almost exactly what you're asking for, OP. It's not running and gunning. It has a lot of tacticool elements to it and actually requires teamwork, communication, and strategy. Despite that, it still has a lot of classic shooter elements, and different operators to suit your playstyle.

Only downside is that its somewhat buggy, but hopefully Operation "Health" will fix some of the issues.

Probably Halo (Before 4 that is)

...

Like what? The game is just hide and seek with slow as a snail movement. There are no exciting firefights, all there is is dying to someone camping through a hole or some bullshit special ability. R6S is the worst game I played last year, least fun I have had in a long time.

You're giving attention to ubifags.
Don't do that.

yeah, I think it's actually an untapped market. The best thing about something like CS is the little nuances in movement. I think there's a real opportunity to make it less of a high skill technique and more a general purpose mechanic that you can weigh the benefits and options of. One of my favorite things about thief for example is the soft body physics. If you don't know, essentially the players collision model is a snowman, two spheres on top of each other. The spheres can rotate and contort around geometry and you achieve a soft body effect. Think of how you can have your feet on the ground, but your body can be leaning over a railing at waist height and you can be looking directly downwards despite being oriented on the ground. same applies for leaning left/right/forwards in thief. Great mechanic used to excellent extents.

I thought in the past it would be interesting to integrate leaning mechanics with movement mechanics. Imagine how an operator would function in a real life situation, you're at a doorway and you want to make a swift entry into a room, you'd go into a lean and swing yourself around the doorway, probably into cover or to swiftly secure a room, but the downside is say, you swing yourself to the left, you're ignoring the right side of the room. this is where the balance factor comes in, temporary unawareness for a swift entry and ability to quickly navigate an area by giving you a lean-boost of sorts. I think these kinds of small mechanics would be an accessible and useful way of integrating high skill elements like CS bunny hopping/strafe jumping into regular play so anyone can try them and take advantage of them, and also assists in creating a meta game. If everyone is at the same skill floor, the level of play becomes far more interesting.

Things like thief's mantling would also be an excellent addition to games like this. Plus a stronger distinction between light fire arms like hand guns and firmly two handed ones like rifles and SMGs. What if you're mantling up a ledge and see a guy? Not realistic, but if you decide to balance your build by having no side arm which may enable things like faster movement or something, what if you could "hang" on the ledge and take a few pot shots with a weaker weapon?

I think realism ultimately ruined first person tactical shooter design. None of these things are particularly realistic but they are far more interesting than having 16 prone positions that are moderately useful in 16 highly specific situations just because le real soldiers can do it.

It's not even Ubishit shilling, it's them being deluded enough to think something so shitty is good. It's worse than CS:GO.

That is because you are playing Operators that don't utilize roaming/rushing, which are a whole different paradigm in the game.
I'd like to know how many hours you've actually played.
That's because you aren't observant to your surroundings.
This is called variation. Do you not like it in your video games? Besides, most abilities can be countered or simply avoided by watching your step/considering your environment in a firefight.

I denounce all modern Ubisoft games barring this one. You shouldn't buy 99% of their games. However, this one is an exception. It's honestly an interesting take on shooters.

isn't that what battlefield tried to be?

Titanfall?

hitscan really ruined the potential of this one.

Nope, battlefield is just part of the MMS genre.
the ones that aren't MMS are still MMS-styled but with a fantasy setting.

Listen to this man, he speaks truth.

What part about titanfall is remotely tac shooter?

Is Die Hard a tacticool shooter movie?

Crysis perfected that, if you suck ass can play like an operator or if you are GUD you can leave speed mode tuned on always and headshot everyone using guns equiped with lasers

Too bad most gamers are braindead casuals and shat on the game and the dumb turks turned the sequels into cawdude

*kino

No one shat on crysis, except people back in the day that complained about the expensive system requirements.

the ai is pretty shit and the aliens don't mesh with the mechanics

Call of Duty, probably, but it might as well not exist then.

In CoD, you're railroaded into a strategic position instead of planning it by your own. A more open ended CoD would be a mix between classic shooter and tacticool for sure.

And I think BF has quite a lot of tacticool elements as well as action.

Only to run it at really high settings. At lower settings it's rather easy to run on any low to mid end gaming rig.

I saw all that shit. The retards hated the gameplay for not being generic and streamlined like CoD, they didnt even know how to play the game, at the same time Bioshock came out on PC and they praised that garbage. Most gamers are braindead, thats why the whole thing is getting so retarded.

yeah, its actually kinda refreshing how you can scale crysis to 2012 future graphics settings, 2007's best settings, or goldsrc quality. I think graphics settings are best this way. You can disable entire engine features like shadows being cast. these days they really try to homogenize graphics settings so everyone gets a similar experience where the low settings is just the same as very high but blurrier. I get why, more well rounded experience for all players, but sometimes people have PCs that are so bad that the option to literally shut down engine features like certain post processing, shadow casting, volumetric lights, motion blurs, etc. would be really appreciated. Yes the game might look a decade out of date, but for those low end niggers who want to run at 48-55 fps and look god awful instead of 26-32 and look like a blurry version of high settings would be great.

Ran it on my mid range 2013 PC with minimum settings, and I still had framerate drops. Crysis and GTA IV were pretty much very demanding back then.

I never did. People has always loved both Crysis and Far Cry.

The worst shit is when devs add shit like render resolution, like Planetside 2 and Shadow Warrior. Lowering it makes everything look like shit with little performance benefit.

no, this is actually a great feature to have. It means you can target very low resolutions, but have the game still send a proper signal for your monitor, a necessity for LCD panels. LCD is a mistake and has ultimately made everyone do more work to get the same results, but because LCDs only have one resolution, anything smaller will have the processor on the LCD panel rescale the image to fit in the native resolution. This means the game can render at a lower resolution, but still be sending you a correct one for your display. You can also theoretically create your own downsampled anti-aliasing by setting it to a higher multiple of your resolution giving you an easy MSAA (the best AA) solution.

Planetside 2's render resolution setting is completely retarded because the number is then multiplied by itself.
So if you want for instance to use that setting to get 2x supersampling you literally can't because the square root of 2 is infinite.
That just means you're not gpu bottlenecked.

oh, and you want to avoid LCD processing because more processing = more lag than LCDs already have. just to be clear.

Are you the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about from some other monitor thread we had a few days ago? You sound exactly like him.

none of what I said is wrong. I'm open to address any confusion you might have.

LCD delay hardly matters anymore. Most modern IPS and TN displays have delay times of under 7ms, my LG TN display is 5ms. It only mattered maybe 6 or 7 years ago when good LCDs were expensive.

>>/a/

You're talking response times.

that's nice, that's when it's refreshing at its intended resolution and doesn't have to receive a lower resolution image from the source and then process it to fit the display correctly.

Now imagine sending a 1920x1080 monitor a signal that is 1280x720. It needs to process it to fit the display or it'll be a tiny rectangle on your monitor and look even worse. That is processing lag, not response times. It takes time to do that, and all the sudden that 7ms becomes 16. plus windows overhead of 16ms by default, worse if you're running in windowed mode and are synced to the desktops vsync.

Yeah, I forgot the term.

total delay includes response times, but there's no non-crt monitor in the market that can do sub 20ms delays.
Response time is the time it takes a pixel to shift (normally measured going from grey to grey), important in the overall latency experienced in a monitor but the main reason it matters is because pixels shifting colors is still a visible phenomenom even if it's in the sub-10ms range.
drag your mouse along your screen and follow it with your eyes. you should see it leave a trail. And i'm not talking a trail of copies of itself, that's just something windows does for pretty graphics. You'll notice every individual pixel changing colors as you drag the mouse icoin around.

a classic one is a scrolling technique. If you have a set of icons that scrolls to the left or right, you can notice visible screen tearing as the system struggles to prepare sequential progressive frames, or if you have a pixel sharp image (think like a sega genesis screenshot, very clear, sharp image) and scroll it and it'll get blurry as your monitor corrects itself until its still again.

yes its called csgo

I understand that, but that's what OP was asking for.

Yeah, like five years after their relase.
I still remember how everyone bitched about Far Cry and that it was too hard becuase they were too fucking stupid to use even a fraction of their brain to understand how to play it and not go into every enemy group guns blazing.
Same shit with Crysis though the cries that it requiered an actual pc and not your average 10 year old toaster were louder.

Come on lad, next up everyone who likes vidya is reddit because Holla Forums is mostly reddit.

That was Far Cry 1, and it was fair criticism because enemies shot accurately through tents and the mutant levels sucked. Regarding Far Cry 2 people mostly complained about the boring driving segments.

Insurgency is a good balance between the two

user. Resolution scaling is done on the GPU

that's the point. the GPU sends the signal to the monitor. the GPU has no idea what the monitor does and doesn't care. Are you retarded?

You know what? I've always really liked Rainbow Six: Vegas 2.

Was there ever a shit game in rainbow six series?

Yes

I mean… R6 Vegas and Vegas 2 are borderline shit. They feel *really* arcade-like on the tactical parts compared to others in the series. However, in the context of this specific discussion I think OP and others might enjoy R6 Vegas 2. The tone of my original post was due to me knowing most people don't really care for the Vegas games because it deviated towards the arcade style.

For example, I can say something like Vegas 2 is the epitome of Counter Strike. So I understand it's a fair critique to say it sucks… but I still enjoy the damn game.

What about the first Ghost Recon? It wasn't completely tacticool.

So, Titanfall 2?

Was that the one with drones and heartbeat sensors (maybe invisibility cloak too)? If yes then I agree.

It was called RO:OST 41-45

*Then Tripwire went full kike and SJW*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy's_Ghost_Recon_(2001_video_game)
I don't think so.

quake 3 is more tactical than even project reality

A COINCIDENCE?!

Why do you want me to watch a hour and a half of ass cancer playing a game?

It's called Call of Duty. These bastardizations almost never turn out good. Better to stick to being one or the other.

Actually, Halo 4 is probably a closer exact middleground, Halo CE- 3 is more like 75% classic arena shooter, 25% late 2000's military shooter

Halo 5 meanwhile is like 70% classic arena shooter, 30% modern jetpack/parkour FPS's

Just the first Delta Force?

I'm always itching for tacticool games and have never played DF. Worth getting all of them? The first and second are $1.24 on Steam.

The games are horrible graphically but the mechanics are still good. Missions are varied though basic (eliminate all hostiles, save the hostages, secure the briefcase); AI is wierd, sometimes pinpoint accuracy, sometimes invisible. Gunplay has no Recoil, enemies die in 1-2 shots, so do you. Besides 1 and 2, there is Black Hawk Down, which is perhaps the only game set in Mogadishu and is a little bit modern.

I got 1. Still have Hidden and Dangerous 2 to play among others