Talk:Tactical shooter

message: You guys might as well call this Realistic Tactical Shooters.....Other games require teamwork but arn't considered tactical shooters by you. Uber555 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: What this article really needs is a definitive description of a Tactical Shooter, not just an imalgimation of different people's opinions. So we all know its harder to define a Tactical Shooter than it is a first-person shooter, but its an ENCYCLOPEDIA people, not a dictionary. In an encyclopedia (I hope) the articles are based on the knowledge of the greater intellectual scholars of the subject, not the general public; problem is we're talking about a type of video game. So who are the higher intellectual scholars when it comes to video games? Two words (well technically 3): Reviewers and developers. What the article needs is a section that contains the category of Tactical Shooters as they are categorized by the paid and respected individuals who develop and review games (which should intelligently be considered the definitive version of Tactical Shooters). Then further down the article we need a section that describes the ongiong and disputed fan debate as to what defines a Tactical Shooter. These two outlooks should be divided not thrown together in a chaotic mix-up. One is objective, the other is biased. ManofRenown87 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Consensus Fans vs. Critics 

message: Should the genre be extended to include shooters of the top-down variety, as opposed to just first-person/third-person games? For instance: Bolo (computer game). SharkD 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tank Mania is another example. SharkD (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top-down view

message: I suggest that Soldier sim be merged with this article. SharkD (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems that 'tactical shooter' is used more, but i haven't looked that thoroughly. IGN uses both terms a lot, whereas gamespy seems to only use 'tactical shooter'. Bridies (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Randomran (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Well done, someone who doesn't know jack says "it's the same", several sheep follow and a potentially important article is gone. People, that every soldier sim is tactical in nature doesn't mean that every tactical shooter is a soldier sim. It's like saying that the article about tanks should be merged with the one about vehicles because "they are the same". Both genres are defined in a different way and it's important to restore a "soldier simulation" article. --F4LL0UT (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it, then. bridies (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This section is very disjointed and comes across more as a list of gripes about other games than a real description of tactical shooters.  For example, a long paragraph about suicide runs, without any detail about how a tactical shooter prevents that.  It's not even clear to me how they might prevent that, since although driving a vehicle into a bunch of troops in (say) ArmA might get me killed fairly quickly by the victims' buddies, there's still nothing preventing me from doing it in the first place.  Only a one-life-per-mission system (a la many games' co-op missions) or long respawn delays would seem to stop suicide runs — but those aren't unique to tactical shooters, either.
The entire premise of the list as it stands is suspect, since it lists things that tactical shooters aren't, or that they don't let you do.  That wouldn't be so bad if it actually listed the changes used to prevent things like run-and-gun (reduced accuracy while moving) or weapon spam (reduced weapon carrying capacity), but it doesn't, so it just becomes a list of undesirable elements, not any kind of real description of tactical shooters.
I'll go through it if I get a chance.  I'll try to keep all the core points raised by the list, but it will still involve excising a lot of the current descriptions and replacing them with actual "here's how they deal with that" descriptions. — Wisq (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the section is original research and biased fan-ism. I meant to go through it but only got as far as sourcing the lead section. Bridies (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical realism community section 

message: This article should be deleted, realism is irrelevant, ALL shooter games requires an tactical sense, TEAM-based shooter is the right term  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.203.239 (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide some sources to support your position. SharkD (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The term "Team-based shooter" makes relatively no sense, since a lot of tactical shooters do not mandate that the player has a team, such as in Delta Force, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and ARMA. In Rainbow Six, there are even stealth missions where you are designed to infiltrate a position, alone. Also, this is not about players having a "tactical sense", and no, realism is not irrelevant. It's what separates tactical shooters from regular shooters, with an emphasis on quick, fast deaths, slower paced gameplay, multiple approaches to complete an objective, and weapons which provide believable ballistics. But you are right, "tactical shooter" is not a genre, it's a sub-genre, and I will correct that in the lead.Belregard (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tactical shooter" is not a genre 

message: What's the consensus on "Seal Team"(1993) getting a mention in the origins section? It's arguably the spiritual predecessor of games like Flashpoint, and was the first 3D squad-based 'soldier sim' on the market that I'm aware of. And hell, the concept and game design still holds up to contemporary releases, imho, even if the graphics obviously don't. The game kicked ass. Subcellular (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  inre history and origins 

message: Several sections here seem biased and/or to lack references :
"The field of true tactical shooters has been largely neglected by developers." What ? What source ?
Use of the word "iconic" is also disputable : "contemporary Rainbow Six sequels which completely do away with the series' iconic pre-action planning stage"
And, finally, this gem : "the overly futuristic settings of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, which provides players with invisibility cloaks and shoulder-mounted anti-tank rockets while failing to adhere to simple tactical realism paradigms like one-shot-one-kill." WTF ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.11.51.238 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird paragraph in the "History" section ? 

message: Even as a fan of the genre of a long time, I am not sure how it should be properly defined, and I can't find sources that would consolidate a certain definition (in fact, a lot of passages in this article can also be considered original research, they lack sources and are somewhat opinionated...).
Is it the realism? Not that much, that's actually whas mil-sim is; many games with somewhat unrealistic gameplay elements, while often taking special care in crafting somewhat detailed balistics, are typically defined as tactical shooters. Easy example: Counter Strike. The game's behavior, the stylistical choices and the strategies applied strongly diverge from a realistic situation of counter terrorism.
Is it the strategy? Perhaps. Outside of the competitive scenes, tactical shooters, while they can benefit greatly from effective communication, often see casual players forego it, instead mostly relying on intuition. There's however a significant emphasis on applying strategies instead of duking it out in the open like an arena shooter: taking flanking routes, “camping” important sightlines, making use of non-lethal gadgets (smokes, flashbangs) and so on.
Is it slower paced? Often times, but not always. “Hardcore” tactical shooters (typically so called when they're very punishing, by having characters die very easily, even with just one bullet, and getting dunked on when you move around without being careful of potential defensive spots) typically require for movement to take a slower pacing, but many tac shooters are quite fast paced and adrenalinic.
So what exactly makes a tactical shooter what it is compared to other first/third person shooters? And how to find authoritative references that can solidify the definition in an encyclopedic manner? CapoFantasma97 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to properly define Tactical Shooter? 

message: I suggest we include a couple reference images in this article. If someone is willing to get them, I suggest a screenshot in the lead, preferably of one of the most common/well-known tactical shooters, an one of the earlier ones (Think Operation Flashpoint or possibly Rainbow Six, since it was the earliest 3D one), and possibly another screenshot for the history section, showing an early precursor to the tactical shooter genre, such as from Airborne Ranger, or SEAL Team.Belregard (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Image? 

message: - Ground Branch
- Zero Hour
- Rainbow Six Vegas series 115.87.152.157 (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to include the following games as mentions