There is a market that wants "tactical" games, particularly shooters, and there are games that that are marketed as Twitch shooters. Games like COD, Battlefield and Rainbow Six aim to be a bit of both. So how can shooters achieve this balance?

[u/sammyjamez]

It sounds contradictory but indeed, most popular shooters have this intention in mind to implement both Twitch mechanics and some of strategy.

For example, COD is the most obvious example of being a Twitch shooter since the idea of teamwork, communication and so on are not strong elements of the franchise. Some COD games implement some form of strategy here and there that not everyone might use.

Things such as leaning to get better angles, the new omni-movement mechanic in BO6, or even the hardcore mode for more "immersion".

Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Valorant and Rainbow Six Siege have the same element.

They are more focused on communication and class-based teamwork but they have Twitch mechanics too because some of them like Battlefield, you start by sprinting left and right and some players try to get ace for limiting a lot of players or the entire enemy team by themselves.

Yet these games are recognised as the more "tactical" field, even there are indeed shooters that are really meant to be played with tactics in mind such as the ARMA series, Squad or Insurgency.

(Doom is sort of the same. It has fast-paced shooting mechanics but it also has strategy because the different require different methods and different blends of enemies require the implementation of different strategies)

So how can games, particularly shooters, have this balance between Twitch shooting and tactical shooting?

[u/Ing0_]

I think they work for opposite needs. COD is most fun for me when I just turn my brain off kinda and just rush around jumping and shooting. As soon as it gets too sweaty I think the game kinda falls apart. Counter Strike is the opposite for me where I think it is super boring playing in casual servers where everyone just rushes. But try harding with my friends is so much fun. You constantly try to find the gaps in the enemies defences and try to get them uncomfortable in their position

[u/AShitty-Hotdog-Stand → u/Ing0_]

I reached Supreme Master First Class in CSGO by Mac & Cheesin' (rushing with MAC10) mostly.

Sweats would always try to make their Twitch MLG strats using AKs, silenced M4s and AWPs, guarding choke points, expecting the other team to do exactly the same because it was the "meta" 🤢, and they didn't know how to react to a moron suicide-rushing them, or camping them with smokes + sawed off shotgun/Negev, especially nearing Global Elite where there's literally one single meta way to play a round.

So I don't know, I think rushing and playing like a moron can be fun in competitive games too.

[u/bvanevery → u/AShitty-Hotdog-Stand]

There is probably a disconnect between strategies that don't work in real life, and strategies that don't work in an internet game. Because in the former case, you die. People don't want to die, so a lot of information and training is passed along, about how not to die. Whereas on the internet, you're just gonna respawn and do more lolz.

So trying to play like you're in real life, rather than in a game, has problems.

[u/Apprehensive_Lie357 → u/AShitty-Hotdog-Stand]

Says a lot about CSGOs gun and price balance that a $1050 smg can compete with rifles, something that should never happen in CS. 

There is no "single meta". CS had a gun hierarchy and rifles sit on top, as it should be. 

[u/AShitty-Hotdog-Stand → u/Apprehensive_Lie357]

Who said that the SMG could compete with rifles? If the sweats got to shoot first, my MAC10 would've been useless.

If I reached that rank with meme guns, is just because the sweats didn't expect someone to spawn rush and spray&pray-them in competitive mode, ESPECIALLY NOT in high ranks, since everyone plays by the meta of the map, which undeniably exists (I played Dust II for 3.6K hours).

The gun hierarchy is good and all, but it's useless once you insert human variables.

[u/itsPomy]

I feel like trying to hit both will just get the worst of both genres. I know that's not very conductive to the conversation but it just kinda feels like, idk..

"How can we balance a game with both Mario Kart and Gran Turismo gameplay"

Like I'm sure you could combine it someway, but it'll probably result in something that's niche instead of appealing to both groups.

[u/WWWeirdGuy]

Let me add that I think you see this as a big tension across the broad genre, although it is often worded differently. For example being skill-based/power fantasy vs being tactical/slow.

I think the most obvious answer is that you "layer" things. Using the game Squad here which has roots from Battlefield 2. There is the traditional twitch shooting, first person "shooting layer". You have the "squad layer". You have the squad leader, whole map, strategical layer. Now developers can simply develop accordingly, sort of trying to make 3 games in one.

However there are issues. For example in Squad where everyone has an immediately appearing map, optimal play dictates that you constantly checking it and there is a meme about how people will open and close the map all the time. IE it is distracted and undermines cinematics. IE there is a pressure for devs to seperate the games and taking away player freedom. Indicating an inherent trade-offs between twitch shooters and tactical games.

Further manpower and incentive become un-aligned on your own team, undermining the power fantasy. For example in the Squad leader a team might optimally need to disengage, but in a first person layer, someone might optimally takes advantage of a situation/play. This is a huge source of social tension.

A good second point that is often mentioned in communities like Squad and other more milsim games. Mainstream shooters market, as with games in general, are hyper focused on being gratifying power fantasies, undoubtedly conditioning people that then later want to broaden their horizons. Genuine teamwork demands someone doing something that they don't want to do. This is broadly speaking why the motivation of playing milsim games are fundamentally different, which tricks people when milsim games look so devilishly similar. This is a huge issue in these communities, especially as they take off and become popular, bringing in people conditioned by the mainstream.

PS: Lol I see you're still getting downvoted to oblivion Sammy for no reason. You're the Sisyphus of reddit.

[u/YungZunga]

Old game but Soldier of Fortune 2 imo does this really well, especially the infiltration gametype. Run and Gun gameplay with defensive movement options and slightly tankier health.

[u/VFiddly]

Some team based shooters do this by having different roles. In Rising Storm and Red Orchestra you can be a grunt and just mindlessly follow orders and shoot things, or you can be a commander and try to implement some actual strategy.

Couldn't tell you how well the balance worked because I never even tried the commander roles, i was always happy to just be a grunt.

That said, I think most of the time it's better to just decide what audience you want and go all in instead of trying to do both.