Let's Hope Ground Branch does not suffer the same fate and if it does well there is always Arma 3.

Well as far as I gather, it was supposed to be a tactical FPS in the vein of Ghost Recon, SWAT 4, that kind of stuff. There's not all that many of those.

Rainbow Six rather than Ghost Recon, Ghost Recon has more Outdoor combat and it also factors in Vehicles (but you don't drive vehicles, the enemy does) This game is all close quaters mostly indoor combat with tactics like Breaching and Clear and Hostage situations.

LOL I had to check the page to believe it.

.
.

'Tactical' play appears to come from the player's own elbow grease - it's not implemented in a way that uses strict punishment for those who would rather just run and gun...and so therefore it's just a suggestion.

Kinda like a Battlefield game where you are kicked from the server because the kids running it have made up their own rules like "No Running" or "Pistols Only."

In other words, if a group of people were to play the game without having seen any prior ads - The game would be carried out like Counter Strike.

Well, if the PAX demo is anything to go by, you actually died instantly in a single hit (why did that get changed I have no idea), which by itself changes the dynamics of the game quite a lot. Furthermore, AI is supposed to shoot at you at sight as opposed to look at you like a bunch of idiots, they're supposed to converge on your position when they hear direction gunfire is coming from (importance of silencers) etc. That was the original idea of the game. Not to mention it's not team vs. team deadmatch, it's primarily objective-based coop vs. AI, with a lot of importance placed on loadout chosen before the game - nothing like Counter-strike, basically.

.
.
.
What the A.I. was meant-to-be it is not and also...I'm not sure what the A.I. was meant to be could be considered ground breaking - The A.I. in Id's first Wolfenstein game would come running in from another room when they heard gunfire....

Single hit deaths are still there...if you score a headshot....but that is pretty standard.

And, let's then just say that this plays like Counter Strike with a loadout. XD

If they had slapped early access on it perhaps they would've had a decent reason for it though.

.
.
.
I'll say it again:

Had this been placed only on Desura with a lower price tag under the pretense that it was in Alpha...there would be absolutely no complaints right now.

So we're not beating up amateur developers for the sake of being amateurs but rather for the fact that they're posers.

.
.
.
And still no refund turning up in my wallet...My man .Marlow Briggs would never be made to wait this long by those who recognize!

I'm going to assume they simply forgot to advertise the early access part, instead of assuming they maliciously advertised incorrect information. The WarZ or something did the same thing, although with their in-game shop I'm assuming they did mean to misinform the buyer.
I hope this debacle doesn't stop them from fixing the game.. although when compared to some other Kickstarters at least they produced something :P

Edit: Never mind, their own FAQ clearly states this is the release version.
So I guess that just means that they at least released something.. yay....

Haha, it was so funny to watch that totalbiscuit video. He was quite disappointed xD (the *sigh at the end :D)

Did people really think that a $200,000 Kickstarter for the development of a 3D first-person game led by Christian Serellen with an initial title of "Crowdsourced Hardcore Tactical Shooter" was actually going to amount something good?

How much is full funding though? Did they ever give out numbers, or did they just get some more money?

Okay, Christian Allen, my bad.

As for "full funding", I doubt they received the millions of dollars that I would think they'd need to make a game of this type properly, if they got any money at all. That whole thing about the "investors" I thought was the oddest thing about the project.