I remember when Rogue Spear multiplayer was still alive and kicking. My connection sucked, but multiplayer was fun, even TDM.

Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUJOErlus-k

I can understand that people aren't pledging because it's multiplayer-only in the beginning though. That's a point I can empathize with - I too would prefer singleplayer. One of the reasons I pledged was because Blackfoot Studios have the intention to work on one. I don't think many SEAsians will play this online. We don't even have a Quake Live server in Singapore anymore, FFS. Games are played as a popularity contest, not because they're fun. If it's unpopular, it's because it's shit, etc.

Really liked the first Ghost Recon, Rogue Spear and the first Delta Force, though multiplayer cooled my interest in these type of games, probably because I suck at it. Same goes that I don't like ArmA, America's Army and such at all.
The only fps I really enjoyed over the last years were the Stalker games.

Still I do hope this gets funded for the fans.

Well, to be fair, a game can only be truly tactical by being turn-based, so you'd be better off playing Jagged Alliance or tabletop games, but on-topic games like Rainbow Six or Syndicate which aren't turn-based still allowed a level of tactics because you could switch between controlling your squad members, placing them in different positions which are more tactically beneficial, so when combat occurs it's to your advantage, so they almost play like TB.

It's impossible to be tactical when you can't control your team by toggling control, because internet gamers are not soldiers, even if they wish they were.

Then that comes down to how the game plays. If people can play a self-proclaimed 'tactical' game Rambo style and come out on top of the scoreboards, then obviously the game lacks the appropriate mechanics to enforce this. Conversely the game can also demand teamwork and planning ahead to win. The latter doesn't always make a game 'tactical', but simply because a game is built for multiplayer doesn't necessarily imply it is best played without tactics.

As for Ground Branch, if the feature list is accurate, it won't have dolphin diving or bunny hopping. That's not enough to convince me it will turn out to be a worthy successor to Red Storm's games, but at least it shows they're heading in the right direction. I haven't seen any feature in the list that makes me think, 'Yeahhh...no.'

My brother and I have been playing a few sessions of Jagged Alliance 2 1.13 multiplayer. In one game, we were playing Drassen Airport, on Insane, Max Enemies. I don't see how that makes it less tactical than playing single-player, given how he was slaughtered within the first 10 turns because he decided to solo the enemy himself without my help.

Yeah like you can assault a group of hostagetakers turnbased in real life. :rolleyes:
Making a game turnbased is turning realtime events into a game of chess and just think how artificial it all becomes: "Hey, it's my turn, I shoot you in the head and after that it's your turn and you can fire back!" kind of gameplay.

Hey now there's no need to knock turn-based games.

I don't, actually I like chess and turnbased games.
Just gave a reality check. ^^

It's a game, and in real-life most if not all real people would crack and go hide in a hole when the bullets started flying, that's what happens when you replace rules for traits like morale, strength, dexterity, etc, with a single bog-standard running speed, accuracy, and everything about the character, instead of being based on stats.

There's no way to have a properly tactical game, when it's based solely on real-time reflexes of the person behind the screen, and not the actual character in the game.

It's the same reason action RPG's like Skyrim are so bad, there's basically no real stats-basis for anything, How good are you at swinging a sword? As fast as you can click that mouse! It's just crap to appeal to people who think that they can be the best "gamer" ever by being able to click the fastest.

In a real tactical game, if you ordered your soldier to shoot at an enemy, whether you hit or not would be determined something like a dice-roll, modifiers to the roll would be A) your morale, higher morale stats would mean straighter aim, B) Accuracy, your training in firearms, the higher the stat the better, this could be further modified by proficiency in different weapons, C) Terrain and cover, if the enemy is partially concealed or behind cover (and to what degree) would decrease the modifier to hit, while being in open ground not so.

And THEN, after the computer has calculated all that (which would only take a millisecond obviously) you see if you hit or missed with your shot, and where on the body they were hit if they were. The "rolling" would add the element of random chance to the stats.

You cannot tell me a system like that is inferior to just point-and-click. Seems to me that the complaints against such systems are from people who don't want to play tactical games, and don't want to think.

That's a perfectly valid question. Putting "no offence" makes it sound like you do mean offence though..

I uninstall/install games a lot. Usually as and when I want to play them. I simply don't have room to have all the games I own installed. For example, I can barely install the GOG games I've downloaded (let alone own) before I run out of disk space.

And as I said, because I tend to install (and play) games when my connection is down (because that is very disruptive to my usual usage, which barely consists of gaming), it would crop up a lot.

Bear in mind that it only has to stop me using my purchase once, for a pirated version to be better. Sure, I can do things to minimise the chance of it having an effect, like having 3 internet connections, leaving it installed etc. but none of those guarantee I won't be stopped. What would.. is not having an online check.

If the developer/publisher isn't going to trust me as a paying customer (which is the only way to explain it, as DRM has been proven, by almost every game that has had it, to not stop pirates) then why should I trust them? They have already shown they are willing to knowingly risk interrupting a paying customers ability to play a game while having negligible/no effect on piracy.. it's not a giant leap to blacklisting my key. Be it by accident (maybe a keygen generated it or because it failed some authenticity check) or on purpose (not liking something I posted on a forum or something).

DRM doesn't stop pirates, but it does stop me, both playing the game (disc checks fail, even when I have the disc in) and being a paying customer.

The video update looks great

Wow, pledged in a heartbeat

After watching the latest video i really hope the project will be materialized. But i fear time is not on their side, another $378k required while there are only 19 days left.

Just checked the FAQ and in addition, it is also checked when starting a network game. Network connection != internet connection. This means it would also stop me playing the game with my girlfriend if it failed the check for any reason (my connection is down, their connection is down, their server is down/hackedDoS'd), even if it was already installed.

Dont you think youre being too arrogant? Youre claiming that games like Skyrim are bad because YOU dont like them. Youre trying to turn YOUR opinion into a fact. Discussing with you is pointless.

I still dont understand why there cant be a real time tactical game, according to you. You clearly have never played ARMA 1 or 2 in multiplayer, especially in coop missions. If you did, you would notice that its possible to have a tactical FPS, even in multiplayer mode.