Hidden & Dangerous, without the bugs, woulda been the best game evar :'(

H&D 2 was such a chore, like hard work -_-

Never played Deadly Dozen. And no, BiA don't count.

Okay, we obviously disagree on BiA but... what about Iron Front: Liberation 1944? Ha!

Edit: On a different note - I just checked the Wiki article about "tactical shooters" as well as its discussion and I am amazed by the fact how hard it seems for people to even understand the genre or recognize its history. In the discussion there's actually topics like "this article should not exist because every shooter requires tactics" or someone else stated that soldier sims and tactical shooters are the same and this actually resulted in the deletion of the soldier sim article. God, people are so stupid.

That's that Arma 2 fueled WW2 game? Ok, I was wrong.

(But not about BiA! It's not tactical, it's coridoric nightmare with broken weapons, where you need use your men in designed ways. Tactics? Please) :P

I still consider it funny that people actually complain about "broken weapons" or "broken hitboxes" in Brothers in Arms. The accuracy is reduced in order to make shooting enemies in cover highly ineffective and enforce the "suppress and flank" gameplay but it's not "broken" - I agree though that it sucks, that your team members cannot kill enemies in cover and that the interface/AI were designed in such a manner that you are forced to execute almost all aggressive maneuvres yourself.

And while I agree that the level design and awfully passive AI, especially in the first game, didn't make BiA the deep tactical experience it should have been, it undoubtedly is a tactical shooter. In order to succeed you have to analyze the situation and make decisions on a tactical level. There's no arguing with that. Whether it's a good tactical shooter is a different story of course...

Ok, I can't argue with it, you are again right. But may I say, that BiA is awfull tactical shooter?

ed: Yeah, weapons are broken, 'cause you can't hit a bart at five meters, but it is all fault to broken gameplay 'idea'. They could solve it in different way, like more active oponents at longer distances, but when you can't hit a mans head at 15 meters with long rifle... thats just lazy stupid.

Of course you can. ;P

That's that story about cursed 1911? I was baffled with that motif, but I agree HH is best BiA game. (6/10)

Hard to tell. I respect Hell's Highway for being probably the first WWII shooter that depicts the murder of civilians (unless you're playing the awful German version) but actually I was disappointed by how much they tried to turn it into an interactive Hollywood blockbuster. The "cursed gun" plot device and the hallucinations were some absolutely stupid stuff (especially since according to HH the "cursed gun" was already present in RtH30... while it wasn't). Also the automatic healing pissed me off - it killed all the tension present in the first two games. It had great atmosphere but the depiction of WWII is about as realistic as in Saving Private Ryan. :P

Hell`s High was awful. Even the Devs knew it as they never fixed any bugs with any kind of Patch like they said they would. Who wants to fight an enemey that never attacks and doesn`t even try you with grenades? Tanks were pathetic. Not me. that`s a no thinking shooter, not tactical at all.

Brothers in Arms Earned in blood was way better. That game actually punished you if you used wrong tactics. You feared Tigers in that game, as it should be.

Swat4 is still one of my favourite tactical games.

I like the ArmA-games, though mostly for the editor and the vast environments. But generally, any game that's about modern day military fighting against some stupid terrorists is going to have a really hard time pulling me in. They'll need a very good story in that case, and gameplay centered around the story (not just a series of missions).

have not played it but everyone seems to recommend Brothers in Arms series as having a great story for the genre.

I'm quite the opposite. If the gameplay is good (and since I like Tac Shooters, I already consider their gameplay good) then the story is completely irrelevant. It's nice if they have a good story or backstory for the conflict (like in Arma 2: Harvest Red), but it's not important. SWAT 4 didn't have a story and it's one of the best tac shooters out there. Ghost Recon had a stupid story (Russia invades Europe) but I still replay it from time to time.

Anyway just chiming in to say that the genre rocks, too bad it's almost dead (apart from the Arma series, I guess).

Didn't the later missions all revolve around the same terrorist group or something? But yeah, either way this didn't matter and the game was still brilliant.
Agreed. It's the only BiA game where the enemies actually execute flanking maneuvres of their own which makes it an incredibly hard but highly rewarding game, at least on higher difficulty settings. Also loved the skirmish mode and I was pissed when I saw that this feature wasn't present in HH anymore. Still hate Gearbox for screwing up HH. Ultimately I only remember the game for the high quality cutscenes which is awkward considering that the first two games were all about the gameplay (the monologues snd dialogues were nice but they didn't define the games).