Riot Games' Valorant: Is this shooter really all that it's cracked up to be?

For many gamers out there, the shooter genre might not appear to be a very complex nor a very diverse one. 

And why would it? After all, the general idea remains the same across the board. One party fires at another party in the hopes of taking them down. Indeed, it's really hard to imagine that any sort of intelligent thought goes into playing one of these, let alone full-blown strategies and tactical manoeuvres.

But while that rule certainly holds in games and franchises that are all about embracing that mentality, such as Borderlands, it's quite a different story in the sub-genre we call the "tactical shooter". This branch of the shooter family tree includes titles that are actually far more subtle than they appear to be, such as Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Rainbow Six: Siege, Insurgency: Sandstorm, and more recently, Valorant.

Indeed, it's been just over a month since the latter's release, so it's pretty much still in its infancy. That doesn't mean there's nothing to say about it though. In fact, it's quite the opposite, especially considering developer Riot Games intends for it to become a successful esports powerhouse in the future. Which then raises several questions: what is the game about, what is it currently doing right (or wrong, for that matter) and what Riot might need to do to ensure everything goes according to plan.

Valor-what?

First off, it's quite obvious that Riot's new shooter isn't going to become an overnight sensation that'll topple the big boys straightaway - they've still got a lot of work to do to get it on the pedestal, but let's not jump the gun here. No pun intended. 

Conceptually, Valorant is a team-based tactical shooter that takes pages out of other current-gen shooter titles like Overwatch and CS: GO, although it tends to resemble the latter more in terms of how it feels and plays. Its main gameplay mode is essentially Search and Destroy, where two opposing teams take turns trying to plant or defuse a bomb in one of two specified zones. If either team manages to accomplish their objective, they score a point, and the match continues until one faction reaches the preset number of points. 

If this format feels a tad too long-winded, there's also the Spike Rush "fun" mode, which is basically a sped-up version of the basic S&D. However, this time there are orbs scattered around the map for players to pick up, upon which they'll receive small buffs for a period of time. Last but not least, the practice mode is also available if you'd like to test out abilities and guns in a pressure-free environment.

Of course, it's not just about planting bombs - Riot has mentioned that more conventional modes such as Team Deathmatch and Free-for-all are being worked on, but at this point what sets Valorant apart from the other tactical shooters is the introduction of different Agents, each with their own unique skillset and Ultimate abilities. Naturally, as we've seen from Overwatch, this means that there will be certain Agents that are just a little bit more useful than the others. It didn't take long for these "optimal picks", such as Cypher and Sage, to appear, either - community sites like All Out Rioters were quick to put out tier lists in preparation for the game's Ranked mode, which went live sometime last week. 

The good, the bad, and the meta

So, where do we think the game has done well, and where has it seemed lacking? For starters, the one thing that all of us in the office agreed on was this: Valorant is definitely NOT an entry-level shooter.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't play it without any prior shooter experience - you're most welcome to give it a go. However, what it means is that you'll probably have a harder time in the beginning than if you came in from other tactical shooters. Admittedly, it does feel a lot more forgiving than CS: GO in our opinion, but the "experience wall" is definitely there, and it's very tangible.

In fact, we'd even go so far as to suggest coming to Valorant from CS: GO or R6S specifically, as the recoil patterns and tactical nuances here are much more in line with them than games like Call of Duty, which are known to be more forgiving. I'm an avid CoD player myself, and while I'm not exactly very good at shooters in general, I think I can hold my own there for the most part. However, I had an absolutely horrendous time in Valorant at the beginning, because subtleties such as "crouch-walking" and "holding angles" are much more crucial here than they are in CoD. 

Putting that aside, what do we mean when we say Valorant is easier than CS: GO? It boils down to one thing: relative accessibility. Granted, Valorant isn't the easiest game to get into from other genres, but at the very least it doesn't punish new players as hard as CS: GO does. There are a few ways the game does this, but let's just look at two of them for now. Firstly, the presence of each Agent's unique abilities means new players often have a "get out of jail free" card which they can use to turn the tides of battle, and also helps to counteract the need for godlike aiming skills at the very beginning. After all, we all know how it feels to be a newbie going up against a bunch of veterans, so at least there's some insurance from your abilities to ensure you at least have a fighting chance if you play your cards right. 

Secondly, there's also the much-appreciated "halfway mark" when you're deploying the Spike. Basically, what this does is ensure that the attackers can "save" their progress. If you go past this threshold when deploying the Spike, and are interrupted just before you can complete it, you can come back later and start deploying again from the halfway mark, rather than from zero. In essence, it helps to keep the pressure on the defenders as the match progresses, rather than just letting them camp somewhere and taking their time to kill any attackers trying to re-deploy the Spike. In that sense, we find it's a pretty good addition and makes it easier for folks who are new to the S&D format. 

However, most of these points are double-edged swords, because while they might please the newbies, veterans might find that these additions take away from the experience that they're looking for in Valorant. After all, it's normal to bring your expectations from one game into another one, especially if they're similar, and some of the opinions we gathered from experienced CS: GO players who hopped over tend to share the aforementioned sentiment. Take the introduction of unique Agents, for example.

On paper, they would appear to bring a breath of fresh air to the tactical shooter genre, but when you delve deeper, you realise that this will inadvertently bring Overwatch's greatest competitive issue into Valorant: "staleness" due to the presence of optimal team compositions. Those familiar with the notorious GOAT era would know how boring and oppressive a "one team meta" can be. Perhaps such trends are only fully tangible when people are in Ranked mode, that is, having to fight the "same" team each match, but that's what really matters here - if Riot intends to make Valorant successful in the esports sphere, it'll have to deal with it sometime along the way.

Since we're on the topic of meta compositions, let's have a quick once-over of what the current competitive scene in Valorant looks like. According to the writeups from All Out Rioters, there are three styles or Agent characteristics that we can say are deemed highly useful, and as such are more prominent in the competitive ladder. 

• Vision Control

As the saying goes, "knowledge is power", and it's especially true in many gaming genres, not just tactical shooters. Knowing where your opponent is at a given point in time allows you to react appropriately and set up opportunities for your team to capitalise on the advantage. Accordingly, Agents like Cypher, Sova, and Phoenix are the main culprits here, although the former is perceived to be more useful in terms of consistency - he, along with Sage are seeing a 90% pick rate in competitive queues! 

His cameras allow his team to cover their blind spots and react quickly to enemy advances. The one exception here is probably Phoenix, who works a little differently. Using his revival skill, he can effectively scout forward areas, then return to his previous position - it's more of reconnaissance than "vision" outright, but can work just as well if you're playing with friends over voice chat.

• Terrain Management

This would naturally bring Agents like Sage and Breach to mind. Considering that players can't do any crazy movements like slide down the sides of pagodas as they do in Overwatch, being able to bypass terrain is ridiculously good, and with all of Breach's abilities able to pass through walls as well, it's no wonder he's seeing a lot of play at the moment. Meanwhile, Sage can create walls to block enemy advances and buy time for her team to set up plays, but where she truly shines is in the next "style" of play that's working rather well on the competitive ladder. 

• All-around versatility

If you recall, Mercy's Ultimate was originally able to revive all her downed allies in an area, which made for some downright ridiculous comebacks, and for a time, she was the go-to healer in competitive matches. Well, then it got nerfed and now she's only able to revive one ally, which is an ability fielded by Sage. The point is that there are some abilities that are always going to be good regardless of the situation, and being able to revive players is one of them, especially in a game without health drops too. Then there's the more offensive side of the coin, presented by Agents like Brimstone and Raze. For example, the latter already sports good recon capabilities via her Boom Bot, but she's especially potent at countering teams who like to park themselves in a corner and bunker down each match. This means that she's able to bring an edge to fights regardless of the context, making her a good pick in most situations. 

What would we like to see?

Now that we know what's currently happening in Valorant, be it good or bad, it's a good time to air out our own hopes for the game. After all, the game does have potential in spades, but if Riot wants it to be an esports hit, they're going to need people to want to play in the first place. Sure, there are some pros that have already come over from other shooters, but the developers can't wholly rely on them to keep the hype going in the long run. So, with regard to the question of "what would make us want to continue investing time and effort into Valorant?", here are our three main points on what Riot will need to do to make our answer a resounding "yes". 

• Lower the accessibility bar 

To be fair, this is kind of a grey area, seeing as Riot wants to focus on and reward true skill and tactical acumen in Valorant. However, it certainly doesn't have to do this by turning away interested players right from the beginning. After all, it's really easy to get disheartened after being bulldozed by more experienced players when you're first starting out, especially if you're new to shooters as a whole.

In our opinion, a large part of what made League of Legends so successful was that it had something for everybody and you don't really need any prerequisite skills to play the game. By that token, Valorant's approach is arguably more "elitist", and the fact that it still lacks a more conventional introductory mode for players to get used to the game, like Team Deathmatch means new players either settle for learning the hard way, or getting off the train entirely. This point is even more crucial considering that Valorant is still very young - it's only practical to build a dedicated base first, then working from there to build your presence in the esports sphere, and you don't do that by making it the free-to-play, tactical shooter equivalent of Dark Souls. 

• Quickly address the issue of ideal compositions

To be fair, this is a lot easier said than done, but you don't create a healthy esports experience by having two or three Agents dictate the meta at any one time. Granted, they've been doing well so far as no characters feel absolutely overpowered, but it's going to get harder and harder as more Agents are introduced. It is also worth noting that Riot also has to introduce novelty with each addition to the roster, and failing to do that consistently while not addressing existing concerns will cause interest in the game to plateau and eventually drop. 

That is going to be fatal for Valorant if they let this problem plant its roots too deep. The GOAT meta turned a LOT of people off Overwatch during its time, and to see a repeat of this happen to Valorant would be a pretty sad sight. 

• Make it feel fair

This ties in with the first point, although it's more to do with the actual feel of the gameplay itself. In any competition, the most important thing is that it has to be fair, and even if you can't guarantee it, at least get as close to it as you can. There's a lot of sentiment from players online that the maps are either skewed to favour the attacker or defender, topped off by the fact that some Agents can abuse these terrain advantages to effectively net themselves easier wins. Granted, it might not be possible to create a completely fair map, but the developers will have to be especially strict with themselves since the game does involve ways to bypass and exploit terrain differences.

Meanwhile, some gamers have also taken offense with the in-game economy system, saying that whoever wins the pistol round (usually the first in each match) has a much higher chance to win the next 2-3 rounds as well. Accordingly, this can effectively translate to "whoever wins the first round wins the match" in some cases, and if competitive matches were dictated by such trends, then Valorant would make for some pretty boring esports content. As such, one suggestion would be to review the round loss bonuses such that the entire match doesn't go out the window if one team makes a mistake during the first round. However, they'll still have to make it such that there is an incentive for playing well during that first round, which is where things are going to get really tricky for Riot.

So, is the game worth investing time in?

As it stands, we would be more inclined to say no, at least for now, and the Twitch viewership for the game reflects our outlook at this point in time. It's been decreasing steadily over the past few weeks as people return to their old tactical shooter haunts or play other games entirely. The (unreasonably?) high accessibility bar is probably one of the bigger reasons for the trend, but it's probably due in part to the fading novelty as well, in the sense that it currently doesn't offer much beyond the various Agent abilities for people to toy with. Sure, it might have some good points in terms of quality of life improvements compared to other tactical shooters and a somewhat balanced meta, but those aren't things that really jump out at you and say Valorant is a "must-play" right now. 

Perhaps all it needs is a little more time to find its place in the tactical shooter community, and it's up to Riot to make the most of this "grace period" that some players are willing to afford it.

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.