I still get annoyed by the employment of the term tactical in these games. There is nothing more tactical about this than any other multiplayer shooter. Call of Duty is just as tactical of a game, providing, essentially, the same tactical tools to the players: a method of communicating via voice (and/or text), various sets of weapons, a ruleset (ie: the game) and maps with objectives that must be met. Sure, the weapon selection and itemization here is more granular, but all that means is that there is more micromanagement available, not that it is in any way more or less tactical.
I mean, we can all understand that tactics are simply the methods that people employ to achieve their goal, right? Basketball is an intensely tactical game, for pete's sake. Further, we can all understand that the "genre" (I'm using this terms semi-sarcastically) of tactical shooters was more or less restricted to the Rainbow Six games, as they allowed for the single player game to establish a plan for achieving their goal (strategy) and modify it as the mission played out (tactics). Within a single player game, this is a very different beast than most other shooters, as they consist simply of acting on your own, having no larger strategy and merely reacting to the various pieces that get tossed in front of you. That's great! Within multiplayer games, however, it wasn't new at all. All team based games are exactly like this. There is a plan that is set forth (I am, of course, referring only to well-coordinated teams, because any game, even a "tactical shooter" without good coordination is as tactical as Wolfenstien 3D) and executed within in a shifting, expansive way.
The only thing that separates a game like this and a game like Call of Duty is the level of "realism" within it. COD wishes to replicate the idea of SoF, to get at the ephemeral, superhuman nature of the most elite--doing so in a very stylized way that may best exemplify how incredible these people are. This game (and the games like it) wish to emphasize the fragility of the human body and the fact that there are few guns that are legitimately useful in any given scenario. They want to make the player have a lean button to peak around corners instead of doing a back and forth strafe. Neither of which is particularly realistic, as both are wildly unnatural actions that only approximate how such a situation is handled in reality. Likewise with cover mechanics. Taking cover is far more than crouching behind an object, but far less than shifting into a 3rd person POV with a controllable reticule to accurately aim while hiding for a pop and shoot. Crouching behind an object deemphasizes the situational awareness such an elite operative would have beyond what a videogame can portray in such a way that they feel dull and not very capable, going to a 3rd person cover mechanic overemphasizes this by giving them a godlike omniscience of things they cannot see. Both, however, are equally tactical. The player must recognize the benefits and the limitations of their system and adjust their squad dynamics accordingly so that they may execute their strategy and achieve their victory.
None of this is to say that this game won't be cool or whatever, and it looks just fine. It is also unfair for me to heap all of this on this particular game, as it is merely following the (stupid) convention of late of calling games with this particular "realism" tactical shooters, even though the term is completely meaningless in a multiplayer environment (which is all that this game offers). So if you're a dev or a diehard supporter, I apologize if this feels unfair--it is, and I know that. But damned if that promo video wasn't aggravating to the word nazi of my heart.