Jump to content

Realism & Gameplay


Recommended Posts

True. In any case, I prefer the way GRIN implements this feature. You can run, but, you have to stop and shoot. This will change the way MP is played, slow the pace and make the game more tactical, it will force the player to be more cautious, I love it.

Yeah. As long as it's possible to shoot fairly well while walking and the reticules doesn't spread too much when I turn, I'll be happy with a slower pacing too. It's probably the only way to keep the game tactical. (AS LONG as people know that it's possible to be tactical and move fast. I'm not giving up on that. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sounds REALLY good so far, but is it just me, or is the PC version going to be an altogether different game from the 360 version? I'm starting to get the impression that you won't even get a taste of what the PC version will be like by running the 360 version.

I'm not trying to go OT. I bring this up because people have brought their impressions of the 360 version here, and I am just starting to get the impression that the two versions will be completely different animals, and that the similarities will be few at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all those who are new to the forum...

Please understand that long before GR:AW PC ever had any screen shots, we as a GR1 (PC) community have been crying about how much GR:AW should have "realism" and "tactics". From what we can now see and read, GRIN has answered that call. Sure no approach can assure absolute realism; that just is not possible. However it would seem that GRIN has followed a balanced approach to this issue with game play (fun) in mind. Don't start complaining now that things are not realistic. In the end we will all see just how everything actually plays.

You know, I still don't like the idea of the HUD, but GRIN has clearly refined the HUD in comparison to the 360 and other console versions. They have done this to the point where I am completely open minded to the concept now. I will give it a chance in playing before coming to any real conclusions. To me that is just one of the many indications of GRIN's commitment to this project.

silent_op

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will be different.

We know that, but my point was that the differences seem like they are going to be much greater than the similarities. From the begining it was emphasised that GRAW PC will be different from the 360 version, but with each passing day the gap between the two seems to be growing.

Edited by jchung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will be different.

We know that, but my point was that the differences seem like they are going to be much greater than the similarities. From the begining it was emphasised that GRAW PC will be different from the 360 version, but with each passing day the gap between the two seems to be growing.

As we stated earlier a lot. These are two completely different gameplay experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You run to get somewhere fast. You aim to put the bullet in the right place. The two cannot be combined, simple as that.

Adding the ability to shoot while running - although with a wide spread - would be like adding a dice-tossing element in the game of chess: The well balanced system of rules and restrictions that promote tactical thinking would be disrupted - in other words, cheapening the entire concept.

Firm rules and restrictions that forces the player to leave nothing to chance, and subsequently know he only has himself to blame when something goes wrong, is - imho - the formula for a game such as GRAW!

If you turn a corner running, and find yourself nose-to-nose with an enemy, and he has his gun up, he will pull the trigger before you - and you will know what you did wrong. Caution is the magic word - and personally, I love it.

These statments alone have sold me (not that I wasn't already sold)... This is bang on to what I expected. Especially the "leave nothing to chance".

If FMJ goes up against another team in MP... I want to know that they beat us stratigically (if that can happen... LOL) ... not by run and gun tactics like COD et al ... I love the idea of the game being similar to a chess game. If you have the better tactics, in my opinion that team should come out on top .. providing of course they can shoot straight ;) I like to know why I died... sniper shot.. nade blast... hense the reason I am also in favor of bullets not flying through walls.. I could see it now.. playing some team and them finding out I am in a building and just blasting away blindly at the building...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we stated earlier a lot. These are two completely different gameplay experiences.

It seems as though the two may not have ANY similarities other than the name and location.

Don't take these comments the wrong way, this is not a criticism in any way, just an observation. I only brought this up because I know some people ran the 360 to get a feel for GRAW, but it seems as though that was somewhat of a misguided attempt.

BTW, this also is not meant to rip the console version in any way either.

Again, I am only remarking that as more details for GRAW PC come out, the gap between the two seems to be growing. Again, not a criticism, just an observation.

Can't wait to see the final product. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You run to get somewhere fast. You aim to put the bullet in the right place. The two cannot be combined, simple as that.

We have made it so that when the character runs, his whole body - the upper half too - really gets into it: he lowers the gun and lets it swing back and forth as he moves his arms, muzzle pointing sideways - the "run" movement is really all about fast movement, not being ready to shoot.

If we were to add the ability to pull the trigger while running, then that animation would have to look completely different, with the weapon pointing forward and his steps being more careful so as to not make the gun wobble too much. It would be like a bad compromise, and the running movement would lose much of its purpose.

Adding the ability to shoot while running - although with a wide spread - would be like adding a dice-tossing element in the game of chess: The well balanced system of rules and restrictions that promote tactical thinking would be disrupted - in other words, cheapening the entire concept.

Firm rules and restrictions that forces the player to leave nothing to chance, and subsequently know he only has himself to blame when something goes wrong, is - imho - the formula for a game such as GRAW!

If you turn a corner running, and find yourself nose-to-nose with an enemy, and he has his gun up, he will pull the trigger before you - and you will know what you did wrong. Caution is the magic word - and personally, I love it.

Beautiful, I wish other FPS´s who call themselves "realistic" followed this line of thinking, nothing more frustrating in a tactical game than a "quaker" rushing through the map with the biggest gun of the armory shooting people who are trying to simulate the real world tensions and tactics of a firefight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
You run to get somewhere fast. You aim to put the bullet in the right place. The two cannot be combined, simple as that.

We have made it so that when the character runs, his whole body - the upper half too - really gets into it: he lowers the gun and lets it swing back and forth as he moves his arms, muzzle pointing sideways - the "run" movement is really all about fast movement, not being ready to shoot.

If we were to add the ability to pull the trigger while running, then that animation would have to look completely different, with the weapon pointing forward and his steps being more careful so as to not make the gun wobble too much. It would be like a bad compromise, and the running movement would lose much of its purpose.

Adding the ability to shoot while running - although with a wide spread - would be like adding a dice-tossing element in the game of chess: The well balanced system of rules and restrictions that promote tactical thinking would be disrupted - in other words, cheapening the entire concept.

Firm rules and restrictions that forces the player to leave nothing to chance, and subsequently know he only has himself to blame when something goes wrong, is - imho - the formula for a game such as GRAW!

If you turn a corner running, and find yourself nose-to-nose with an enemy, and he has his gun up, he will pull the trigger before you - and you will know what you did wrong. Caution is the magic word - and personally, I love it.

That there speaks volumes. I'm so glad you guys took over the Ghost Recon job for us. RSE brought us a long way with the R6s (except Letdown) and our beloved GR1, now it's GRIN's turn to take us to the next level.

Go GRIN!

silent_op

really hate to go off topic :unsure:

BUT OMG what a good idea your post gave me .... GRIN must design R6:5 for pc !!!!!!!!!!!!! :grin1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You should not be able to shoot while running. I think this is being implemented, if so, no running and gunning.

2. You should not be able to run with weapon in full zoom. Actually, I do not see how you can crawl and use a scope either. Walking and using a scoped view is fine. Can someone supply ann answer?

Question for HF - can the SCAR-H take an AK magazine? If not, can the SCAR-H mag take AK ammo? Looking at the rationale for picking up AK ammo.

You should be able to run and shoot. At a sprint your targets are limited to the ground and nearby passing birds. At a jog or quick pace fire is inaccurate but is designed for covering purposes to break contact or make the enemy duck.

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

Removing a realistic feature, no matter how ridiculous, in order to promote realism never works. What devs must do is institute the appropriate physics and penalities. It is llike removing jumping. Wrong, what you do is allow a bunny hopper to shoot the sky or his foot. About the 5th time he gets pasted when bunny hopping he'll quit.

No crawling with zoomed scope period.

SCAR H doesn't use AK mags or ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

being able to shoot while the gun is pointed sideways and being swung around would not be tolerated in real life and you'd be taken off the battlefield anyways.

you know if it's implemented, it'll be used all the time, and when i see this on screen the suspension of belief completely goes out the window. any form of realism is out as well.

if it's not something the character(special forces) would do, it shouldn't be an option. he could, but he wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing a realistic feature, no matter how ridiculous, in order to promote realism never works. What devs must do is institute the appropriate physics and penalities. It is llike removing jumping. Wrong, what you do is allow a bunny hopper to shoot the sky or his foot. About the 5th time he gets pasted when bunny hopping he'll quit.

No crawling with zoomed scope period.

SCAR H doesn't use AK mags or ammo.

Well with that reasoning you should also be able to pick your teeth, tie your shoe-laces and juggle with your grenades too. I mean, people would find out soon enough that it only gets them killed anyway, right?

I have great respect for your knowledge and experience in real-life combat, but I feel tempted to quote Bo here, saying "all I hear is 'I've never developed a game'".

Seriously, a game needs to have clear and firm rules - it is a simplified reality. You just cannot implement in the game's movement system everything that is physically possible but practically suicidal and leave it up to the gamer to find out what's useful and what's not: It would be a trial-and-error game for all beginners and it would only be frustrating. In the end, it would all be a huge pile of work put in by the animators and gameplay programmers that was all for nothing.

Our philosophy is "less is more", meaning that rather than implementing thousands of different moves and combinations of them where 4/5 are useless or useful too seldom, we strip it down to what's really recurringly useful. In this case, we simplified it so that when standing straight, you either walk (slowly), at a speed where you can even go into iron sight and it still feels natural, or you run (sprint), at a speed where you really "get into it", and simply cannot shoot. The two really complement each other, and caters for a fiiine tactical gameplay.

Trust me - as opposed to you, I've played the game. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to run and shoot. At a sprint your targets are limited to the ground and nearby passing birds. At a jog or quick pace fire is inaccurate but is designed for covering purposes to break contact or make the enemy duck.

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

Exactly!! What i've been saying about the ability to fire when moving and what your likely to hit, or use fire for.

You run across a street and fire sideways, not to hit a target but to keep their heads down, so that you can attempt to gain a better position.

@ desmond

I understand why Grin have come up with the solutions, and the reasonings behind those solutions, complex animations, simplifying gameplay etc and in some ways i'm glad because it does mean that no-one can run at you and shoot.(This will drastically reduce some of the cheats, thank god/Grin :grin3: )

I will personally have to adjust my gameplay, and look forward to seeing how this new style pans out...

Well with that reasoning you should also be able to pick your teeth, tie your shoe-laces and juggle with your grenades too. I mean, people would find out soon enough that it only gets them killed anyway, right?

Don't take this the wrong way, but isn't it for them to find out the hard way?? or decide wether or not to take that risk??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im honestly used to running and shooting(all the r6's have this) but Im willing to give it a try. I just hope that your gun instantly snaps back when you stop running so you can fire right away and not be standing around with your thumb up. Whats the delay on your weapon coming back up from a run Desmonde? Quick shooting is a must if youre going to root out them campers. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To see the speed at which your weapon comes up - watch the movies, there ware plenty around the web. The weapon comes up very quickly (much less than a second, mind you), but it takes long enough to give the guy who has his weapon already up and aiming the upper hand when two guys have an unexpected run-in showdown.

Sure rooting out them campers demands shooting (or even better throwing grenades), but you don't need to run while doing it, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To see the speed at which your weapon comes up - watch the movies, there ware plenty around the web. The weapon comes up very quickly (much less than a second, mind you), but it takes long enough to give the guy who has his weapon already up and aiming the upper hand when two guys have an unexpected run-in showdown.

Sure rooting out them campers demands shooting (or even better throwing grenades), but you don't need to run while doing it, do you?

Well over the internet it was a better strategy to run around corners(due to lag) and shoot than to peek and shoot also when you are running around looking for campers you need to be able to pop em when they try to ambush ya. Ah just watched a vid. Not too bad.

Edited by big_perm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

I would have to disagree with that statement, at least where the distances are concerned. The target area in a human chest is less than a six inch radius, and I promise you that in reality you cant reliably "double tap" (I am assuming you mean that the shots would go within less than half a second or so of each other, maybe if you waited a few seconds) a six inch radius at 100 yards while walking. As for 200 yards, that was halfway accross a GR1 map, and I anyway usually tried to get down before engaging at that range.

Anyway, now that I am done nitpicking, I just wanted to throw in that I really dont see why you would want to be standing up out in the open with a scope up and shooting at a target less than 200 yards away, because chances are the target is going to shoot back (hey is GRAW going to have a weapons range, etc?). I think I would stick to cover.

I like the refference to chess that I just read from one of the GRIN guys. You have to remember that this isnt a simulation it is a game. In reality knights could ride in a straight line (and the queen probably didnt go on killing sprees :o=:o= ), but if every piece could do whatever it wanted, chess would completely suck. Computer games are slightly different, but sometimes in order to make a game more "realistic", you have to make it less "realistic" if that makes any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

I would have to disagree with that statement, at least where the distances are concerned. The target area in a human chest is less than a six inch radius, and I promise you that in reality you cant reliably "double tap" (I am assuming you mean that the shots would go within less than half a second or so of each other, maybe if you waited a few seconds) a six inch radius at 100 yards while walking. As for 200 yards, that was halfway accross a GR1 map, and I anyway usually tried to get down before engaging at that range.

He's referring to what he can do in real life, with a real weapon. I wouldn't doubt him, and I wouldn't want to be on the recieveing end either. >_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

I would have to disagree with that statement, at least where the distances are concerned. The target area in a human chest is less than a six inch radius, and I promise you that in reality you cant reliably "double tap" (I am assuming you mean that the shots would go within less than half a second or so of each other, maybe if you waited a few seconds) a six inch radius at 100 yards while walking. As for 200 yards, that was halfway accross a GR1 map, and I anyway usually tried to get down before engaging at that range.

Anyway, now that I am done nitpicking, I just wanted to throw in that I really dont see why you would want to be standing up out in the open with a scope up and shooting at a target less than 200 yards away, because chances are the target is going to shoot back (hey is GRAW going to have a weapons range, etc?). I think I would stick to cover.

I like the refference to chess that I just read from one of the GRIN guys. You have to remember that this isnt a simulation it is a game. In reality knights could ride in a straight line (and the queen probably didnt go on killing sprees :o=:o= ), but if every piece could do whatever it wanted, chess would completely suck. Computer games are slightly different, but sometimes in order to make a game more "realistic", you have to make it less "realistic" if that makes any sense.

:huh: 100M not able to double tap... well apart from HF talking about RL- there are simulators and other tac sims where greater engagement ranges are possible then 100 or 200m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing a realistic feature, no matter how ridiculous, in order to promote realism never works. What devs must do is institute the appropriate physics and penalities. It is llike removing jumping. Wrong, what you do is allow a bunny hopper to shoot the sky or his foot. About the 5th time he gets pasted when bunny hopping he'll quit.

No crawling with zoomed scope period.

SCAR H doesn't use AK mags or ammo.

Well with that reasoning you should also be able to pick your teeth, tie your shoe-laces and juggle with your grenades too. I mean, people would find out soon enough that it only gets them killed anyway, right?

I have great respect for your knowledge and experience in real-life combat, but I feel tempted to quote Bo here, saying "all I hear is 'I've never developed a game'".

Seriously, a game needs to have clear and firm rules - it is a simplified reality. You just cannot implement in the game's movement system everything that is physically possible but practically suicidal and leave it up to the gamer to find out what's useful and what's not: It would be a trial-and-error game for all beginners and it would only be frustrating. In the end, it would all be a huge pile of work put in by the animators and gameplay programmers that was all for nothing.

Our philosophy is "less is more", meaning that rather than implementing thousands of different moves and combinations of them where 4/5 are useless or useful too seldom, we strip it down to what's really recurringly useful. In this case, we simplified it so that when standing straight, you either walk (slowly), at a speed where you can even go into iron sight and it still feels natural, or you run (sprint), at a speed where you really "get into it", and simply cannot shoot. The two really complement each other, and caters for a fiiine tactical gameplay.

Trust me - as opposed to you, I've played the game. :yes:

Well that sounds good at first except picking your teeth isn't used to engage targets. That analogy really doesn't suit the discussion. Of course items must be removed in the compromise of trying to get a title to market but there is a vast chasm between tying ones shoes and persons that bunny hop. No one ever killed another player shooting with one hand and tying his shoes because tying shoes made him a difficult target to hit, interfered with hit detection, and allowed the bunny hopper to effectively engage you.

Sooner or later, and usually sooner, removing a feature to simplify reality will remove a realistic possibility from the game. Let's look at jumping. Removing jumping will eliminate bunny hoppers but it is a cheap way out. It also prevents gamers from jumping onto the hoods of stationary vehicles (which I have done in order to fire down through the windshield). It prevents gamers from leaping small ditches and walls, people or obstacles on the ground as well. The 360 version did institute a mantel feature. Trial and error is something gamers love because it creates replay value as they learn new things are possible.

If you want to pull out the I have never developed a game quote you will force me to resort to quotes about realism. Again. :thumbsup:

When you are pinned in a situation and it is impossible to wait for a QRF it comes time to charge the gates of hell with a bucket of water. You seem to forget I am not offering a critique of a game I have not played.

I am responding to a question someone asked about realism. But you are responding to me with game issues. It is not my intention to comment on the title but bringing it into the conversation forces me to comment on it.

Reality is the best rule and you are underestimating the ability of gamers to learn rapidly what does and does not work. If you make selections to streamline a title it is called specifically that - streamlining. If you do it because you are basing your decision on gamer's lack of intelligence it is called dumbing down. I am not implying that is what has been done, I am merely stating what it is.

Some features at first taken for granted are actually useful in combat. Example:

Stand

Squat

Lie Prone

Walk - at varying speed

Run - at varying speed

Roll

Jump

Low Crawl

High Crawl

Dive

Slide

Lean

Transition

Melee - Kick as well

Throw

Toss (either hand)

I won't cover the entire weapons swap issue as that has been beat to death. There is a time and place for it. Also engaging targets at varying speeds has been stated above as well.

Clear and simplified rules are great but combat relies heavily on daring and innovation in a tactical situation and often simplified rules hamstrings such freedom.

Trust me, as opposed to you I have been there. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

I would have to disagree with that statement, at least where the distances are concerned. The target area in a human chest is less than a six inch radius, and I promise you that in reality you cant reliably "double tap" (I am assuming you mean that the shots would go within less than half a second or so of each other, maybe if you waited a few seconds) a six inch radius at 100 yards while walking. As for 200 yards, that was halfway accross a GR1 map, and I anyway usually tried to get down before engaging at that range.

Anyway, now that I am done nitpicking, I just wanted to throw in that I really dont see why you would want to be standing up out in the open with a scope up and shooting at a target less than 200 yards away, because chances are the target is going to shoot back (hey is GRAW going to have a weapons range, etc?). I think I would stick to cover.

I like the refference to chess that I just read from one of the GRIN guys. You have to remember that this isnt a simulation it is a game. In reality knights could ride in a straight line (and the queen probably didnt go on killing sprees :o=:o= ), but if every piece could do whatever it wanted, chess would completely suck. Computer games are slightly different, but sometimes in order to make a game more "realistic", you have to make it less "realistic" if that makes any sense.

We regularly engage targets at that distance and hit them in the chest with double tap shots, not controlled pairs, and on a walkdown. In a less dangerous situation - that is, a non combat situation, we can put 3 rounds in a target on a failure drill - that's a double tap to the chest and a round in the head. A tricked out M4 in the hands of a practiced and skilled operator is an extremely accurate weapon. Double tapping a 100 meter target is easy when at 25 meters both rounds overlap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a walk I can double tap targets in the chest at 100m. Walking very slowly with a zoomed scope is done sometimes. But very slowly and at close targets (Less than 200m)

I would have to disagree with that statement, at least where the distances are concerned. The target area in a human chest is less than a six inch radius, and I promise you that in reality you cant reliably "double tap" (I am assuming you mean that the shots would go within less than half a second or so of each other, maybe if you waited a few seconds) a six inch radius at 100 yards while walking. As for 200 yards, that was halfway accross a GR1 map, and I anyway usually tried to get down before engaging at that range.

Anyway, now that I am done nitpicking, I just wanted to throw in that I really dont see why you would want to be standing up out in the open with a scope up and shooting at a target less than 200 yards away, because chances are the target is going to shoot back (hey is GRAW going to have a weapons range, etc?). I think I would stick to cover.

I like the refference to chess that I just read from one of the GRIN guys. You have to remember that this isnt a simulation it is a game. In reality knights could ride in a straight line (and the queen probably didnt go on killing sprees :o=:o= ), but if every piece could do whatever it wanted, chess would completely suck. Computer games are slightly different, but sometimes in order to make a game more "realistic", you have to make it less "realistic" if that makes any sense.

HF is a real Special Forces Operator. He was telling you what real world Special Forces are capable of. He was just pointing out what is really possible and practiced in real life.

silent_op

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...