Describe what your ideal shooter would contain.

[BS PALADIN]

One thing id like is a destructible environment. I know this is hard but it would benefit a game greatly. You could block access points ( for example you could demo a bridge ) . Clear foilage to create a killzone around a defensive base. Even create rubble to preform as a sniper cover.

Plus it would be great be able to track the enemy through footprints. It could even be turned around so that footprints could be used to set a trap. Lure the trackers into a killzone complete with claymores and crossfires. Tracking was done back as far as MGS on the PS1 for gods sake but no-one has tried it since to my knowledge.

[Hatchetforce]

Tchaikovsky

You have put a lot of thought into your system, and thinking is good. But bear in mind you can't 'punish' people per se because they don't follow orders, adapt to your style, etc. Punishment has to meted out by the fact that the team fails, and people died.

The issue with many titles today is that when players violate the principles of combat, either alone or as a team, you do not see the consequences levied that happen in the real world. That means the levels and mechanics were not designed to enforce realism.

Even if your goal as a dev isn't realism, then you have at the very least forfeited good gameplay. The game has to be self correcting by virtue of the Queen of Battle, not by an outside set of self constricting rules determined by the dev team.

[NYR_32]

The issue with many titles today is that when players violate the principles of combat, either alone or as a team, you do not see the consequences levied that happen in the real world. That means the levels and mechanics were not designed to enforce realism.

Being able to wack 40+ enemies, by yourself, and complete the mission on the first time you've see a map shouldn't happen. Many of today's newer games lack that killer edge that you find in something of the likes of GR1 and Rouge Spear. It took me, oh a year or so, before I was able to complete a firefight/mission/defend, on elite, by myself. I would guess that after not having played GR1 for a few months now, I'd probably have some trouble completing a mission on the first try, without any AI backup.

With many newer games I'm finding I can get away with a lot of things that would have seen me shot dead in GR1. Either I would be sixed, fragged or just plain old over run by a group of REALLY angry tangos. Now, the squad level, platoon level and company level AI just doesn't seem to be there. Most of the AI in newer games appear to be just focused on the individual bot. The problem there is, with each enemy just thinking about itself, they all tend to do the same thing, there isn't that other group of baddies who decides to hit you from behind, or the right instead of the left. I really miss that.

I also miss jumping out of my seat after getting wacked by an unseen foe. When you think your safe, but in reality a group of tangos are closing on you, searching for you and out of the blue you hear that THWACK, and down you go. Most newer titles, once that immeditate threat is dealt with, thats it. You could go to the kitchen, make a sandwich, grab some chips and a soda, and as long as your not standing in the middle of a scripted path your fine. It shouldn't be that way. Throttle back the graphics, give me multiple levels of AI that work, and you'll have a far better gaming experience IMO.

[Hacksaww]

Being able to wack 40+ enemies, by yourself, and complete the mission on the first time you've see a map shouldn't happen. Many of today's newer games lack that killer edge that you find in something of the likes of GR1 and Rouge Spear. It took me, oh a year or so, before I was able to complete a firefight/mission/defend, on elite, by myself. I would guess that after not having played GR1 for a few months now, I'd probably have some trouble completing a mission on the first try, without any AI backup.

With many newer games I'm finding I can get away with a lot of things that would have seen me shot dead in GR1. Either I would be sixed, fragged or just plain old over run by a group of REALLY angry tangos. Now, the squad level, platoon level and company level AI just doesn't seem to be there. Most of the AI in newer games appear to be just focused on the individual bot. The problem there is, with each enemy just thinking about itself, they all tend to do the same thing, there isn't that other group of baddies who decides to hit you from behind, or the right instead of the left. I really miss that.

I also miss jumping out of my seat after getting wacked by an unseen foe. When you think your safe, but in reality a group of tangos are closing on you, searching for you and out of the blue you hear that THWACK, and down you go. Most newer titles, once that immeditate threat is dealt with, thats it. You could go to the kitchen, make a sandwich, grab some chips and a soda, and as long as your not standing in the middle of a scripted path your fine. It shouldn't be that way. Throttle back the graphics, give me multiple levels of AI that work, and you'll have a far better gaming experience IMO.

Here, here!

[Hatchetforce]

Excellent post NYR_32. Making a game is a balancing act. You have (generally) a certain amount of time to bring a title in at a certain budget. Allocation of resources is an important process. What do you emphasize?

I personally think that the characters whom with, and against you play are more important than the world in which you play. Simply put, AI is more important than a cool map design. A lot of games have cool looking environments but the AI is barely implemented. Unless those titles have extensive Multiplayer, they are not remembered with kindness.

Now the reverse. Look at titles that have plain jane or mediocre at best maps but really good AI. Those titles tend to fare better in first reviews and more importantly longevity. Cool map design is great. But there are a great many maps that look good and play poorly. Open map design regins over cool map design. If all approaches are channelized, if the ability to choose is removed from the player that is one thing. It isn't necessarily bad if handled correctly, however player choice is advisable where possible. Remember you still have a story to tell and players are on a mission. At some point they are going to have to be poked and told Go! You do that with the story rather than with the fact the player can't go anywhere but straight ahead in a line. And if the appearance of choice is lost then that is a disaster unless a particular moment in the script calls for it.

The problem is that many people now talk about how you must have an extremely complicated AI system that is the product of ground breaking programming that utilizes human DNA in your hard drive. "Our AI thinks for itself!" Pardon me while I unplug Skynet. Even great AI is scripted. As John Carmack said, the trick is in the sleight of hand, the illusion that the AI is thinking for itself, mimicking human reaction.

FEAR is an example of some well implemented AI. Far Cry another. As you said, the AI has to use Team cohesion rather than appearing to lone wolf.

The other thing you do not see from AI is the panic mode. I have gamed numerous titles recently where when I hit the AI, they did little more than take cover and tell me I was going to die. I have even had AI in a certain title get shot, flinch, and continue to walk toward me. It was like dealing with those two armored bank robbers in LA.

When was the last time you saw an AI in game firing wildly, screaming? Crying? Dropping his weapon and running? Losing it and throwing his weapon at you and dropping to his knees? Begging? Begging and then trying to kill you? Begging and then trying to kill you while his buddy flanks and closes on you? Self preservation is a powerful motivator and one you almost never see from AI.

Over all I would like the have the great environments and maps, and great AI. Naturally anyone would want it all. But if I was on a desert isle and had to make a choice, I would pick the AI.

[Sup]

Even great AI is scripted.

We don't want to get confusing with our terminology. I agree with most of your post, but 'scripted,' in the context of gameplay, usually bring to mind a series of area/movement based triggers programmed into the map. Not all AI is like that. Plenty are entirely based on variables in response to the player and enviornment, not a 'player's on this trigger, run into the doorway and shoot' system.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but either way, due to the confusion between the technical definition of scripted and the definition usually used in regards to gameplay, I wanted to be sure it was clear.

Also, in most development situations and games, making maps cool looking and making maps play well are both entirely separate parts of the job and handled by entirely different teams. (That being the art team's environment and prop artists, and the design team's mappers.)

Save a few developers where environment artists map, gameplay and art are almost completely segregated in the context of the development. To use an immediate example, I post on another forum with an Evironment artist from Gears of War. He modeled, normal mapped, and textured a whole lot of buildng parts and streets and props and such for the game, but had absolutely nothing to do with the structure, form, or scripting of the levels they went into. I doubt he even touched unrealed, save to preview his work in engine. (since, of course, Max can leave some nasty seams from half mirrored normals which unreal can comfortably render just fine)

[Hatchetforce]

One thing id like is a destructible environment. I know this is hard but it would benefit a game greatly. You could block access points ( for example you could demo a bridge ) . Clear foilage to create a killzone around a defensive base. Even create rubble to preform as a sniper cover.

Plus it would be great be able to track the enemy through footprints. It could even be turned around so that footprints could be used to set a trap. Lure the trackers into a killzone complete with claymores and crossfires. Tracking was done back as far as MGS on the PS1 for gods sake but no-one has tried it since to my knowledge.

Here here. Give that man a beer. This is something I also like. SOCOM I (PS2) had AI that would trail footprints (occasionally ) Destructable environment forces people to consider the difference between cover and concealment. Destructable environments are seeing some institution into VBS2. Shooting through walls and doors, extinguishable light sources, all good things.

They had the destructable lights and some penetration in SOCOM I. If that can be done on a console with such constrained memory, it is puzzling we haven't seen more of this on the PC.

[Sup]

Penetration's easy, people modded that into Counterstrike 1.6. It's more of a gameplay dispute.

Destructible environments are either very easy or very hard, depending on how they're done. You need to remember what kind of strain having all of that stuff server-sided puts on the host; massive lag is to be expected unless it's really well optimized.

[Hatchetforce]

2 things that are in short supply these days.

Topo maps and binoculars.

My biggest complaint with GR:AW is the Tac-Map and having suspend (simulated) reality to rely on a dedicated satellite (with, apparently, a VERY long boom mic), when there is the drone which provides the same information. A map with usable grid coordinates and a set of LR binos would be more appropriate.

Azimuth & distance is where it's at.

SP specific, but not limited to.

There is something to be said for having intel that is near real time - not true real time - intel. Unless that person is in a secure location monitoring UAV feed or gett ing intel from an observation platform such as a Spectre or rotary wing support, he isn't going to have a laptop with him. It is better to have things situated in the real world for this type of game. And I agree completely with the map and compass. GPS is great and we use them to death, but for quick movement you look at the map - sometimes in digital form - take bearings from a wrist compass and navigate.

[Tactical Jerky]

Tchaikovsky

You have put a lot of thought into your system, and thinking is good. But bear in mind you can't 'punish' people per se because they don't follow orders, adapt to your style, etc. Punishment has to meted out by the fact that the team fails, and people died.

The issue with many titles today is that when players violate the principles of combat, either alone or as a team, you do not see the consequences levied that happen in the real world. That means the levels and mechanics were not designed to enforce realism.

Even if your goal as a dev isn't realism, then you have at the very least forfeited good gameplay. The game has to be self correcting by virtue of the Queen of Battle, not by an outside set of self constricting rules determined by the dev team.

I guess you're right about the punishment, on a second thought I see to many bad situations arrising with it.

The thing is I would like to see more teamwork in shooters and of course if you have a really motivated group of friends that knows what they're doing it could be achieved. But from personal experience I know most of the time in most games it's free for all with only some basic "I go this way you go that way" tactics.

One of the reasons of this is lack of knowledge, most players simply aren't soldiers in real life so they just use basic maneuvering when they play. I like the idea that a game could train people using tutorials or have some kind of system like the one explained to compensate for the lack of knowledge.

Also people are to obsessed with getting there kills cause in the end of the round that's what the game will reward them for. I always liked the way in BF2 for example you had 30 vs 30 matches with some people having dozens of kills while others only had like 3 kills but still where among the highest ranked players because they did alot of healing or other useful things.

[Hatchetforce]

Tchaikovsky

You have put a lot of thought into your system, and thinking is good. But bear in mind you can't 'punish' people per se because they don't follow orders, adapt to your style, etc. Punishment has to meted out by the fact that the team fails, and people died.

The issue with many titles today is that when players violate the principles of combat, either alone or as a team, you do not see the consequences levied that happen in the real world. That means the levels and mechanics were not designed to enforce realism.

Even if your goal as a dev isn't realism, then you have at the very least forfeited good gameplay. The game has to be self correcting by virtue of the Queen of Battle, not by an outside set of self constricting rules determined by the dev team.

I guess you're right about the punishment, on a second thought I see to many bad situations arrising with it.

The thing is I would like to see more teamwork in shooters and of course if you have a really motivated group of friends that knows what they're doing it could be achieved. But from personal experience I know most of the time in most games it's free for all with only some basic "I go this way you go that way" tactics.

One of the reasons of this is lack of knowledge, most players simply aren't soldiers in real life so they just use basic maneuvering when they play. I like the idea that a game could train people using tutorials or have some kind of system like the one explained to compensate for the lack of knowledge.

Also people are to obsessed with getting there kills cause in the end of the round that's what the game will reward them for. I always liked the way in BF2 for example you had 30 vs 30 matches with some people having dozens of kills while others only had like 3 kills but still where among the highest ranked players because they did alot of healing or other useful things.

This is where the developers step in and help such gamers. There is a plan for this - although it can't be discussed at the moment. Not something that needs to be invented, but rather a method already decided upon that will help remedy the problem. Why no one has done it before, I don't know. It seems so common sense.

[jsonedecker]

Come on, if Jack Bauer can download a random building's schematics to his cell phone, heat signatures included, then a sattelite must be able to hear people talking on the ground!

Seriously, gadgets are cool, but I like games that rely more on the man on the ground than fancy gadgetry all the time.

A wise man once told me something along the lines of, "...what makes Special Forces 'Special' is the men not the tools...". The men on the ground are special.

-John

[Hatchetforce]

Come on, if Jack Bauer can download a random building's schematics to his cell phone, heat signatures included, then a sattelite must be able to hear people talking on the ground!

Seriously, gadgets are cool, but I like games that rely more on the man on the ground than fancy gadgetry all the time.

A wise man once told me something along the lines of, "...what makes Special Forces 'Special' is the men not the tools...". The men on the ground are special.

-John

You would think after looking at those building schematics they would consider blocking every available egree once in a while...

[Agent Smith]

Penetration's easy, people modded that into Counterstrike 1.6. It's more of a gameplay dispute.

Destructible environments are either very easy or very hard, depending on how they're done. You need to remember what kind of strain having all of that stuff server-sided puts on the host; massive lag is to be expected unless it's really well optimized.

There's also penetration in DoD: S, and nearly every weapon except the SMGs and pistols will go through walls like it's not even there.

[Sup]

Penetration's easy, people modded that into Counterstrike 1.6. It's more of a gameplay dispute.

Destructible environments are either very easy or very hard, depending on how they're done. You need to remember what kind of strain having all of that stuff server-sided puts on the host; massive lag is to be expected unless it's really well optimized.

There's also penetration in DoD: S, and nearly every weapon except the SMGs and pistols will go through walls like it's not even there.

Not played much dods, but in DoD1 it was implemented to a point of hilarity. Me and a few friends realized we almost always died the moment we actually entered cover, due to the absurd effectiveness of penetration. Normally sprinting down an open street was far safer than going prone behind a concrete barrier.

A perfect example of why one should be careful with cover penetration as a gameplay element.

[Hatchetforce]

Penetration's easy, people modded that into Counterstrike 1.6. It's more of a gameplay dispute.

Destructible environments are either very easy or very hard, depending on how they're done. You need to remember what kind of strain having all of that stuff server-sided puts on the host; massive lag is to be expected unless it's really well optimized.

There's also penetration in DoD: S, and nearly every weapon except the SMGs and pistols will go through walls like it's not even there.

It has to be modeled and balanced. That is true. But I have seen rounds go through areas and thought, "Well, I am glad we didn't decide to squat back there."

Level layout has to pay attention to the right construction. But you don't change real construction because grass huts won't stop a bullet. There are other ways to balance the map. Real ways.

[Ick]

.................because grass huts won't stop a bullet. There are other ways to balance the map. Real ways.

Really? You mean that half inch picket fence and wash hanging off the clotheslines in [GR] won't stop incoming fire? Boy, I am going to have to adjust my tactics if the Mexicans ever invade the United States.

I was pretty much counting on those things providing cover from enemy fire. Guess I might as well move out of my grass hut.

Will quarter inch corrugated tin stop an incoming 556 round? Sheesh.

[FA sear]

@Ick, LOL, don't forget that you are also wearing clothing.

Not played much dods, but in DoD1 it was implemented to a point of hilarity. Me and a few friends realized we almost always died the moment we actually entered cover, due to the absurd effectiveness of penetration. Normally sprinting down an open street was far safer than going prone behind a concrete barrier.

A perfect example of why one should be careful with cover penetration as a gameplay element.

I have never run DoD, but understand too that most of what your average person would consider cover does not work well as cover in real life. Ever shot a .308 at a brick wall or a tree? A friend of mine used to take some people out to a private range where we would shoot a lot of different objects to see how they would stand up to gunfire. We have shot BP glass, chopped down trees (the entire area was surrounded with dense woods), shot apart cinderblock walls, brick walls (we would go out and lay down brick and cinderblocks and by the next time we went out shooting the cement was dried), varying amounts of layers of plywood, steel plates of varying thickness, Kevlar vests (some with plates), etc...

Stronger rounds like 7.62X51mm and 7.62X54R, will chew up brick and concrete structures. Most average trees were also not worth much as cover either. A tree that is about 3 feet in diameter? Sure, but most trees were easily penetrated, and if not in the first shot, a few rounds pretty much did the trick. The thing I was most shocked at was how much plywood standard 2 3/4" buckshot could blast through. Forget rounds like .338 Lapuas and .50BMGs, and I wouldn't want to even see what a .408 Cheytac could do.

This DoD game may have been overdone (again, I have never run it), but I would bet that virtually every average person out there has a grave misperception as to what would work as cover. I know I definitely was surprised with some of what would and what would not work as cover in real life.

Edited February 14, 2007 by jchung

[Ick]

We fired some .223 rounds at a 4 inch tree and the round went right through it. My buddy had a larger caliber bolt action deer hunting rifle at the same tree. I recall you could stick a pencil through the hole with that round.

I always laugh when they show police behind the door of a cruiser whilst getting shot from AK or M4 rounds. Not sure they are going to find any real potection from that door, are they?

There is definately a balance developers need to measure between:

1. What is real

2. What is fun

3. What people "think" is real from hollywood

4. What is possible

5. What mix of system resources applied to 1-4 results in the best "value"

[Sup]

This DoD game may have been overdone (again, I have never run it), but I would bet that virtually every average person out there has a grave misperception as to what would work as cover. I know I definitely was surprised with some of what would and what would not work as cover in real life.

I'm talking about a chunk of stone rubble a little larger than a man.

[FA sear]

This DoD game may have been overdone (again, I have never run it), but I would bet that virtually every average person out there has a grave misperception as to what would work as cover. I know I definitely was surprised with some of what would and what would not work as cover in real life.

I'm talking about a chunk of stone rubble a little larger than a man.

Yeah, that is pretty bad.

[Hatchetforce]

We fired some .223 rounds at a 4 inch tree and the round went right through it. My buddy had a larger caliber bolt action deer hunting rifle at the same tree. I recall you could stick a pencil through the hole with that round.

I always laugh when they show police behind the door of a cruiser whilst getting shot from AK or M4 rounds. Not sure they are going to find any real potection from that door, are they?

There is definately a balance developers need to measure between:

1. What is real

2. What is fun

3. What people "think" is real from hollywood

4. What is possible

5. What mix of system resources applied to 1-4 results in the best "value"

Firefights can rage from a few minutes to over a day in the real world. Why? What is it that is being left out of a game, that exists in the real world? Why is it penetration occurs in the real world, destructable environments, etc and not in most games yet there are firefights in titles that you can't prolong if you tried and they dissipate in minutes. Why? These are rhetorical questions but ones any dev must ask if they are interested in something other than an arcade experience.

Creating a game's design AND THEN trying to institute realism is doomed to failure and results in a title that doesn't know what it is. You have to begin with the concept and include those factors that will insure the correct experience is there for the gamer to find. Too many times developers have a bunch of cool things they want to put in a game and then determine to build the design around the cool things. If you start with the concept, the story and build from there, the design where everything isn't a shoot thru environment will reveal itself, it will be a blast, and have that realistic edge.

How many real firefights have occurred that are well documented? A lot. There are more game blueprints than you can count in those moments and most often they have been ignored. Too bad, because those are some tense experiences waiting to be had by gamers.

[krise madsen]

What Hatchet said about mindset is true: If you want to make a realistic, tactical shooter, you start off with the most realistic setup possible and work your way from there, even if it takes you in a less realistic direction.

An example: Should you or should you not be able to pick up weapons, ammo and gear from fallen comrades and enemies (in battle, that is, not when cleaning up the battlefield to prevent weapons falling into enemy hands)?

First, you ask the question: Do real soldiers regularly pick up weapons and ammo? Rarely. Why? Enemy weapons may not be reliable, they may not have the training to use them properly, sights are not zeroed for that individual, ammo may not be compatible with that of your squad e.c.t.

So, war trophies aside, when soldiers do pick up weapons of fallen enemies, it's probably because they need them badly, such as when they've run out of ammo.

So what do you do? Well, maybe you start off with enabling the player to pick up weapons, ammo and other gear from anyone, friend or foe, but you make the sights misaligned, the weapon unreliable e.c.t. so that the player can pick up just about anything, but rarely does.

Eventually, you may end up with something radically different because of technical limitations, gameplay issues, whatever. But the important bit is where and how you start the process.

Do this, and the realism factor becomes a source of inspiration, rather than a limitation. I'd go as far as to say that without the proper mindset, you probably shouldn't even try making such a game. And it may, in part at least, explain what went "wrong" with GRAW1.

When used properly, you can very easily end up with pure gold, such as the original Rainbow Six.

Respectfully

krise madsen

PS: Yay, first post! Long time lurker, first time poster and all that. Thanks to Rocky for the excellent service and Pritzl for the assist

Edited February 19, 2007 by krise madsen

[Sup]

So what do you do? Well, maybe you start off with enabling the player to pick up weapons, ammo and other gear from anyone, friend or foe, but you make the sights misaligned, the weapon unreliable e.c.t. so that the player can pick up just about anything, but rarely does.

Personally, I find this to be essentially a good idea. However, it ought be considered that the goal should never be to frustrate the player, or to punish them. While less realistic, it would be perhaps better to clearly announce to the player the quality of the weapon when they picked it up. A quick 'weapon unreliable' message would go a long way toward deterring the player from switching rifles often, and avoid confusing those too quick to read the manual or play the tutorials. Better to suspend disbelief a bit than create pages of forum posts about how the game was broken and their new AKs never hit.

[Ick]

Generally I think people understand the "class bonus" in GRAW. They know that if they pick up a weapon from a fallen enemy that doesn't match their class...they understand that there will be a loss in accuracy and more recoil.

It would seem to me that swapping weapons means that your soldier is not as effective with a strange weapon...is well within the grasp of the gamer.

Perhaps you are right...a little text just beside the "swap for enemy weapon" message it said something like "you will not be as effective with this rifle" or something. The more I think of it though, I am not sure such a message is necessary.

It seems to me that serious gamers will pick up on this sort of thing if it appears SOMEWHERE in the manual.....since serious gamers talk, post, etc. The "strange weapon effect" will get around to all the hard-core guys.

Casual gamers won't even notice....either way.