Describe what your ideal shooter would contain.

[Ick]

Hatchetforce,

I completely understand where you are getting at with the "jumping" being real. I would imagine that if you are taking fire from a area where you have no cover....you are going to haul azz and jump over a stone wall to get away from fire. Certainly you would also jump in a truck, jump from a moving vehicle, and a thousand other situations where this kind of movement is mandatory in combat.

Clearly soldiers jump, leap, dive, and the like.

Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for our soldiers. I am in awe of their abilities and training. One of the main things that makes the USA great is the quality of the people that make up our fighting forces. Even if you disagree with all the political BS that truth stands.

I am just saying that allowing jump in a game almost always ruins it. I have yet to play a game with jump that didn't end up with it being a doorway for glitching or simply a superman ability that was very cheesy.

Therefore I say "no jumping" out of a fear of the developer designing it poorly. Call it lack of trust.

I eagerly await the release of your game. Based on our discussion it is CLEAR that quite a bit of discussion has ensued pre-production and pre-design for this game. Based on the discussion I have seen here this looks to be the next level of the tactical shooter. Sort of the next generation of tactical play.....not because of the "enhanced grapics" like so many try to do.....but then next generation because a lot of thought was put into the design.

If you can deliver the same passion for what is "real" in the game....I think we will all be pleased

[Stalker_Zero]

Stop it damnit!!!!! Stop giving me HOPE!!!! Stop all your cool talk about a realistic military spec ops shooter the way it oughta be made!!!

I just can't take this any more!!

...................................you realize of course that I'm kidding right?? Please continue to talk on the subject.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Stalker_Zero

[Hatchetforce]

Hatchetforce,

I completely understand where you are getting at with the "jumping" being real. I would imagine that if you are taking fire from a area where you have no cover....you are going to haul azz and jump over a stone wall to get away from fire. Certainly you would also jump in a truck, jump from a moving vehicle, and a thousand other situations where this kind of movement is mandatory in combat.

Clearly soldiers jump, leap, dive, and the like.

Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for our soldiers. I am in awe of their abilities and training. One of the main things that makes the USA great is the quality of the people that make up our fighting forces. Even if you disagree with all the political BS that truth stands.

I am just saying that allowing jump in a game almost always ruins it. I have yet to play a game with jump that didn't end up with it being a doorway for glitching or simply a superman ability that was very cheesy.

Therefore I say "no jumping" out of a fear of the developer designing it poorly. Call it lack of trust.

I eagerly await the release of your game. Based on our discussion it is CLEAR that quite a bit of discussion has ensued pre-production and pre-design for this game. Based on the discussion I have seen here this looks to be the next level of the tactical shooter. Sort of the next generation of tactical play.....not because of the "enhanced grapics" like so many try to do.....but then next generation because a lot of thought was put into the design.

If you can deliver the same passion for what is "real" in the game....I think we will all be pleased

I understand your concern, really. I have experienced those moments online. I remember the old HL1 days and the bunny hoppers. We are far from that.

Also you are correct that this issue has been thoroughly hammered even at this stage of the design. This isn't a willy nilly decision. Yes, you are going to have to trust us. In our world, unfair doesn't exist. It's warfare. If you are not violating international laws ot orders of higher HQ, do it...if it is something that could really be done. Don't be afraid to be brave and daring. But remember, you aren't superman. And even if you are violating HQs orders, if it works the powers in charge may let you get away with it. It's all in the context.

Devs institute limitations all the time. They want to prevent this or prevent that because they think the players will do this or that, or use something unfairly. I am not talking about glitching here. We are simply going to take that power out of the devs hands and give it over to the NORG god. Believe me, that does a much better job of something the devs normally do. It doesn't mean we won't look at the over all picture.

Also we are using state of the art technology. No corner cutting. As John said earlier, many of these things occurred because of poor design. We are going to get it right. The only thing jumping is going to be a doorway for is tactical maneuver. Otherwise, attempts to glitch with our implementation isn't a doorway, it's a train ride...to the morgue.

[Ick]

Excellent.

[5timechamp]

all this talk about the importance of jumping and the dangers of bad jump implementation is a great sign. it shows that the backbone of the game will be strong enough to sustain it. All the focus on implementing good movement means replay value will be there because the player can engage the environment in a variety of ways. I think its great that movement is getting as much attention as it does since 1 little addition can change the way a "level" is navigated. Something as simple as the ability to enter through a window can change the tactics and flow of a level so much in a game. Its sometimes so obvious when a developer creates their level design around the limitations of their character move sets... Its one of the things that bugs me about gears of war, they designed a cover system mechanic as the backbone of their gameplay, guess what the levels look like? bunch of very nice looking playgrounds with low walls conviniently littered all over the place.....levels in games need to feel organic, they need not feel like something the designer threw in just for the sake of letting you use the "featured gameplay mechanic".

[jsonedecker]

Believe me... We have thought out this principal and design a lot more than most devs do at this point.

The principal of NORG along side my level design principals, some of you may be aware of how I like to design levels, and we have a winner.

-John

[Sup]

some of you may be aware of how I like to design levels

Mind sharing the simpler concepts? Level design has always appealed to me, and it'd be interesting to hear your approach.

[krise madsen]

A question for the GR.net staff: Is this thread about games in general or the new BFS game. I'm thinking in terms of a "generic" game, am I wrong?

As for jumping: For my "ideal" game, realistic jumping "such as jumping over ditches e.c.t." is great, leaping 30 feet into the air is not. End of story.

More on AI: Civilians. Those pesky non-combattants running around messing up my killzone. Also the kind of civilian who suddenly pulls out an AK and start shooting at you. And of course the civilians that are part of the mission objectives (such as "rescue foreign nationals, Liberia-style").

Encumbrance: What about those big weapons/items that you can't really carry on your body? I'm thinking a feature that enables you to carry something in your hands, but you can't necessarily just sling it over your shoulder (depending on what it is, you may be able to break it down and stuff it in your backpack). Instead, you have to put it down in order to use other weapons/kit, then pick it up when you're ready to move on.

Demolitions: Claymores (and similar) with actual tripwires (as per Infiltration mod). Note that many nations who have signed the Montreal agreement on anti personnel mines may still use Claymores, but only with remote detonator, not tripwires. USA is not one of those nations. I'd like to get away from the proverbial generic C4/satchel charge (though it should still be used where appropriate, of course). The US in particular (and probably others I haven't heard about) have some pretty nifty devices, such as the SLAM (which doubles as an anti-vechile mine) and a very fancy directional charge that you can set up on a tripod and even has a Picatinny rail for an optical sight for aiming (though I suppose you'd want to remove the sight before arming it).

AI and stealth: As per NORG, the AI reacts to sound and sight. If you're not in line-of-sight (LOS), the AI can't see you. If you make noise, the AI may detect you, even if you're not LOS. If you're lying still, well camouflaged (your uniform blends in with the surroundings/you're among foliage), and at a distance, the AI may not spot you. Rain and ambient noise will make the AI less likely to hear you. An alerted AI is more likely to detect you than someone at the end of his guard duty and bored out of his skull. A well trained "elite" AI who's been around the block is more likely to spot you than some schmuck just pulled off the street and stuck in a uniform. You now what I'm getting at, right? NORG.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited February 22, 2007 by krise madsen

[FA sear]

JChung, let it go. Thank goodness you and most others get it.

I'll take your advice on that one.

@SUP

context sensitive

I would have to say I am absolutely against this idea. OFP did implement some things that were context sensitive, and they did a good job with it, but for things that are quick action moves, this would be a major error.

Any time I read the words context sensitive for "quick action" motions, it reminds me of how when I run Splinter Cell, and just as I move Sam in to grab a guy, suddenly he turns wino on me and decides to take a swig from a bottle off of the floor.

[ZJJ]

A question for the GR.net staff: Is this thread about games in general or the new BFS game. I'm thinking in terms of a "generic" game, am I wrong?

This thread was intended for games in general, but it has crossed the line a few times about discussing the BFS game in development.

[Tactical Jerky]

More on AI: Civilians. Those pesky non-combattants running around messing up my killzone. Also the kind of civilian who suddenly pulls out an AK and start shooting at you. And of course the civilians that are part of the mission objectives (such as "rescue foreign nationals, Liberia-style").

I really like to see this as well they had a very basic version of this on the embassy map (and others?) in [GR], too bad they didn't went on with it. A more advanced version with more and smarter civilian AI would be great, cause I always hate it when a game supposely takes place in an urban area but doesn't have this, it simply doesn't give you the feeling your playing in a real city, instead it just feels like some map in some computer game.

With this you could even have missions where you and your team would be dressed up like the locals and have to "blend in" in order to complete your mission.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Tchaikovsky

[Ick]

More on AI: Civilians.

I always felt that once fighting breaks out...generally you don't find civilians running about, do you? Sure, if there is a sudden attack in a crowded marketplace...then civilians everywhere...but after a short time I think you would find them ALL gone to ground. Now if you enter a building...you are bound to find a family of 4 cowering in the corner....but running through the street? No.

Granted...there could be people looting....or reporters...but other than that.......

......a game supposely takes place in an urban area but doesn't have this, it simply doesn't give you the feeling your playing in a real city, instead it just feels like some map in some computer game.

With this you could even have missions where you and your team would be dressed up like the locals and have to "blend in" in order to complete your mission.

I never really thought about it, but video games are a little "antiseptic" like that, aren't they? Imagine enemy AI that doesn't look like militia.....rather looks like civilians whilst you are fighting. Furthermore, imagine certain missions with all kinds of people about......and suddenly there is an attack. As people flee you have to determine who is a civilian...and who looks civilian but is packin' an AK-47 or an RPG.

What is the general consensus on civilians roaming about the battlefield?

[krise madsen]

I guess it would be sensible that civilians would flee from a firefight. But there are other considerations.

During Desert Storm, Civilians were a major issue to coalition SOF operating behind Iraqi lines. Two SF teams inserted roughly at the same time to monitor Iraqi movements along main supply routes. Both were discovered and had to extract. In both cases, the civilians notified the Iraqi authorities, and the area was swarming with Iraqi troops soon after. Also in both cases, the SF teams shot a huge bunch of Iraqi troops and got away unharmed (but that's another story ). And there's the famous Bravo 2-0 SAS team, which was also compromised by a civilian.

Since my ideal shooter would include a lot of stealth, being spotted by civilians would be a consideration.

Disguise and misidentification is also a consideration. If the AI spot your team from a distance (such as from an aircraft) deep behind their lines, they may take you for one of their own patrols and just leave you alone.

Likewise, if you dress as a local you might be able to move around unnoticed. Or you could dress as a reporter or relief worker (or just some generic civilian attire).

Aural disguise may also be important. Apart from beeing spotted because you don't speak the local language, firing your weapon might not always draw attention. In some areas of the world, "celebratory shootings" are quite common. In an area where people shoot their AK's into the air all the time, you popping a baddie with your own AK may not draw any attention at all.

Which brings us to the issue of hiding "incriminating evidence": If you left your Zodiac by the beach, someone might notice and alert the authorities. Likewise, leaving dead bodies around is bound to attract unwanted attention. It should be a factor, but I haven't been able to figure out how to include it in a sensible manner.

I most certainly do not want a Hitman-style "switch clothes and nobody will know you" type of game. But in certain circumstances, notably reconnaissance, using a disguise may be important.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited February 22, 2007 by krise madsen

[Sup]

@SUP

context sensitive

I would have to say I am absolutely against this idea. OFP did implement some things that were context sensitive, and they did a good job with it, but for things that are quick action moves, this would be a major error.

Any time I read the words context sensitive for "quick action" motions, it reminds me of how when I run Splinter Cell, and just as I move Sam in to grab a guy, suddenly he turns wino on me and decides to take a swig from a bottle off of the floor.

Those are both symptoms of a cumbersome menu system more than the core ideal. I'm proposing something more akin to the automatic head duck, or grabbing of a climable surface when you jump near it. A natural action that happens free of the player's input, completely abstracted in gameplay but present to give the player a deeper feeling of immersion.

Alternatively (or, actually, alongside such a system) slightly context sensitive button presses (akin to a single enter/leave cover key, like Gears and Kill.switch had, although perhaps not to the same level) for similar actions could be designed in a way that is very comfortable to the player.

[jsonedecker]

some of you may be aware of how I like to design levels

Mind sharing the simpler concepts? Level design has always appealed to me, and it'd be interesting to hear your approach.

I t would take a lot of writing, but the short answer is let the natural order of things define a theme and general layout for a space. Sound familiar!

Of course, my principals for level design mostly fit just the types of game I make, but could be used as a basis for other game genres as well.

Basically everything has a place, history and purpose and the layout and flow are dictated by what an actual place or structure would be like. Then that structure is sculpted more finely based on the needs of the gameplay, but never leaving the foundation of an actual place. It takes more than just looking like a real place, but making it feel and flow like one as well.

In Architecture there are reasons that structures are built the way they are. In nature, there are reasons land forms are sculpted the way they are. Those reasons should be adhered to in realistic level design.

It's the natural order fo things.

-John

[Xeno]

some of you may be aware of how I like to design levels

Mind sharing the simpler concepts? Level design has always appealed to me, and it'd be interesting to hear your approach.

I t would take a lot of writing, but the short answer is let the natural order of things define a theme and general layout for a space. Sound familiar!

Of course, my principals for level design mostly fit just the types of game I make, but could be used as a basis for other game genres as well.

Basically everything has a place, history and purpose and the layout and flow are dictated by what an actual place or structure would be like. Then that structure is sculpted more finely based on the needs of the gameplay, but never leaving the foundation of an actual place. It takes more than just looking like a real place, but making it feel and flow like one as well.

In Architecture there are reasons that structures are built the way they are. In nature, there are reasons land forms are sculpted the way they are. Those reasons should be adhered to in realistic level design.

It's the natural order fo things.

-John

its a complete group NORGy of design and practicality.

[FA sear]

Those are both symptoms of a cumbersome menu system more than the core ideal. I'm proposing something more akin to the automatic head duck, or grabbing of a climable surface when you jump near it. A natural action that happens free of the player's input, completely abstracted in gameplay but present to give the player a deeper feeling of immersion.

Alternatively (or, actually, alongside such a system) slightly context sensitive button presses (akin to a single enter/leave cover key, like Gears and Kill.switch had, although perhaps not to the same level) for similar actions could be designed in a way that is very comfortable to the player.

I disagree. Imagine while trying to run for cover you jump near a wall and your character grabs on instead? Not too intuitive. Regardless, THAT is not even the issue. What you fail to realise is that what you call instinctive, is not so instinctive in real life. You want a head duck? then it should be programmed into the game. I have longed for more than three modes of stances. There should be four: upright, slight duck, crouch, and prone. Then a separate button for dive, or if standing still you just hit the deck.

Context sensitive kills a simulation, but that is just the problem, you are talking about gaming in general, and some of us are talking about a specific title that is not "just a game" and we have tried to communicate that to you.

I look at what the devs did with GRAW PC and they decided not to allow shooting while running on account of realism, and yet you just run over a dead body and you hear a "clack" and you now have a full load of ammo? I will tell you what that is a load of. OFP did it right by LETTING you shoot while in full sprint. You may not hit the target, but you have the freedom to do it, and if you want ammo off of a dead body? You have to go check to see what he has, and DECIDE to pick something up, not run over it.

SUP you think like a gamer and that is the problem here, you just don't get it. The point of a SIM is to SIMULATE real life, not what YOUR perception of real life is.

I look at your comments about how GR did not need a weapon recovery/swap mode, prevention of jumping in the game, etc... and I see a kid that wants to create a game, not simulate real life. This is why I asked you if you have ever jumped with 70lbs of gear on. I have, I may not have served, but I have tried on a vest with level 4 plates and linked two twenty pound leg weights around my waist. My vertical was quickly reduced to barely 20 inches, and I have been out hiking with 60lbs of gear on and I can tell you it is not the same thing. With hiking, you walk a few miles, take a break, have some trail mix, drink some water, sit around and talk, and relax. In combat you really can't take this stuff off, and you can't really imagine what it is REALLY like, because in some way YOUR perception WILL be wrong.

I know I can't really imagine what REAL combat would be like. All my hunting, Hogan's alley, and shooting only gives me a fraction of what combat MAY be like, NOT what it IS.

This is where we need to put things in the hands of a professional, not a gamer. What makes a good game is a subjective matter, but what makes a good simulation is NOT subjective. You can say that you like Halo better than OFP, and you are entitled to that opinion, but what you cannot say is that Halo is a better representation of real life than OFP is.

If you don't like certain features in a title, then don't run it. I just know that with my limited knowledge of combat, I would trust people like Hatchet, Marcinko, Rabbi, Eric, etc... (sorry if I missed anyone) long before I trust some green horn dev that has abosolutely no experience, and worse yet has barely fired a gun. Again, a SIM represents elements in real life, it is not about how YOU think something should be represented. A SIM recreates real experiences and that is something that neither you or I have.

Sometimes it is good to listen and try to learn something, because if you are always talking, then you just may end up eating crow. Trust me, I have been out crow hunting more times that you have days in you life, and I know I wouldn't want to eat those things.

Edited February 23, 2007 by jchung

[Ick]

As a gamer SUP is uniquely qualified to talk about what he wants in a game. Sure, he may or may not have Hollywood impressions and such....that is all well and good...but in defense of Sup I see a REAL danger here.

For many years now I have reviewed a lot of accounting programs. Having a long and thorough background in accounting gave me a very unique perspective on every software I came across. Call me an old accounting veteran if you must for purposes of my analogy.

It is VERY clear to me that 99% of all programmers of accounting software must never have taken even a BASIC accounting course...and if they did, they don't remember the particulars. Furthermore it is also clear that the programmers never use their end product...or they would make it quite different.

Clearly there are so many people involved in the production of even the simplest accounting software...about something that is so well known as accounting...how in the world can we expect a military simulator to be accurate? How can we reasonably expect the producers to produce something that actually WORKS in gaming?

It would seem to me that there are THREE MAJOR PROBLEMS hurdles in producing an accurate tactical sim in compliance with NORG:

1. Most programmers, even if they get some kind of wonderful and thorough guidance from qualified military consultants...are still just Hollywood influenced military-wannabees (like me in fact).

2. Most executives, designers, artists, and MARKETING people are in the exact same category....they have NO CLUE either.

3. How many games have you played where you asked "Didn't the developer play-test this game before release?" I know I have. As a gamer many times I find myself shaking my head at horrible short-sightedness of games. (Example: Call of Duty 3 no lobby).

So your best intentions are thwarted from every angle by incompetence, ignorance, naiveté, and carelessness.

Therefore you see the treatment of that darn "JUMP" button in games. A GREAT illustration where factors just like this result in a complete breakdown of what is "real".

To stay on topic.....HERE is what my ideal accounting program would be:

An accounting program with the production overseen by qualified accountants and programmed by programmers with a STRONG focus in accounting.

HERE is what my ideal shooter would be:

A tactical simulator wit the production overseen by qualified people with military experience, programmed by people with combat experience, and managed and marketed by similar people that know said topics just as well, and play tested by actual gamers just like SUP.

Know any games like that?

[Ick]

By the way...I HATE doing accounting. I am not a typical accountant thank God.

[FA sear]

@ICK

Yeah, I believe this will be a game just like that. You talk about the infamous jump button like it has already broken down this not yet in existence title. You are assuming here. If you don't like the idea, then go run GRAW or GRAW2 when it comes out. There are plently of other titles that you can run that do not allow you to jump.

I did not like the direction that the GR series took, so I voiced my opinion, and then moved on to OFP. I don't hang around the GR forums anymore. GRIN made the decision they made and for better or for worse the game is what it is today.

Leave this title to the audience that it will cater to. If it fails, then it fails, but if it manages to please those who like it, then it is a huge success regardless of how small or large that audience is. What is it about this title that seems to concern people? Who cares what direction it takes? As long as it pleases those who it is catering to, those in the periphery should not care.

It is one thing when a title that is already in existence takes a turn in a new direction and the fans do not like it, but this is a title that has not even been released. The powers at BFS have expressed what direction they want to take this in, so if there are people who do not like it, then so what? It is not a franchise that people have already invested their money in, so why complain?

This really is one of those scenarios where if you don't like it then leave, because there is no existing fan base to please. Jonesdecker and Hatchet have announced what direction this title is going in, and I have a lot of questions I would like to see answered, so I don't want to see them grilled and dragged over the coals about things that really don't concern this title.

Actually Jonesdecker already addressed the issue of jumping, but you are now bringing it up again as a concern when he already said the issues you brought up would be addressed. You don't trust him? Is he lying? Does he not know what he is talking about? Come out and say what you mean or take his answer and let it be.

Let BFS prove itself in its product, but constant badgering is not going to change there mind.

[Sup]

You can say that you like Halo better than OFP, and you are entitled to that opinion, but what you cannot say is that Halo is a better representation of real life than OFP is.

OFP has been my favorite videogame for something like five years now.

Seriously, though; I take the stance that is is presently impossible to simulate humans in combat. There's way too much going on to bind to a couple of keys, which is what I was trying to get to before with my open/close hands jab. What we need is a really good realistic game, not a really horrible simulation. I have never played a game with a ledge grab move where I accidentally grabbed something I was hoping to take cover behind; short of really bad programming and mapping, that kind of thing isn't really an issue. I also don't see why a key to duck my head under a low doorframe is a good thing at all; I expect that to be automatic. While naturally in real life it would be a conscious action, it's one that's completely irrelevant to the game (or sim, if you insist.)

I obviously agree that people like Hatchet, Marcinko, Rabbi, and Eric know an awful lot more about the military and actual combat than most game developrs will in their lives, but that doesn't necessarily make them qualified to develop military games. An average soldier knows nothing about game development just as an average developer knows nothing about the military. Personally, I'd prefer a good game that horribly messed up it's portrayal of the army to a good portrayal of the army that horribly messed up it's gameplay, art, and stability.

Funnily, it appears we approach this from completely opposite viewpoints. While you see an inexperienced kid who wants to make a game, I see a bunch of people who want to make 'THE BEST GAME(/sim) EVER' (as the joke goes) and pile on 600 cumbersome, destructive features. Considering this I can't really see either of us getting through to the other.

(none of this post is said in regards to BFS's project, just speaking in general. I really think the mix of people working at blackfoot have a good shot at developing a great game.

[Sup]

Let BFS prove itself in its product, but constant badgering is not going to change there mind.

I'm not sure, but I think ICK was speaking more generally.

[Ick]

By the way, what is OFP anyhow? I am not familiar with those initials.

[krise madsen]

Operation Flashpoint, somewhat of a classic among tac-sim first person shooters.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[FA sear]

By the way, what is OFP anyhow? I am not familiar with those initials.

Yes, What Krise said. Currently a favorite of mine, and one of the main reasons that I have not bought a 360 as of yet. Operation Flashpoint is not backward compatible at the moment.