Describe what your ideal shooter would contain.

[FA sear]

(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.

I find this baffling. How many times did I say that I was referring specifically to the BFS project, and Hatchet was also referring to the BFS project. If you are speaking in general terms why would you respond to posts that are specific to the BFS project.

I am beginning to see why Hatchet has you on ignore.

[Sup]

If you are speaking in general terms why would you respond to posts that are specific to the BFS project.

Because this thread is for speaking of our ideal game in general.

And there's plenty of overall game design theory that can be said in general but still apply to BFS's game.

[FA sear]

If you are speaking in general terms why would you respond to posts that are specific to the BFS project.

Because this thread is for speaking of our ideal game in general.

And there's plenty of overall game design theory that can be said in general but still apply to BFS's game.

Yes, then speak IN GENERAL about what you would like in a game you would design, but when you address posts where BFS is specifically being addressed, and you do not even specify that you are speaking in general terms, then how does that look? Not to mention the fact that you are quoting from the same posts by the same people that are trying to address the exact game.

Don't quote posts that are addressing a specific title if you are speaking in general terms, and if that does not make sense to you, don't be so surprised when people ignore you.

[Ick]

OK, I am completely confused by terminology and he said she said.

I propose we amputate this discussion line and move on.

[Forrester]

Well my responce to the realism discussed on page 5 would eb:

In games from the past you could set some parameters on realism/skillz of the game why not in a future realistic tac-shooter?

Just give some controls were you can set realism for guns jamming (including difference in relyability between the m4 and sa90 for example) I see most SAS writers tell why they have not chosen for the issued standard british gun...... so why not implement that in games. So you could implement the use of kalashnikov to cover your origin/make the guns sound like the enemies to avoid easy detection..... and such.

The parameters make it possible to make more people happy, some like realism, some are just not good enough to be the experts.... If you explain well what choises are good to make at start, and have a feature that measures the skills of the player you can also adjust the game to the players skills.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Well my responce to the realism discussed on page 5 would eb:

In games from the past you could set some parameters on realism/skillz of the game why not in a future realistic tac-shooter?

Just give some controls were you can set realism for guns jamming (including difference in relyability between the m4 and sa90 for example) I see most SAS writers tell why they have not chosen for the issued standard british gun...... so why not implement that in games. So you could implement the use of kalashnikov to cover your origin/make the guns sound like the enemies to avoid easy detection..... and such.

The parameters make it possible to make more people happy, some like realism, some are just not good enough to be the experts.... If you explain well what choises are good to make at start, and have a feature that measures the skills of the player you can also adjust the game to the players skills.

For gun jamming ...

How would you specifiy when it happens? Pattern?(that would lose realism and you could fire and cause the jam before you round the corner so your gun is clear..) Random? that would require the server to process more information... and for leagues and touraments... hmm i lost because my gun jammed on the final kill... that would not go well.

For SP it would be fun though and maybe co-op... but in MP TVT type it would get annoying.

For releases (not patched in later) it's better not to over complicate things or realism may drive out the fun factor. Games are tricky... you need to balance some realism with some fun to make it a good tactical shooter.

It's kinda like i graw where everyone complained about the gun view. Well truthfully it's more realistic then GR1 with the rets and full screen view when looking through a scoped gun (like zooming the oicw for example)

Once though GRAW released, there were very few complaints about it. Realism won over fun there.

For Mexico City in GRAW1 there should have been civilian running around to make it more real... some may tell me. But... the load on the server would be to great and they probably would get as annoying as the litter. So in this case practicallity won.

In GRAW blowing a regular truck up would not cause such and explosion that everyone on the map would here it like it was next to them. But it's fun. Fun wins that round.

It's all about balance. You have to trust your game studio in making the correct choices as what you choose could ruin the game for another.

All in all i would like the game to be fun with some realism and nail biting areas. i want the ai to challenge me or a difficulty setting for new gamers that wouldn't be as hard. I want the game studio to balance it well. Weapons, replayability, fun, realism and stability. All i ask for is balance. (i used the 2 games about as examples as most people play them that come here)

[V.P.]

Well my responce to the realism discussed on page 5 would eb:

In games from the past you could set some parameters on realism/skillz of the game why not in a future realistic tac-shooter?

Just give some controls were you can set realism for guns jamming (including difference in relyability between the m4 and sa90 for example) I see most SAS writers tell why they have not chosen for the issued standard british gun...... so why not implement that in games. So you could implement the use of kalashnikov to cover your origin/make the guns sound like the enemies to avoid easy detection..... and such.

The parameters make it possible to make more people happy, some like realism, some are just not good enough to be the experts.... If you explain well what choises are good to make at start, and have a feature that measures the skills of the player you can also adjust the game to the players skills.

For gun jamming ...

How would you specifiy when it happens? Pattern?(that would lose realism and you could fire and cause the jam before you round the corner so your gun is clear..) Random? that would require the server to process more information... and for leagues and touraments... hmm i lost because my gun jammed on the final kill... that would not go well.

For SP it would be fun though and maybe co-op... but in MP TVT type it would get annoying.

For releases (not patched in later) it's better not to over complicate things or realism may drive out the fun factor. Games are tricky... you need to balance some realism with some fun to make it a good tactical shooter.

It's kinda like i graw where everyone complained about the gun view. Well truthfully it's more realistic then GR1 with the rets and full screen view when looking through a scoped gun (like zooming the oicw for example)

Once though GRAW released, there were very few complaints about it. Realism won over fun there.

For Mexico City in GRAW1 there should have been civilian running around to make it more real... some may tell me. But... the load on the server would be to great and they probably would get as annoying as the litter. So in this case practicallity won.

In GRAW blowing a regular truck up would not cause such and explosion that everyone on the map would here it like it was next to them. But it's fun. Fun wins that round.

It's all about balance. You have to trust your game studio in making the correct choices as what you choose could ruin the game for another.

All in all i would like the game to be fun with some realism and nail biting areas. i want the ai to challenge me or a difficulty setting for new gamers that wouldn't be as hard. I want the game studio to balance it well. Weapons, replayability, fun, realism and stability. All i ask for is balance. (i used the 2 games about as examples as most people play them that come here)

I wont go into further details right now, but I disagree with pretty much all you said ROCOAFZ. Its like you made an ANTI-NORG statement there. You talk about balance, but balance ought to come naturally via NORG. And what you define as "fun" or "annoying" is highly subjective - you however almost state stem as being "facts".

Edited March 3, 2007 by V.P.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

hmm thought this was the "ideal" shooter game thread. i only described what i think it would be and why some realism takes away from fun and vice versa. Didn't realize this was a NORG only fan thread

So how would you do gun jamming? A pattern obviously wouldn't work, as people would work around it like tactical reloads. And how would you handle ladder matches when frustrated players lose do to a gun jam? Like i said in co-op it would work but in tvt i see it as an annoyance. I for one would rather have a limp or an injury model over gun jamming any day. While we are on realism ... would you code it so we can pick up a rock and throw it at someone if we run out of ammo? If we are going to have gun jamming then we need a backpack kit of a cleaning kit for our guns. How about something a little better... punching a kicking. I can see it now... watching 2 soldiers street fighting as some one mows them down with a gun.

(note i am saying it's my opinion and not everyones. I'm playing devil's advocate so that some of you realise too much realism takes away the fun by over complicating the game... where as not enough also can do the same. It's about balance for my ideal shooter. )

[V.P.]

So how would you do gun jamming? A pattern obviously wouldn't work, as people would work around it like tactical reloads. And how would you handle ladder matches when frustrated players lose do to a gun jam? Like i said in co-op it would work but in tvt i see it as an annoyance.

AA made jamming random, eg; m16 has a 0.001% chance of jamming for each round it fires. So thats ONE way it could be done. And your fear of exploit by calculating the jamming-pattern no longer apply.

You mention that jamming would ruin ladders and what not. Well thats easily solved by an mp-option to turn of jamming - there you go, problem solved.

On the BFS forum we discussed this matter a few days ago, go read, the feedback and ideas are very interesting:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/ind...ic=57&st=80

... would you code it so we can pick up a rock and throw it at someone if we run out of ammo? If we are going to have gun jamming then we need a backpack kit of a cleaning kit for our guns. How about something a little better... punching a kicking. I can see it now... watching 2 soldiers street fighting as some one mows them down with a gun.

Is sarcasm really necessary? Its childish in case you didn't know.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

So how would you do gun jamming? A pattern obviously wouldn't work, as people would work around it like tactical reloads. And how would you handle ladder matches when frustrated players lose do to a gun jam? Like i said in co-op it would work but in tvt i see it as an annoyance.

AA made jamming random, eg; m16 has a 0.001% chance of jamming for each round it fires. So thats ONE way it could be done. And your fear of exploit by calculating the jamming-pattern no longer apply.

You mention that jamming would ruin ladders and what not. Well thats easily solved by an mp-option to turn of jamming - there you go, problem solved.

On the BFS forum we discussed this matter a few days ago, go read, the feedback and ideas are very interesting:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/ind...ic=57&st=80

... would you code it so we can pick up a rock and throw it at someone if we run out of ammo? If we are going to have gun jamming then we need a backpack kit of a cleaning kit for our guns. How about something a little better... punching a kicking. I can see it now... watching 2 soldiers street fighting as some one mows them down with a gun.

Is sarcasm really necessary? Its childish in case you didn't know.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being realistic. Those that want straight realism usually want ALL the options. If you see it as childish then you see my point. To much realism and control can be bad. Thanks for agreeing. So in my childish example... where do you draw the line? ... balance it is what i said but you seem to disagree. You want real... but only your idea of balance and real. As i said you have to trust the developer to balance it.

As for jamming. Now for those of us that ladder you just added one more feature we have to turn off. the more realism you add the more we may have to remove just to play a match. Good example of the jamming though. At least it's random and not a pattern, the way you would impliment it... as i stated though it would probably use a few cpu cycles to decide when.

I'm not posting about BFS. For one i can't as it's not released. Note although some of you seemed to have turned it into that kind of thread... i am answering the question of what my ideal shooter would and would not be.

[calius]

My ideal shooter would be GR updated with new graphics, SAME game play completely ... obvious fixes & glitch fixes of [GR] and Igor updated ... gun sway & recoil added, running up hills & stairs slow you down .. those type of fixes, bigger maps & ALL [GR] maps remade into latest graphics, and as open ended as you like.

Or in other words GR2 as it should have realy been.

[Sup]

I wont go into further details right now, but I disagree with pretty much all you said ROCOAFZ. Its like you made an ANTI-NORG statement there. You talk about balance, but balance ought to come naturally via NORG. And what you define as "fun" or "annoying" is highly subjective - you however almost state stem as being "facts".

It's 'like' an ANTI-NORG statement?

Heavan forbid.

Again, I agree with Rocafz. You guys are posting about an unproven ideal that clearly flies in the face of pretty much all conventional wisdom on game development as if it is the only way things can ever be done. It's not crazy for a few of us to think the good old way of designing a game that will work, and then generating art and code for it is a bad idea. The 'best' Tactical shooters that have been released, so far, quite clearly demonstrated the gameplay > realism ideal. Ghost Recon and Rogue spear simplified and abstracted a ton of things, Swat 3 let you be perfectly accurate while sprinting (incredibly fast,) and OFP had instaheal medics, just to name a few things.

Even with NORG as it is, I'm pretty sure Hatchetforce proposed that while you should start with realism, you need to go from there to a playable form.

[WhiteKnight77]

R6 and GR featured the earliest implementations of NORG whether you recognize it or not.

[NoQuarter]

Describe what your ideal shooter would contain

A complete lack of glowing little boxes (of any sort).

[krise madsen]

I wont go into further details right now, but I disagree with pretty much all you said ROCOAFZ. Its like you made an ANTI-NORG statement there. You talk about balance, but balance ought to come naturally via NORG. And what you define as "fun" or "annoying" is highly subjective - you however almost state stem as being "facts".

It's 'like' an ANTI-NORG statement?

Heavan forbid.

Again, I agree with Rocafz. You guys are posting about an unproven ideal that clearly flies in the face of pretty much all conventional wisdom on game development as if it is the only way things can ever be done. It's not crazy for a few of us to think the good old way of designing a game that will work, and then generating art and code for it is a bad idea. The 'best' Tactical shooters that have been released, so far, quite clearly demonstrated the gameplay > realism ideal. Ghost Recon and Rogue spear simplified and abstracted a ton of things, Swat 3 let you be perfectly accurate while sprinting (incredibly fast,) and OFP had instaheal medics, just to name a few things.

Even with NORG as it is, I'm pretty sure Hatchetforce proposed that while you should start with realism, you need to go from there to a playable form.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making games in the "traditional way". Besides, I'll bet that even the future BFS game (arguably the NORG-est thing out there at the moment) will include a lot of traditional development. In many ways, it will probably look very familiar.

But there seem to be a misconception that NORG is an "all-or-nothing" affair. The all-NORG/-realism game already exists: It's called a hardcore, ultra-realism flight simulator. A game that strives for optimum realism in every aspect, regardless of the cost.

But that's not really what NORG is about. There are plenty of features that are NORG but not realistic, or the other way around. NORG is first and foremost about how you approach game design: You give the player the freedom to do pretty much whatever he wishes, but he has to face the consequences as well.

In principle, you could apply NORG to just about any type of game, even ones that aren't bound by any sort of "realism". In some ways, it won't make any difference. In other ways, it will be radically different. Look at BF2 and BF2142: They are exeptionally similar because, apart from a few details, they are the same game with different artwork, and they're not NORG.

However, if you made two NORG shooters that were set 100+ years apart, you'd probably end up with two radically different games.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Sup]

R6 and GR featured the earliest implementations of NORG whether you recognize it or not.

No, they really weren't. You can't jump, you can't use sights, you have a magic 1.5x zoom on your weapons, your recoil is unrealistic, enemies have instant reactions to force specific play styles, weapon selection is carefully balanced, level design is carefully structured... That's just to name a few obvious things.

They're games. Great games, but they follow no 'natural order' of realism.

[krise madsen]

R6 and GR featured the earliest implementations of NORG whether you recognize it or not.

No, they really weren't. You can't jump, you can't use sights, you have a magic 1.5x zoom on your weapons, your recoil is unrealistic, enemies have instant reactions to force specific play styles, weapon selection is carefully balanced, level design is carefully structured... That's just to name a few obvious things.

They're games. Great games, but they follow no 'natural order' of realism.

I'm sorry Sup, but you're missing the point. Sure, they had plenty of non-NORG features. But, R6 was created with a desire to simulate CQB and hostage rescue accurately, warts and all. They applied NORG to the weapons, hence the crosshair bloom, and they applied NORG to the maps, hence the multiple insertion points. They also gave you a free hand to plan an execute the mission as you saw fit, the pre-made orders were only advisory.

Their mindset was NORG, and that's the most important part of the whole thing. If you don't think NORG, you might as well not bother. It wasn't nearly as NORG as we'd like to see in a game today, but it was a start and a damned good start at that.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[spm1138]

R6 was not NORG as far as I could tell.

The entire experience was built around sneaky elbow hunting rather than dynamic entry.

I'd have said The Regiment made much more of an effort.

[WhiteKnight77]

R6 was not NORG as far as I could tell.

The entire experience was built around sneaky elbow hunting rather than dynamic entry.

I'd have said The Regiment made much more of an effort.

Notice that I said earliest. RSE didn't set out to create a game based on NORG principles, but they had some of them, even if they didn't know it. The elbow hunt you refer to must have been part of TvT games as I tried to shoot them in the X ring.

[spm1138]

I guess I am saying that I regard R6 as being it's own particular brand of unrealistic FPS game as opposed to an attempt to simulate reality.

I dunno.

Perhaps I am being too harsh but I much, much preferred SWAT3 with it's psychology, more complex AI and more detailed ballistics model.

It made R6 seem /very/ dry and shallow by comparison what with all the things it wasn't doing.

The planning phase really didn't make up for that stuff.

Edited March 13, 2007 by spm1138

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Not to keep this going off topic but the above statements basically say every game has norg. Bf2 does because it's weapons are based on real one's even if they don't act real correct? BF2 also has vehicles based on real ones. Norg is not really a guidline but an opionion. I may think a game may have more Norg then you... am i right? Again it goes back to what the game studios create and how much basis on real things (what you or i consider real) on what level or norg that you or i perceive.

Was CS2 norg? why not? Why was it? same with GR. Gr had real and some not released weapons that got canned. The ai blindly opened up on you from across the map if you launched a nade. How is this norg? A magic floating ret? hmm. Now granted it was to emulate, but it was not real aka norg.

So who sets the guidlines for norg? ... you ? me ?

[krise madsen]

Not to keep this going off topic but the above statements basically say every game has norg. Bf2 does because it's weapons are based on real one's even if they don't act real correct? BF2 also has vehicles based on real ones. Norg is not really a guidline but an opionion. I may think a game may have more Norg then you... am i right? Again it goes back to what the game studios create and how much basis on real things (what you or i consider real) on what level or norg that you or i perceive.

Was CS2 norg? why not? Why was it? same with GR. Gr had real and some not released weapons that got canned. The ai blindly opened up on you from across the map if you launched a nade. How is this norg? A magic floating ret? hmm. Now granted it was to emulate, but it was not real aka norg.

So who sets the guidlines for norg? ... you ? me ?

Your guess is as good as mine

But you're really missing the point of NORG here: There aren't really any guidelines for NORG. It isn't a checklist, blueprint or spreadsheet you can use to calculate the "NORGishness" of a game. NORG is something to be discussed and debated till we're blue in the face. In fact, blabbering about it endlessly on forums like this is half the fun!

Nor is NORG a guarantee of any sort of quality assurance. A game can be 100% NORG yet utter crap.

NORG is first and foremost something that goes in inside the brains of games developers.

A (fictional) example:

Early on in R6 development, RSE developers are testing a very early version of the game on a very close quarters map. Crosshair bloom has not been included yet. Test weapons availible inclue a 9mm pistol, MP5 submachinegun, Barret .50 cal. sniper rifle and an M60 machinegun.

One guys wonders why he should carry anything else but the M60: It hits hard, has a large ammo capacity and a high rate of (full auto) fire. "But real counterterrorist teams don't carry the M60" one developer objects. "They carry the MP5 n' stuff". This is where NORG sets in: By adding crosshair bloom (rather than, say, delete the M60), you get to choose what weapon to carry, even something silly like an M60. But you have to face the consequences too: The M60 is a pretty unwieldy beast inside a narrow corridor, and not really the weapon you want to carry when you're about to burst through a door and shoot the hostage taker in the head while not harming the hostage right next to him.

Just as it is in real life. That's the Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay

Respectfully

krise madsen

[WhiteKnight77]

Roco, think of NORG as something that helps with gameplay verses game mechanics. Remember in GR when you first ran out on the Caves map for the first mission? What happened? You got killed didn't you? What happened after that? Did you slow down or run out and get killed again? If you slowed down and crept out the first time, you grasped the concept of the game really fast. If you were killed several times before you slowed down, then you learned albeit a bit slowly. That is basically NORG. An action has a consequence.

As Krise said, in R6 you could carry the M-60 if ya wanted, but you suffered from the randomness of where the rounds hit compared to if you took the MP5. R6 and GR did have the earliest implentations of NORG even if RSE didn't know it at the time. Yeah, some of the AI were superhuman (aren't they in most games?) and we only had a "floating ret" but almost all games have one, even Doom or BF2. I would much rather have that over a weapon model that looks like it is being held at the hip, that is really immersion breaking if ya ask me.

[MIMagyar1983]

CQB: Fights breakdown into hand to hand combat yet in Rainbow 6 or GRAW there is no melee option or knife attacks. Soldiers are trained for hand to hand combat so lets see it Chaos theory and Double agent did this well without hindering the shooting.

Plot: There is always a well armed terrorist group/ Rouge Regime with a NBC(Nuclear Biological Chemical) arsenal threatening to wipe out life on earth blah blah blah. I understand this raises the stakes and creates the need for military intervention but it has been overdone and lacked creativity. The plot needs twists and turns to keep the player off balance.

Say no to PC: Political correctness has no place in war or war games. Don't avoid North Korea invading South Korea just because South Korea Might ban it. There is a big disclaimer at the begininng of each game that it is fictional and any resemblence to real events is a coincidence.Go to Pakistan, China, Tiawaiin, Russia, Mexico, South America, and The middle east it sells more games and makes it more realistic. No PMC is going to directly attack the USA we're too good a customer.

Uniform &Weapons Customization: Let the player put whatever they want on their soldier and their weapon.

keep the weapons list current, long, and make it updateable through Playstation store & xbox live.

thats all for now