TacSimFan

Member
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TacSimFan

  • Rank
    Wannabee

Profile Fields

  • Platform
    PC and Console gamer
  1. Thanks for the reply Does this include actual x64 (64-bit) coding if you are using Vista/XP 64-bit as your OS? Even if not, just having actual Dual Core support is a step in the right direction as we (PC gamers) buy all of this stuff and half of it isn't used -- If at all.
  2. Monolith: I was not aware (or didn't read clearly enough) that you were for options. This we agree on. My point is that those voting for "No Respawn Ever" might be reacting because of what has happened to the tactical FPS genre in the last few years. It's slowly dying (shrinking) and they are attributing this to certain factors that are not just linked to one simple thing. It is not just a cause-and-effect relationship in my opinion. It's just not that simple. There are a ton of factors outside the game mechanics which aren't being considered.
  3. I think WhiteKnight might have actually been asking if brand new, never before seen game types is what GB needs to bring to the tactical genre to keep it fresh and exciting? I'll get to this in a few moments... But as much as some of you may hate this I also think the whole, "If respawns are added this automatically attracts "idiot gamers who like to run and gun" is a Straw Man argument. It is taking things to the extreme -- like the same argument that says if we allow options this somehow makes a NORG-based game resemble Unreal Tournament -- And is not using any common sense in my opinion. This sound harsh, but it is true. Wingshot said it best: I believe options are almost essential if BFS wants this game to have a large enough following to turn a profit in order to continue making sequels and similar games to GB. This doesn't mean making GB a Call of Duty, or BF2 clone. What this means (IMO) is they acknowledge GB is still a video game first and foremost. And in the end, to be a successful and competitive video game in 2007, it MUST offer a lot of choices out-of-the-box for MP. Even if the core audience might at first seem very limited, a.k.a. small. Operation Flash Point is a prime example of this in action. Options up the ying-yang and look at how large a market segment it had (and still has to some extent with Armed Assault). Also a lot of this fear or hesitancy for options is because the tactical FPS genre IS very small and is slowly being eroded by the more mainstream arcade shooters. Hardcore tactical gamers see what UBISoft did with the R6 franchise and don't want it to happen to GB... But this is also what I meant when I said common sense isn't being used in a lot of these arguments against respawns and other features. What we are seeing here is a lot of knee-jerk reaction. And it is a fearful reaction whether anyone wants to admit it or not (no offense, Monolith). At least, at the subconscious level. However, what a lot of former tactical games that were converted to mainstream arcade shooters did not have that BFS and GB have is NORG. Plain and simple. A stated design philosophy that should keep the core vision and mechanics intact regardless of how many options are included. This is how I look at the whole respawn vs. no respawn debate. Now as far as what WhiteKnight might have really been asking... Yes. I think there needs to be completely new game play modes no tactical FPS game has ever seen. And maybe even no FPS has ever included as well. What are those new game modes? I don't know I'm not a developer. That's there job to come up with what hasn't been thought of before. All I know is with NORG in place I trust whatever the devs come up with to be more in line with realism and tactical based than if this was just any other developer.
  4. This is ultimately a question of game design. I would like it if in the SP campaign we get "Half-Life 2"-style briefings like Jerm said. So, it isn't just a static cutscene, but you are actually IN the briefing room, transport, whatever and being briefed on what is happening. This is more immersing because you are an active participant and not just watching a boring movie. For MP CO-OP this should be a totally different system. NO cutscenes at all. MP is not SP. Therefore, the devs could adjust (streamline) the briefings to fit the MP gaming environment even if you are playing the SP story line in CO-OP.
  5. I apologize if this is buried in a FAQ, or previous threads on the board. [b]I would like to know if BFS intends to ship (or later update) the core GB game to include enhancements for 64-bit processors and Dual Core?[/b] These two additions would make an already promising title even more attractive to PC geeks like me who have the latest tech and want to actually use it. Very few games have either of these features out of the box...
  6. Or do you really just want GR 3.0?
  7. The good news is GB is being made specifically with the powers of the PC in mind. So, I would hope support for more than four (4) players is a given from the start... And it probably is given the six (6) man SP fire team. I also think CO-OP is greatly enhanced with a separate campaign to go along with the story campaign. GRAW for Xbox 360 proved people will play these maps as did the CO-OP for "Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory" on both PC and Xbox that also had a completely separate campaign tied into the main one.
  8. What is interesting is that for most tactical gamers... The experience is the "story". We get our thrill from doing. Not being told what, or how we're going to do it. The methods we use are exciting and interesting enough from a purely esoteric stand point. We don't need Hollywood-style hero characters, cliched and over-the-top situations. Just give us an interesting situation and the realistic means to get it done.
  9. I think the larger, underlying issue is we gamers have always been forced to choose between these two desirable elements: -In-depth tactical control of squad (including individual members) -Competent AI that doesn't need babysitting Why can't we have both? I'm not a programmer, so asking this question is probably very naive. But in principle... Why can't we have both? As stated, if I have to chose, I'd rather take an intuitive command interface (either on-the-fly, or more in-depth) and competent AI than soul switching and multiple teams. To me, if a game is going to be squad based then it should resemble that with reasonably skilled squad members. Especially artificially intelligent ones in SP. They should be able to index targets, assess (prioritize) threats and react to various situations we (as a squad) encounter in the game at a basic level. Also, I want to make it clear I (personally) am not asking for "Skynet" AI that is truly self-aware and requires the Kray X supercomputer to run. What I am asking for is better AI routines that mimic things like awareness; threat assessment; proper path finding; reaction much better than they currently do in most games (arcade, or realism). If you look at what is possible with Bots in other games like CS: Source, and especially the Unreal Tournament series I don't see why we don't have competent AI team mates in realism based games when the game play is actually more simple and a lot slower in comparison. For example, in UT2004 you can have 15 bots jumping around, firing rocket launchers, going for power-ups, ammo and shields. In a realism based game all that is really going on is the squad moving from place to place, encountering targets and then hopefully neutralizing those targets. Sure, firefights can be intense and dynamic... But agian, compare that to a hectic Deathmatch game and the amount of information and entities being processed appears to be a lot less from my perspective. Again, I'm not a programmer, so I am not trying to claim I know better one way or another. But to get back to my initial point it just seems realism gamers always have to choose between either AI that is incompetent in order for the player to have maximum control, or AI that mimics more self-aware behavior, but we can't have in-depth control over because they function more on their own. Thoughts?
  10. I think the real issue about a command interface and how well (or not) it works is it doesn't just rely on one single thing. It is a combination of various factors working together... Like competent AI... Others have been discussing along with Soul Switching. To me, if I have intelligent AI team members who can do their job well... Then I don't feel I need a complex interface (GR way point map; planning map of R6) to get them to do the same thing they can do on their own. I think this is right in line with Monolith's statement about don't use Soul Switching and other "features" to cover up bad AI. Bangurdead also gave a prime example of how it currently needs improvement as well. Also, after analyzing the evolution (or de-evolution) of the R6 series, I will make an educated guess the major reason the planning phase was taken OUT of the game when it hit the original Xbox was not just because of the target audience... But because the system itself is overly complicated for what it does. Speaking objectively it is outdated and overly cumbersome to use in comparison to an on-the-fly orders menu that accomplishes the same thing. The previous way point maps and planning maps of old may not seem complex to those of us who understand them, but if you recall when you first played the R6 games it was very intimidating. It took a couple of missions to get the hang of it. Now, it's probably second nature. But I am pretty sure UBISoft took this feature out because it was too complex and they knew most of the console audience wouldn't use it anyway, right or wrong. And to be honest... I know a few people who are also avid realism FPS fans and they too did not use the planning for R6 because they didn't really understand it. And these are PC players and not console players. This is what I mean on another thread when I was talking about real innovation and evolution of the tactical action genre: Finding new ways to do things that ARE more intuitive (user friendly), but that still give the player in-depth tactical control if he/she wants it. For instance, if the AI was competent enough... There could be a map / planning system where the player simply lays out broad strokes and the AI just goes and executes those plans. The problem is AI isn't that smart and even simple tasks (broad strokes) like clearing a room of Tangos becomes a chore. This is the kind of game design that needs to change in my humble opinion for Ground Branch to be a truly innovative game. Will it? To be honest... Probably not No disrespect to the developers. And I hope they do prove me wrong. But as far as AI and squad management... I've resigned myself to the fact AI just isn't where it should be at this point in time (or can't be due to consumer PC limitations). But that doesn't mean I still can't dream As for the actual question... I would not mind seeing Soul Switching return. It is another feature that enhances replay ability and most of all CHOICE for the player. Of course, it is not realistic. But again, GB is a video game and will always have some elements that can never be changed no matter how hard we or the developers try.
  11. I know I am new and I am not trying to start a flame war, or pick on Relaxtive... But it always strikes me how the term run-and-gun is misused. In any video game... Especially a first person shooter... You run and you gun. Period. MP in R6 and GR is pretty close to any other game barring the differences these titles have that make them inherently different from their arcade cousins (less health; one-shot-kill; no jumping). Players... At least in public servers... Run around with the "always run" feature selected and just spray and pray (pre-fire) around corners and nade spam. But because these are so-called tactical games... It isn't considered run-and-gun? I bring this up because as I said on another thread, I don't think run-and-gun is all that bad. Especially depending on the situation. In fact, running and gunning is part of combat if you want to survive. And this goes double for a video game where players do not fear for their virtual life. Now, don't misunderstand me. I know what everyone means: They don't want Quake, or Unreal Tournament hitscan accuracy while moving. This I understand and am OK with. I just don't like how the term run-and-gun is mis-used along with a lot of other terms in the gaming communities as a whole. I'm not trying to be a semantics Nazi, and I don't obsesses over these things, but it's interesting to see how the mis-use is consistent across many tactical gaming communities though. ------------------------------------------ RE: Interrupting Load... I have yet to play "Gears of War"... So once it comes to the PC I'll experience this model first hand and then let you know
  12. I'm a big fan of random enemy spawning -- proximity based, or other wise. Not only does it increase replay for SP, but also for MP CO-OP. Obviously, if you play any game X number of times/hours... You will eventually memorize all the spawns. This is inevitable. But it should be random enough that X = at least 20 times if possible. For example, I took the base R63: Raven Shield maps and added over 300 random spawn points to the 50, or so the developers had already placed. 35 enemies max per session (SP and MP CO-OP) means at least 8, or 9 times play through with true random enemy placement for those who have never played the map. And the important thing is I could even increase that amount to as many as I want. I just stopped at 300 because it is a long and laborious process. It always surprises me as video games become more technically advanced... Mainstream developers offer less and less functionality. I know this has to do with console limitations and target audience, but it surprises me that if you compared the original Rainbow Six to Rainbow Six Vegas the game itself has been stripped down to almost nothing. I realize innovation and finding better ways to do things is the name of the game, but R6's evolution has been more to cater to a demographic that doesn't want in-depth functionality it would never use (hence, this helps keep development costs low). For example, if you gave me Rainbow Six: Vegas in its current form with everything it, but with the addition of more randomized and less obvious enemy spawning, better enemy AI and more open ended maps... I'd never leave my PC (or XBox 360). Because this would be a true evolution of the game minus a few additions that don't need to be there any more because of innovation. I found the command order system in Vegas to be VERY intuitive and more importantly functional. There is no need for the big, overly complex waypoint system of planning the previous games used. I'd sacrifice having multiple teams in lieu of this improved command interface because this is a bona fide evolution and innovation in my opinion. Keep more than four men for MP CO-OP and you have the best of both worlds. To me this is where games should be heading. But they aren't because of the things mentioned above. ------------------------------------------------- As far as actual ideas or features... I know I am going to get flamed after I say this, but I don't really care. I hope BFS includes XBox 360 controller compatibility for the PC version of Ground Branch. Why? Because as much as hardcore PC gamers like to tout their "skillz" with a keyboard and mouse... The Xbox 360 controller for Windows (and other controllers) are actually more realistic in terms of simulating the delay one has while wielding a weighted weapon. Not only that, but the analog movement stick allows for realistic degrees of movement. It's not just run or walk. It is everything in between, a.k.a. a tactical jog, a slow creep, etc. Digital keyboard buttons just cannot simulate by their design. "Splinter Cell" using the mouse wheel to control movement speed is the closest thing the PC has to offering truly dynamic and analog character movement in a game. BTW I know a keyboard and mouse IS more accurate. But "Gears of War" for the PC is going to allow the player to literally switch from one input to the other IN-GAME if they so choose. Why? Because they can And because they are offering true choice and innovation even if it is something as "trivial" as controller input.
  13. Hi, guys. Thanks for the warm welcome. Yeah... My biggest beef with so-called tactical games is what I said before: They are just as contrived as their arcade, "run and gun" counter-parts. And they are based on a false model that is very unrealistic as a double irony. I understand there has to be core elements to make these two genres different. I just feel these core elements are too restrictive and don't allow a realistic blending of the two "genres" that occur in real life. For example, if you are doing recon to locate POWs in an enemy camp (with superior numbers) to plan a strike to minimize causalities (on your side)... That's fine. You want to be slow and cautious to not alert the enemy to your presence. However, once the shooting starts the stealth aspect pretty much goes out the window. And I expect that. The tactics then switch to indexing targets, putting them down and keep moving to try and complete the objective (rescue the POWs). The problem I have is most games like the original R6 and GR and other tactical shooters expect you to play the entire game in a stealth-like manner. Even after the first shot is fired. This is why I said the tactical genre is synonymous with being slow. And I think it is also because most arcade games are described as "run and gun" when that isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion given the realistic and dynamic nature of combat. RELIQUISH: I'll try and check out "The Regiment". KRISE MADSEN It sounds like I am asking for the "perfect" game... And maybe we all are... But realistically I don't see why certain elements and styles of play can't be shared between the two genres (tactical and arcade)? A good idea is a good idea in my opinion. For example, everyone in the tactical community associates picking up a weapon with "Counter-Strike" or other arcade games. NORG approaches the reality of this situation properly, in my opinion: Real soldiers can pick up whatever they want off the ground. However, most experienced soldiers choose not to pick up foreign weapons from fallen enemies. The difference is the game should not make that choice for the player. NORG acknowledges this subtle distinction between the two. Again, there are core differences, but I think those differences can be stifling and not allow real progress, or evolution if the tactical game developers (not just BFS) aren't careful. Another example is the recent "Ghost Recon 2: Advanced Warfighter" for PC. It is almost like an upgraded (better graphics) version of the original GR except without the body switching and a few other elements. That's fine for GR fans -- I am one of them -- And it is an OK game overall. But I want something more. I don't want the standard slow-ass game play with robotic AI team mates you move into position like an RTS. To me this isn't progress. It's giving window dressing for a game that belongs in 2001, not 2007.
  14. Hi. This is my first post, but I've been following this game and studio for some time. I am an avid R6 and GR fan. I play both MP and SP. I've browsed as many FAQs and threads regarding "Ground Branch" as I can... But I'd still like to know a few things from either a developer, or other forum members who are more knowledgeable: Is this just going to be a GR/R6 clone with better graphics and improved features? Or is this going to be a truly realism based game ("NORG") that also addresses a lot of the shortcomings the so-called "tactical" shooter genre has in it? Basically, as much as I love the game play of the original R6 and GR games... I want something more. Something that is truly "next-gen" -- And I don't mean just graphics. I want a game that is based and steeped in realism, but that addresses the flaws found in the current tactical gaming model too if possible. The current tactical gaming model (in my opinion) is one that is outdated and is just as contrived as a lot of the arcade-type games on the market today. "NORG" addresses some of my concerns, but to be more specific: -To me, being tactical does not mean being slow as a snail Barring stealth and infiltration, I've read articles and seen documentaries on real life combat and it is anything but slow. It's chaotic, kinetic and most of all dynamic (always changing). Most FPS games have this, but the model is based on arcade elements. What I'd like is a realistic FPS game that isn't slow as molasseses just so it can call itself "tactical". Especially, in SP. This is my number one pet peeve about the so-called tactical genre. As much as I like the original R6 and GR, these are also their biggest weaknesses as far as "realism" goes, in my opinion. Tactical doesn't = slow. And it shouldn't in certain situations in my humble opinion. Having to make split decisions in the heat of battle can often be the difference between life and death. No tactical shooter really likes to address this because they are stuck in a contrived model from 1998-2001. Things going horribly wrong ("thinking on the fly") is what a lot of the older tactical games don't address very well. -Having total control over friendly AI doesn't mean baby sitting and micro management I want to play a realistic FPS... Not a realistic RTS, or 3D chess game with virtual soldiers. I want AI who I have the means to control in-depth (body switching; detailed waypoint/planning system) when I need to... But who I don't necessarily have to control for them to be effective while they work alongside me. If my character points to a corner the AI is smart enough to move there, face the right direction and if they come under fire while performing the move... Hit the deck and re(act) like a real soldier would. I know AI is a very emerging field and will never equal human intelligence and experience (at least in commercial PC games). But I feel having both controllable AI and smart AI you don't have to babysit is one of the areas the tactical FPS genre really needs to start addressing because more arcade games are starting to address it as well. -I don't want a simulator. From what I've read, I think BFS acknowledges "Ground Branch" is still a video game. This is refreshing to hear in my opinion. I think a lot of so-called realism, or tactical fans actually want a simulator when they say a "tactical FPS". I personally do not. I've played OFP... And it was good... But to be honest, it wasn't very fun. This may have been because of the limits of the technology of the time, but I still feel a true balance has not been reached in the tactical shooter genre where the game feels real enough, but is still a video game at heart that anyone can enjoy. I don't feel this is an oxymoron, either. Others might disagree. I like innovations like iron sights, gun jams and bandaging yourself. I'm even OK with having limited mobility if you get shot (in the leg), or decreased accuracy if hit in the arm. But sometimes trying to be too real inhibits the main purpose of playing a video game and that is enjoyment and entertainment in my opinion. Anyway... I just wanted to throw those things out and see what others think. They apply to both SP and MP, but mainly SP because like I said... I think the so-called tactical FPS genre still has a lot of contrivances just like its arcade cousin that perhaps BFS will be the first studio to address and or eliminate all together?