• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Highxplosive

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Platform
    PC gamer
  1. Voice Acting

    A couple of principles about voice acting I would like to put forth. 1)Proper Accents NPC and PC voices should be done with the intention that it replicates the expected accents of the particular character. This means no Scottish accents on a bloody Austrian, American accents on an Englishman, or any other stupid combination without sufficient background information to support it (e.g. a soldiers profile). 2) Do Not Stereotype This comes from a personal level; I despise voice acting that is done using English the language in an accented fashion in order to produce some sort of pseudo-voice acting. It's stereotypical and borderline racist. I propose that, for example, if a character speaks, for arguements sake, Italian...he speaks bloody Italian! No stereotypical English accents. If he speaks Italian, use an Italian voice over. The only appropriate use of a stereotypical accent is if the character is actually speaking English but is heavily accented to Italian: but mark my words when I say in a modern world, it's not completely outworldy to expect fluent natural speakers of second languages.* (For the sake of the player's clarity add optional subtitles, or no subtitles at all - that is if the player isn't meant to understand them of course. **) 3) Above All Else, If The Soldiers Don't Say It, Don't Say It Every military organisation in the world has specific doctrine for clear and precise communication. Pick one. Stick to it. Or make one up that is sensible.*** 4) Don't Overkill On The Cliches GET TO DA CHOPPA!!! * Given the context of the game, we can expect a special forces team to be fluent in different languages.* **Once again, because of the context of the game, we can simulate our character's understanding of languages via subtitles.** ***However, this is not to say that voice acting should not breath life into our characters in game and add some personality to them. They should not be robotic, but the voice acting should convey a high level of professionalism and discipline in the soldier it portrays. Other emotions should of course be convey were appropriate! The fearful hostage, the anxious guard, so on and forth.***
  2. DRM and what not to do

    Some of the worlds most successful games of all time did not have copy protection. In addition, I think its ridiculous that the gaming consumer has little protection against such nonsense. I mean from a legal stand point. Surely there has to be a line drawn whereby the quality of the product (a game) is so low it could constitute a legal failure? Even on a common sense level this DRM nonsense of a 10 day period doesn't make sense. What if I go on holiday for 10 days? Or if I'm just a casual player? This is absolute toss. I would go so far as to say the DRM proposed for Mass Effect and Spore were analagous to having a car that, if you don't drive it every 10 days, locks its doors and prevent you from using it because "it may have been stolen by a thief". Bloody nonsense: someone needs to be shot for this.

    I know some people who couldn't navigate South from the North pole, so its alright no matter how terrible your navigation skills are...
  4. Respawn protection

    I do not think judging from what has been said and done so far for Ground Branch that there will be any sort of "respawning" as much as there will be insertion. As for less killing going on, it all depends on map design. At any rate, this is not a battlefield simulator but a special forces type game. Shooting is only half of it. I'm going to reiterate what I've said in a post on the first page about player selected/created INSERTION points via choppers, planes or APCs, etc. As I've said, the only thing that should stop you "inserting" into the middle of the enemy base is common sense (and anti-air and whatnot of course). I also reiterate my idea of realistic and believable spawn protection schemes such as hidden snipers, machine gun nests that cannot be targetted by offmap artillery/tactical aid (one could argue that these spawn protectors are out of the designated zone of fire). I also reiterate against, in any form, "spawning" in the traditional "suddenly appear out of thing air" sense. Maps should be big enough for NORG insertions. Of course, the actual need for "spawning" is apparent, but this should occur offmap, out of sight, or out of play in a sense. Take for example a map with a fort in the middle. If the defending team is losing men, they have to do what you do in real life. Call in reinforcements. And reinforcements don't appear out of thin air. They may appear as paratroopers, an inserting chalk or even crawling out of the sides of the map. Defining the EDGES of a map should be based on natural terrain and realistic barriers (such as minefields). Imagine a scenario where an attacking team was to take that said fort. You could drop in from a plane into a forest relatively far away. Or you could land nearby the fort with a chopper. Or you could drive in through the front gate using an APC. The ONLY THING that should stop you doing any of those is BELIEVABLE barriers. E.g. strong anti-tank positions, minefields, bad weather (for planes), etc. They may be OFFMAP and justifiable barriers, such as anti-air (real life anti-air has a colossal range, well long enough for the purposes of being outside a "map") or even lack of resources (who says you ALWAYS have planes to jump from?). "Respawning" would simply go against NORG completely. The last thing I want is an enemy base with a seemingly endless supply of soldiers simply due to respawning. Remember, what makes should make a game like Ground Branch different from others is that DYING should be a LOSS. In other arcade shooters, dying is merely a minor annoyance that is fixed X seconds later when you "respawn". If you DIE in this game, you should have to pay the consequences on WORK for what you lost (e.g. an objective, a defensive position, etc). For maps that DO demand static spawn points coming from a certain direction, you could make the spawn point significantly large enough that one cannot predict the direction of attack. Heck. Who says that the whole North, West and South of a map can't be the spawn area? It just has to be justifiable and NORG.
  5. Respawn protection

    I strongly advocate the idea of realistic spawns: be it HALO or HAHO insertions, amphibious assault insertions, vehicle insertions or even just walking onto the battlefield. Alternatively, one could have large maps with realistic spawn protection BARRIERS such as a minefields or "killzones" (off map snipers or guns that prevent you from moving further than a certain area) that protection the spawn area. One could put invunerability in spawn for both cases but I highly dislike this as it is against NORG. Personally, I do not recommend the latter because it would encourage or could lead to spawn camping of sorts, especially if invulnerability in spawn is introduced. Nonetheless, provided the barriers are realistic then I have no problem with spawn camping in THAT sense. What we shouldn't have is silly minefields that only affect one team. Hidden map edge snipers make sense, or map edge machine gun posts, because they are authentic. I strongly suggest realistic insertions with NO invulnerability. This means paradrops that you can die from before landing, or APCs that the moment the door swings down (or even before) you can die (like an RPG into the side or something similar). The vehicle itself could spawn offmap. It all depends on level design and thus the level should be designed in such away that paradrops are viable. Perhaps, with paradrops, the spawn point can be picked to be ANYWHERE. This makes perfect sense: pick an bad LZ and you pay the consequences. Thus a plane could fly over your selected LZ coordinates and you jump when there (the plane keeps moving). Heck, the plane could even be shot down by AAA before you jump, or during, or after. With vehicles, perhaps the AI driven vehicle follows your selected waypoints. Against, choose your rendevous point wisely. If you know enemies are likely to set up an ambush on the road, go offroading. As for amphibious assaults, you could start inside a submarine, a ship, etc, and swim or sail to the shore. Perhaps a mixture of both would be perfect. Realistic spawn barriers and realistic insertions. But definitely no spawn protection, it is totally unNORG. EDIT: On the idea of fairness, level design (e.g. map size) should allow paradrops or whatever chosen method of insertion to work. Thus, if LZ Alpha is overrun, make LZ Bravo active and jump there. If LZ Charlie has AAA, use LZ Delta. On the idea of spawn POINTS, no preset spawn points should be incorporated at all, except offmap. So if players where to randomly appear, they must appear offmap convicingly, then move into the map "battle zone" so to speak. Spawn points should be player/team selected. In real life, nothing stops you dropping a paradrop right in the middle of an enemy compound with AAA and armed guards except common sense. This should be the same in game. On the idea of SPAWNING, lets think INSERTIONS instead.
  6. Fully Destructible Environment

    You'll have to pardon my errors in grammar and what not, it WAS 4 AM in the morning when I posted. Yes by goal I mean a developer goal. Like I've said, the ultimate holy grail of FPS games is a true FDE. It would take some level of mathematics and whatnot, but by all thats squidgy would that be a banana. And hello Pred.
  7. Fully Destructible Environment

    Aye I agree with your commentary, but no doubt you agree that even with these practical and very real issues at hand when designing under NORG principles that and FDE would be a dream come true. As far as I'm concerned, true FDE would mean being able to saw a tree in half and count the rings inside the stump to see how many years it was standing till I decided to blow it apart. That's a far fetched piece of detail, and that would be one hell of a goal to attain. However, its an unecessary goal. That doesn't mean I don't want a FDE nonetheless. To be realistic and practical, I would expect, under NORG, an environment destructible enough to leave all real life tactical options open, including some of the more bizarre ones. The environment should leave intelligent options open: shooting a target through a tree is just very basic one example, but I'm talking about walking over your own footprints, or being able to choose when, where and WHY i should use a shaped charge to enter a room rather than the door. I should be able to blow a door of the hinges using a shotgun. You should be able to do what is tactically written doctrine and what...in some cases, isn't (improvisation). One thing I will definitely expect, but may not see, is that explosives such as artllery (should you get access) or air support should collapse entire buildings, should put huge holes into concrete walls and turn a block of flats into a carpet of bricks.
  8. FMJ or JHP bullets

    I'd just like to point out that we aren't limited to merely FMJ and JHP rounds in reality. They are the basic rounds that are used for most purposes but there are such things as inciendary rounds as well, and other various little-known types. On the issue of stopping power, you have to remember, some people have the willpower and constitution to take a round in the chest and still return fire. I'm interested in how THAT will be simulated.
  9. Fully Destructible Environment

    Firstly, you'll all have to pardon me on crashing onto the forum with my first post with a poll on an issue that has no doubt been discussed in one form or another (and indeed has as my quick forum searches have proven). I note that a number of these topics are specific issue (bullet penetration, etc), but I wish to bring it all together here. Second, if you're like me, having played many games that claim realism and time after time feel let down by the lack of authenticity to your guided destruction while gunning down everything including the enemy, your one of those people that demand the holy grail of realism based games. Judging from the popular and damn straight NORG philosophy here, I'm sure I speak for the majority. Let me give a basic outline of what I believe would be every destruction addicts (among the inclination to strategy and tactics) holy grail. I believe I should be able to put a bullet into a car tyre and flatten it. I believe I should be able to tear a hole in a wall using controlled explosive charges. I believe I should be able to destroy, set fire to and vaporise wood with a grenade. I believe that every bullet should not only travel through objects that it may, but leave clear holes that stay when it does. And on the inverse, I believe bullets should ricochet, leaves dents and skim metal. That sort of thing. I should be able to tear a tree down using a machine gun. I should be able to kick a door down and it should fall flat. Flashbangs should, sometimes, accidently set fire to objects. Grenades should leave a splintered mess where they are: the fragments should lodge and stay, quite literally. I should, quite literally, be able to dig a hole explosives. And while your on that, I'd like my boots to leave authentically permanant footprints on mud, snow and whatever. Oh, and dogs should be able to track my scent. You should be able to do anything do a door you wish with anything you have if it were possible. Force entry, blow it, unhinge it, kick it, pick it up and use it as a barrier and obstacle and, if you so wish, knock politely on it to distract the enemy. Ok. I don't literally mean do everything I've said, and my hat is off to the developers (if I was wearing one). But you get my drift. I am enthusiastic about this game and I'm praiseworthy of the developers. I'm just hopeful that this will be....exceptional. I understand the practical and technological and time limitations on such a thing as true FDE, but I'd like to discuss it anyway. Please share your opinions on an FDE.