Sign in to follow this  
Kurtz2007

Ideas

Recommended Posts

Where do people here stand on character switching? At any time in the game or only if the character you are controlling dies?

 

If an AI team member dies, do you like the idea of recovering items from a dead team mate's inventory, if you have the room or carrying capability? So that the death of a mission critical member doesn't result in mission failure?

 

I'm for soul switching, big time. I would very, very much like to have the friendly AI and command & control capabilities to play though missions without having to soul switch. But I want it anyway.

 

Part of it is because I play as "the team", not "the guy" within the team. I've practically never experienced the level of immersion that made me think of my character as "me" anyway. Think of it in war movie terms. I prefer the movie where you identify with each member of a unit (like, say, Band of Brothers) rather than the ones where you identify (or are supposed to) with a single character.

 

The other part has to do with gameplay. Whereas other finds themselves playing "lazy" with soul-switching, for me it's the other way around. Without soul-switching, I either keep myself safe and let the squad do the dirty work (notably OFP), or I just do the dirty work my self, leaving the team behind (notably GRAW1). With soul-switching, I make use of the whole team, as it should be.

 

The argument that soul-switching makes you a lazy gamer simply doesn't fly. If you don't want it, don't use it. The game should have the capability to play without using soul switching, of course.

 

John stated that the mission will not end just because one of your guys goes down (even a specialist carrying mission-critical gear). Draw your own conclusions. I'd say being able to pick stuff from dead or wounded team mates (within reason, I have no need for his field rations and foot powder) is very NORG.

 

I think we can all agree on something though....

Soul switching should never be used by devs to simply cover up for bad AI.

 

Agreed, a lot :thumbsup:

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to vote too for soul switching. It's all right to say it shouldn't be used to cover up bad AI and I agree that could be a trick to have it. But in the end AI is AI which in 2007 still means it can mess up and when it does soulswitching would come in to save the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghost Recon's Villinus was a great example of soul switching.

 

If you don't remember, the map is dark city setting. You need to support a column of tanks as it winds through Villinus. The tanks take an S curve and you need to deploy your squads in advance of the tanks to clear anti-armor enemies.

 

Two teams are crucial.

 

Your tanks clear courtyard #1.

 

Get bravo squad setup to capture courtyard #3 using command map.

 

While you controll Alpha and clear the way to copurtyard #2 Bravo squad moves in position as ordered. When you finish controllling Alpha for clearing courtyard #2 set up Alpha squad to advance through the city to courtyard #4 using the command map.

 

Switch back to Bravo.

 

Use Bravo yourself to capture courtyard #3 and clear the way for tanks. Bravo has sniper as 3rd man to easily eliminate patrols on the way to next courtyard.

 

At the final objective you have your two squads deployed at mutually supporting positions on enemy flanks. The enemy can't get away OR find cover that protects them from BOTH squads. Timing M136 rockets on the two tanks (do this manually yourself) you take out their armor. In a mean crossfire you switch from team to team picking off the hapless defenders as they hide from the North Squad Bravo...only to have their flanks completely exposed to Alpha squad to the south.

 

What a great mission.

 

I point to one of the stationary .50cal's and tell the sniper to take him out...whats he do...he runs out into the guard rail and then procedes to get hammered by the .50 cal he dies... I then pick up his rifle and procede to do what I told the idot to do from where he was standing which he had a view of the 50cal through the bus windows....

 

Man I agree, that part of GRAW single player (which is horrid by the way) was really annoying Why they cannot use the same design that multiplayer uses in single player is beyond me. Must be for marketing reasons.

 

Anyhow, I like when your guys are set up, the enemy can clearly be seen. You KNOW the sniper is looking RIGHT AT the enemy.

 

You order him to fire.

He stands there.

Says "engaging target"

pauses

thinks

moves a little

pulls up the rifle

pauses

thinks

pauses

moves a little

pauses

thinks

pauses

fires his weapon.

 

Do soldiers dilly-dally this long when given an order in the field? I told you to fire soldier, what the heck is taking you so long?

Edited by Ick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree completely on the controller(somewhat obviously perhaps).

 

couldnt disagree more on this....

i'll take a deep control system and multiple teams,over a simplified contextual system any day....and im taking about for console play.

 

both would be nice,but if i had to choose...no comparison.

 

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 :yes:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TacSimFan,

 

IMHO, the soul switching and elaborate planning in OR6 was definately a cover-up for the horrid friendly AI. And a very clever one too:

 

Instead of desperately trying to mange a squad of braindead imbeciles, you indstead put your mind to designing elaborate plans of attack, the soul switching (restricted to squad leaders, it should have been every team member IMO) enabling you to bypass the hurdles the planning couldn't handle.

 

Today, that system is grossly obsolete. It was great fun, a real stroke of genious IMO, but it wouldn't fly today. There should definately be on-the-fly ordering. But preplanning as such isn't necessarily a thing of the past, if done properly and mixed with good friendly AI and a good command & control system.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that soul-switching makes you a lazy gamer simply doesn't fly.

 

So far, I'm the only one to mention a possible draw back to soul switching. I hope you're not misquoting my context with the term lazy.

 

Just being sure.

 

To re-iterate, my point is simply that if you know that you have six free deaths to go through, you tend to be a less cautious player with the character you're current 'in'.

 

I think that's a reasonable assessment. Not true for all perhaps, but certainly there.

 

Dying in OGR was something I certainly tried to avoid, but nowhere near to the degree that I do with GRAW, because I only have the one life to lose without needing a "reload last checkpoint".

 

 

PS: just had an interesting thought too. What would be a good "middle ground", is to have soul switching, but if you died, in any body, mission over.

 

That gives you both worlds. You can't be sloppy and accept a death, but you also get to soul switch. Of course, this ruins the "mission will continue" gameplay, but there's no way to please everyone, and I'm just thinking out loud at this point. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, I'm the only one to mention a possible draw back to soul switching. I hope you're not misquoting my context with the term lazy.

 

Just being sure.

 

To re-iterate, my point is simply that if you know that you have six free deaths to go through, you tend to be a less cautious player with the character you're current 'in'.

 

I think that's a reasonable assessment. Not true for all perhaps, but certainly there.

 

Dying in OGR was something I certainly tried to avoid, but nowhere near to the degree that I do with GRAW, because I only have the one life to lose without needing a "reload last checkpoint".

 

I see the same "lazy" danger in GRAW as well..so it is not just in "soul switching" that you get lazy. You have that lazyness peril no matter what style setup you have.

 

For example, in GRAW the AI was so dumb I found myself sending them into peril first...then mopping up the enemy myself.....followed by a magical "heal" that the AI enjoy...rinse and repeat.

 

I began to have complete disregard for my team members in that game. Somethign that rarely happened in old Ghost Recon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

followed by a magical "heal" that the AI enjoy...rinse and repeat.

 

Then you're only talking 360, correct?

 

I was thinking PC, where there's no heal. There's no way near the tactical aspect of soul switching there would be on 360 compared to the PC where you can position individual team mates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS: just had an interesting thought too. What would be a good "middle ground", is to have soul switching, but if you died, in any body, mission over.

 

That gives you both worlds. You can't be sloppy and accept a death, but you also get to soul switch. Of course, this ruins the "mission will continue" gameplay, but there's no way to please everyone, and I'm just thinking out loud at this point. B)

 

 

I was going to suggest that, myself. :P

 

It's a great idea, in my opinion. But, eh, the way I see it is this: In games like OGR and Rainbow Six, you play as the leader of the units you are sending in to battle, even when you soul switch. Not a problem here, but maybe the way it could be done is that there's some kind of hidden morale of the soldiers, so if you die in the current body you are in, from then on your soldiers will be much less proficient in their tasks because the leader of their unit just died, and he was the main asset in controlling the whole unit, so it affects the AI and player in some ways when s/he takes control of a different character after death, such as less accuracy and the AI having panics.

 

 

And perhaps on a command map, like in OGR where you can set up waypoints for the different teams in-game, it could prevent you from using certain features of the map because the unit leader had the skills to use those commands, so from then on your planning will be forced to be more sloppy.

Edited by 5omeone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're only talking 360, correct?

 

I was thinking PC, where there's no heal. There's no way near the tactical aspect of soul switching there would be on 360 compared to the PC where you can position individual team mates.

 

Thats right, I did hear that PC GRAW was much better than XBOX 360 GRAW in terms of NORG. Does it use the same engine as the multiplayer in the PC version? That would be much better.

 

There are a TON of guys that would MUCH rather have GRAW PC gameplay on the 360 instead of the hollywood-star trek crap we got.

 

Then that makes sense....I would be more invested in that setup Monolith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, GRAW PC you can move each individual team member (how squad shooters should be), so soul switching has a logical place there.

 

With the 360, and the "move the whole team only", soul switching is fairly pointless.

 

I really hate the lack of individual member control. :wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, I'm the only one to mention a possible draw back to soul switching. I hope you're not misquoting my context with the term lazy.

 

Just being sure.

 

To re-iterate, my point is simply that if you know that you have six free deaths to go through, you tend to be a less cautious player with the character you're current 'in'.

 

I think that's a reasonable assessment. Not true for all perhaps, but certainly there.

 

Dying in OGR was something I certainly tried to avoid, but nowhere near to the degree that I do with GRAW, because I only have the one life to lose without needing a "reload last checkpoint".

PS: just had an interesting thought too. What would be a good "middle ground", is to have soul switching, but if you died, in any body, mission over.

 

That gives you both worlds. You can't be sloppy and accept a death, but you also get to soul switch. Of course, this ruins the "mission will continue" gameplay, but there's no way to please everyone, and I'm just thinking out loud at this point. B)

 

Hmm, bad choice of words on my behalf, bygones... :blush:

 

I belive what you described was how being tied to a single character (i.e. no soul switching) can be stimulating to some gamers as it forces them to concentrate on keeping that particular character alive.

 

For others, like me, it's the opposite. If my personal survival is the primary criteria for mission success, I'll try to avoid combat at all costs, using the friendly AI as cannon fodder instead. Also, unless the friendly AI is exceptionally good (better, much better, than anything I've seen so far), I quickly grow dissatisfied with their performance and leave them behind to do all the work myself.

 

If I do have soul-switching, I'll actually use the various team members much more in battle, take more care in giving each of them the proper equipment with particular emphasis on various specialist equipment to suit specific scenarios, and I'll actually take more care in keeping them alive, whether they're magically revived for the next mission or not.

 

People are just different I guess. So what I was trying (a bit rudely, I admit) to say was, that not having soul switching doesn't necessarily mean that the player will take more care when playing, at least not for everyone :)

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my personal survival is the primary criteria for mission success, I'll try to avoid combat at all costs, using the friendly AI as cannon fodder instead.

 

 

Oh the shame you bring upon your family name. :rofl:

 

Me, I'm the first over the hill. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I played UT2004.

 

The AI, dare I say it, runs and guns.

 

Creating chaotic, rampaging AI is far easier and simpler than recreating a human trying to find adequate cover from bullet fire coming from multiple rooftops, and do it "with human like decision making and reactions".

 

If I made the soldier run up and down the the street screaming taunts and firing wildly at the roofs, that would be like UT2004.

 

I like the game by the way, but that is definately not complex AI decision making and pathfinding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soul Switching is unrealistic.

 

Computer AI is dumb and thus unrealistic.

 

However

 

Soul switcing will always be unrealistic unless we develope a way of doing it in real life.

 

Computer AI can and is being improved as time goes by.

 

 

I would very much like the computer game industry to focus on continuing to improve AI. For this to be done developers must take reasonable action to try and implement good, modern, ground breaking AI in their games.

 

Soul Switching I think is acceptable to be put in a game while this process is being continued. If a developer tries to cut corner and not implement the best AI they can, then they are doing a dis-service to their industry.

 

As Monolith said

 

"Soul switching should never be used by devs to simply cover up for bad AI."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computer AI is dumb and thus unrealistic.

 

Dumb AI can be very realistic.

 

 

 

I've worked alongside some real idiots.

 

 

 

 

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soul Switching is unrealistic.

 

Computer AI is dumb and thus unrealistic.

 

However

 

Soul switcing will always be unrealistic unless we develope a way of doing it in real life.

 

Computer AI can and is being improved as time goes by.

I would very much like the computer game industry to focus on continuing to improve AI. For this to be done developers must take reasonable action to try and implement good, modern, ground breaking AI in their games.

 

Soul Switching I think is acceptable to be put in a game while this process is being continued. If a developer tries to cut corner and not implement the best AI they can, then they are doing a dis-service to their industry.

 

As Monolith said

 

"Soul switching should never be used by devs to simply cover up for bad AI."to bad theres only bad AI...

 

Yes but I Highly Doubt any Human AI is going to be adequate enough in 2008 to make me not want to do their job for them, as is Even the GRAW2 AI is sub par for the SIMPLEST Tasks (POINT AND SHOOT) even in a modern shooter...

 

instead they move about 5 feet into the open...okay...now i can see the same guy no problem like I could see them before.....oh is the safety off...better check it...its off...good....lets get him in the sights again....oh goody there he is...does my gun have ammo...better check it... BLAM BLAM BLAM AI teammate is down Capitan...

 

compeitent HUMAN AI is a probably about a 4-5 years away from being anything smaller then a super computer...theres good AI which can do; follow withought running infront of me...and theres bad AI that runs around constantly running into my gun so I cant fire and have to re-sight up the tango thus getting us both killed (I've shot my teammates about 10times for doing that stupid stunt...not running to cover just attempting to "follow" me...

 

Then theres super AI, Highly unrealistic Super Terminators that Walk the earth laying waste to enemy's 500km's away with nothing more then a DE .357

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two thoughts... and this is directed at everyone in general.

 

Try to keep a handle on game/dev bashing. I happen to know a GRIN dev or two. There are ways to discuss flaws in current applications without degrading people or their hard work. And it's John's request that we respect each other as gamers and devs alike.

 

Second, for me personally, I've always looked at games with the glass is half full approach. I think it's pointless (and somewhat rude) to bash what flaws you find, and ignore the fact that the good qualities of the AI are being pushed to the edge of what can currently be done.

 

Personally, Everytime I load up GRAW 1 or 2 PC, I'm impressed with what a few pixels on a screen can do. I don't negate it all with the few imperfections the programming limitations create.

 

 

Just food for thought. Not trying to argue.

 

"You are judged by the company you keep", when transposed for the internet; is "You are judged by the way you post about others".

 

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this