krise madsen

NORG Explained

Recommended Posts

While an interesting design approach/concept it seems rather simplistic and incomplete -- and is one I hope is not taken too literally by BFS. A flat anamorphically projected 'game world' is constrained by a slew of limitations in how it can scale different aspects of what a particular Developer (or Fan) may consider important aspects of realism to emulate, and in many cases it's not even possible to emulate many of these important aspects to scale, congruently, or with realistic aesthetic continuity with one another...

 

Designing for certain aspects of aesthetic realism can (and often does) come at the expense of how realistically a game plays, and attempting to create a game that plays more realistically can require substantial sacrifices in aesthetic realism.

 

Just one example/illustration would be Ghost Recon's 'Ghost Perspective' zoom feature; in a 'game world' due to pixilation and LOD we are very limited to how far we can see with the consequence of realistic range of engagement being dramatically curtailed -- the effects on game play/combat as far as 'realism' is concerned is profound. Ghost Recon addressed this with its very aesthetically unrealistic (and inconsistent) 'Ghost Perspective' and zoom feature.

 

Red Orchestra by way of contrast offers more aesthetic realism in terms of aiming machinery, weapon handling, weapon metrics, and ballistics; but forsakes a zoom feature to compensate for the limitations of realistic view distance in game -- and the outcome is very apparent in how the game plays with many very arcade engagements that are far closer and offer far less realistic tactical opportunity then Ghost Recon.

 

This is only one of a multitude of issues that confront an unqualified 'realism as your guide' approach to game design; where every next step then becomes a question of: 'Just what aspects of realism are more important?' Aesthetics? Metrics? Tactical sophistication and execution? Virtual combat outcome?...

 

On top of all of this is the question: 'Is this to be a game or a simulator?' Real combat offers few to no elements of a game; by way of example there's no attempt what-so-ever in real combat to offer anyone a fair and balanced contest of skill -- which is cardinal to what defines the very concept of a 'game'). Real world combat by contrast is the abject opposite where every effort is made to overwhelm and obviate the skill, means, technology and numbers of your enemy -- and to mitigate to every extent and means possible the importance those same elements in your own force will effect outcome.

(numbering by paragraph)

1. of course there are technological limits (I assume you're refering to those) the game made 10 years ago that seemed to be the first NORG game (that I know of) had limitations and flaws as all games have. the technology will improve with time as it has since the game made 10 years ago it gives us the opportunity to make a game that is current with our technological standards

 

2. this is understandable, but to say there cannot be work arounds would be going to far although I would say a more functional realism is more important that simple aesthetic realism but I am not 100% sure of what your understanding of "aesthetic realism" is compared to how I understand it

 

3. good place to explain my "functional" realism...RO does have times where engagements become more of arcadish compared to GR. I would say GR has better functional realism because it keeps realistic tactical opportunity which I prefer (I cannot speak for the rest of the community on what they exactly want) but RO is not 100% about arcadish engagements

 

4. There are community discussions on topics like those. Note all those "build the game around a community" banners here. The idea is that the community would be able to discuss what would work better in the sense of what should be more important.

 

5. I am not sure where it will be placed category-wise, but I definately say you go too far to say that real combat does not weigh skill as a factor of who wins a battle. Technology does not take away the necessity of skill...an untrained team of civilians given some of more advanced weaponry and tech is not going to stand up against an experienced seal team with standard conventional equipment. Training and skill is very important to the outcome of situations. Numbers and overwhelming would be a tactic, but it would not work 100% and there is a large margin for casualties. In fact, choosing to try to overwhelm is an outcome of skills known as "leadership" and "decision making". The people carrying out that overwhelming advance must also have their own skills to get the job done. I am unsure to what you say is "fair and balanced contest of skill" because the only time do I see where there is no fair and balanced contest of skill is when the map design is comepletely biased to one team or a flawed aspect of a game is exploited. I like the idea of this game because it will weigh those other skills in...not just the "fire while moving/strafing" skill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
th33f.   

nice post, waika. your concerns sound quite valid to me. i haven't seen a sentence that would properly address any of your points in here yet... i'm glad this whole new concept of making realistic games sounds naive to a few people other than me. not surprisingly, the thought of being able to experience a real world situation without having to get out of your chair is, apparently, so seductive, that people will do away with common sense and worship the bringers of such an opportunity... and i don't blame them. it's just that i've been in those shoes too many times, and hoping for the next title to succeed just doesn't seem wise to me anymore.

 

after all, we're still using using a stationary screen, a mouse and a keyboard to try and capture the "feeling" of immersion. things have improved since 10 years ago, no doubt about it, but has anything really fundamentally changed? 3d sound and more eye candy? not gonna cut it. besides... ahem... do the words "first title" mean anything to anyone? let me rephrase: "first self-funded title"? miracles do happen, but... i'll just stop now. i think i've said enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MONOLITH   
besides... ahem... do the words "first title" mean anything to anyone? let me rephrase: "first self-funded title"? miracles do happen, but... i'll just stop now. i think i've said enough.

 

 

I think you have too.

 

Does the "first" title of a studio mean 'lack of experience', when the people in that studio not only have years of experience in this genre, but were directly responsible for the making of the game everyone here hails as the greatest one ever?

 

Yeah, I'd say you've said more than enough.

 

 

My advice now is to back up slowly.

 

 

Looking at the last few posts, part of the problem is you guys have completely over-analyzed and over-complicated the whole NORG thing.

 

In your own minds, you've blown it up into something impossible, and now you want to turn to BFS and say "You can't pull it off".

 

Well, you're right. They can't do what you guys have dissected and reassembled the NORG concept into. So let's back up and clarify the whole NORG thing for a second.

 

 

In Halo 3, I can drive a humvee type vehicle on the tops of palm trees. That's unrealistic, so it isn't NORG.

 

In many games, the enemy AI is so ridiculously cranked up, they can one_shot_kill_me in the head, with a handgun from 600 yards away, in the dark, and looking the other way. That's unrealistic, so it isn't NORG.

 

Heartbeat sensors as used in RVS. Unrealistic, not NORG.

 

 

The concept of NORG is simply that if it can't, or doesn't happen in real life, it shouldn't happen ingame.

 

Weapons should perform realistically, AI should perform realistically, and humvees should stay on the ground.

 

That's all NORG is. It's not the creation of a life altering holodeck experience where your life is actually in danger.

 

 

 

So, can this "first title" and "self funded" developer make a NORG game?

 

You bet your ass they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
th33f.   
So, can this "first title" and "self funded" developer make a NORG game?

 

You bet your ass they can.

 

whether it will be anything outstanding is still a big question mark though. that's all i was trying to point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MONOLITH   
whether it will be anything outstanding is still a big question mark though.

 

 

If you invited me to your mom's house for dinner, and I told her the above; that would be pretty ignorant of me.

 

 

That's what I'm trying to point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin   

This thread was or is a brief explanation of the thought process, by the Dev Team.

 

Kriss,

but it's first and foremost a state of mind for developers. The idea is to use the real world as a template for your game.

 

To me this is a Dev Team saying they will work and rework a set idea that is true to life to make it work in game.

 

Not just give up at the first meeting saying its too difficult, or we are afraid it will affect sales if its made too tactical blah blah.

 

Waika has not been on these forums for months, I can see his post was not meant to add to this thread just wind people up.

 

NORG is about mind set, no other Dev Team I know anyway will be going down this road, the reason is they cant or wont, sales figures are too high on the agenda period.

 

NORG is about filling a missing space in gameing and looking at the interaction and feedback on the site it will fill the space.

 

One person here has played the game and said it is what most of us have looked for since 2001, I for one believe his word, that is enough for me.

 

So some people in the forum have done a lot more than talk about this game, and they Know how NORG works.

 

As long as you understand that NORG will be implemented at every opertunity especially from a fire and maneuver point of view the rest falls into place, if it dosent then it will be made to until it does.

 

 

Thats how I see NORG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's very easy to over analyse things, clearly GB is a game so will it never be totally realistic :-)

 

Still I think there is a question of what kinds of realism does GB want to emphasize. Sometimes applying NORG is not so straightforward.

 

I think it's easy to apply NORG in things like cars driving on trees and aimbot AI, these things don't happen in real life so GB won't include them.

 

Where it gets trickier is things that do apply in real life but which can't be simulated directly in a game. For example, peripheral vision. In real life people have peripheral vision, and it's very good at detecting movement. However playing on a computer you don't get any periperhal vision because you're seeing the world through a screen sized box. The player is disadvantaged because they don't have something that is available in real life.

 

So the question is: do we add something to compensate, for example ArmA's peripheral vision markers? This is where applying NORG is a lot more difficult because neither choice is entirely realistic. You could say "No, there are no peripheral vision markers in real life". Or you could say "Yes, in real life people have peripheral vision".

 

Which choice you make depends on which elements of realism you want to emphasize. In waika's terminology, I'm guessing "There are no markers in real life" is aesthetic realism, it's a question of what's being presented on the screen being as true to life as possible. I'm guessing "In real life people have periperhal vision" is functional realism, it's about providing the player with the most realistic environment problem.

 

There are many other examples like this: suppression is one example, waika's example of screen pixelation and zoom being another. Things where you can't simulate the situation exactly so you have to make some unrealistic choice, one way or the other.

 

Interestingly I've never really seen any clarification on which of these choices is considered "more NORG". Perhaps because it's handled on a case by case basis (which is fine).

 

So whilst waika's post is a pretty tricky read, I think it's got some good points. In essence the question is: when you say realistic, in what way do you mean realistic? Another way to look at it is to consider one of Hatchetforce's replies:

 

When my self and other personnel in my line of work play a game and easily recognize, or better yet feel certain familiar elements it disqualifies the observation about translated comnbat experiences in a game. Accurately? No. But that isn't really the point. Elements? Most certainly.

The question here is "which elements are realistic?" and perhaps even more crucially, "which elements do we want to be realistic?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rasa   

To add to this exellent summary:

 

Even tough walking on your hands can be done in real life, there's not always the time to implement every single thing you could do in real life. The game will always be a shadow of real life, so there will be priorities to things that simulate combat. (and not juggling your grenades, as another example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me stay away from this thread? Not before I'm whisked off by a flying pig :lol:

 

The term NORG was first coined by Hatchetforce in this thread on GR.net.

 

Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay.

 

It's not the same thing as realism as we understand it in most games (even though I've said so earlier, which only goes to show what a git I am :rolleyes: ).

 

Generally speaking, you will be able to do whatever you can do in real life, and it will have the same consequences. This cause and effect is the key of NORG. Now, the most straightforward way to do this is simply to simulate real life to the maximum possible fidelity. But it's not the only way. This is where abstraction come into play.

 

One of the best examples are the expanding crosshair system of R6 and GR1. Obviously, In real life, the accuracy of your weapon does not expand and subtract in a cone, depending on how much you move about. The bullet will follow the exact same path in relation to the barrel, no matter how move it about. It's where you point the barrel that matters.

 

Yet the expanding crosshairs system give you what is still one of the most accurate representations of how moving affects your ability to aim accurately. And it doesn't restrict your ability to fire your weapon. You can fire away while sprinting to your hearts desire, you just won't hit a thing (but waste ammo and alert any enemy in the area). It's not "realistic", but it's pure NORG.

 

And just in case anyone is in doubt, BFS is going to implement NORG when and where it works. They're not going to ram "realism" down our thoats just for the sake of realism. That's why respawns will be an availible option despite the fact that nobody in the history of mankind has ever come back from the dead.

 

NORG will be a huge plus for this game, as it was for OR6 and GR1, simple as that.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NORG is a doctrine that we operate by as the basis for our design. As mentioned, we are not out to simulate reality.... that is impossible with today's computers. NORG is not about building in everything that could possibly happen or every manner in which things happen, but to make sure that what is the game makes sense, follows realistic rules and is not made artificial due to some designer's idea of what is "cool". Sure, what is "cool" can still be NORG... without a doubt, and we aim to make a really fun experience. But that experience will not leave you frustrated due to silly "design" decisions or goofy restrictions.

 

That being said, NORG will always take a back seat to technical limitations. We use the principal up to the point that it is no longer feasible. As MONO said, people have broken this concept down and built it back up into something that is impossible to achieve. It's a doctrine to follow when designing the game. It's a constant question in the back of our heads when we look at a scenario or feature..... How does that work in the real world we ask ourselves. Then we start looking at technical and even time limitations and go from there. What we NEVER do though is remove realism to promote realism. We never artificially balance something..... Real life offers a great set of rules and situations to work within and we are using them.

 

So sure, there are limitations to NORG. We never said otherwise, but it is a cornerstone of development here and the foundation from which all of our decisions are made. Weapon "balance" is a prime example. You will never see a "weapon balancing" listed in a patch from us because we don't do it. The game world has set properties and all weapons act as they would in the real world based on those properties. If one weapon is better than others in certain situations then so be it. We don't "reduce the effectiveness of X weapon at Y range".

 

Kris linked to HF's post at GR.net but I am going to post it here because it is a good read..........

 

Hatchetforce:

The player definitely shouldn't be frustrated more than necessary. Particularly by head shake inducing moments where the AI can do something a player can't. Or by a system that says a higher difficulty = AI that can withstand 2 headshots. We usually didn't have that problem in Dangerous Waters, right Krise? biggrin.gif

 

Recovery of battlefield weapons, for whatever reason - there are a host - is a necessity. Even if it only teaches you that you should not have done it. You can't carry ten weapons, but I have carried my main weapon, a sidearm, and an extra weapon such as a shotgun for breaching or a sniper system for other engagements. I won't go into the debate again. I have listed the reasons at least twice on this board. I will repeat my mantra though. Unless limited by design - and that time will come - removing realism to promote realism never works. It is the cheap solution normally only used by governments and beaurocrats. By that I mean solving the symptom instead of the problem.

 

"We removed weapon pickup because it isn't realistic." Wrong. Under particular circumstances it is. What has to be done is to make the weapon and the situation vary according to the rules of realism. That will solve the problem rather than developer interference when such interference is not needed...or wanted. Interference

with what I have coined 'The Natural Order of Realistc Gameplay.' I know, I know, someone is bound to start calling it NORG.

 

Krise, a recovered weapons's capability will be dependant upon many things. For every geographic area, country, and unit, weapons will have a certain reliability. Why? Because that's the way things really are. I have seen new 74s with no front site post and grenade ammo that wouldn't slide into the launcher. It is up to you as an operator to study the intel and know this. You can't always tell by looking but a cursory inspection will reveal any obvious problems. Hoever certain weapons likely have shortcuts in manufacturing, lack of care, etc. and may carry with them operational issues. You reach a point though where you are just frustrating the gamer and this has to be noted. I didn't say corrected. There is a better remedy for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoog   

Thanks for clearing that up John.

 

One person here has played the game and said it is what most of us have looked for since 2001, I for one believe his word, that is enough for me.

Are you talking about Ground Branch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirq   
No one outside of BFS has played it, but some have seen game play movies.

 

Can we expect to see any gameplay video teaser any soon ? Or is it a matter of 6-7 months ?

 

PS. I hope that you are still aiming at late 2008 release ! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we expect to see any gameplay video teaser any soon ? Or is it a matter of 6-7 months ?

 

PS. I hope that you are still aiming at late 2008 release ! :rolleyes:

 

 

We still have the license restriction that is in place. So until that is taken care of, we will not be allowed to show in game footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin   
NORG is a doctrine that we operate by as the basis for our design. As mentioned, we are not out to simulate reality.... that is impossible with today's computers. NORG is not about building in everything that could possibly happen or every manner in which things happen, but to make sure that what is the game makes sense, follows realistic rules and is not made artificial due to some designer's idea of what is "cool". Sure, what is "cool" can still be NORG... without a doubt, and we aim to make a really fun experience. But that experience will not leave you frustrated due to silly "design" decisions or goofy restrictions.

 

That being said, NORG will always take a back seat to technical limitations. We use the principal up to the point that it is no longer feasible. As MONO said, people have broken this concept down and built it back up into something that is impossible to achieve. It's a doctrine to follow when designing the game. It's a constant question in the back of our heads when we look at a scenario or feature..... How does that work in the real world we ask ourselves. Then we start looking at technical and even time limitations and go from there. What we NEVER do though is remove realism to promote realism. We never artificially balance something..... Real life offers a great set of rules and situations to work within and we are using them.

 

So sure, there are limitations to NORG. We never said otherwise, but it is a cornerstone of development here and the foundation from which all of our decisions are made. Weapon "balance" is a prime example. You will never see a "weapon balancing" listed in a patch from us because we don't do it. The game world has set properties and all weapons act as they would in the real world based on those properties. If one weapon is better than others in certain situations then so be it. We don't "reduce the effectiveness of X weapon at Y range".

 

Kris linked to HF's post at GR.net but I am going to post it here because it is a good read..........

 

Hatchetforce:

The player definitely shouldn't be frustrated more than necessary. Particularly by head shake inducing moments where the AI can do something a player can't. Or by a system that says a higher difficulty = AI that can withstand 2 headshots. We usually didn't have that problem in Dangerous Waters, right Krise? biggrin.gif

 

Recovery of battlefield weapons, for whatever reason - there are a host - is a necessity. Even if it only teaches you that you should not have done it. You can't carry ten weapons, but I have carried my main weapon, a sidearm, and an extra weapon such as a shotgun for breaching or a sniper system for other engagements. I won't go into the debate again. I have listed the reasons at least twice on this board. I will repeat my mantra though. Unless limited by design - and that time will come - removing realism to promote realism never works. It is the cheap solution normally only used by governments and beaurocrats. By that I mean solving the symptom instead of the problem.

 

"We removed weapon pickup because it isn't realistic." Wrong. Under particular circumstances it is. What has to be done is to make the weapon and the situation vary according to the rules of realism. That will solve the problem rather than developer interference when such interference is not needed...or wanted. Interference

with what I have coined 'The Natural Order of Realistc Gameplay.' I know, I know, someone is bound to start calling it NORG.

 

Krise, a recovered weapons's capability will be dependant upon many things. For every geographic area, country, and unit, weapons will have a certain reliability. Why? Because that's the way things really are. I have seen new 74s with no front site post and grenade ammo that wouldn't slide into the launcher. It is up to you as an operator to study the intel and know this. You can't always tell by looking but a cursory inspection will reveal any obvious problems. Hoever certain weapons likely have shortcuts in manufacturing, lack of care, etc. and may carry with them operational issues. You reach a point though where you are just frustrating the gamer and this has to be noted. I didn't say corrected. There is a better remedy for that.

 

Yes that cleared up a lot of points, needed doing as well.

 

It is a good read too.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirq   
We still have the license restriction that is in place. So until that is taken care of, we will not be allowed to show in game footage.

 

I see, so lets wait. Thx god You are releasing newsletters, it helps to stand the wait for propably one of the most anticipaited game in my life :thumbsup:

Edited by Kirq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we NEVER do though is remove realism to promote realism. We never artificially balance something..... Real life offers a great set of rules and situations to work within and we are using them.

I think where applicable this is a great idea, if real life gives a set of rules that we can use, then use them. This links in with Krise's statement about cause and effect. Realistic actions should have realistic effects. Why don't you bunny hop round the map? Because it has the realistic effect of making you totally combat ineffective. You don't need to ban jumping, or even limit it, you just make it so that it's a stupid idea - as it is in real life.

 

Still I think there is a question of "what do you do when this doesn't apply"? When a realistic action does not (and cannot) give rise to a realistic effect, due the limitations of the simulation. One example of this is suppression (one of my favourite hobby horses for discussion). It's notoriously hard to suppress games players. You take the realistic action of trying to suppress them and it has an unrealistic effect of almost no effect. There are many issues like this I think, anything where the fact that this is just a game changes the basic dynamics of the situation.

 

Clearly you can't really apply NORG in these situations since here realistic actions don't give rise to realistic effects. Something that should work in real life doesn't work in game. So here you need another design principle, something that says how such questions are going to be handled when NORG doesn't apply.

Edited by tomshackell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a great point/question..... And that is really the point everyone needs to realize. NORG is not an end all be all solution to everything in the game. There are still a lot of limitations in games and we will be no different. There are situations and actions that we cannot simulate in the game environment. As I have mentioned.... NORG gives us a doctrine to follow and sets us down a path. We may need to deviate from that path at times due to things that simply cannot be overcome due to numerous reasons.

 

The issue with suppression is, in a game there is no sense of life and fear. We have discussed this in another thread, but the bottom line is it is very hard, if not impossible, to give real value to your in game life in a way that is on par with real life. Maybe there is a solution to that particular problem, I don't know.

 

Unfortunately, the "this is just a game" attitude is what it is and there is no way to change it. So we work within that medium and promote realism within the scope of what is both possible and practical. The jumping thing is a perfect example....... While at RSE we always used the explanation for no jumping as it wasn't realistic. Well, that is removing realism to promote realism and that is one of the prime issues NORG takes care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MONOLITH   
it is very hard, if not impossible, to give real value to your in game life in a way that is on par with real life. Maybe there is a solution to that particular problem, I don't know.

 

 

A small metal wristband, connects to a USB port.

 

Take a bullet, get a nice shock.

 

 

 

That's on 'easy' setting.

 

On 'hard' difficulty...well....don't get shot.

 

 

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A small metal wristband, connects to a USB port. Take a bullet, get a nice shock. That's on 'easy' setting. On 'hard' difficulty...well....don't get shot.

ROFL :) I still think there is some merit in blurring/accuracy reduction schemes, but this isn't a post about suppression so (with great difficulty) I shall remain quiet :)

Edited by tomshackell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A small metal wristband, connects to a USB port.

 

Take a bullet, get a nice shock.

 

 

 

That's on 'easy' setting.

 

On 'hard' difficulty...well....don't get shot.

 

 

:thumbsup:

 

Actually, 'hard' difficulty is the same, except it isn't connected to your wrist... >_<

 

On a more serious note, it's worth remembering that NORG isn't a dogma that a game must adhere to, but an inspirational design tool.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but despite reading the posts in this thread, I still can't quite see the difference between NORG and what krise madsen described as "realism as we understand it in most games". If someone could clarify this for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

Edited by abnegnejs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in its most basic interpretation NORG is the difference between starting from the beginning versus starting at the end.

 

traditionally, many of the ingame features are implemented after a lot of the groundwork, engine and hardcode has been put built in so that when it comes time to implement ingame features, developers are forced to use work arounds or settle for inferior alternatives to what would appear on the battlefield in real life.

 

NORG meaning Natural Order of/for Realistic Gameplay means you don't think about what you want in the game after you've done the hardcoding - you work out exactly what you want based on real life and build that into the game development at the start of development. All the things that should be ingame are there, and act/behave as they would in real life.

 

in Ghost Recon - you couldnt walk over/fall off edges of cliffs or buldings (why not? bcoz it wasnt considered until too far down the track and was considered too difficult to implement at a later stage). NORG says in real life you could/would fall off a cliff/ledge if you went to close to the edge - so the Devs must factor this into the development at the start of development, not deal with it at the end.

 

in Ghost Recon - your stances were stand, crouch, prone (what about all of the points in between?). NORG considers all stances that are available in real life first...and develops second.

 

thats how I interpret NORG.....

Edited by Lightspeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in its most basic interpretation NORG is the difference between starting from the beginning versus starting at the end.

 

traditionally, many of the ingame features are implemented after a lot of the groundwork, engine and hardcode has been put built in so that when it comes time to implement ingame features, developers are forced to use work arounds or settle for inferior alternatives to what would appear on the battlefield in real life.

 

NORG meaning Natural Order of/for Realistic Gameplay means you don't think about what you want in the game after you've done the hardcoding - you work out exactly what you want based on real life and build that into the game development at the start of development. All the things that should be ingame are there, and act/behave as they would in real life.

 

in Ghost Recon - you couldnt walk over/fall off edges of cliffs or buldings (why not? bcoz it wasnt considered until too far down the track and was considered too difficult to implement at a later stage). NORG says in real life you could/would fall off a cliff/ledge if you went to close to the edge - so the Devs must factor this into the development at the start of development, not deal with it at the end.

 

in Ghost Recon - your stances were stand, crouch, prone (what about all of the points in between?). NORG considers all stances that are available in real life first...and develops second.

 

thats how I interpret NORG.....

 

Thanks, that makes things a bit more clear. So essentially, NORG is a concept more at the development level rather than the game itself? Obviously the development of a game is what makes the game, but there are several different ways of ending up with one game.

Edited by abnegnejs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that's right - but by having the open forums and discussion about what ppl want to see now ingame - helps the Devs work out what should be in and what it should look like in the final analysis.

 

then they can build it in from the ground up...not try to fit the square peg into the round hole later.

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