• Announcements

    • Aldous

      Forum Upgrade Completed   02/22/2017

      We have upgraded our forum and some background software to a new build. This will, among other things, add a few new features as well as implement a few bugs. Please let us know if you find anything unusual.
krise madsen

NORG Explained

69 posts in this topic

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.

 

It's certainly not a stupid question :)

 

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.....

 

:thumbsup:

 

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.

 

Yes, it's first and foremost a development tool. When developers approach a problem they say "what would NORG do?", sort of. It's not a list of how to do things, but more of a mindset or philosophy. As the player you will likely experience a higher degree of freedom in how you play the game. Generally speaking, what works well in real life will work well in the game.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would two valid examples of NORG manifested in-game be:

 

Scenario: Investigate/Clear a House.

 

i) A player uses terrain advantage to approach unseen, monitors the building, establishes enemy presence, uses sniper fire to eliminate perimeter guards and provides overwatch while ordering squads to breach and clear.

 

ii) A player runs over a hill alone towards a house firing rounds blindly until he's out of ammunition, picks up another weapon and a 'grenade found lying on the battlefield, lobs the 'grenade and stands up to spray the enemy with rounds and dies as his weapon jams and the dud grenade lands harmlessly at the feet of his foe.

 

Both being real-world, even if one ill-advised, examples to accomplish the same goal, leading to the natural conclusion as it would be in the real-world, facilitated by game-play by teh inclusion of teh dropped weapons.

Edited by UKJack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So would two valid examples of NORG manifested in-game be:

 

Scenario: Investigate/Clear a House.

 

i) A player uses terrain advantage to approach unseen, monitors the building, establishes enemy presence, uses sniper fire to eliminate perimeter guards and provides overwatch while ordering squads to breach and clear.

 

ii) A player runs over a hill alone towards a house firing rounds blindly until he's out of ammunition, picks up another weapon and a 'grenade found lying on the battlefield, lobs the 'grenade and stands up to spray the enemy with rounds and dies as his weapon jams and the dud grenade lands harmlessly at the feet of his foe.

 

Both being real-world, even if one ill-advised, examples to accomplish the same goal, leading to the natural conclusion as it would be in the real-world, facilitated by game-play by teh inclusion of teh dropped weapons.

 

Yes pretty much. The key here is that the developers don't include some artificial punishment to the player for "not doing it right".

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through history, it has been shown that a crazy man (really brave soldier), running rapidly through an enemy formation and firing at everything in the area and killing everything, has gotten the job done. Does this mean that this is the right way? No, but it worked, at that time. It might not have worked at a different time and the soldier would have ended up dead. Having the option to do so is how NORG is applied from the get go in my opinion. More often than not, it will not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Through history, it has been shown that a crazy man (really brave soldier), running rapidly through an enemy formation and firing at everything in the area and killing everything, has gotten the job done. Does this mean that this is the right way? No, but it worked, at that time. It might not have worked at a different time and the soldier would have ended up dead. Having the option to do so is how NORG is applied from the get go in my opinion. More often than not, it will not work.

The problem I personally have with many games is not that there is the ability to do things like that, but the fact that the game supports this behavior by game mechanics (incl. AI) that lead to success. Really I have seen this enough (especially in Raven Shield and Ghost Recon) and that is extremely frustrating.

My biggest wish is that Ground Branch has things developed in a way where such crazy run and gun tactics can be successful only because of luck (or incompetence of your foe), not because it is a gameplay issue the developers did not take care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biggest wish is that Ground Branch has things developed in a way where such crazy run and gun tactics can be successful only because of luck (or incompetence of your foe), not because it is a gameplay issue the developers did not take care of.

 

 

That is one of the underlying aspects of NORG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I personally have with many games is not that there is the ability to do things like [crazy run n gun], but the fact that the game supports this behavior by game mechanics (incl. AI) that lead to success. Really I have seen this enough (especially in Raven Shield and Ghost Recon) and that is extremely frustrating.

I think one thing that made this a problem in Ghost Recon was the non-random enemy placement. Someone who was familiar with a mission could charge through it. If you know where every enemy is, and have already tried and tested all the tactics for defeating them, then you can go at quite a rate.

 

It's why I'm really hoping GB makes random enemy placement and patrol behaviour a priority. I think it would add a great deal to both the replayability and the realism :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beware the "over-random-ness". I played vegas 2 a fair bit after modding it to the point I liked, and in doing to, normally had my men in odd positions so as to form a triangle of cover. Don't know why, but the triangle was generally 50 meters or so ( as far as the game got in distance really). Occasionally the ai team mates would set of a spawn trigger (i know GB is going to be different but hear me out). Generally this was no worries, they were carved up as soon as they were in a fire lane but very occasionally, the spawn would change for the same spot (ie: if you died they wouldn't come from the same location). In an effort to test the randomness, i sat dying in a hallway for half an hour.

Mostly it was a left vs right variation with a bit of distance change, but occasionally, the spawn was so bloody random they would appear with my rifle barrel already lodged in their mouth, or them behind me, providing infinite frustration. Again, I'm 99% sure this would be handled, but just thought I'd shout out anyway... it's the simple things you miss when the focus is on whats complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beware the "over-random-ness".

 

Blasphemy. :hehe:

 

 

I understand your scenario; but it is a specific setup.

 

Keep in mind, even randomness, properly set up, is controlled by specific parameters. Meaning; Randomized spawn locations doesn't mean "anywhere, everywhere, at anytime". Even randomness, properly executed, is still controlled.

 

 

Very simply put, the player walks into a trigger zone, and based on a random number generated at mission startup, a tango may spawn at one of 4 locations. But none of those locations would allow the tango to spawn on the end of your rifle.

 

Even randomness needs a leash. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust BFS will not let me watch enemies spawn in, let alone at the end of my rifle. It completely kills any immersion.

 

But again, I trust BFS! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let alone at the end of my rifle.

 

 

Well, with a bayonet attachment, that's called the 'easy difficulty level'. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, with a bayonet attachment, that's called the 'easy difficulty level'. :lol:

 

That's the problem . . . too easy! :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but occasionally, the spawn was so bloody random they would appear with my rifle barrel already lodged in their mouth, or them behind me, providing infinite frustration.

 

thisis just a poor scripting issue - as Mono said - even randomness is a controlled state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best approach is that random positions are chosen at level start and then after that no more enemies are spawned. That makes the gameplay random, but also realistic.

 

I'm definitely against enemies appearing out of thin air. I found the prison rescue mission in OGR a bit annoying because of the guards that magically appeared when you picked up the POWs. I wouldn't have minded if a previously inaccessible door suddenly opened and they had run out of it, although it still would have been too predictable.

 

Enemies walking in from off the map is fine, but only if they do so outside the player view. It's particularly unfair when they walk in off map right next to the player. Especially when the terrain is such that you should be able to see people coming for miles. Again randomness is good here, if they always walk in from off map in the same place then it becomes too predictable.

 

Still I'm confident GB will get it right, after all magically appearing enemies is not in keeping with NORG philosophy. Since it's an unrealistic effect and it is not determined by the players actions (i.e. it breaks cause-effect consistency) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our plan is to have randomization of the level scripting so that each time you play things will be different. However, that scripting will be done at the start of the level so if there are 30 bad guys in a level, all 30 will be spawned at the start of the level and not spawn in based on triggers as you move through the space.

 

I think this answers a lot of the questions in this thread . . . :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still I'm confident GB will get it right, after all magically appearing enemies is not in keeping with NORG philosophy. Since it's an unrealistic effect and it is not determined by the players actions (i.e. it breaks cause-effect consistency) :)

 

That's actually a very good point. :thumbsup:

 

(AI-)Enemies should only be (and spawn) where there is a reason for them to be. You can't just give the enemy a tank to make that part of the mission harder. Is there a reasonable reason for them to have a tank there? If it's a tiny island then the answer would usually be "No".

 

The fact that GB bots will all be spawned when the mission is a huge pro-NORG feature. I must admit I was a little bit worried if BFS could pull off really good and NORG mission mechanics. Now it's obvious they've given this a lot of thought.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NORGmania

NORGarific

NORGophobia

NORGophilia

NORGtastic

NORGy

NORGsome

NORGish

 

I think the oxford english dictionary needs a new page.

I just had a NORGasm.

 

Sounds like the real saying too. :lol:

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