MurDoc

Get with the times.

Recommended Posts

I would love to see realistic/tactical genre rise but more so I want to see it go mainstream. That's where I feel this project fails.Reading the kickstarter page and forums, all I see is Realistic, Tactical, R6 and GR. Which is great if you were there, over a decade ago. Gaming has changed since, there's more new gamers, and past gamers have moved on. That past target group is very small. And most of these new gamers have no clue what this game is referring to. Worst it's not targeting mainstream cause it's removing or ingoring game features that are standard in almost every new game. Features that making the game inviting and peasent to play.

 

For one, there's no mention of community network. Stats, friends list, etc? Steam? Maybe don't feel the need to mention but it's something players look for and except. GB could actually take this further by making a frontend app with news, forums, stats, mod database and maybe even a ladders system. Something like that could strengthen community and make it last.

 

No Unlock/Reward/Ranking system? Really? Ok I agree locking guns is stupid but it's not a reason to completely abandon this system. Reason it's there is to help new and less skilled gamers feel like they are accomplishing something. Removing it completely pretty much says you must be elite to enjoy this game, further lowering the target group. Maybe instead unlocking guns there could be a charactor attributes that players could add onto with each rank, to better suit their role or play style. If done in realistic matter could keep things fair and even realistic cause not every human/soldier is the same.

 

Custom servers like pistols only or snipers only can be fun. But more server options means more variations server and less standard gameplay. It breaks down the community and each variation means new learning curve which alot players don't like. Especially when the game has a high learning curve already. Go play BF3 to see what I mean. Adding matchmaking is great fix for that, it keeps the gameplay the same and simple. If a player gets sick of it, they can find a custom server.

 

I hope Blackfoot takes a second look at these features and shifts focus for todays gamers. Past was great but you need to sell. These features are standard today cause they sell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you're missing the point. this project is in reaction to the mainstreaming of games. so why should it go with the flow?if you want a mainstream game, try ghost recon future soldier, battlefield 3, and the next call of duty will be out soon i'm sure.

Edited by 213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doh.gif

 

Yet that's why a lot of us are here - we don't like sort of stuff in our games. Unlocks make absolutely no sense from a realism point of view (and, IMO, they disrupt the balance of a game by giving seasoned players better equipment while screwing over rookies). Not every soldier is the same, but if you read about the weight issues where someone with a LMG won't run as fast as someone with less equipment, that's how you work it into your own playstyle - no forced classes, just what YOU want and how YOU set it up. Not a generic Rifleman/Medic/Support/Sniper class setup. Rewards are ultimately pointless - so what if I got an achievement or ribbon? Ranking pulls people OUT of the game and gets them to try and abuse things to put them at the top of a ladder. Seriously, I've yet to see a game where the ladder was actually remotely accurate.

 

The game will be on Steam (I believe it's stated on the Kickstarter page that you get a Steam key with the digital copy), so that's obvious with those benefits. Stats, again, get people to play the game in ways they aren't intended. I've seen plenty of people in BF3 that hold fire because they don't want to screw up their accuracy percentage. The focus should be on the game, not arbitrary numbers. Custom servers are a thing of PC gaming, it can break communities, sure, but that is done more or less via game modes and maps than anything. With BF3 it's the hardcore vs normal or DLC vs non-DLC breaks that I see. We WANT a server browser to show us what the server settings are, not some automated system that says "Hey, you'll like this!" Matchmaking has been one of the worst things to happen to MP gaming on the PC, ever. Mainstream isn't always better (come on, would you rather have steak or McDonalds? :P)

 

Just my opinion, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play games for the gameplay, not stats or unlocks. How does the game feel? How are the controls? Hows the level design? Having stats and unlocks takes any from the game in my opinion. If you need to keep playing a game to unlock a weapon or piece of gear you should really ask yourself why you are playing that game to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see realistic/tactical genre rise but more so I want to see it go mainstream. That's where I feel this project fails.Reading the kickstarter page and forums, all I see is Realistic, Tactical, R6 and GR. Which is great if you were there, over a decade ago.

 

ArmA2 is not mainstream and it is a giant, right now, not a decade ago.

 

 

That past target group is very small.

 

It will grow once a game like this is there. Things are never static, a new element in the pool changes things.

 

 

And most of these new gamers have no clue what this game is referring to.

 

People can learn and adapt. Once they try it, they will decide whether they understand it or not.

 

 

Removing it [weapon unlocks] completely pretty much says you must be elite to enjoy this game.

 

Could you explain this? Reason why I don't like weapon unlocks is exactly because I feel like I need to be elite to play that game. I need to put enough hours to unlock weapons that have advantages of lower ranked guns. I prefer to hop in the game after 3 weeks of absence and use everything that is available and be on the same level when it comes to equipment as those who play every day.

 

 

Maybe instead unlocking guns there could be a charactor attributes that players could add onto with each rank, to better suit their role or play style. If done in realistic matter could keep things fair and even realistic cause not every human/soldier is the same.

 

I always see it simpler. Want to be an excellent sniper? Grab a sniper rifle and play with it untill you are so skilled that you can call it an attribute. That might be a fossil of a gamer mindset however.

 

Let me put it like this; In mainstream games all weapons kind of feel the same. Realistically represented weapons have unique "attributes" to them, that you practise with to "unlock" your skill(points). It's the same thing really, only better.

 

 

However, you might be right with your concerns. A young person, who never experienced anything different than Halo and Call of Duty will have trouble to adapt, I know I would. Some will see it as enlightenment and wonder why they never played this stuff before, because it's so different and so awesome, others will just say "meh" and move on. You can't serve them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see realistic/tactical genre rise but more so I want to see it go mainstream. That's where I feel this project fails.Reading the kickstarter page and forums, all I see is Realistic, Tactical, R6 and GR. Which is great if you were there, over a decade ago. Gaming has changed since, there's more new gamers, and past gamers have moved on. That past target group is very small. And most of these new gamers have no clue what this game is referring to. Worst it's not targeting mainstream cause it's removing or ingoring game features that are standard in almost every new game. Features that making the game inviting and peasent to play.

 

For one, there's no mention of community network. Stats, friends list, etc? Steam? Maybe don't feel the need to mention but it's something players look for and except. GB could actually take this further by making a frontend app with news, forums, stats, mod database and maybe even a ladders system. Something like that could strengthen community and make it last.

 

No Unlock/Reward/Ranking system? Really? Ok I agree locking guns is stupid but it's not a reason to completely abandon this system. Reason it's there is to help new and less skilled gamers feel like they are accomplishing something. Removing it completely pretty much says you must be elite to enjoy this game, further lowering the target group. Maybe instead unlocking guns there could be a charactor attributes that players could add onto with each rank, to better suit their role or play style. If done in realistic matter could keep things fair and even realistic cause not every human/soldier is the same.

 

Custom servers like pistols only or snipers only can be fun. But more server options means more variations server and less standard gameplay. It breaks down the community and each variation means new learning curve which alot players don't like. Especially when the game has a high learning curve already. Go play BF3 to see what I mean. Adding matchmaking is great fix for that, it keeps the gameplay the same and simple. If a player gets sick of it, they can find a custom server.

 

I hope Blackfoot takes a second look at these features and shifts focus for todays gamers. Past was great but you need to sell. These features are standard today cause they sell!

 

Why the hell would I want any of this ###### in a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont need to go jumping all over the guys ###### just because his tastes are different. Dude likes something different than what folks here like and that is fine. Just simply state that the BFS title Ground Branch will not have that and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Features that making the game inviting and peasent to play.

 

Or for many, boring, dull, stale and frustrating. Statistics? Who cares? Unlocks? So we have another BF3 like game where we finish playing before we unlock key gameplay features? Or where people who pay more money get priority for joining servers?

 

No thanks. I want a realistic, thinking mans shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont need to go jumping all over the guys ###### just because his tastes are different. Dude likes something different than what folks here like and that is fine. Just simply state that the BFS title Ground Branch will not have that and move on.

x 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont need to go jumping all over the guys ###### just because his tastes are different. Dude likes something different than what folks here like and that is fine. Just simply state that the BFS title Ground Branch will not have that and move on.

 

Most of the dribble in the post has been beaten like a dead horse. So instead of researching, and thinking we just want another kiddie shooter, he doesn't understand that we want something that's worth $50 someone might spend on it. Plus he has two post, and none that are any substantial meaning. Granted most of mine are goofy, but screw it, gloves are off right now.

ozAcb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to remember, not all players or posters will like what is in GB, PLEASE remember run and gun players so to speak account for millions of players all over the world, many of them don`t know the difference and to be honest, fed games for years that have moulded them into the players that they are.

 

We need to educate this type of player and tell them what GB is all about, and why it is different and why it is needed.

 

If you give a baby lager instead of milk one day, you will definitely have a problem.

 

The most important thing when replying to a post is be respectful, be understanding, and above all be a Ground Branch member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in one point he might be right: younger gamers have no idea what it meant to play original GR, RS or Infiltration. I would say by now the ones who played that games are, like me, at least close to 30 years or older and a lot of them maybe even dont play any games anymore. I know the game is directed towards a more mature audience (so to us ;)) but to get this game funded the "mainstream" audience has to be convinced to help via the kickstarter. And those younger, more "mainstream" guys just read: old school, classic style, original ghost reacon etc and might get turned off?! So in order to convince more players to help, it might be good to advertise the game not as "classic" but more like "advanced", "new direction" etc?!

 

But thats just a thought and maybe I have no idea ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that this game is going to appeal to 'young' (what does that mean anyway) gamers.

 

If GB turns out to be a 'boutique' game that I have to spend 150 dollars on, I will buy it. Why? Because I earn money and can afford it.

 

As for unlocks etc.

 

The Op IS right in that they help maintain a new gamers attention...which IS the problem right there. If you HAVE or MUST have unlocks and pseudo awards that are designed to keep those with short attention spans entertained and engaged, then this game would have failed.

 

The reason 'run n gun' gaming in MP is so dominant is that it is those very players, the ones with short attention spans, who, due to encouragement from game makers to unlock an award etc., play lone wolf style, and totally forget about the objective/s.

 

That was the single biggest downfall in MP gaming in recent years. The 'consolifying' (my word) of the Tactical FPS, has wreaked havoc with teamplay and taken away any need for cooperation in online gaming. Why do you think EA can get away without putting in VOIP in their games? it is because VOIP in a game like BF3, would be nothing more than trash talk back and forth, since the teamplay aspect is largely irrelevant.

 

Sorry OP, you are subscribing to the 'new' way of gaming, that does not mean it is the BEST way... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to remember, not all players or posters will like what is in GB, PLEASE remember run and gun players so to speak account for millions of players all over the world, many of them don`t know the difference and to be honest, fed games for years that have moulded them into the players that they are.

 

We need to educate this type of player and tell them what GB is all about, and why it is different and why it is needed.

 

If you give a baby lager instead of milk one day, you will definitely have a problem.

 

The most important thing when replying to a post is be respectful, be understanding, and above all be a Ground Branch member.

What Colin said. Also:

 

A guy might hate something before he starts liking it.

 

And a guy might just be starting to show some interest in something before somebody guns him down and then the guy loses all interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in one point he might be right: younger gamers have no idea what it meant to play original GR, RS or Infiltration. I would say by now the ones who played that games are, like me, at least close to 30 years or older and a lot of them maybe even dont play any games anymore. I know the game is directed towards a more mature audience (so to us wink.png) but to get this game funded the "mainstream" audience has to be convinced to help via the kickstarter. And those younger, more "mainstream" guys just read: old school, classic style, original ghost reacon etc and might get turned off?! So in order to convince more players to help, it might be good to advertise the game not as "classic" but more like "advanced", "new direction" etc?!

 

But thats just a thought and maybe I have no idea wink.png

 

it doesn't really matter what marketing buzzwords you use, there's enough details available for them to realize this isn't the next battlefield or ghost recon future soldier.

 

i just hope those people who have been jaded by marketing lie and dishonesty won't immediately dismiss this as another ubisoft-esque scamming.

Edited by 213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading the kickstarter page and forums, all I see is Realistic, Tactical, R6 and GR. Which is great if you were there, over a decade ago. Gaming has changed since, there's more new gamers, and past gamers have moved on. That past target group is very small. And most of these new gamers have no clue what this game is referring to.

 

Firstly, this is REALLY important and should be considered.

 

Secondly, jwp123 should get a warn or a lock for being a wanker - just bcoz he is a BFS fanboi should not give him the right to discard the views of a new member.

 

OP is right on the money and is probably a better representation of what I was trying to get across in my post re: video feedback. Just becoz we (the old school gamers) know what it's all about and buy into does not mean the video is going to work for the new school gamers, in fact, I don't believe it addresses those players at all and why shouldn't it? These new school gamers would probably love it if they understood it but they don't and this video and the attitude of some of the fanbois here doesn't help at all imo.

 

If you want to reach out and make $400K then I believe you need to tap into a bigger market then some old school players and you do it by exciting new school players about another way, a better way.

 

I'm not talking about adding unlocks or respawns either, but I don't think 'those' COD/BF3 players have been addressed in this campaign and I think that's a mistake because they are the big player base. At the moment, the attitude seems to be discount them coz they don't know ###### about tactical, but my view is you have to excite them about a new and better way.

 

And dicks who want to sledge the opinions of others should just s.t.f.u.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Op IS right in that they help maintain a new gamers attention...which IS the problem right there. If you HAVE or MUST have unlocks and pseudo awards that are designed to keep those with short attention spans entertained and engaged, then this game would have failed.

 

Yes, to us at BFS, unlocks and achievements have become the 'game' these days. People play with the purpose of unlocking and achieving a new ribbon or something. BFS has always been of the mind that playing the game itself is the game and enjoying the experience is the reward.

 

Achievements and unlocks are not wrong..... Billions of $$$ in revenue says so.... But it is not what Ground Branch is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following the Infiltration mod since 2000 (I've been on their forums since then smart.gif ).

 

That was basically my first real taste of a tactical shooter. Beforehand, I'd played Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake 1/2, Half-Life and a few PSX shooters like Medal of Honour and Lifeforce Tenka.

 

I asked a LOT of stupid, dumb questions about Infiltration and other realism mods/games when I first joined the forums, and I used the word clip instead of magazine (the horror!) People on the Inf board were fairly tolerant and pleasant of my questions and also towards newbies who genuinely wanted to know more about Infiltration or firearms and whatnot. It was a small close knit community, but as long as you didn't throw tantrums and , it was a great place to hang out.

 

My point is, we were all n00bs to the tactical scene at one point, we all asked questions that in hindsight seemed silly or painfully obvious and if we'd been constantly treated like rubbish or ridiculed for asking honest questions when we wanted to learn, would we still have been part of the Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six/Inf/etc scene? Would we have decided to play those games religiously and actively participate in the community? Not bloody likely.

 

Yes, there will be no stats in Ground Branch. Ground Branch is offering a different focus that might seem a bit old fashioned or strange for younger or non-tactical gamers. The lack of stats and unlocks will definitely be unique compared to other shooters and will seem quite refreshing. That's all we had to say to him.

 

Murdoc raised a valid point of newbies and the steep learning curve. I don't think match-making is the answer at all, but this should be addressed though. Perhaps having official Training Servers for the first few months after it's released? Video guides like

for newbies? Other suggestions?

 

Regarding unlocks, surely the fact that you can MOD Ground Branch and add in your own maps, weapons, models to your heart's delight is FAR better than unlocks, no? Why not use that as a valid response to criticisms about no unlockables?

 

"Battlefield 3 has unlocks, but Ground Branch doesn't! Bah, I'm not interested!"

"Can you make your own levels or custom weapons in Battlefield 3? Can you make your own skins?"

"Uhhh, no."

"You can mod Ground Branch and change anything you want. Levels, weapons, player skins, you can mod them all. Hell you can start making mods right now with the Unreal Development Kit! EA and DICE won't ever let you do that with Battlefield 3."

"Oh, that sounds pretty neat...tell me more"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find it funny that some of you assume I'm young arcade gamer. I'll like to point out I signed up here way before kickstart. You really think a gamer like that would have found this project before kickstart? And how many you think have signed since kickstart? I bet it's less than a dozen.

Face it this community is small, it's not even 1% of FPS market. If it was, there would be atleast 1000 backers by now. There's simply not enough funding within. Only way it's going to find it is by making it inviting and peasant stay for mainstream gamers. Another wise it's going down the grave with you and me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Niche games have a better chance of success by being as unique as possible. From what I've seen, whenever devs try to add token features or gameplay more diluted for the masses it backfires.

Edited by Sandraker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandraker is right imo.

The best example would be Red Orchestra 2 I think. Here's a game that tried to do what the OP suggests. It added some cool new features like mantling, bullet penetration, free-aiming ironsights, the ability to adjust the range on your weapon etc. All of that suggested the game would be a more indepth experience than the original RO.

But to appeal to younger gamers, used to the 'new way' of doing things, they decided to add a stat-system, they added unlocks (some of which were completely nonsense, like having to unlock standard equipment, or unlocking experimental weapons that never saw the light of day) etc.

 

Now, to facilitate those things, and appeal to the newer players, they changed some vital gameplay mechanics which were not very apparent at first, but which grew more and more annoying over time. Like the lack of weapon sway after having sprinted for a long time, the ability to go into ironsights in less than a second, among other things.

What they ended up with was a game that was still too demanding on younger players because of the amount of options and gameplay mechanics, as well as the high damage rate they are not used to (while it sometimes, with the bleedout system, wasnt as damaging as fans of the original would have liked), and a game that lost some of it's thoughtfulness in gameplay, because the mechanics were too forgiving for the fans of the original.

Couple that with a load of bugs and ######ty performance during the initial release and you end up with a lot of dissatisfied customers, most of which who have left. And the fans of the original RO, who might have stuck it out through the bugs and performance, didnt end up having the gameplay that would be able to keep them around either.

They either gave up with TWI in disgust, or stuck around on the forums hoping for an improvement to gameplay but forever having lost trust in TWI, while the new gamers are highly unlikely to buy another TWI game again either.

 

So now, after a looong period of time, the game is finally at a stage where most of the bugs have been squashed, the performance is stable, and where TWI has had to do major adjustments to the game mechanics, and have even had to add two new gameplay modes, the classic mode and a new 'action mode' that adds crosshairs, removes free-aim, reduces player damage and overall turns the game more into a COD-like experience. They are flailing back and forth between two extremes and RO2 is aaalll over the place.

But wether it actually brings back a reasonably sized player base remains to be seen.

 

Now, had RO2 actually catered to the fans of the original RO right away, the game would have been a VAST improvement over the original, and pretty much all those players would have stuck around to play the game.

Now you might think that the player base would not grow because it caters to the fans of the original and not new players, but you'd (in my opinion) be wrong. You have to take into consideration that the original RO did not receive a lot of previews or attention of any kind, and the marketing campaign just wasn't up to par with the standard. They didnt have millions to spend on advertisement. RO2 did have a reasonably good marketing campaign, and the comments throughout the internet were largely positive.

Many people were actually looking forward to a game with a little bit more meat on it's bones than say, BF3 or COD. There were quite a lot of people that seemed very interested in a new and interesting experience, which they didnt end up having because despite all the new features in RO2, the core gameplay mechanics were mainstreamed, and RO2 lost it's uniqueness because of that. And a game that isnt unique, and has loads of problems on top of it, simply fails to maintain a playerbase, especially when you try to go up against the giants of the genre with their millions in advertisement.

 

Striving for that would be the wrong way to go. It really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MurDoc would you like this game to made for the mainstream type of player???

NO, I want core gameplay to be for us, realistic movements and ballistics. But on top I want a sugar coat to attract mainstream(more players).

Are my suggestions really breaking that core gameplay? I see them as small compromises to be made for a bigger and longer future for this community and genre.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.