Sign in to follow this  
KretzJ

SP gameplay?

Recommended Posts

 

I just saw potential abuse since in OFP you can tell your men to look for enemy in a certain area, so my thought was that you could potentially warn your squad about enemy that you really cannot see from you position.

 

 

I'm a little confused by this.

 

Just to be clear, I was thinking about the SP side of the game, not sure if the camera follow was possible in MP. In the SP campaign, the camera would follow one of your AI teams.

 

As for seeing an enemy that you cannot see from your position, I'm confused about that, because if I sent a team to recon an area, they're going to radio back "Tango spotted" anyway, so what difference would having an external camera follow them be?

 

Good point. I see it as a fully acceptable abstraction and not really in conflict with NORG.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I will say this..... This is not a hero character game and if your guy carrying the demo goes down the mission is still expected to be carried out to completion. If one of your guys runs out of ammo, for whatever reason, expect to be asked to ration some out.

 

A mission doesn't end until the last man dies or a tactical retreat is initiated.

 

-John

John, it great to read stuff like this. :thumbsup: I would like to point out just one aspect. The missions should be such that, if there are too many friendly casualties, it should be very difficult to finish the mission. Otherwise, players would just use friendlies as extra lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, it great to read stuff like this. :thumbsup: I would like to point out just one aspect. The missions should be such that, if there are too many friendly casualties, it should be very difficult to finish the mission. Otherwise, players would just use friendlies as extra lives.

Im not sure if I understand you but, I do agree that as soon as you are combat ineffective it means that you can't complete any objectives anymore. Say the only demopack you brought was destroyed by an enemy-frag. An objective in which a demo pack is needed will then be unable to complete (unless resupplies are possible or enemy goods can be stolen). As soon as you are down to a team so small that it is no longer combat effective, I would say your next (and only?) objective is to move the remaining members to extraction safely. The 'fade to black' mission endings (due to TK', civilian losses, failure of a single objective etc.) are not my cup of tea.

 

I am happy to see where BFS is taking this game to. Until now I can't recall any comment by the devs which gave me my negative thoughts about the game(play). Every comment I only get more enthousiastic and excited about the process they are going through and the game they are creating!

 

Keep it up!

 

:w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, PLEASE - make friendly AI smart enough to take down rooms without making me restart the mission (I ask this after a bout of SWAT 4, which I've heard been called correctly as "The Headshot Simulator"). Your hot-stuff operators in S4 often get nailed, but given mainly due to the ROE as a police officer. However there are still times where a glitch has breachers standing in front of the door and tossing a bang into an ineffectual position. For most of the game, you're pointman despite being element leader, rather than depending on your element as reliable, trained men.

 

Please ensure that SP squadmates have sufficient intelligence, yet won't take the challenge of the game away. I do not want to babysit elite operators with the collective in-game IQ of a hick through a realistic portrayal of special forces operations. Cheers.

Edited by relaxative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

 

I guess I'm absolutely in the minority here because I thought OGR had terrible AI and I found myself vaguelly irritated at having to do everything for them.

 

If memory serves the bounding overwatch they only do in recon ROE. I also think the game cheats and orients the guy covering towards the nearest AI threat.

 

Watching the hand signals etc. was cool but I mostly recall watching dim AI.

 

Please, smart AI. No babysitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

 

I guess I'm absolutely in the minority here because I thought OGR had terrible AI and I found myself vaguelly irritated at having to do everything for them.

 

If memory serves the bounding overwatch they only do in recon ROE. I also think the game cheats and orients the guy covering towards the nearest AI threat.

 

Watching the hand signals etc. was cool but I mostly recall watching dim AI.

 

Please, smart AI. No babysitting.

I think you're in the majority... OGR did have limited AI, but it's now six years old. I think we'll get better AI from this new project...

 

:)

 

-jk

Callsign 3Point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im ah little late to the party on this one but....

 

i loved the friendly AI in OGR...well maybe not the AI but the "babysitting" of them.

 

the depth of control you had over your teams was one of the things that made it my all time favorite.

 

setting paths with multiple waypoints and telling them which directions to check at each waypoint.combined with the ROE,team customization,and "soul swapping"....

 

you could always have a plan B or C if things went wrong....i remember setting up a team on hold where i wanted them.but than setting another waypoint or 2 as a retreat route,if they got into trouble just switch to "advance at all cost" as i brought in the other team to cover and/or destract from the flank.

 

thats the depth that i so sorely miss.

 

i guess what most people consider baby sitting i call depth.it makes things almost a cross between a shooter and RTS.

 

CC F2F also comes to mind...sure they werent worth crap on their own,but you could do pretty much what you wanted with them.

 

i guess i never noticed if the friendly AI sucked in OGR because i rarely depended on them acting on their own,and had little desire to.

 

if they screwed the pooch,i blamed myself.should have called them back sooner,put them in a better position,covered their flank better with the team i was controlling at the time,etc,etc...

 

i would much rather have a team that i have deep control over but needs me to exercise that control...than one that does great on their own but who i cant do much with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm convinced. I need to find some time tonight for a little down-n-dirty OGR play. :)

 

awesome :yes:

 

I have to admit i found myself installing the original Rainbow Six recently, i just completed the mission on the dam where you have to rescue the tango traitor Roland Kunst and prevent the dam from being blown today and i loved it. :drool:

 

honestly, i don't know how much longer i can wait for this game.... :unsure::o=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

This is my first post, but I've been following this game and studio for some time. I am an avid R6 and GR fan. I play both MP and SP.

 

I've browsed as many FAQs and threads regarding "Ground Branch" as I can... But I'd still like to know a few things from either a developer, or other forum members who are more knowledgeable:

 

Is this just going to be a GR/R6 clone with better graphics and improved features?

 

Or is this going to be a truly realism based game ("NORG") that also addresses a lot of the shortcomings the so-called "tactical" shooter genre has in it?

 

Basically, as much as I love the game play of the original R6 and GR games... I want something more. Something that is truly "next-gen" -- And I don't mean just graphics. I want a game that is based and steeped in realism, but that addresses the flaws found in the current tactical gaming model too if possible.

 

The current tactical gaming model (in my opinion) is one that is outdated and is just as contrived as a lot of the arcade-type games on the market today. "NORG" addresses some of my concerns, but to be more specific:

 

-To me, being tactical does not mean being slow as a snail

 

Barring stealth and infiltration, I've read articles and seen documentaries on real life combat and it is anything but slow. It's chaotic, kinetic and most of all dynamic (always changing). Most FPS games have this, but the model is based on arcade elements. What I'd like is a realistic FPS game that isn't slow as molasseses just so it can call itself "tactical". Especially, in SP.

 

This is my number one pet peeve about the so-called tactical genre. As much as I like the original R6 and GR, these are also their biggest weaknesses as far as "realism" goes, in my opinion.

 

Tactical doesn't = slow. And it shouldn't in certain situations in my humble opinion. Having to make split decisions in the heat of battle can often be the difference between life and death. No tactical shooter really likes to address this because they are stuck in a contrived model from 1998-2001. Things going horribly wrong ("thinking on the fly") is what a lot of the older tactical games don't address very well.

 

-Having total control over friendly AI doesn't mean baby sitting and micro management

 

I want to play a realistic FPS... Not a realistic RTS, or 3D chess game with virtual soldiers.

 

I want AI who I have the means to control in-depth (body switching; detailed waypoint/planning system) when I need to... But who I don't necessarily have to control for them to be effective while they work alongside me.

 

If my character points to a corner the AI is smart enough to move there, face the right direction and if they come under fire while performing the move... Hit the deck and re(act) like a real soldier would.

 

I know AI is a very emerging field and will never equal human intelligence and experience (at least in commercial PC games). But I feel having both controllable AI and smart AI you don't have to babysit is one of the areas the tactical FPS genre really needs to start addressing because more arcade games are starting to address it as well.

 

-I don't want a simulator.

 

From what I've read, I think BFS acknowledges "Ground Branch" is still a video game. This is refreshing to hear in my opinion.

 

I think a lot of so-called realism, or tactical fans actually want a simulator when they say a "tactical FPS".

 

I personally do not. I've played OFP... And it was good... But to be honest, it wasn't very fun. This may have been because of the limits of the technology of the time, but I still feel a true balance has not been reached in the tactical shooter genre where the game feels real enough, but is still a video game at heart that anyone can enjoy. I don't feel this is an oxymoron, either. Others might disagree.

 

I like innovations like iron sights, gun jams and bandaging yourself. I'm even OK with having limited mobility if you get shot (in the leg), or decreased accuracy if hit in the arm. But sometimes trying to be too real inhibits the main purpose of playing a video game and that is enjoyment and entertainment in my opinion.

 

Anyway...

 

I just wanted to throw those things out and see what others think.

 

They apply to both SP and MP, but mainly SP because like I said... I think the so-called tactical FPS genre still has a lot of contrivances just like its arcade cousin that perhaps BFS will be the first studio to address and or eliminate all together?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the healing, ....

 

So where is a good compromise? I'd like to have the ability for some of my team options to be specialists + medic. If I take a round in the leg (and yes, I'm expecting to see limping across the battlefield! :D ) then my point man, who's also trained as a medic, should be able to come back around and do something to me to improve the situation. Am I healed? Heck no. Should I gain 15% of the 50% running speed back that I lost when I got shot? Perhaps. There could be a happy medium to find here. It is realistic, after all. And yes, I should have a player who goes down hard with 10% life left after a chest round and if the medic can get to him perhaps he's stabilized enough to live (note I didn't say "continue playing the mission"... perhaps we tuck him away or bring him along and bring him out during extraction...)

 

-jk

Callsign 3Point

 

I agree that hit zones are a must, shot in the leg, causes a limp, if your strong arm is hit, you either lose the ability to raise and aim quickly, or switch hands, which effects your accuracy. Hopefully body armour will stop most chest wounds, if not, then it should incapacitate the guy, and head shots, well you can guess what happens then. Also, all wounds should get worse eventually, unless first-aid is applied. Your limp gets worse, your vision gets blurry, which could require a shot of morphine and adrenaline as well as a fresh bandage to continue the mission. Whatever it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-To me, being tactical does not mean being slow as a snail

 

Barring stealth and infiltration, I've read articles and seen documentaries on real life combat and it is anything but slow. It's chaotic, kinetic and most of all dynamic (always changing). Most FPS games have this, but the model is based on arcade elements. What I'd like is a realistic FPS game that isn't slow as molasseses just so it can call itself "tactical". Especially, in SP.

 

 

For me, a true tactical game involves going at different speeds, depending on the situation. normal movement should be equal to normal walking, slower if approaching an area where the noise of a team walking around could bring unwanted attention, then faster when assaulting a room, to all out sprinting if under fire. Knowing when to use each is part of the immersion of a good FPS, after all, if someone always rushes, he is going to run into a situation that he is ill prepared for and it will cost him, same as a slug, as if someone is always crouched or prone, he is a sitting duck if spotted first. It's all about balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-To me, being tactical does not mean being slow as a snail...

...What I'd like is a realistic FPS game that isn't slow as molasseses just so it can call itself "tactical". Especially, in SP.

 

Check out The Regiment for quick dynamic tactical game play.

 

If you can get hold of a copy i personally think it is worth a play though. MP is not supported, doubt u will find an one online.

 

I think it is a truly thrilling SP experience. Think i could of loved that game had the MP being developed properly and supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground Branch is aiming to be something that no one has ever played before and is also planning on offering gameplay that is totally out of the ordinary as best as I can put it.

 

You will have choices to make and that could determin the outcome of the mission good or bad. If you make the wrong choice, you pay for your decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

This is my first post, but I've been following this game and studio for some time. I am an avid R6 and GR fan. I play both MP and SP. (e.c.t.)

 

Welcome to the forums :hi:

 

It's almost uncanny, but you described, almost to the letter, how I felt when I first heard of BFS' game project. No, really. I could almost belive I had written it myself.

 

All I can say about Ground Banch is that I'm not worried. I fully belive it will a great, realistic, tactical shooter.

 

Did you play the original Rainbow Six games? There were plenty of times when I wanted to take it slow but had to rush the room to get the terrorists before they executed the hostage. Expect Ground Branch to have you sometimes test your patience as you move slowly, at other times race across the map at full sprint in order to succeed.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, guys.

 

Thanks for the warm welcome.

 

Yeah... My biggest beef with so-called tactical games is what I said before:

 

They are just as contrived as their arcade, "run and gun" counter-parts. And they are based on a false model that is very unrealistic as a double irony.

 

I understand there has to be core elements to make these two genres different. I just feel these core elements are too restrictive and don't allow a realistic blending of the two "genres" that occur in real life.

 

For example, if you are doing recon to locate POWs in an enemy camp (with superior numbers) to plan a strike to minimize causalities (on your side)... That's fine. You want to be slow and cautious to not alert the enemy to your presence.

 

However, once the shooting starts the stealth aspect pretty much goes out the window. And I expect that. The tactics then switch to indexing targets, putting them down and keep moving to try and complete the objective (rescue the POWs).

 

The problem I have is most games like the original R6 and GR and other tactical shooters expect you to play the entire game in a stealth-like manner. Even after the first shot is fired. This is why I said the tactical genre is synonymous with being slow. And I think it is also because most arcade games are described as "run and gun" when that isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion given the realistic and dynamic nature of combat.

 

RELIQUISH:

 

I'll try and check out "The Regiment".

 

KRISE MADSEN

 

It sounds like I am asking for the "perfect" game... And maybe we all are... But realistically I don't see why certain elements and styles of play can't be shared between the two genres (tactical and arcade)?

 

A good idea is a good idea in my opinion.

 

For example, everyone in the tactical community associates picking up a weapon with "Counter-Strike" or other arcade games.

 

NORG approaches the reality of this situation properly, in my opinion:

 

Real soldiers can pick up whatever they want off the ground. However, most experienced soldiers choose not to pick up foreign weapons from fallen enemies. The difference is the game should not make that choice for the player. NORG acknowledges this subtle distinction between the two.

 

Again, there are core differences, but I think those differences can be stifling and not allow real progress, or evolution if the tactical game developers (not just BFS) aren't careful.

 

Another example is the recent "Ghost Recon 2: Advanced Warfighter" for PC.

 

It is almost like an upgraded (better graphics) version of the original GR except without the body switching and a few other elements.

 

That's fine for GR fans -- I am one of them -- And it is an OK game overall.

 

But I want something more. I don't want the standard slow-ass game play with robotic AI team mates you move into position like an RTS. To me this isn't progress. It's giving window dressing for a game that belongs in 2001, not 2007.

Edited by TacSimFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure i can agree with that...

 

all of the tactical shooters ive played have had their moments of hectic firefights and heavy action....its just broken up by sections where stealth is your best friend.

 

sounds pretty much how it should be to me.

 

ive been playing alot of AA recently,and it definately has its share of intense firefights where the lead is flying everywhere and you gotta depend on both twitch reflexes and smart tactics.....same with OGR and the others ive played.

 

im not saying they're perfect,but as far as the ebb and flow of the action,not an area i can complain much about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all of the tactical shooters ive played have had their moments of hectic firefights and heavy action....its just broken up by sections where stealth is your best friend.

 

sounds pretty much how it should be to me.

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TacSimFan,

 

The two of us are on the same page so much it's uncanny. Trust me when I say that I really know how you feel about tac-sim games and what you want. I want the same. There is nothing wrong with wanting more out of a game. Otherwise, we'd all still be playing "Pong".

 

Not to step on any GRAW2 toes, but it is essentially still a conventional first person shooter with some relatively modest concessions to realism.

 

Ground Branch will be different. Ground Branch will be better. Ground Branch will be NORG. :thumbsup:

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that hit zones are a must, shot in the leg, causes a limp, if your strong arm is hit, you either lose the ability to raise and aim quickly, or switch hands, which effects your accuracy. Hopefully body armour will stop most chest wounds, if not, then it should incapacitate the guy, and head shots, well you can guess what happens then. Also, all wounds should get worse eventually, unless first-aid is applied. Your limp gets worse, your vision gets blurry, which could require a shot of morphine and adrenaline as well as a fresh bandage to continue the mission. Whatever it takes.

 

Exactly the idea... but I do know that from a programming perspective it becomes a trade-off between the realism, the feature-set and the amount of physics / code / animation it takes to pull it off. :)

 

-jk

Callsign threepoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the story line, I really don't care as long as it doesn't get in the way of gameplay. To be honest I'm mainly concerned with shooting people and blowing stuff up.

 

I agree totaly with the first sentence. Too much story is one of the biggest things wrong with Ubi's recent GR and R6 releases.

 

However, it doesn't have to be simply shooting VS heavy storyline. GR1 and the R6 series were neither, which is where the replay value comes from.

 

The same formula for creating an immersive RPG or fantacy shooter doesn't work with a tac sim, or a sports sim, or racing sim, or jet fighter sim, etc. These realistic games are immersive when they allow the player to experience them with his immagination full throttle, not being led around by the storyline experiencing the developers vision of the subject matter instead of his own.

 

Example, Halo IMO is a masterpeice, and it wouldn't be without the fantastic storyline, perfect gameplay music, and lots of voice acting. Yet those same ingredients in Vegas contribute to what I consider an absolute disgrace to the R6 series, and make the game utterly unplayable for me.

Edited by doubletap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totaly with the first sentence. Too much story is one of the biggest things wrong with Ubi's recent GR and R6 releases.

 

However, it doesn't have to be simply shooting VS heavy storyline. GR1 and the R6 series were neither, which is where the replay value comes from.

 

The same formula for creating an immersive RPG or fantacy shooter doesn't work with a tac sim, or a sports sim, or racing sim, or jet fighter sim, etc. These realistic games are immersive when they allow the player to experience them with his immagination full throttle, not being led around by the storyline experiencing the developers vision of the subject matter instead of his own.

 

Example, Halo IMO is a masterpeice, and it wouldn't be without the fantastic storyline, perfect gameplay music, and lots of voice acting. Yet those same ingredients in Vegas contribute to what I consider an absolute disgrace to the R6 series, and make the game utterly unplayable for me.

 

I concur, the Vegas storyline was too Hollywood for me. A strong story can be passed along between missions, used to progress the missions in difficulty and urgency and explain why the mission is happening in the first place. getting in game intel from command should be all that we should get as far as story telling, once in the field. After all, they are most likely tracking us via satellite like in the Black Hawk Down movie, letting us know if there is any large groups or vehicles coming our way. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur, the Vegas storyline was too Hollywood for me. A strong story can be passed along between missions, used to progress the missions in difficulty and urgency and explain why the mission is happening in the first place. getting in game intel from command should be all that we should get as far as story telling, once in the field. After all, they are most likely tracking us via satellite like in the Black Hawk Down movie, letting us know if there is any large groups or vehicles coming our way. :w00t:

 

What is interesting is that for most tactical gamers... The experience is the "story". We get our thrill from doing. Not being told what, or how we're going to do it. The methods we use are exciting and interesting enough from a purely esoteric stand point.

 

We don't need Hollywood-style hero characters, cliched and over-the-top situations.

 

Just give us an interesting situation and the realistic means to get it done.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that for most tactical gamers... The experience is the "story". We get our thrill from doing. Not being told what, or how we're going to do it. The methods we use are exciting and interesting enough from a purely esoteric stand point.

 

We don't need Hollywood-style hero characters, cliched and over-the-top situations.

 

Just give us an interesting situation and the realistic means to get it done.

 

:)

 

:yes:

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