[krise madsen]

?ing, on Mar 1 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

ok I'll just come out and ask... I linked kriese's sig as directed but it didnt help.. someone plz just tell me wht the N in NOrg stands for ...argh

Sorry about not explaining properly, but I was in a hurry

The Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay is a term coined by Hatchetforce. You could define it as a doctrine or concept for making realistic tac-sim games, 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.

A (very) rough description of shooters (including "tactical" and "realistic'" ones) these days is a standard shooter (Doom/Quake/Half-Life e.c.t.) with a few tweaks: You replace your laser gun with an M4 carbine, character model/skin "space soldier" with a Navy SEAL (or whatever), replace the spaceship interior map with an Iraqi village and the bugeyed space monster enemy with an Iraqi insurgent. You may slow down movement speed, reduce weapon accuracy when running and delete jumping, but that's about it.

With NORG you do it the other way around. You build the game to enable real life actions, and those actions have real life consequenses. Jumping is one example that has already been discussed in this forum: With NORG, you can jump as in real life (i.e. not bounce 30ft into the air repeatedly), and you face the same dangers by doing so as in real life: Not being able to fight effectively and being a very easy target. There is a reason why soldiers don't jump up and down in real life. NORG brings this into the game without resorting to "cheap" solutions like simply removing jumping.

Picking up weapons from dead friends or foes during gameplay is another issue already discussed (you'll find it in the "I support NORG!" GR.net thread): In real life, you can pick up guns and ammo, but real life soldiers don't run around ditching their rifle and picking up a new one every two seconds because you never know what kind of weapon you'll end up with. Again, NORG brings this into the game.

You can apply NORG to just about every aspect of a game. Such as this thread: Try applying NORG to the subject at hand: wounds/health and see what you come up with.  

One thing though, you have to think waaay out of the box. NORG doesn't work if you try to shoehorn it into an existing game concept. But if you start with a clean slate then NORG becomes the ultimate game-making tool.

The original Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon had NORG (wether the developers knew it or not) and that was why they were so good.

Respectfully

krise madsen

PS: If you didn't understand a word I don't blame you. Hatchet can explain this much better.

Edited by krise madsen, 04 March 2007 - 02:22 PM.

[Tactical Jerky]

And for all these strange acronyms there's always: http://www.acronymfinder.com

Try it out.

[krise madsen]

Tactical Jerky, on Mar 4 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

And for all these strange acronyms there's always: http://www.acronymfinder.com

Try it out.

brilliant! I wonder when NORG appear on Wikipedia  

One thing though. NORG isn't a mould that you simply mindlessly apply to your game. A 100% perfect simulation of real life would of course be the ultimate NORG game, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. There may be issues where NORG could be applied but it isn't sensible to do so: There seem little point in wasting effort on simulating blisters from long marches, or standing in line for chow.

Rather, NORG is a guiding principle and source of inspiration that is applied when and where sensible.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[phil]

I think NORG sounds interesting, but I'm more interested in a fun game that I can play competitively with my teammates.

[RAbbi]

phil, on Mar 5 2007, 07:10 AM, said:

I think NORG sounds interesting, but I'm more interested in a fun game that I can play competitively with my teammates.

Many seem to believe (as I do) that Ghost Recon was a very NORG game.  That being the case, I'd like to point out that well over five years beyond its original release it's still played nightly by hundreds (if not a couple thousand on a busy night) around the world.  Which is more than its non-NORG, long-awaited sequel managed to accomplish (what with color-coded health-o-meters and cheap comic book style video sequences).  Folks don't play a game over five years if it's not fun and competetitive (sp?).  There are still members of my team (Ghosts of 30+) who play OGR, and are in fact rediscovering it.  Thanks to the CENTCOM mod (can't remember who gets credit for that, but it's AWESOME!) even I have rediscovered OGR.

That's one SERIOUSLY tall order for BFS to live up to, but if they even come close it'll be the best tactical game released probably since Rogue Spear.

To the OP, you mentioned the damage model/injury system in NORG context.  Do you mean to discuss it HERE or start another thread?  Cuz I have an idea or two on it myself...

[ZJJ]

RAbbi, on Mar 5 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

To the OP, you mentioned the damage model/injury system in NORG context.  Do you mean to discuss it HERE or start another thread?  Cuz I have an idea or two on it myself...

Another thread.  

[krise madsen]

I should also mention that NORG isn't necessarily the same as "realism" in the traditional sense. You could say that removing jumping from a game is realistic, because people don't jump around like rabbits on cocaine in real life, but it isn't NORG.

NORG is letting you jump to the extent that it is possible in real life, while facing the consequences of doing so (i.e. in this context: getting shot). Cause and effect.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Seven7h_Column]

while i am thrilled that this excellent way of thinking now has an akronym, i cant help but chuckle that it sounds like the Elites from Halo.  I think of them running around saying Norg norg norg , instead of the usuall wort wort wort.  so as pointless and silly as this post is, i was slightly amused at myself, maybe its the cumulative 4 hours of sleep in the last 2-3 days due to classwork and procrastination some of which is fuled by this very forum.

[krise madsen]

Erm,

http://www.norg.uminho.pt/index.html

"Gee, we have become very popular with gamers all of a sudden"!  

Respectfully

krise madsen

PS: I have no idea what they're about. Somefink with computers and programming, but...

[waika]

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.

Edited by waika, 21 March 2007 - 04:06 AM.

[Hatchetforce]

waika, on Mar 21 2007, 05:53 AM, said:

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.

I honestly do not have the time to answer you post. I don't. You have a fundamental and oviously slewed misunderstanding of how NORG handles an issue and I don't have the time for a class session at the moment. Zoom? Sorry, but that isn't realistic in the least so taking an unrealistic issue and saying that is a result of NORG implementation is so far off first base you are in the concession stand.  

Seven7h_Column, on Mar 16 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

while i am thrilled that this excellent way of thinking now has an akronym, i cant help but chuckle that it sounds like the Elites from Halo.  I think of them running around saying Norg norg norg , instead of the usuall wort wort wort.  so as pointless and silly as this post is, i was slightly amused at myself, maybe its the cumulative 4 hours of sleep in the last 2-3 days due to classwork and procrastination some of which is fuled by this very forum.

Ha ha ha ha. I am a bonafide HALO fanatic. John knows this and so do Whisper 44 and a few others. What the Elites are saying comes out as "Wort wort wort." It is actually a recording of Sergeant Johnson that has been lowered and played backwards when he is saying "Go! Go! Go!"

It also supposedly appears only in HALO1 but I don't believe Bungie has confirmed that part.

[waika]

Hatchetforce, on Mar 21 2007, 05:32 AM, said:

I honestly do not have the time to answer you post. I don't. You have a fundamental and oviously slewed misunderstanding of how NORG handles an issue and I don't have the time for a class session at the moment. Zoom? Sorry, but that isn't realistic in the least so taking an unrealistic issue and saying that is a result of NORG implementation is so far off first base you are in the concession stand.  

No where did I say or even imply that zoom was a "result of NORG implementation", neither did I say that 'it's realistic', in fact I explicitly wrote exactly the opposite.

But view distance limitations in games due to pixilation and LOD is not in the least realistic either, in fact you can't even identify a man-target as anything other then a pixilated blob at a fraction of the distance that you can clearly identify a target in the real world as: human, male, enemy, and even recognize a specific individual...

The very unrealistic limitations in game engines and how we view/play them invariably and in fact requires very unrealistic means and approaches to overcome those limitations, even if your goal is scale simulator design.

Edited by waika, 21 March 2007 - 04:46 AM.

[Hatchetforce]

waika, on Mar 21 2007, 06:43 AM, said:

No where did I say or even imply that zoom was a "result of NORG implementation", neither did I say that 'it's realistic', in fact I explicitly wrote exactly the opposite.

But view distance limitations in games due to pixilation and LOD is not in the least realistic either, in fact you can't even identify a man-target as anything other then a pixilated blob at a fraction of the distance that you can clearly identify a target in the real world as: human, male, enemy, and even recognize a specific individual...

The very unrealistic limitations in game engines and how we view/play them will invariably require very unrealistic means and approaches to overcome those limitations, even if your goal is scale simulator design.

Then go back and restructure the way you wrote your initial post, because when you use the unqualified phrase "Just one example" it automatically leaves the reader referring to your previous remarks. Here is what qualified developers know. NORG is a tough idea to get your head around. It is. It generates all the misunderstanding you are demonstrating. There comes a point though where a light bulb comes on and suddenly people are slapping themselves in the face. I am sure this is your case because I have seen it too many times already.  

Also you do not know or understand at this point how we are implementing views in this game - some of it has never been done before, but it does work. View distances won't be an issue.

[waika]

Hatchetforce, on Mar 21 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

Then go back and restructure the way you wrote your initial post, because when you use the unqualified phrase "Just one example" it automatically leaves the reader referring to your previous remarks.

There's nothing wrong with how my initial post is 'structured', it's literal, clear and every point including the illustration offered is qualified. The facts offered are inviolable limitations of game design...

Hatchetforce, on Mar 21 2007, 05:49 AM, said:

Also you do not know or understand at this point how we are implementing views in this game - some of it has never been done before, but it does work. View distances won't be an issue.

You're correct I don't,  but it's a dubious supposition without evidence to even bother posting or discussing -- as without some mechanism of 'zoom' you'd have to defy the laws of physics and the limitations current display technology places on game engines; now that's unqualified...

For a concept you don't have time to properly explain you sure are defensive...

[Hatchetforce]

waika, on Mar 21 2007, 07:05 AM, said:

There's nothing wrong with how my initial post is 'structured', it's literal, clear and every point including the illustration offered is qualified. The facts offered are inviolable limitations of game design...
You're correct I don't,  but it's a dubious supposition without evidence to even bother posting or discussing -- as without some mechanism of 'zoom' you'd have to defy the laws of physics and the limitations current display technology places on game engines; now that's unqualified...

For a concept you don't have time to properly explain you sure are defensive...

What you are suggesting are not facts, they are preferences. You assume (we know what that means) suggestions are inviolable and when you believe sich falsehoods and go into lemming mode then you get the same thing as every one else. You can't fix a system the way we are talking by starting the same way as everyone else.  

You are picking the pieces of NORG doctrine you want to examine and placing them against the background of standard game design. It won't work and you are doing this because you do not comprehend the idea of NORG. Not your fault but that is a fact.  

This is all fruitless until you realize and admit you don't understand NORG. You think you do. I am not saying this because you don't agree, but rather because it is almost possible to have calculated your responses and questions because they are the standard fare people espouse until people 'get it'.

NORG begins with conception. By changing conception, story, etc (the core) you can manipulate the design in ways that account for the factors about which you are concerned. You are missing the doctrine, that's all...and by a wide margin. This will stay a fact until you look at NORG on it's own from the ground up and not try to emplace pieces of it in regular game design. This is why any dev that comes here to steal an idea without comprehending the basis will simply screw themselves.

[Toniezz]

krise madsen, on Mar 4 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

Tactical Jerky, on Mar 4 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

And for all these strange acronyms there's always: http://www.acronymfinder.com

Try it out.

brilliant! I wonder when NORG appear on Wikipedia  
...

Until now The Netherlands own NORG @ Wiki    

Edited by Toniezz, 21 March 2007 - 07:04 AM.

[krise madsen]

Toniezz, on Mar 21 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

Until now The Netherlands own NORG @ Wiki    

For now...    

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Jsonedecker]

waika, on Mar 21 2007, 04:53 AM, said:

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.

I think we have a real life game designer in our midst!

Or SUP is back.  

Seriously, welcome to the boards and I hope you enjoy your time here. NORG is a philosophy and one that has not been exhaustively defined here on the public page. While you do bring up some good points about designing "realistic" games in general, those points are exactly what every other developer in this genre base their design approach around and why those games fall short on many levels these days.. It is an old way of thinking and in our opinion a backward way.

Thanks for the input though.  

[Whisper_44]

Quote

Or SUP is back. unsure.gif

No he's already registered but that's a great comparison

[Xeno]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 21 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

I think we have a real life game designer in our midst!

Busted! don't give intel the enemy soldier!

Besides using such eloquent words in a debate in an attempt to prove superior intelligence, ends up looking like a websters vomited its contents on the page.

Edited by Xeno, 24 March 2007 - 12:18 PM.