[Hatchetforce]

Good points above but saying that real combat offers few to no elements of a game is not correct. Because they may have never been accurately placed in a game is more correct as there are many instances that if properly translated and presented will offer experiences like no other title.

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. Also, game based - not just simulations based gaming, is used by the military community for a reason.

[Nemesis]

How about NORGANIC ?

NORG And Not Internet Cheats or simply sounds like youve got a cold & taking about the way that produce is manufactured  

[Spectre65]

Hey Hatchet, hey John.

NORG sounds great, especially in the world of TAC Sims.  

For folks like some of us, we would really appreciate the realism.  A lot of us live for it.  For a great many like me, GR and the R6 franchises up to IT and Raven Shield, set a standard that we look at when determining if we are going to buy a particular Sim.

But the question is, can you make a game too realistic, even for us hardcore Mil Sim fans?

What I'm trying to ask is this, I guess.

Do you think you can effectively balance NORG with fun, to keep the market share where you need it to make money?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, can a balance be struck, do you think?  I think if anyone can within the foreseeable future, it will be you guys, simply because you guys understand the concept(I only do right out of the gate, because I was fortunate enough to be able to meet HF a couple times, and we got to talk about it at length)and I admire you guys for taking on the challenge.  And some time ago, I don't know if he remembers, but John and I also talked about it.

And will trying to strike that balance put a significantly greater amount of time on the development cycle?

BTW, it's nice to see most of you again.

Edited by Spectre65, 24 April 2007 - 06:59 PM.

[Cutter]

Very intriguing concept, one of the most informative and interesting posts I have read about game design. So that is why I haven't been able to find a game that I have stuck with more than 3 months since playing Ghost Recon. Played that game for years and never got bored with it. Thanks for sharing the NORG concept.  

[Relinquish]

NORGmania
NORGarific
NORGophobia
NORGophilia
NORGtastic
NORGy
NORGsome
NORGish

I think the oxford english dictionary needs a new page.

[zero_sniped]

waika, on Mar 21 2007, 03:53 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.

(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

[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.

[MONOLITH]

th33f., on Mar 1 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

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.

[th33f.]

MONOLITH, on Mar 1 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

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.

[MONOLITH]

th33f., on Mar 1 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

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.

[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.

[tomshackell]

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:

Quote

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?".

[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)

[krise madsen]

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

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 ).

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

[Jsonedecker]

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.

[zoog]

Thanks for clearing that up John.

Colin said:

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?

[Jsonedecker]

No one outside of BFS has played it, but some have seen game play movies.

[Kirq]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 2 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

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 !  

[Jsonedecker]

Kirq, on Mar 2 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

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 !  

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.

[Colin]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 2 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

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