[Kirq]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 2 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

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.

I see, so lets wait. Thx god You are releasing newsletters, it helps to stand the wait for propably one of the most anticipaited game in my life  

Edited by Kirq, 02 March 2008 - 11:35 AM.

[tomshackell]

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

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.

I think where applicable this is a great idea, if real life gives a set of rules that we can use, then use them. This links in with Krise's statement about cause and effect. Realistic actions should have realistic effects. Why don't you bunny hop round the map? Because it has the realistic effect of making you totally combat ineffective. You don't need to ban jumping, or even limit it, you just make it so that it's a stupid idea - as it is in real life.

Still I think there is a question of "what do you do when this doesn't apply"? When a realistic action does not (and cannot) give rise to a realistic effect, due the limitations of the simulation. One example of this is suppression (one of my favourite hobby horses for discussion). It's notoriously hard to suppress games players. You take the realistic action of trying to suppress them and it has an unrealistic effect of almost no effect. There are many issues like this I think, anything where the fact that this is just a game changes the basic dynamics of the situation.

Clearly you can't really apply NORG in these situations since here realistic actions don't give rise to realistic effects. Something that should work in real life doesn't work in game. So here you need another design principle, something that says how such questions are going to be handled when NORG doesn't apply.

Edited by tomshackell, 02 March 2008 - 02:36 PM.

[Jsonedecker]

That is a great point/question..... And that is really the point everyone needs to realize. NORG is not an end all be all solution to everything in the game. There are still a lot of limitations in games and we will be no different. There are situations and actions that we cannot simulate in the game environment. As I have mentioned.... NORG gives us a doctrine to follow and sets us down a path. We may need to deviate from that path at times due to things that simply cannot be overcome due to numerous reasons.

The issue with suppression is, in a game there is no sense of life and fear. We have discussed this in another thread, but the bottom line is it is very hard, if not impossible, to give real value to your in game life in a way that is on par with real life. Maybe there is a solution to that particular problem, I don't know.

Unfortunately, the "this is just a game" attitude is what it is and there is no way to change it. So we work within that medium and promote realism within the scope of what is both possible and practical. The jumping thing is a perfect example....... While at RSE we always used the explanation for no jumping as it wasn't realistic. Well, that is removing realism to promote realism and that is one of the prime issues NORG takes care of.

[MONOLITH]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 2 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

it is very hard, if not impossible, to give real value to your in game life in a way that is on par with real life. Maybe there is a solution to that particular problem, I don't know.

A small metal wristband, connects to a USB port.

Take a bullet, get a nice shock.



That's on 'easy' setting.

On 'hard' difficulty...well....don't get shot.

[tomshackell]

MONOLITH, on Mar 3 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

A small metal wristband, connects to a USB port. Take a bullet, get a nice shock. That's on 'easy' setting. On 'hard' difficulty...well....don't get shot.

ROFL I still think there is some merit in blurring/accuracy reduction schemes, but this isn't a post about suppression so (with great difficulty) I shall remain quiet

Edited by tomshackell, 03 March 2008 - 10:39 AM.

[krise madsen]

MONOLITH, on Mar 3 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

A small metal wristband, connects to a USB port.

Take a bullet, get a nice shock.



That's on 'easy' setting.

On 'hard' difficulty...well....don't get shot.

Actually, 'hard' difficulty is the same, except it isn't connected to your wrist...  

On a more serious note, it's worth remembering that NORG isn't a dogma that a game must adhere to, but an inspirational design tool.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen, 03 March 2008 - 10:54 AM.

[abnegnejs]

I'm sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but despite reading the posts in this thread, I still can't quite see the difference between NORG and what krise madsen described as "realism as we understand it in most games". If someone could clarify this for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

Edited by abnegnejs, 16 June 2008 - 05:04 AM.

[Lightspeed]

in its most basic interpretation NORG is the difference between starting from the beginning versus starting at the end.

traditionally, many of the ingame features are implemented after a lot of the groundwork, engine and hardcode has been put built in so that when it comes time to implement ingame features, developers are forced to use work arounds or settle for inferior alternatives to what would appear on the battlefield in real life.

NORG meaning Natural Order of/for Realistic Gameplay means you don't think about what you want in the game after you've done the hardcoding - you work out exactly what you want based on real life and build that into the game development at the start of development.  All the things that should be ingame are there, and act/behave as they would in real life.

in Ghost Recon - you couldnt walk over/fall off edges of cliffs or buldings (why not?  bcoz it wasnt considered until too far down the track and was considered too difficult to implement at a later stage).  NORG says in real life you could/would fall off a cliff/ledge if you went to close to the edge - so the Devs must factor this into the development at the start of development, not deal with it at the end.

in Ghost Recon - your stances were stand, crouch, prone (what about all of the points in between?).  NORG considers all stances that are available in real life first...and develops second.

thats how I interpret NORG.....

Edited by Lightspeed, 16 June 2008 - 05:42 AM.

[abnegnejs]

Lightspeed, on Jun 16 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

in its most basic interpretation NORG is the difference between starting from the beginning versus starting at the end.

traditionally, many of the ingame features are implemented after a lot of the groundwork, engine and hardcode has been put built in so that when it comes time to implement ingame features, developers are forced to use work arounds or settle for inferior alternatives to what would appear on the battlefield in real life.

NORG meaning Natural Order of/for Realistic Gameplay means you don't think about what you want in the game after you've done the hardcoding - you work out exactly what you want based on real life and build that into the game development at the start of development.  All the things that should be ingame are there, and act/behave as they would in real life.

in Ghost Recon - you couldnt walk over/fall off edges of cliffs or buldings (why not?  bcoz it wasnt considered until too far down the track and was considered too difficult to implement at a later stage).  NORG says in real life you could/would fall off a cliff/ledge if you went to close to the edge - so the Devs must factor this into the development at the start of development, not deal with it at the end.

in Ghost Recon - your stances were stand, crouch, prone (what about all of the points in between?).  NORG considers all stances that are available in real life first...and develops second.

thats how I interpret NORG.....

Thanks, that makes things a bit more clear. So essentially, NORG is a concept more at the development level rather than the game itself? Obviously the development of a game is what makes the game, but there are several different ways of ending up with one game.

Edited by abnegnejs, 16 June 2008 - 06:44 AM.

[Lightspeed]

yes that's right - but by having the open forums and discussion about what ppl want to see now ingame - helps the Devs work out what should be in and what it should look like in the final analysis.

then they can build it in from the ground up...not try to fit the square peg into the round hole later.

[krise madsen]

abnegnejs, on Jun 16 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

I'm sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but despite reading the posts in this thread, I still can't quite see the difference between NORG and what krise madsen described as "realism as we understand it in most games". If someone could clarify this for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

It's certainly not a stupid question

Lightspeed, on Jun 16 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

in its most basic interpretation NORG is the difference between starting from the beginning versus starting at the end.

traditionally, many of the ingame features are implemented after a lot of the groundwork, engine and hardcode has been put built in so that when it comes time to implement ingame features, developers are forced to use work arounds or settle for inferior alternatives to what would appear on the battlefield in real life.

NORG meaning Natural Order of/for Realistic Gameplay means you don't think about what you want in the game after you've done the hardcoding - you work out exactly what you want based on real life and build that into the game development at the start of development.  All the things that should be ingame are there, and act/behave as they would in real life.

in Ghost Recon - you couldnt walk over/fall off edges of cliffs or buldings (why not?  bcoz it wasnt considered until too far down the track and was considered too difficult to implement at a later stage).  NORG says in real life you could/would fall off a cliff/ledge if you went to close to the edge - so the Devs must factor this into the development at the start of development, not deal with it at the end.

in Ghost Recon - your stances were stand, crouch, prone (what about all of the points in between?).  NORG considers all stances that are available in real life first...and develops second.

thats how I interpret NORG.....

abnegnejs, on Jun 16 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

Thanks, that makes things a bit more clear. So essentially, NORG is a concept more at the development level rather than the game itself? Obviously the development of a game is what makes the game, but there are several different ways of ending up with one game.

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

Respectfully

krise madsen

[UKJack]

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

Scenario: Investigate/Clear a House.

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

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

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

Edited by UKJack, 27 June 2008 - 09:07 AM.

[krise madsen]

UKJack, on Jun 27 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

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

Scenario: Investigate/Clear a House.

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

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

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

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

Respectfully

krise madsen

[WhiteKnight77]

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

[UKJack]

iii) ^^^^^^^^^^

[Psychomorph]

WhiteKnight77, on Jun 27 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

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

The problem I personally have with many games is not that there is the ability to do things like that, but the fact that the game supports this behavior by game mechanics (incl. AI) that lead to success. Really I have seen this enough (especially in Raven Shield and Ghost Recon) and that is extremely frustrating.
My biggest wish is that Ground Branch has things developed in a way where such crazy run and gun tactics can be successful only because of luck (or incompetence of your foe), not because it is a gameplay issue the developers did not take care of.

[Jsonedecker]

Psychomorph, on Jun 27 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

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

That is one of the underlying aspects of NORG.

[tomshackell]

Psychomorph, on Jun 27 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

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

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

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

[MONOLITH]

Random.... solves an endlist list of gaming problems.  

[psYch]

beware the "over-random-ness".  I played vegas 2 a fair bit after modding it to the point I liked, and in doing to, normally had my men in odd positions so as to form a triangle of cover.  Don't know why, but the triangle was generally 50 meters or so ( as far as the game got in distance really).  Occasionally the ai team mates would set of a spawn trigger (i know GB is going to be different but hear me out).  Generally this was no worries, they were carved up as soon as they were in a fire lane but very occasionally, the spawn would change for the same spot (ie: if you died they wouldn't come from the same location).  In an effort to test the randomness, i sat dying in a hallway for half an hour.
Mostly it was a left vs right variation with a bit of distance change, but occasionally, the spawn was so bloody random they would appear with my rifle barrel already lodged in their mouth, or them behind me, providing infinite frustration.  Again, I'm 99% sure this would be handled, but just thought I'd shout out anyway... it's the simple things you miss when the focus is on whats complex.