Well, I defenitively would like to see GR in a fresh coat.....
I'd like to suggest a gamemode. 4 spawns each for a different team, so you have a mode were 4 teams compete against a majority, since there's a 75% against you, though they fight eachother too. The map would require tactics, do you plunge straight ahead and make for the flag, do you go right into the enemies territory with the chance of finding it empty to be able to attack that enemy from the back, do you turn left to find out that team decided to try the thing metionned above and fight them head on? so much possibillities for good tactical fights were TS communication with your squad needs to be effective to accomplish your goal.
Oh and by the way, for this game-mode a replay is of huge importance to find out if 2 teams didn't make a deal to kill the other 2 first and then compete for the flag.....
This gamemode, combined with the tacticality of a GR game, and its mapping-tools would be a huge hit IMO.
Forget all gadgets developed by other companies, forget all most selling games fun for at most 3 months.....
And I don't mind if there's less people playing this game as long as it is over say 200 people at all times.....

quote:

Originally posted by ColinCJ:
Thread cleaned stay ot its 200 bleedding 4 FGS.
No Graw No Grin 2004 hello.



I feel better now.

Right, I guess it's only fair I elaborate a bit, using Colins premise:

It's 2004. The last GR1 expansion pack has just been released. What do we do with the next installment of GR for the PC?

First of all, you figure out what "Ghost Recon" means to the players:

- It's fairly realistic, i.e. realistic weapons (rate of fire, ballistics, damage), realistic movement (like, say, no bunnyhopping), realistic health and so on. "Realism-oriented" is probably a better term since ultra-realism isn't a goal in and of itself.

- It is "tactical-slow" in the sense that the player is left to figure out how to play the game, and careful consideration to use of cover and approach routes is as important as twitch-reactions and unrealistic "run-and-gun" behavior is not promoted. Also, stealth (in some cases avoiding enemy contact entirely) can be used sometimes, as opposed to always slaughtering your way through hordes of enemies.

- It is squad-based. The performance of the squad is actually more important than the performance of the individual character (i.e. the player).

- The player has a fairly free hand in how to execute each mission, i.e. it is neither linear nor heavily "scripted" (in the player-point-of-view of the term). This in fact far more than simply having multiple insertion points and/or multiple objectives and paths.

- Plot, storyline and scenario are not the most important elements in the game. They add a nice sense of direction, purpose and atmosphere, but they should never be allowed to get in the way of the gameplay.

- It takes place largely (or entirely) on foot, i.e. no driveable vehicles (you could argue that some driveable vehicles could be included, but then you're quickly approaching something like Battlefield or Operation Flashpoint and then there is little point in making it a Ghost Recon game.

- It takes place in present day (you could make a good argument for a Vietnam War or even an Advanced Warfighter 2014 scenario, but we'll let that slide for the purpose of this post).

- Equal attention is given to single player, co-op and adversarial multiplayer gaming. Multiple options and gametypes are availible for all three game types.

To an extent, these characteristics fly in the face of the current trend towards more action, more effects and more of a "Hollywood blockbuster movie feel" that seem to become increasingly popular with shooter games, not the least for the increasingly popular console platforms.

Indeed, highly popular and profitable "action" games can undoubtedly be created, but doing so using the Ghost Recon brand is a risky, and, IMO, wrong approach:

Like its Rainbow Six predecessor, what differentiates Ghost Recon from the rest of first person shooters is not really the unit portrayed, the storyline or the graphics: It's the gameplay.

An "action shooter" released under the Ghost Recon brand, no matter how good, will be seen as "wrong" or "flawed" by those (many) gamers who have played GR1 and expect a game of the same type. Much in the same way as a love story movie set in the "Alien" sci-fi universe will be crucified by the fans, even if it's the greatest love story movie ever made.

No. A Ghost Recon game must be "Ghost Recon".

However, that does not mean that the GR sequel should simply be a rehash of GR1. It should really be a new game, without ignoring the lessons learned.

So, which features of GR1 should be repeated and what can be learned from other games? That will be the subject of my next post

to be continued...

Respectfully

krise madsen

I dont have much time to make such long posts as the one above but if I did, it would be the one above with bits from all the others.

im with you colin just update it with plenty of maps open to all gametypes, thats it i will buy it

...continued:

So, what are the lessons worth learning from GR1 and what do other games have to offer?

GR1:

Realism and authenticity: While not fanatic about it, GR had a very high degree of realism. If a particular weapon had a 20 round magazine in real life, it also had 20 round magazines in the game, whereas other games might have 10 or 30 round magazines in order to balance the game.

Stance and movement was good, and eventually included both kneeling and prone. Movement speed of the player was modest and firing the weapon on the move was grossly inaccurate and useless. There was no jumping, meaning that he player had to move more like a real soldier rather than bunnyhop his way to victory.

A key feature (ripped straight from R6) was the "expanding crosshairs": Firing long full auto bursts caused the accuracy to decline dramatically, forcing the player to fire short, controlled bursts for efficiency.

But more importantly, it gave inertia to the weapons: The bigger, heavier and more cumbersome the weapon, the longer it would take for accuracy to "return to zero". The player was still able to move the "head" quickly to spot the enemy, but it took a while for the heavier weapons to "catch up". Somewhat of an abstraction, but it worked. It made the player choose his weaponry with care and adapt to the advantages and limitations of that particular weapon. Weapon choice was no longer merely a question of which gun had the biggest bullets and largest magazine capacity.

Soul-switching (single player): I strongly suspect soul-switching ("jumping" from 3D FPW control of one character to another) was included to cover up the rather limited friendly AI. It was an excellent feature nonetheless: The player was no longer tied to a single character but had to take care of the whole team. Completing a single player mission truly became a team effort. It also enabled the player to control the team effort, such as attacking a target from two directions or setting up overwatch or ambush positions.

Plot/Storyline/Scenario: The story was there, but it thankfully didn't get in the way of the core element of GR: Gameplay. It popped up between missions to give the player some idea of why he was running around shooting people, but the player was not forced into in-game "events" as seen in many "action" games: It rarely works (let's face it: no offense, but if the writers for were so good, they'd be earning six figures for Hollywood scripts rather than coming up with stories for computer games), and even when it does get the player exited, it often does so at the expense of other game elements. Like gameplay. And in GR, gameplay, not cutscenes, is the key to success.

Multiple gametypes: Besides the campaign mission, the single player has the option to go head-to-head with a variable number of randomly placed opponents or defend a particular location (marked by a smoke column) against a large number of advancing enemies. The same goes for co-op. Multiplayer had its own range of varied gameplay types and customized game setup. All three main game types: Single player, co-op and adversarial multiplayer, were given equal attention by the designers.

Game lobby: An excellent feature enabling players to converse before, during (when they were dead) and after a game. The host had a wide range of options to tailor the mission. A simple thing like the ability to vary not only the skill of the AI opponents but also the number of respawns availible (and whether they were shared among teammembers or a fixed number for each individual) enabled the host to tailor the game to the skills and tastes of the players.

Maps & Mission design: While it wasn't exactly a sandbox game and did require the gamer to generally carry out the mission in a particular manner, it also offered the opportunity, the potential, for the gamer to do things according to his own plans. When possible, the player could refrain from attacking the enemy head-on, and instead circle around and attack from behind, without the game being "confused" by this. The fact that the enemy AI was left at a disadvantage seemed natural, rather than like a script flaw. In other words, it was well scripted.

Moddability: GR allowed maps, mission scripts, characters and weapons to be modded extensively. Single player and co-op players continue to have access to a steady stream of new missions, and single, co-op and multiplayers alike are treated to a host of new character models and weapons.

Now, let's see what contemporary games have to offer:

Delta Force 1&2, Black Hawk Down, Land Warrior, Joint Operations:

The DF-series is characterized by its very large (bloody large, really) maps and long draw distance, a legacy of the flightsim game engine used. This was particularly evident in DF1&2 where the player got to, literally, travel over mountains high and valleys deep. The single player experience left quite a lot to be desired, however, as it failed to exploit the potential of these huge maps.

Instead, the player was kept in rein by the horrible friendly and enemy AI, forced to follow a pre-determined path. Black Hawk Down made a complete dogs dinner of the sp campaign which bordered on the ridiculous. However, all games in the series generally enjoyed an excellent multiplayer potential, not the least because of the generally open and unrestricted maps.

Joint Forces focused heavily on adversarial multiplayer. It still included a co-op feature, but it was very limited and smacked of being slapped on at the end as an afterthought. Those firing up the game for some fancy co-op got themselves a nasty surprise.

The realistic(-ish) ballistics of the series, combined with the long draw distance, initially gave the game a realistic feel, particularly when the player had to aim above or below the target to compensate for range and sight adjustment, and when leading (aiming in front of) a moving target. However, the rather run-and-gun shoot and move setup marred the illusion of realism, to an extent. The DF series was also one of the first to introduce swimming and diving in an FPS and even included a complete diving outfit (complete with underwater dart guns) in DF2, though it wasn't used for much.

The ability to ride in (pre-scripted) vehicles were introduced early on. In some instances it made a lot of sense circling the area providing airborne sniper cover (or even operating door guns), possibly before dropping down and taking part in the fight on foot. However, the addition of driveable vehicles in Joint Operations changed the dynamics of multiplayer considerably.

Also, support and encouragement for modding has been less than spectacular and that hasn't exactly helped the game along.

Lessons:

Map size is important, though they don't have to be DF-size huge, and open-ended map design is even more important.

Bad AI and mission scripting is the kiss of death to single player and co-op, but don't necessarily hurt multiplayer.

Ballistics add a lot to the sense of realism.

If you include a gametype (in this case co-op), do it properly. Don't just slap it on so you can write "co-op gaming" on the box.

Far Cry:

Like the DF series, this brand new (2004) game features large maps, very long draw distances and the ability to swim and dive. However, unlike DF, the graphics detail is nothing short of spectacular.

The game engine seem to be absolutely brilliant, and perhaps even better suited to a GR-type game than the actual FarCry game. One serious deficiency is the lack of a co-op feature: If you want to play with our friends, you have to fight each other or someone else over LAN or internet, not cooperate on beating the AI. But at least they didn't slap a half-baked co-op feature on the back of the game.

The first part of the single player game plays almost like GR, with the exeption that the player is tied to the single character and doesn't have squad mates. The enemy AI is generally very good and capable of outflanking manoeuvers, forcing the player to use careful, well-planned tactics, interrupted by moments of frantic run-for-your-life action.

However, the single player game soon changes character when the Trigen mutants appear, whose only ability seem to be to absorb an enormous amount of damage while charging towards the player to eat him. Player tactics are then basically reduced to moving backwards (to keep distance to the Trigens) while emptying one clip after another into the monsters.

Also, the player is not given quite the level of freedom that one might expect from the large and beautiful maps: Very often, the player is severely restricted in how he can approach each mission and when he does manage to do things he's not supposed to, the AI has problems adjusting to it. However, I cannot say if this is due to "lazy" mission scripting or AI and engine limitations (I'm hardly a coding expert. Hardly).

To an extent, multiplayer was hampered by the maps: MP games would sometimes either turn into close range slugfests (failing to make use of the large maps) or have players running all over the place, trying (and failing) to find any enemies to shoot.

Lessons:

Big maps and long draw distance can be combined with beautiful graphics detail.

Good AI makes all the difference in SP/co-op. The more freedom of movement all over the map, the better and more tactical the SP/co-op experience. And don't ignore the attraction of co-op.

Bigger maps are not always better. Map design is equally important.

Being able to swim and dive is just plain fun: If there is water deeper than your waist, you should be able to swim in it.

Operation Flashpoint:

This is the notion of the "Grand Unified Combat Sim/Game": You get to fight on foot, in tanks, small boats and in aircraft. And the map is positively bloody huge, dwarfing even those of the Delta Force series.

Of course, you don't get all that without some sacrifice: Operating the tanks or flying the aircraft is hardly the kind of realism experience you get in a true tank-sim or flight-sim.

In single player, commanding your AI team mates is a bit of a chore. The game simply doesn't seem to be made for it and the commands are anything but natural and intuitive, using a drop-down menu system best reserved for word processors and spreadsheets. Moving your squad in and out of vehicles and using vehicles you're not controlling yourself is quite frankly a bit of a mess. As long as you're just one guy among many (pre-scripted) troops, everything seem to work fine, but when you have to take charge of the battle things begin to fall apart.

If you simply drop a group of enemy AI on the map (in the mission editor) to fend for themselves, they tend to act somewhat daft when you approach and start shooting at them. But that's more a result of them not having a script in support rather than any actual deficiencies in the AI. And they do make a clever move once in a while.

Also, the large (bloody gigantic, actually) map(s) can be a blessing in disguise. The fact that all actions take place on the same island lends some continuity that is otherwise rare in sp/co-op games, as you can end up fighting in the same place without necessarily feeling like you're repeating yourself: Fighting to capture, defend and then recapture the same village repeatedly isn't necessarily repetitive. On the other hand, it's very easy to get stuck out in the middle of nowhere, with a nice (and totally uneventful) half or full hour walk before you get anywhere important. The big map has merits, but ironically it works best when gameplay is tightly controlled, rather than just used as a "sandbox" or "free playground", and often the action will be centered on a rather small area.

The mission editor enables you to create your own missions: Either simple ones made quickly and with relative ease, or elaborate and complex ones.

While the map is characterized by rather small villages, they do have decent number of "open" buildings that you can enter. Including multi-level buildings where you can shoot though the windows and engage enemy armor from above. Also, nobody in OFP-land has apparently learned how to swim: If you get into deep water, you drown.

Probably in the name of realism, it is not possible to join a game once the game session has started. Good for the committed player but not so good for the one who just joined up for some quick gaming fun.

Modding is extensive, with a both large and dedicated modding community, to the point that some players don't really know where to start when it comes to mods.

Lessons:

In single player particularly, squad command & control must be intuitive and user-friendly.

A bloody huge map where you can go anywhere is nice. But why should you (go anywhere)?

Driveable vehicles are not always bliss.

Modding is good for the gamers and good for the game.

Not being able to swim and dive is bad.

You should be able to join already started games (unless locked by the host).

Spec Ops I&II:

These older games do look a bit outdated these days, but there are a couple of important lessons to be learned from them nonetheless.

The game topped the realism scale of its day, not the least because of the extensive use of real-life spec ops advisors. Despite its primitive capabilities, it had a "real military" feel about it. Even the primitive cutscenes.

Spec Ops featured just two soldiers, that you could soul-switch between as needed. Spec Ops II upped that number to four. You could switch freely between characters and issue point-and-click orders to those you weren't directly controlling. Even with just two characters, this gave you a lot of options for defeating the enemy through tactics rather than just firepower.

Spec Ops was largely 3rd person view (except for sighted view), while Spec Ops II made more use of the first person view, and seemed less primitive and arcade-ish for it.

Graphics were good for their day, though the missions were generally rather linear. And the game included not only night vision gear but also (albeit primitive) thermal imagery, something many a subsequent "modern special ops" game has ignored.

Eventually, the games introduced (gasp!) loadout options. You could not only choose which weapon to carry and if you wanted hand grenades or C4 charges (for some missions the latter was vital), but even what kind of optical sight you wanted on your weapon: A big scope was good for long range while a smaller one ruled at close range. But if you got caught in a close-range firefight with a big scope on your rifle then that was your problem. Which was good

One interesting (and otherwise rarely used) characteristic of the Spec Ops games was the very limited plot and storyline. Basically, you went from one unrelated mission to another. The reason for why you had to go and shoot people and blow stuff up was explained through "pre-mission cutscenes" which simply consisted of some stills, text (explaining what was going on) and some music.

And it worked. Surprisingly well. The freedom to straight from a Russian (Soviet back then) forest to a North Korean airbase to Antarctica (fighting Argentineans, of all people) and so on more than compensated for the lack of a plot to tie the missions together. And it gave the whole thing a very purposeful, "military" feel. For all their flaws, the spec ops games did not suffer from not having a plot.

Lessons:

A plot should never be a key feature of a game. If you think you can exite players with a "compelling and engaging story" you're in for a surprise. Make a good game instead.

If you're making a military game, make it feel like a military operation rather than a Hollywood movie, even if it is a Tom Clancy title.

Soul-switching is good. So is intuitive squad control.

Linear missions are bad. End of story.

Thermal imagery is cool. Not always needed, strictly speaking. But damn cool.

*

Well, that was lessons learned. For the next installment, we'll look at the real "secret" of a tactical sim/shooter: The tactical mindset.

EDIT: More on lessons from other games next

To be continued...

Respectfully

krise madsen

This message has been edited. Last edited by: krise_madsen,

Hi Colin, im not going to read the whole thread right now but I will answer your question...

1: Pickup weapons from the floor (very important addition in graw2)

2: Better gfx

3: Being able to "bump" someone off a squad. Let me explain... so annoying waiting to respawn with a full squad, so I could join right up with the action again instead of running all the way.

4: Not being able to jump should stay out.

5: Map view with players names.

Anything else I can think of I will post, im playing cod4 but will go back to graw1 because I miss coop, graw2 sucked with the loss of squads.

...continued:

Right, there are a few more games we can learn essons from before moving on to the all-important developer mindset:

Rainbow Six:

Duh! The older sibling of Ghost Recon obviously has something to offer. But apart from stuff already in GR (which borrowed a lot from R6), it had a very delicate squad control for single player:

From the list of characters you could choose 8 for each mission, kit them out with uniform, body armor, weapons and accessories, and divide them into 2-4 teams (of 1-4 operatives each) depending on the task at hand.

Then you got to plan the operation. And by "plan" i mean decide practically every step they took, via waypoints. You could tell them to breach locked doors with shotguns or explosives, throw flashbangs into rooms with hostages, or frag grenades into rooms with terrorists. You could also coordinate simultaneous attacks by issuing "go-codes" that had teams stand by at a waypoint until you gave the order to go. To top it all off, you could issue rules-of-engagement orders, telling them to try to stay undetected, or move fast and shoot at anything moving e.c.t. When you started the mission, the AI team mates were stuck with their pre-mission orders and they followed them to the letter, no matter what. However, they player could soul-switch between team leaders to gain some level of control and freedom of movement.

Now, this elaborate system was probably a clever disguise for the horrible friendly AI. But it worked. Brilliantly. You really had to think things through and use your brain rather than just start up the mission and rush through, guns blazing. It became a "thinking man's game".

While it worked for the elaborate coreography of a hostage rescue scenario, this system wouldn't really work for a Ghost Recon game where you're hiding out in the weeds, but the lesson is relevant nonetheless.

R6 also didn't waste a lot of time on the plot: The first game was a rather daft story about some nutty environmentalists who wanted to save the planet by wiping out mankind (except for themselves, of course) with a mutated ebola virus. For the Rogue Spear sequel they sorta just gave up and said: "Let's just have some bad guy steal some ex-soviet nukes and be done with it". And it didn't matter one bit. The important part was that the plot didn't get in the way of the gameplay: Once the mission was on you carried it out without distractions.

Like GR1, R6 didn't have jumping. But to get over obstacles, you had a context-sensitive function that allowed you to climb through open windows or up ladders. As such, the game was blissfully free of the usual "wooden crates" that infest most other shooters.

The sniper function was also bloody cool, but that's somewhat less relevant

Lessons:

Never let the plot get in the way of the gameplay.

You don't need jumping, but you do need the ability to crawl through windows, up ladders e.c.t.

Elaborate squad command & control makes for a "thinking man's game" rather than "just another shooter".

Soul-switching is good.

Shadow Force: Razor Unit

You may not have heard of this game, but that's hardly surprising. It was released a couple of years ago as a budget game under the Activision Value brand.

Made by Romanian developer FUN Labs, it was made on a fairly low budget. Compared to big-release titles, it wasn't very good. However, that doesn't mean that it was a faliure, neither that there aren't lessons to be learned.

For something made to a price rather than a quality standard, it is surprisingly good. Sure, the single player missions are linear, boring and repetitive, but that's hardly unique. And it does have a couple of interesting features:

A nice (though hardly vital) touch is that you can make the iron sights either solid or semi-transparent. Not a big deal but a nice little detail nonetheless.

Also, when appropriate, weapons may have a flashlight attached to them. Yes, you can use a flashlight to look around in the dark (as well as night vision goggles). Neat huh?

But it gets even crazier: You can actually shoot though the tents! That's right. The tents aren't bulletproof! (gasp!) You know, like in real life. The same goes for thin wooden floors and whatnot.

Lessons:

Even backwater developers working on a tiny budget can figure out that modern rifles may have flashlights mounted on them and that tents (and similar materials) aren't bulletproof.

SWAT 3:

Hot on the heels of Rainbow Six, SWAT3 replaced the spec ops guys with SWAT cops. It could very easily have been a Rainbow Six clone, but it wasn't. It was very good though.

The key to this was the developers looking at the role of the SWAT cop as opposed to the terrorist-killing hostage rescuer: The SWAT characters carried non-lethal weapons and handcuffs. And in order to win each mission they had to use them. The developers sought information and used it to make the game better.

And like Rainbow Six (and GR) they were clever about the weapons: You could outfit an assault rifle with scope, sound suppressor and a 100 round drum magazine, but it was bound to be somewhat unwieldy when checking for criminals inside a villa.

Lessons:

Look at what the game is about. Seek information and use it.

Plus pretty much every lesson from Rainbow Six.

Fleet Command

You may wonder what a naval real time strategy game has to do with Ghost Recon. Not a lot. But there are important lessons nonetheless:

Fleet Command was a game with a lot of issues. For starters, it had perhaps the corniest acting (by professional actors at least) ever seen in a game. But at least these were confined to pre-mission cutscenes and didn't even interfere with the actual briefing.

With focus on micro-management, the game did well when each side just had a single warship and a helicopter, but the player was soon overloaded when tasked with handling an entire carrier battlegroup. Rather than carefully plan how to deploy his naval forces, the player found himself frantically clicking little missile icons in a vain attempt to stay alive.

Unlike the mighty Harpoon naval game, Fleet Command made extensive use of generic ships, aircraft and weapons, and cut an awful lot of corners in terms of detail and authenticity. Always something to turn off the armchair admirals.

The game also had a nasty tendency to crash, especially when playing saved games. Which meant the 5 hours you spent on a monster mission last saturday were lost: You'd never get to see how it ended.

Despite this, the game remain extremely popular with fans. Why?

First of all, because the core gameplay was good, warts and all.

The game also had a fairly user-friendly yet elaborate scenario editor, allowing players to set up both single player and multiplayer games.

Though the developers weren't really keen on it, it also has a very active modding community, pouring lots of new content into the game.

Finally, the developers, despite having created an arguably rather flawed game, have kept faith with the community: They were pretty straight about the fact that the game had stability problems. Plus they released a free update to make the game run on newer operating systems.

Lessons:

It's the gameplay, dummy. Good gameplay = good game. Bad gameplay = bad game. Simple as that. This was open-ended gameplay which is generally good.

Avoid unnecessary information/task overload of the player. It takes away from the "brainy" part of the game.

Modding is good.

With an open-ended game and a user-friendly mission editor, the players will take care of the rest.

Be straight with the fans and they'll be loyal, even when you mess up.

That about concludes the "lessons learned from other games". Next time we'll take a look at the key issue with a tactical shooter: The mindset.

To be continued...

Respectfully

krise madsen

quote:

Originally posted by ColinCJ:
I dont have much time to make such long posts as the one above but if I did, it would be the one above with bits from all the others.

Agreed.

An excellent job of explaining how I feel about the R6/GR games.

Well said.

This is what I would like to see in the next Ghost Recon. It's a fairly short list because, well... not a lot needs improving. Keep in mind, this list assumes you will keep what we already have as of now (2004) in the original Ghost Recon.

1. Improve graphics, bring up to current standards for models, animations, textures, and draw distance.
2. Need true stand alone dedicated server files that do not require a graphics card on the server.
3. Need fully functional remote administration capability for servers. All settings that are available in the server/game config should be available within the remote administration utility. You should not have to manually edit the config file(s) to change a setting. The admin utility should include the ability to admin players (i.e. ban, kick, etc.) as well as admin the game.
3. The only thing to remove is the inability to get past/over/on top of low obstacles.
4. Keep replays. Remember, not only do they help server and ladder admins they also provide a great tool for players to promote your game!
5. Add friends support to the MP server browser.
6. Add autodownload for mods. Include the ability to redirect downloads from a different server.

BTW, Krise is making a GREAT series of posts. +1

...continued:

The mindset of tactical-realism game development:

When will I learn to keep my damned mouth shut? How do I explain something as intangible as state of mind? Oh well... *sigh*

For the developer, the tactical-realism mindset is the key parameter. It's basically everything. You don't need this mindset to develop a good game, but you do need it to develop a really good tactical-realism game. Remember realism. Hopefully, it's obvious to everyone how important realism is to a Ghost Recon game.

Note that there is no "one way" to do this. No Teachers Edition. It is not a substitute for being creative and innovative. It's about having your brain tuned to the right tactical-realism frequency.

Given the military subject, you probably need a real-life military advisor. But while he can give you the answers, it's still up to you to ask the right questions. You need the proper mindset to ask those questions, and to implement the answers properly in the game.

There are two classic development concepts that you need to knock out of your head right away: "Paper-scissor-stone" balancing and "obstacle course" map/mission design.

Paper-scissor-stone (PSS) is the usual balancing of mobility, agility, accuracy and other player performance parameters. An example: The sniper rifle proves to be either vastly superior or inferior to the other weapons in the game. So you fiddle with accuracy, rate of fire, or the number of rounds in the magazine in order to balance it out against the other weapons. Don't to that anymore. Just replicate the real-life performance as closely as possible. If the rifle turn out to be unrealistically powerful or inferior, it's because there is something wrong with the rest of the game, not the rifle. Because in real life, sniper rifles are neither useless nor all-powerful.

The same with movement speed (in a Ghost Recon context that would be crawling/walking/running speed): How fast does a special ops (Ghost) operative move? How does a light vs. a heavy combat load affect speed? Find out, then model that in the game.

Wargamers and flightsimmers have done this for ages: They will argue the specific performance of, say, a jet fighter, till they're blue in the face. But they will never argue about it being too powerful or weak compared to the other aircraft in the game. They will only argue if the aircraft is accurately modelled and simulated. Take your cue from them: No more paper-scissor-stone.

The "obstacle course" process relates to map/mission making. The clasic 2D platform game had the protagonist move from left to right, dodging fireballs and jumping over barrels. A typical linear first person shooter is made in much the same way today: The protagonist start at point A and is supposed to end at the objective at point B. The map provides a path between the two points and obstacles (AI enemies) are inserted along the way. You can add more insertion points, paths and objectives, but it's still the classic linear concept, only with a few added choices for the player. I exaggerate of course, but the principle is valid. This process goes out the window as well.

Instead, use real life as a template: Let's say there is a Ghost Recon mission where the Ghosts have to take out a rebel radio station and collect intelligence. Have someone else make a map for you to keep it "unbiased". And have him make the map as a realistic copy of the area in question. Maybe much of the map is inaccessible (like a tall rock) or maybe you can move everywhere. Maybe there is a hill that makes an excellent lookout point or maybe you can't see anything until you're right next to the radio transmitter. Real life is random and not always convenient.

OK, now put yourself inside the head of the rebel leader. The radio station is important to him, so he wants to have guards looking after it. What are the rebels like? Harcore and disciplined? Or an undisciplined lot who drink, smoke pot and sleep while on duty? Will they run away at the first sign of battle? Are they fanatic but poorly trained and will charge straight at the enemy? Are they well trained and highly motivated and will outflank, or withdraw and regroup and never give up? Where would be a good place to put up a watchtower (do they have watchtowers at all?). Where would you place machinegun nests? Roving patrols? How many troops do you have at your disposal? Think like a (in this case Rebel) soldier rather than like a level designer. Design the mission like you have no idea how the player might attack you (ideally, you wouldn't).

Now give the player the same options to think like a soldier. Let the player choose how to approach the radio station: By stealth or by shooting his way in. If he chooses stealth, there is of course a chance he will be spotted and the alarm will be sounded. But this could be a question of dumb luck as much as player skill. Real life is random and not always fair. Forget paper-scissor-stone and the obstacle-course.

You have to get into the head of the characters the way an actor tries to get into the head of a character he's going to portray in a film.

There is a key issue listed above: Give control of the game to the player. Let the player choose how to to complete each mission. There may be many ways to complete the mission. Sometimes the same approach will work one time, but fail miserably the next. Just because the player got unlucky and ran into a random patrol.

Look at how one mission stand out among the rest in the game Hitman; namely the one taking place at the Czech spa and hotel: The player is free to move around the hotel as he sees fit, without really doing anything (though that doesn't help him complete the objectives). Yet his most carefully thought out assassination ends in faliure becuase some random hotel guest walks into the room as he moves the knife across the throat of his victim. The player is in control of the game and free to do as he pleases, yet skill is still required to complete the objectives. And sometimes, regardless of skill, "stuff" happens.

Look to wargames and (flight-)simulations for inspiration. Wargames simply provide a battlefield and two sides, then lets the players figure out how they want to play this particular match themselves. Their mindset is very close to what we're aiming for here, even though Ghost Recon is still a game. Most multiplayer games do much the same. You should probably look to multiplayer maps (like, say, Battlefield) for map inspiration.

The keen developer has already noticed that this approach to single player/co-op mission design will require an awful lot of clever scripting and some really good AI. Yes it does. It only works if the AI is up to the task. If not, the game shouldn't include single player and co-op (and trust me, you really don't want to release a Ghost Recon game without those).

But leaving the player in charge also extends to multiplayer. No more tweaking the balance. No more artificial rewards or penalties to promote a certain gametype. Since tactical-realism is the keyword, teamwork will win the day. But if players refuse to work together, then just leave them to screw things up for themselves. Those who figure out to cooperate and communicate will prevail. Don't try to "fix" it with game constraints. Let the server hosts (not you the developer) tailor the game as they see fit (this was a true strongpoint of GR1). Note how many "complaints" on various game websites/forums is about gamers wanting to tweak this or that.

Again: Don't force the gameplay upon the gamer. Let them make their own choices and make their own mistakes. That's because the gamer isn't (or thinks he isn't) in control of the game. Never mind if everything isn't perfectly balanced. Life isn't perfectly balanced.

As mentioned earlier, there is no Teachers Edition for this mindset. Taken to extremes, you could end up with missions that can't be completed, or will be completed no matter how stupid you play them (short of blowing yourself up), but common sense should prevail, of course. And there are no rules. You are allowed to "cheat" (like restraining map movement). Also, note that the illusion of realism works as well as the real deal. Just beware that many players probably know more about real war vs. "Hollywood realism" than you do. Don't forget to consult your military advisor.

But beware: It is EXTREMELY easy to fall back into the old rut and do things like they've been done since the first Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog 2D platform game. It's up to you the developer to stay on top of your game.

*phew* Did any of this make any sense? I sure hope so, because I have no clue how else I'm going to explain this. But you the developer have to "get it". You have to have your brain switched to "tactical-realism" mode, which really is different from how you would otherwise design a game.

Next post will be the last (promise!): Final remarks and a few hints, tips and pointers about developing the next Ghost Recon game.

To be continued...

Respectfully

krise madsen

EDIT: I guess this post could go on forever, but still...

Because realism is so important to Ghost Recon, you face the "Uncanny Valley" issue: The closer you try to mimick real life, the more difficult it becomes to make it believeable: Nobody worries about a CGI movie that doesn't try to be photo-realistic (like, say Toy Story), but if the CGI movie tries to make it look just like the real thing, it often "doesn't feel right" (like the new Beowulf movie).

What you have to do is make the game world behave like it was the real thing: You can step or climb over most obstacles. Bullets will penetrate soft and thin material. Large and heavy weapons are more unwieldy than small and light weapons. Carrying heavy loads and running a lot makes you tired faster. Buildings aren't solid blocks, but hollow with windows, stairs and furniture inside.

The same goes for the AI: Most soldiers will duck when you shoot at them, even if you're just hurling a lot of bullets in their general direction (that's the purpose of suppressive fire). An unexpected flanking attack can seriously disrupt morale. Otherwise disciplined soldiers may panic when you kill their officer/leader. Some soldiers surrender easily, others never do. Some soldiers are smart, others are poorly trained, inexperienced or just plain stupid. Some soldiers flee, others stand and fight, charge you head-on and others again try to sneak around you and attack you from the side or rear.

Take your cue from real life: What are the jobs of spec ops teams like the Ghosts?: Sometimes the whole mission is to sneak in undetected and report on the enemy, and getting spotted means the mission has failed no matter how many enemies they kill. Sometimes they rely heavily on support from conventional troops, air power and whatnot, and sometimes they're just all alone out in the weeds.

Unlike "paper-scissor-stone", take your cue from real life when it comes to equipment:

If you are sniper-qualified and wear a ghillie suit, does that mean you're not allowed to carry an assault rifle instead? Does being a medic prevent you from wearing body armor? Is there any physical obstacles preventing you from carrying two rifles if you wish? Or three? Real life doesn't have weapon slots.

Real soldiers aren't all about quick reactions and shooting straight and true. They're also about careful planning, good communication and close cooperation

Tactial-realism mindset means that the player gets to make as many of the in-game decisions (i.e. tactical decisions), not the developer.

Take your cue from reality. It's the best source of inspiration you'll ever get.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: krise_madsen,

...continued:

Now let's look at a few hints and tips and the application of the tactical-realism mindset to a new Ghost Recon game (2004, GR2, I presume):

First of all, it's you the developer who has to make the game, not me. I'm just a gamer who likes tactical-realism games. And I'm not creative. On a good day I can figure out which features to steal from other games, but no more than that. You're the developer with the skills and the creativity. So this isn't a recipe for a Ghost Recon game. It's more kinda questions you should be asking yourself and your military advisor.

The premise of this new Ghost Recon game is to capture the spirit of GR1 and create a tactical-realism game, but still try to make it a "new" game (as opposed to simply a GR1 expansion). This is where your creative developer skills (on the tactical-realism mindset foundation) comes into play.

Background/scenario/plot: For the sake of this post let's assume it takes place in the present (as opposed to, say, Vietnam 1969 or Mexico 2014... ). The story isn't terribly important. If it was up to me, each mission would be completely separate from the rest, but in return I'd get to try every type of spec ops mission in the book, in just about any concieveable location on the planet. However, this is a Tom Clancy title after all, so you probably want some kind of overall plot. The specifics aren't important, but you should look for something that gives you an excuse to try out a wide range of SOF missions, preferably in different types of environments. And remember to keep the plot out of the game itself (i.e. no in-game cutscenes). This isn't an "interactive action movie". The focus of the game is not the plot but the gameplay. The purpose is to have the player use his tactical skills in the game, not be a spectator to whatever scripted effects and plot twists you can come up with. Keep that stuff between missions.

Movement: How fast can you move in a walk, jog or sprint? How does carrying body armor/backpack full of stuff e.c.t. affect this? How does speed and weight affect fatigue? How does fatigue affect performance? Which obstacles can you step/crawl/climb over and which can't you? How steady can you aim a rifle when walking? When jogging? When stationary? When prone? Let real life be your inspiration.

Encumbrance/loadout: What are the weight and bulk limitations on how much they can carry (hint: forget weapon slots, think RPG-style grid loadout scheme, plus weight). How does weight and bulk affect movement (speed, ability to climb over obstacles e.c.t.), fatigue and stealth?

Weapons & Equipment: What real-life guns and gear would be availible to a SOF team like the Ghosts? What are the characteristics of each weapon in terms of accuracy, rate of fire, magazine capacity, length, bulk, weight, ergonomics? How do these characteristics affect their use? What accessories are availible for each weapon and what do they do? Are they attached in advance or can they (reasonably) be attached and detached during combat? (WARNING: Forget paper-scissor-stone!). And you don't need a bazillion different guns, just good ones. Real SOF often carry the same guns for familitary and ammo/magazine compatibilty. Different types are used when their specific qualities are needed (like a larger caliber sniper rifle or a belt-fed machinegun, or a sound suppressed submachinegun for CQB). What is the purpose of handguns? I'll answer that one for you: You can draw it fast when your primary weapon is empty or malfunctions, or when you need a compact weapon in confined quarters.

Weapons & Gear hint: In these modern times, accessories include optical sights, night vision sights, thermal sights, visible- and infrared lasers, visible- and infrared tactical lights, plus many others. These all have a function, offer advantages as well as disadvantages and their use should reflect this in the game.

Environment/Location: What does the real life location look like. Is it cold so you need heavy clothing and the water is too cold to wade/swim in? Is it very hot and humid so wearing body armor is more likely to kill you (from overheating) than the enemy is?

Environment hint: Buildings aren't solid. If you can't make hollow buildings then stay away from urban scenarios. And remember: Tents, chain-link fences, plywood and other such materials aren't bulletproof!

Missions: What missions do SOF teams do (besides just shooting people and blowing up "stuff"), and which ones are relevant to the game (be creative and dare to be different)? What would the real life landscape realistically look like (as opposed to the "obstacle course")? If you were the enemy AI commander, where would you locate guards and where would you send patrols? How clever/stupid, disciplined/rogue, trained/incompetent, brave/cowardly e.c.t. are the OPFOR troops, are some individuals different from others? Are they on alert for trouble or are they relaxed, thinking everything is A-OK?

Single Player: OK, this is just so plain straightforward that we can forget about the "questions to yourself" for once: The player should have a vested intereset in the team as a whole, and should care a lot about team tactics. So it's soul-switching and no "hero" character. Squad command & control is done both via HUD (point-and-click) and a command map. R6-style go-codes (or something similar) is really good for coordinating team actions. Give the player as much freedom as possible to plan an execute the mission as he sees fit. A here-and-now emergency mission may just dump the player in the mission, but if it's pre-planned the player should have the chance to look over intel and make some preliminary plans before actually starting the mission. And the player gets to choose the outfit, weapons and gear for all the team members. BTW, if you're in the realism-tactical/Ghost Recon state of mind, you know all of this already.

Cooperative Multiplayer: Much the same story as single player. Leave as much of the gameplay and decisions up to the players. Note how GR1 offered a lot of options and left a lot of decisions to the server host (respawn, difficulty, game type e.c.t.). This would be a really good place to blantantly copy GR1: Let the host decide if it's going to be a hardcore, no respawn, restricted weapon selection mission or something for the newbies to cut their teeth on with plenty of respawns and weapons galore. Again: Don't try to force gameplay upon the players, but let them sort it out for themselves: Maybe give them play aids like grid references, waypoint/objective markers and such, but let the players themselves put those markers in the game when and where they want.

Multiplayer: As before: Leave it to the gamers. Give them plenty of game type options and let them decide. Give the server host the option to choose weapon restrictions, respawn e.c.t. Don't force the play style (like team play) upon the players through artificial rewards and penalties. Let them choose how each match is scored (kill ratio, objectives achieved or simply just who won in the end). Just give them the tools and let them decide and figure out the rest for themselves. Ranks and unlocks are good for motivating the player to win. But it is also an invitation to cheating and stat-padding. Maybe just winning the match and enjoying the game itself is motivation enough. Remember: Relinquish control of the game to the players and the server host.

Moddability: Modding is good. Remember the game Fleet Command mentioned in an earlier post? Good core gameplay, but rather flawed execution and unstable code to boot! Yet it is still played today because modding has relieved some of the more annoying design flaws, and (not the least) added tons of new content. You must do more than just allow modding: You must support it, encourage it, and (in particular) make it as easy as possible. "Unauthorised content" (i.e. mods) is not your enemy (see below).

Expansions & Added Content: Guess what? Even with mods coming out the wazoo, gamers are still willing to pay for quality content. It matters less if it's a single weapon, character or map (via micropayments) or full-blown expansion packs. As long as the content is of good quality and it isn't a total ripoff *cough*$5 horse armor*cough* we're willing to pay a fair amount of money for it. It might not be an ultra-profitable business, but even if it just breaks even (and you can spare the workforce) it might be worth doing anyway for the PR.

Support: If you do it right, a Ghost Recon game will be widely played for years to come. New operating systems and hardware may appear in the meantime. Make sure you support your game thoughout its "lifetime". To an extent this may be "money out the window", but remember that an a large and active player base makes it an awful lot easier to promote a sequel or related games and products.

Community Interaction:
First of all, you must think of the community as an asset rather than an obstacle. Yes, you'll have a lot of irrelevant posting (I sure do my fair share of it) and the inevitable fanboys and whiners that are beyond reasoning. But you also have tons of customers who can provide valuable feedback, ideas and essentially free publicity: If they're happy about your product you can be sure they won't stop yapping about it to everyone they know and their mother (like I do). And they are actually a surprisingly representative cross section of your customers: My friends who would never consider posting on a forum like this have surprisingly similar opinions (when asked) to the guy who makes 500 posts a month. If you need to know, just take a poll on the forum. To make it work at its best you need is a structured forum: Plenty of sub-forums that deal specifically with technical issues (i.e. "my game won't install"), gameplay issues (i.e. "how do I get past level 5?"), bugs and glitches (i.e. "the arms are sticking out through the wall) and feedback on everything from the quality of in-game sounds to opinions on the new multiplayer game type you added. And the forums must be heavily moderated and policed. It's ok to have strict rules and enforcing them (i.e. time-limited and permanent bans) even on a forum that is in principle open to everyone. Private fan sites and -forums can be an equally valuable asset, so keep in contact with them. Maybe provide prizes for one of their multiplayer tournaments or something, once in a while. However, it is vital that you are always honest with them. They will understand that you can reveal everything, but if they ask you a question you can't/won't answer then tell them that you can't/won't rather than explain it away with a press release-style song-and-dance act. Lie or misdirect them at your own peril.

PR:
I certainly don't have to explain PR to you guys. You can put together a press release or promotional even as well as any. But you need to offer a little bit more to your core community, as the generic press releases are of little use to them. Minor details or specifics only comprehensible to those who have played the game/franchise (that you can/will reveal) may be irrelevant to the press release, but let the community know.

Others: The issue of cheaters (wall hacks and whatnot), game bugs/glitches, network code (having the game run smooth when there's no compelling reason why it shouldn't), load times, hardware compatibility, scalability for more or less powerful hardware and all the other common game issues is no different from any other game and you certainly know more about it that I do anyway.

One thing though: Copy protection. I'm not going to start any big discussion on this except to say this: None of your legitimate paying customers (like me) have any problem with copy protection schemes that keep the pirates from copying and playng the game for free. However, we do have a problem with copy protection schemes that are as much (if not more) a hassle to us than to the pirates. Treat us like paying customers rather than like primary suspects.

Well, that's about it I guess. Just remember to get yourself into the right tactical-realism frame of mind and take it from there.

Respectfully

krise madsen

I hope the publisher and developer take note of this thread and especially the articles krise_madsen has posted.

quote:

you also have tons of customers who can provide valuable feedback,...-krise_madsen

Exactly.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Take advantage of it, its free.
If a game were to have many of the features referenced in this thread, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.