PDA

View Full Version : Interesting report of Future of the Military Shooter from GDC



FI_FlimFlam
03-28-2006, 04:50 PM
Gamespy reports on the presentation by RedStorm's Christian Allen (who worked heavily on GRAW for the XBox360) on the future of the Military Shooter.

It's a good read even though it's labled as if it's for the XB360.

In reports:


Basically, Allen said that if developers want to make their mark in the war gaming arena, their best bet will be to do whatever it takes to distinguish it from the rest of the titles in the market.

I find that funny especially with what happened with Lockdown and the imeptous to simplify the Rainbow Six games the game to make them have a wider appeal. Which on some (not all) levels directly contradicts what Allen maintains.

Still worth the read. I just wish there was a complete transcript of his presentation that I could find.

TexasRanger_562
03-28-2006, 05:30 PM
Full article is here:
http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox-360/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-3/698246p1.html

You can probably email the article's author, Will Tuttle, for the full transcript of the interview. But he might keep it as a trade secret. Because if the entire transcript goes public, then that defeats the purpose of being the only magazine to have interviewed Christian Allen.

bdr41
03-28-2006, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by TexasRanger_562:
...that defeats the purpose of being the only magazine to have interviewed Christian Allen.
It wasn't an exclusive interview, it was a recap of a GDC 2006 presentation by Allen.

I would guess Tuttle digitally recorded the speech. Maybe he can be bothered to post an mp3 of it if he's allowed to.

KungFu_CIA
03-28-2006, 06:53 PM
Good article.

There is tons of irony oozing all over what Christian Allen said that apparently UBI is turning a blind eye to... At least, for R6 since they did publish GRAW for 360 and presumably will for the PC.

What I found really interesting and was nice to hear someone in the actual games industry say is gamers in general are moving more toward realism-based games and that their percieved reality of what modern day warfare is -- and this includes R6 -- Is gleamed from movies and TV which we all know is NOT reality, or remotely realistic even with movies like Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down which try and paint a more gritty, realistic picture of contemporary warfare.

This one aspect is something UBI needs to get through their heads as far as R6 goes because they keep insiting on making these "Hollywoodesque" story-driven and character driven games that ultimately just reinforce stereotypes and the sanitized, Arnold Schwartzenneggar/Steven Segal-type of "warfare" which just does not and will not "cut it" in the future according to Christian.

I also thought the part about knowing how to balance gameplay and various features a game can offer is another cue the UBI devs (or whoever) should listen to when making the next R6 because it is exactly as he said: Just because you can have 50 weapons doesn't mean you need to have that many and just because you can make maps equal to 200 KMs, doesn't mean you need to make maps that big just for the sake of having a "big" map as a gameplay "feature".

Once again, thanks for the great article http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

kimi_
03-28-2006, 09:18 PM
I doubt that Will transcribed the entire interview...but I was at the session, and he definitely got the beat of what was discussed.

Here's a blog entry (http://gdc2006.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6776082&publicUserId=5741797) where I talked about the same session. Some of the info overlaps Will, some doesn't, I think.

TexasRanger_562
03-28-2006, 10:38 PM
Kimi, you are really cute. I just noticed.

Defuser
03-28-2006, 11:31 PM
I enjoyed this - I thought it highlighted the necessity of the 'design decision' in the tactical shooter genre. I liked the fact that he highlighted that 'niche' games are developing in the area of realistic shooters and that developers should concentrate on getting their one area of (chosen) expertise right at the expense of focusing on areas in which it is not needed or irrelevant for them to do so.

He also straddled the boundaries between 'realistic' and 'believably realistic' or rather, 'what is plausible'. As long as it stays plausible, and stays playable, people stay happy. Plausibility and playability, people! It doesn't HAVE to be hyper-real. As a realism player myself I'm always on the look-out for outrageous mistakes in games - if I can be fooled into thinking that what I am playing has at least some correlation with reality, then I am immersed. Case in point - the flight model for helicopters in Operation Flashpoint. It is woefully inaccurate - not a helicopter in the world behaves like it does in Operation Flashpoint. When it first came out, I didn't know any better. It wasn't until I'd played a number of chopper sims (ahem, Commanche Hokum) that I realised any different. To anybody who hadn't played them, or was aware of the difference, they 'seemed' as real as they should be.

Now, I'm not suggesting that games teeter on the edge of being 'discovered' to be false, and propogate falsehoods at the expense of believability - they don't. The flight model was chosen in Flashpoint because choppers are notoriously difficult to fly and not crash with. The chopper flight model that was chosen in Battlefield 2 is ever so slightly more real than the Operation Flashpoint one. Is it more enjoyable? Yes, to an enthusiast. It ensures you need skill (if using a joystick) to be able to pilot the chopper (this is a game balancing issue to ensure only the most capable pilots choose to pilot instead of everyone trying it). In Flashpoint, you could just pick up and play with the choppers. Perfectly enjoyable, and at no cost of believability to the average player, it does absolutely no harm.

Games with 'hightened realism' are 'doing' realism in a day and age where it is beneficial to claim the greatest degree of authenticity in a gaming environment. For example, games that claim hyper-realism still make the mistake of visible rifle tracers in day time and on riflemen. This doesn't happen apart from in very specific circumstances and even then, overwhelmingly machinegunners use tracer rounds, and even then every few rounds or so, as a guide. This is a gaming design decision because they want you to know - who is shooting at you, and where from. They are kept 'in' to make sure you are aware of the direction of the threat in a game and how to circumnavigate it. One of the first things you do in a game, when fired upon, is to work out where it is coming from. Without positional sound, and no tracers, this is next to impossible, a guess at best. It helps the player, and with next to no cost to believability, and is an effective design decision. Some would argue that if you got caught out, or were silly enough to get shot, that it's your own damn lookout, and you failed. I'll address this later on. But the vast majority of people do not think like this - and should not be blamed for doing so.

A number of gaming conventions have grown up around the 'tactical shooter' genre - a breed of 'game realism' that now exists of its own self. A sort of alternate 'game reality', constructed from games that provide you with this false sense of reality - a false sense of what real combat on what a real battlefield is like. You'll never even get anywhere near that experience on a computer, fortunately, but instead we have an acute impression of what it is like from a number games. Different games based in this 'reality' take and borrow ideas from others until this false representation becomes the standard by which in-game tactical realism is judged. The 'rifle tracers' is just one aspect that is found in most titles and taken for granted by most gamers. Another is the lack of bleeding and the need to attend to your own (and others) wounds, effective stamina modelling and the effects of weight on a soldier's ability to fight. While all these have been attempted, they are rarely done so with any degree of hyper-realism (stamina bars in no way convey combat effectiveness). Instead, they are carefully chosen, game-balanced additions, additions to the 'realistic shooter' game dynamic, chosen to add a degree of depth and extra strategy to the gameplay.

Choosing how much you want to represent reality is not a question of how challenging you want the game to be - it doesn't have to be that way. Raven Shield chose not to represent reality in how its tangoes were portrayed - they were crack shots at any range, hyper aware, and only their reaction times limited their abilities. They were also placed in unbelievable positions and strongholds. This was to provide you with more of a challenge and necessitate the player's involvment with key areas of gameplay. At higher levels, they were simply inhuman and in no way an accurate reflection of a human being.

A classic example of the 'design decision' in tactical shooters is the 'shoot through walls with a .50 cal' or completely real ballistics. Gamers simply do not want to be punctured without knowing what the hell just happened to them. It is important in games that everyone gets a chance - it is important that there is at least some semblance of being able to make a difference in game, that the player's actions mean something. Not only would .50 cal shooting be abused by some in the single player, it would be the people's bane in multiplayer. Hence, it is not included, despite the fact that to do so would be to completely represent reality. People bemoan the fact that it doesn't, but the simple reality of the situation is one of fairness, balance, and the enjoyability of the experience.

Here's where I want to present the alternate side of the argument - going back to those who want to have no tracers, why not give it to them? We have the peculiar and somewhat bizarre situation nowadays of a large group of somewhat realism savvy players who are aware of numerous mistakes made in games and want to strive every onwards to complete realism. With the simple addition of a number of toggleable options in games like these, this particular breed of gamer can have their whims catered to. This does not have to necessarily effect widespread multiplayer - niche servers can be developed. This breed of gamers is in the vast minority - it is considered the 'hardcore'. Take for example the original Rainbow Six. The original completely misrepresents the idea of what a counter-terroist siege and ensuing raid is like. It gets many of the details and realism right, but fails completely on the speed and time involved in raids. In short, it is woefully slow. This was a design decision (and a symptom of the technology at the time too, no doubt). At the time, nobody apart from the most dedicated to the reality of event thought of this as unrealistic. Everyone was too caught up in 'one shot kill' to notice and the various other revolutions R6 brought to the gaming table. Reality, in this instance, was bizarrely not as important as the new and more sensitive shooting game dynamic brought forward by R6. The one shot kill and the commitment to reality was something in Rainbow adhered to as a matter of normative correlation with the book and an attempt to 'do something different'. If they had wanted to truly represent a raid, they would have had a lot more things such as fires, tangoes executing hostages much more dynamically, the aforementioned faster speed... the list goes on... Swat 4, even as a recent game, follows the majority of these conventions laid down at the very birth of the genre - the snail's pace of Swat is testament to this. No raid is as slow as Swat 4's is. This is squarely a design decision, and not an attempt to represent reality.

The reason why the majority of these factors are not included is simply 'for fun'. For the gamer, even the hardcore gamer, a feeling of helplessness and the feeling of being needlessly punished is galling and disappointing. Without the opportunity to learn how to game in order to induce otherwise, the game is doomed to failure. The vast majority of people do not want their carefully planned raid to go FUBAR at the slightest oppportunity. They do not want to face such hiccups, because to them it breaks the game's flow and contradicts the aforementioned 'game reality' (in contrast to actual reality) and takes them out of the experience of playing a tactical shooter that makes pretensions to reality.

This works in the opposite direction, too. Lockdown is principle example of this. Jar the player with too many schoolboy errors in a game known for its commitment to 'game reality' and you have an unhappy customer base, bemoaning the lack of realism and effective game dynamic. There are many aspects of the lack of realism featured in Lockdown repeated in other big selling names in the world of tactical shooters, but they are not highlighted or less noticeable because they follow game realism and not actual reality. We don't pick up them (as a vast body of gamers) because we don't know any better (again, as a collective). Interestingly, the errors featured in Lockdown magnify the lack of realism taken for granted in other games - like the 30+1 mag rule rarely present in other games, but bemoaned in Lockdown. The lack of proning, so normally not an issue in other games...

What I am saying, game reality doesn't have to be completely represntative of actual reality to provide you with an effective and enjoyable gaming experience which FEELS authentic. The way this translates into actual game specifics and actual game dynamics is a complicated and intricate process straddling the boundaries of plausability and playability. Allen credits 'gritty' war movies as increasing the player's perception of what is 'real' in war. I think games themselves have also had a hand in this, but only in the sense that they propogate the vision of combat reality so often taken for granted as the standard of authenticity most games reach for.

In conclusion, Allen highlights that if it 'feels real' (to the vast majority of gamers) and plays well enough, then that is enough for the vast majority of gamers. For the hardcore, provide simple options and tweaks to satiate their desire for heightened realism - but for the most part designers should endeavour to emulate this 'game reality' as best they can.

DreamMarine
03-29-2006, 01:33 AM
Jesus, Defuser, your texts are REALLY long. it always takes some time to wade through it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am not sure, if i got your point. AND i am not sure, if you can find some kind of "gameplay formula" which works for every game and every player.

One word about rifle tracers: For all i know, they are used just in military and NOT in any kind of "police" forces like the HRT or SWAT or GSG9 for example.


Actually, I do NOT agree that you should give everybody everything what he/she wants!!! (This matter came up before when it was about respawns)

And here are my reasons for this:

1) If you want to make a game that appeals to everybody it will actually appeal to nobody REALLY in the end, because it is usually a weird mixture of concepts and visions. It's the same with people: People who want to appeal to everybody won't appeal for anybody REALLY in the end! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (To get a little bit philosophical ;O) )

2) Reality "based" games like R6 (in some sense R6 is a kind like a simulator) are about DREAMS!!!

Don't underestimate this emotional element of this whole R6 matter! Players want to BE a R6 member. They want to get challenged. They want to be forced into using their brains in an entertaining kind. They want to be IMMERSED!!!

At least, this is true for the SP and MP COOP experience. As was stated otherwhere the MP adversarial experience seems to differ significantly. In the latter, the players look for a kind of contest-like gameplay.


So, as a game developer you have to have clear VISIONS about a game. And you should not sacrifice TOO much of it in favor of an (assumed) better appeal to a wider audience.

And I think that it's this direction, Will Tuttle is arguing.

KungFu_CIA
03-29-2006, 08:03 AM
Defuser:

DreamMarine has a more conscise summation of what Christian Allen is saying I believe.

I also agree with DM, in game devs should NOT give the player everything they want because the minute you do this is exactly the minute the game tries to appeal to everybody, but ends up appealing to nobody because it is TOO customizeable and doesn't concentrate on specific areas (strengths) which made the game unique from the start.

This is what I think is happening with R6 and needs to stop because as stated on another thread, they keep trying to homogonize the R6 franchise to be like every other high selling shooter out there to get a supposed "wider audience" and in the process are destroying the very identity which made R6 different and unique from other games in the first place.

Normally, the idea of giving the player numbers of of options is a welcome one... But the big problem as evidenced by Lockdown is most of the time devs don't provide the options in satisfactory ways and thus, gamers don't want options because there is more of a chance the devs will screw it up.

Case in point: Respawns.

I don't think people would be so anti-respawn if they were done in a more unique, or realistic manner like limiting the number of respawns per round... But the model Lockdown used was the old-school, insta-respawn model from arcade games like Quake and UT which promotes absolutely no thinking (tactics) and destroys the very identity of R6 in the process. So, as an unfortunate side-effect, players are now apt to just say "NO" to any kind of options that most other games have because they fear they will ruin the core gameplay and core identity of the series and in UBI's case, I am afraid I have to fully agree.

I also think Christian Allen is saying -- as an aside more than a actual design decision -- That the player's frame of reference outside of games is more robust than in previous years because of films like SPR and BHD which paint what gamers consider "realistic" portrayls of combat... But that still don't convey the realities of combat that should NOT be put into games simply because they would make them not fun to play.

His example of breaking your virtual ankle when spriting from gunfire is a prime example. Bleeding and having to be tended to by medics is another.

DreamMarine
03-29-2006, 08:23 AM
Ups, yes, it was Chritian Allen, not Will Tuttle. Copied the wrong name! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Relenquish
03-29-2006, 08:27 AM
I do not see why they are still making it so movies are defining games.

Isnt the games industry worth more.

A game will get you far closer than a movie. A game puts you under pressure to make quick decisions. And those decisions have consiquences.

I think the games industry should be leading hollywood, not the other way round.

Well thats how I hope it is in the future anyway.

FI_FlimFlam
03-29-2006, 08:35 AM
Which is exactly what I have been saying in other threads KFCIA. I have always maintained that the identity of R6 and it's unique gameplay have been what distinguished it from all the other games and what drew me to it. R6, RS, and RvS were/are games that I played over and over again. Because nothing else out there could touch them. RvS is the single game that I have continued to play regularly for such a long time since release (the original Tribes runs second because of the same reason - unique gameplay). No other game can say that. Why because of it's unique gameplay and identity.

Change that and you get something like Lockdown which for me lasted about, what, a month? Like I've been saying, they don't need to make the game like all the others out there to "appeal to a wider audience". It will just blend into the chaff and be forgotten like LD. Trying to incorporate all features, will just make a boring and weak game. You will have so many variations that nothing will stick with a majority of gamers. This just weakens the game overall and shortens it's lifespan and actually makes it HARDER for gamers to latch onto - especailly when every other server they join is dramatically different in terms of gameplay.

KungFu_CIA
03-29-2006, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Relenquish:
I do not see why they are still making it so movies are defining games.

Movies are still influencing games because film is still the dominant form of entertainment across the world compraed to other recreations like sports, theatre, etc.

The thing about films is they are accessible to everyone, no matter their background... As opposed to reading, or going to the Opera where most of its followers have to know how to read and or have a unique taste in music (opera) as extreme examples.

This is where I think UBI erroneously gets their "make R6 and all games accessible" mantra from.

However, they and the rest of the games industry is trying to force something which may be virtually impossible to accomplish for one simple reason:

Games and movies are two completely different forms of entertainment and are NOT the same as much as the games industry wants gamers to believe.

Games differ from movies in too many ways to go into here (because it would be a huge, eassy-like post), but the primary element which distinguishes them from one another aside from one being passive and the other interactive is movies are designed to provide what is called an emotionally satisfying experience whereas games are designed to provide a competitive experience -- Even if it is wrapped in the guise of a story-driven campaign like most FPS use.

Movies are meant to entertain by tapping a mixture of emotions and themes compared to games which only appeal to base emotions which promote a primary goal, I.E. win, because they are games and not a well-executed narrative that is being told/presented.

However, the reason why the games industry desperately wants to equate games = movies is not just because of the video game technology which powers a lot of mainstream, Hollywood movies and TV shows CGI (Computer Generated Images), but because the ultimate goal of most major video game publishers and developers is to be the next Pixar, or Disney studios who produce completely CGI movies like "Toy Story" and "Chicken Little". This is their ultimate goal because as stated before, movies are and always will have two things that video games never have and that is:

1) Universal appeal which doesn't require anything other than a person going to a movie. Like I said, a potential movie goer does not have to have ever played a video game in their life to be able to go see a movie... But the exact opposite is not true for video games.

2) There is more universal appeal and hence more money to be made in feature films because of number one (above).

Woosy
03-30-2006, 04:39 AM
Games and movies arn't that much different now, there is over 60 computer game titles that are in the works coming to the big screen most of which will reflect the game, last ones I checked Was Max Payne, DOA and Silent Hill which is out soon. They know that the game names on the movie screen will attract fans of that game, hence why i'm going. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thats a starting point then add the other lot of people who are intrested by adverts in the cinema and you got alot of people turning up, the only difference is you play a game and watch a movie. Though these ones based on games, most of the people who watch them will know what it's about already.

The same happens Movie to games Fast and the furious was brought to Ea's franchise Need for speed underground now you can use nosed up cars which you couldn't before, then you have F.E.A.R, the ring and the matrix in one.

They both use each other to be honest, I think Movies are going to be using games for a long time to come, there hasn't been anything unique for some time, and when you look up upcoming movies half of them are games, I mean what the hell, Halo the movie? I even heard they maybe a pacman the movie dunno how the hell they're gonna do that.

KungFu_CIA
03-30-2006, 04:51 AM
Woosy

Games and movies are entirely DIFFERENT mediums.

What you are saying is just because there are tons of games being made into movies and vice versa, this means they are the same. This is not the case and this is what I was talking about with regard to how the games industry in general views games and movies as being one in the same.

The reason it is important to distinguish this is because the games industry is NOT WILLING TO DO THIS and this is why you have this big push by them to try and blend the two together -- Often, at the expense of a better GAMING experience... Because again, the two are completely DIFFERENT forms of entertainment... But ultimately, movies will always be the better form of entertainment (subjective) and the more accessible and profitable ones in the end (fact)...

Especially, if the games industry keeps using the UBI model and that is try and immitate what Hollywood does and does baddly, aka Lockdown and its B-List, "Blockbuster" feel.

In other words, just because the gaming industry wants to go into films and other money making avenues doesn't necessarily mean they have the talent, or even knowhow to do it, but they are going to try and it doesn't matter if they destroy most gaming titles in the process as they "figure it out" because games are not their primary concern any more it seems. It is all about making a multimedia empire in every sense of the word... Even if the products of that empire are subpar, aka Lockdown.

Woosy
03-30-2006, 05:58 AM
I did say they where different, one you sit and watch the other you sit and play. Games can use some movie format and do it well some you can't have you ever watched Sin City? If you have played Max Payne they are pretty much alike not only in movie format but in story format. Some games it is impossible to do.

My point was that hollywood use games now to sell movies and games use hollywood in some games to sell, not in game foundation but the movie itself, like kingkong or xmen. You're talking about somthing different. The game format like how lockdown is made to make it like hollwood making it linear and such. I think it was just very bad game design, with Stuart White at the helm, and with the time they had to create the game it wasn't long enough. But like all games that make mistakes, they most of time learn from their mistakes.

If Ubi wants movies in games, why hasn't Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell and other ubi titles gone the way of the hollywood movie? It's only Rainbow Six as far as i can see thats gone wrong. It's games like the new game "Black" that uses hollywood style format, run and shoot stuff and watch funky explosions, but it works and will be a hit when it comes out.

KungFu_CIA
03-30-2006, 08:27 AM
I am not disputing games influence movies and vice versa. And I agree it depends on the kind of game and the overall goal...

But to answer the question Relinquish specifically asked is why I brought up the differences between the two formats because UBI seems to want to use this kind of linear, plot-driven format for R6 when this isn't what made R6 a hit to begin with and this is why there seems to be such a disconnect between what old-time R6 fans want and what UBI wants...

And the gaming industry in general wants because from my limited perspective, game technology and its general level of "storytelling" is just not at the level Hollywood and other formats are... Yet this is desperately where they want to be at right now, for obvious reasons.

It may eventually get there, but I don't think it is going to be anytime soon in my personal opinion, but this is the thing the games industry doesn't want to acknowledge because it means less profits in their minds and less multimedia offerings which is the true goal of some of the major video game publishers out there.

To bring this down to a micro level...

Games like SC are very plot driven in SP for obvious reasons. While I think the format could be successful with Sam just inflitrating a bunch of random sites that have no common theme or overaching story, it is much better they are part of a larger story...

But the "story" in a lot of the SC games -- and video games in general -- Lack basic elements that even the worst Hollywood blockbusters have because they (games) AREN'T professional storytellers in this sense. They are games which are meant to be played more than consumed emotionally is what I am trying to get at.

Games are about the first person experience -- regardless of the game or genre -- And movies are about observing in the third person... But being in the third person actually allows a lot MORE investment in characters and other storytelling elmenents for the simple fact the main character ISN'T the player as in a video game.

This is just one area games are different than films and why films are more accessible in certain terms, regardless of whether the film is "good" (subjective) or not.

In addition, as I said above, a game's primary focus is promoting competition and appealing to the base emotions which go along with competiton such as excitement, anticipation, frustration, etc. compared to well-done movies which will give the audience a multitude of emotions which go much deeper than just the base, primary ones competition touches on.

GRAW developers even acknowledged this major difference between films and games when they decided to try and evoke player emotions via "emotional lighting curves" -- soft-light palletes and certain color hues -- To try and give the player a richer emotional experience other than just the basic emotions of "win, win, win!".

It is this (above) that a lot of games claim they do, but don't, or don't do very well and why I said movies are always going to have the upper-hand in this area because...

For one reason, movies are performed by live human beings and professional actors and not CGI characters which is one major factor why movies will always be more accessible and relatable than video games from the start.

For example, even with Half-Life II's facial and emotional skeletal system, it still is nowhere near the depth of emotion a real human actor can convey with just a simple glance, or look and again, another example of why playing games is vastly different from watching a film.

DayGlow
03-30-2006, 08:41 AM
GRAW developers even acknowledged this major difference between films and games when they decided to try and evoke player emotions via "emotional lighting curves" -- soft-light palletes and certain color hues -- To try and give the player a richer emotional experience other than just the basic emotions of "win, win, win!".

and they stated they lifted this directly from the movie 'Traffic'

Woosy
03-30-2006, 09:02 AM
And Black Hawk Down, with the dirty dusty atmosphere during fire fights. Games that are unique use things from film, even the metal gear solid who the creator from an Interview (http://video.uk.msn.com/v/en-gb/v.htm?g=89cc9e34-30e6-4cc1-be57-2f3e5fd192e3&f=rssimbot_en-gb_default) even says, he pretty much designed it like a movie and it's pretty close to one. To be honest it's an alright game with the movie type cut scenes which are good, doesn't beat sexy Sam Fisher though. And in that interview, they talk about appealing to the mass audience with a new char Raiden, which alot of people wern't too happy about, I loved him to be honest, but doesn't beat Sam.

Relenquish
03-30-2006, 10:11 AM
In terms of emotions games need to try and bring out more of them generally.

A war zone, i am sure is an emotional place, thank god I have never had to be in one. But I do not want it to be brought out by movie clips, or my characters acting like my friends. In a film you have over an hour to relate to the character. A film that has you immersed has you feeling empathy for the people.

Games like RS should not be trying to take this approach. They should immerse you in realism. You do not get to know your comrades in 3 minute video clips. And in an operation the is no time for small talk, it snaps people out of the immersion. I can see what Ubi is trying to do, but I do not think they will succeed. Its really tricky for them because by over doing the immersion in characters you snap people out of the immersion in realism.

I know movies are more popular. But I do not hear people saying operas are being based on pop music.

Opera I feel is very relavent to Tactical FPS. It is a niche form of entertainment. But the only reason people go and see the opera is because its unique. I think we can compare games typical FPS to pop music. It appeals to a wide range of people. As a result it commands the charts. It sells more. It is more profitable. Now what Ubi is trying to do is turn Opera into Pop. And it will not work. Followers of pop will not like it because its based on opera. Opera people will not like it because its total ****.

They best way to make money from an opera is to make a bloody good opera. The 2nd worst way to make money from an opera is to make a **** pop song. An worst way to make money from an opera is to make a **** pop song based on a movie.

Also if a music producer wants to release a pop song he doesnt take his best opera singer and try and get him / her to rap. He goes out and finds a good rapper. If UBI wants more pop they need to develope pop singers not convert opera ones.

Also I find it wierd all the companies making games like movies so they can branch out into the animation industry. I mean if your going to do that, have some balls and take the leap and develope it seperately.

I am not saying movies have nothing to offer games. But they do not have much to offer RS imo. Movies are based on fakeness, not a good start for a game based on realism.

Games and Movies do have things in common. They both try to entertain. And games do not just realy on interaction to do this. A lot of games are very linear, forcing people to play though a story, sure your firing the bullets, but your not making an impact. Everyone who plays the game has exactly the same experience. Those games are infact imo interactive movies.

Some games have lots of puzzles in them, making you constantly think, this completely seperates them form movies doesnt it? Of course it doesnt. Movies can also do this. There are some great mystery films which have you thinking all the way though, your ability and thought process in these films, has the experience change for different people, and for each time you watch it. Different people will think, or suspect different people. Its amazing how interactive films can actually be.

Where games can come away from movies is in things like commanding your team, using your own tactics and becoming immersed in your own character. When you died in previous RS games it was you who had been shot, not Ding or Price. Sure you could then become another person, but still, it was you who was controlling, you who was thinking you who was shoot. Rainbow Six is nothing like a movie. Well no movie I have ever seen. I want it to stay like that.

Best Regards

Yen Lo
03-30-2006, 06:55 PM
Dunno about you all but Iam not buying a "Cineamesque" game or whatever, I want to play as a shooter.
Heres some ideas on saving the Gaming Industry:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/transient/Scan0002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/transient/scan0001.jpg