We have updated the website with a new "Works In Progress" Media section (here). We have already posted model renders of the current M4A1, AK-101, M249 SAW, and RPK for you to take a look at.
On that subject, we have updated the M4A1 rather significantly, and produced a Updated Version of the Old M4A1 Promo Render. Generally speaking it is the same model, but still, it is quite improved.
[Blocked Image: http://www.projectff.com/media/M4A1_Promo_FFP_thumb.jpg]
Here you go, renders of the M4A1 and the M18 Smoke Grenade.
[Blocked Image: http://www.projectff.com/media/M4A1_Promo_FFP_thumb.jpg] [Blocked Image: http://www.projectff.com/media/Smoke_Promo_FFP_thumb.jpg]
Quote from ArgyllI can't believe I never encountered this project before. I think your perception of INS is a little off from what it really is (which I don't blame you since we don't pitch everything), but what I have always thought about 'realistic gameplay' are firefights.
It's one thing to have iron sights, realistic damage, etc. but that still doesn't make a game (in my view) 'realistic' necessarily. I encounter a lot of people in the INS community who seem to think that having an accurate ballistics physics system is what realism is, but to me it's not about that.
Reading on your website, I kind of find it bizarre that you have pretty much the exact same philosophy as I do when it comes to the gameplay. INS may look good, which is a very big pull factor for people, but the mechanics that we're trying to deliver at the core gameplay are realistic firefights.
I apologize if I jumped to conclusions about your project then. I'm glad to hear that you agree with me, and I'm excited to see what you guys will put out.
All hail, an updated site, and some media: http://www.projectff.com
Alrighty guys, I've updated the Summary for Prospective Talent to include some more basic design points. It may be something you expected, or not, it's still rather vague. But maybe now some more of your questions will be answered. Check it out at our site below, and post on the forums if you like.
Quote from JALnervousquirrel your concept for the mod sounds pretty ambitious. I loved BiA and Full Spectrum Warrior, but always thought they were too limited in making tactical choices and began to repeat the same situations. If you can manage to even make something as limited as BiA or Full Spectrum Warrior on Source, ill raise my hat to you. I hope your concept doesn´t rely too much on the players just "wanting to play the game as it should be played". I mean there are players who don´t always want to take cover and end up just running around shooting shit. But I´m sure that will not be a huge issue. Anyways good luck. Competing with mods like Insurgency will be tough
Thanks alot. One major challege, if not the main challenge, is not depending on people "playing the game the way it was meant to be played". Testing will tell.
About competition with Insurgency. Those guys have an incredible team with a crazy art dept. It seems however, they are going for a standard (not to say bad) realism design, where we are going for something quite different, although in the same setting. I imagine they'll be our competition since we have the same setting, but I don't see, thus far, why people couldn't play both, or for that matter, why my project wouldn't "win out" so to speak. But time will tell, and the design doc needs to be tested. One step at a time... and they are many steps ahead of us.
No worries. Frankly, I don't expect you guys to totally get what I mean untill we release the details and get a working alpha out. I'm going to be developing a site in the next few weeks detailing more about the project. I just need to think about how im going to do it.
It's one thing to explain, and it's another to do it. Infact, that's why im calling this a "gameplay experiment". Consider the goal of a firefight game to be the problem, the current untested design to be a hypothesis, and the rest to be the experiment itself. This really is how I'm handling this. I just have faith in the concepts.
Thing is, the core of this game lies in the small details (significant details, not superflous gimmicks), and since we are not established, I'm worried about releasing said details for fear of influencing other projects further in production than our own. I realize that I'm probably silly or even arrogant to think so, but I would rather err on the side of caution.
All of our team members have full access to the design doc, and they have stayed. Consider that proof, if only for now, of how solid our ideas are. I am incredibly critical of myself and this project, and I assure you that I have done everything I can to make sure the ideas fall in line with what i've learned from other games that I've played (I crit them too... I'm a heavy game connoisseur in that respect), and that the project is original.
If i've come off as too sure of myself, know now that I am not some starry eyed noob. I'm sure because, pre-alpha, I'm very proud of the game design. I expect I'll have to change it to whatever extent once experimenting begins, but I know there is a successful way of doing what we're setting out to do, and I intend to find it.
ok, forget the words "modern combat" and focus on the firefight aspect of it. im glad you noticed how pivotal map design will be, but i assure you game elements written in code are pivotal in the whole equation. DoD does at times have nice firefights, but just the same, the game is based off of a setting more than it is based off of gameplay goals (although teamplay could be considered one of those goals, and that's valid enough). Moreover, im sure that DoD isn't focused on firefights so much... you can tell by their level design. Everything in our project is geared towards that one goal and all that it entails.
lol, hey curman.
Quote from LurkerDisplay MoreAll I'm saying is that the gameplay of Brothers in Arms fits directly into this criteria:"Designing gameplay dynamics that support and perpetuate...
a) engagements that are significant and last
b) realworld tactics such as maneuvering around the battle field,
suppression fire, and flanking
c) the use of cover as an effective tool in combat (if you're behind
significant cover, but have a bit of a leg or something sticking out, the
odds of getting hit are fairly slim) "
The battles in Brothers in Arms lasted for a while, and it was tedious to say the least to pick any part of an enemies body off. So as far as your criteria is concerned, you are holding quite close to the Brothers in Arms gameplay model. Then again, you can see the difference between games like Brothers in Arms and Operation Flashpoint, but from my understanding you're planning on having this be a first-person shooter with squad command that includes the 4 Fs (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish).
Not that being like Brothers in Arms would be so bad, I personally thought both Road to Hill 30 and Earned in Blood were terrific, just that I find it odd that you would claim Brothers in Arms to be terrible and not be able to properly differenciate your project from it. What I said was that it sounded "like Brothers in Arms", correctly. Whether or not you do break new ground, what I take from your posts so far is that it IS very similar to the Brothers in Arms gameplay model, and whether or not you use a different squad command system the overall gameplay is going to be similar. Then again, it could be otherwise and I could just as easily be wrong/confused.
Either way, I didn't want to be a pest but you do have me intrigued and I'm wondering what model you plan to use that will not suffer from the same flaws as Brothers in Arms and other games do.
Your game might be nothing like Brothers in Arms, but the gameplay you've laid out so far will draw many comparisons, you had to have known that.
Yeah, I knew it would draw comparisons. Firstly, I think it's importaint to mention that our project is multiplayer. Not sure if that was understood.
Assuming it was, the example regarding stalemates was just one example. Your example about picking people off when their heads showed up is what I meant by that. It was very annoying to me, didnt like it at all. By the way, I also think it's importaint to note that I've never played BiA Multiplayer, only Single Player.
The similarities in both BiA and our project lie in that we share the concepts of suppression and flanking. That is where it ends, as we are handling this game differently, and it will not limit you to doing only those two tactics. What else is possible is up to the player. We've simply designed a framework that is conducive to firefights and the afore mentioned tactics.
Consider this example: Tomb Raider was a great game. It was a very popular game for it's jumping puzzles and the like. Then came Prince of Persia: Sand of Time. Famous also, to an extent, for similar gameplay, but a completely different game. It was similar to Tomb Raider (BiA), but surpassed it and was essentially different from it (http://%7boption%7d). It did what Tomb Raider did better, and did so in totally different ways.
If you're that interested, hit me up. I'd love to discuss details with you. Btw, do you mod at all?
You're right. Very good point. I've been thinking about putting together a "Portfolio" of sorts to explain the points of our project. The only problem is deciding how to do that without making too much information available, and likewise by not making a site that is to vague. We'll figure that out, but thanks, you made an excellent point.
We have a very detailed, strong design document in place. Moreover, we have a progressive system setup for making builds based off of the design document and testing the concepts therein. Currently we are working on an Alpha build that will test the core concepts of the project.
As for describing the mod in detail, I cannot do so for the time being. The details exist, but I want to release details when we have a full site to support and establish our ideas, and we are not going to put up a site untill we have adequate content.
This puts us in a spot since a site attracts people to help produce content, however this is why if someone approaches me with an interest in joining the project, I am willing to answer any questions they have.
AIM: Nervousquirrel
Email: [email='%7Boption%7D'][email protected][/email]
Bah, I'm sorry if I've confused you. Our game is like BiA in that things like suppression and flanking will be effective and useful. However, unlike BiA, our model for doing so is VERY different.
Well like I said, we aren't trying to fix BiA.
We are making our game with origninal ideas, completely independent of BiA or any other game. The only way that other games have influenced this project, naturally, is by showing us things that don't work.
I dont know how to answer your question, I don't have a list of things that need to be fixed in BiA. 
Again, don't make the mistake of associating us with BiA, I only said that it vaguely parallels our project, not that we are another type of BiA game. I want to stress that we are a different project altogether.
Our game is like BiA in that things like suppression and flanking will be effective and useful. However, unlike BiA, our model for doing so is VERY different.
Quote from RDBoa?
Brothers in Arms, pardon. BiA.
Quote from Kamikazi!You say you want to delay the killing and have more suppression, but you are disgusted at a game that does this?
I'm saying that although BiA proposed one system for suppression and firefights, and it worked to an extent, I consider it to be quite flawed. Moreover, I want to stress that we are not building off of BiA, our game is absolutely unique, and unfortunately for the time being you'll have to take my word for it.
Modern combat is a setting, not a gameplay style for us. The gameplay is something onto itself.
As per your statement that we are like Brothers in Arms:
I understand how you might want to equate our project to other projects, and although it isn't accurate, perhaps for the purposes of explaination your example fits, but only vaguely. For instance, and this is only one example of many, BiA was full of annoying stalemates. It was terrible. Granted, it also had it's good points, but damn...
Anyways, our project naturally draws from what I've learned in other games. The do's and don'ts that is. However, to try to say that we are doing a "different version of XYZ game" isn't accurate.
We're really going to break some ground with this game, and we need talent to help support the design we've created. If you're interested, hit me up on any of my contact points and we can discuss the project further.
If you're not interested though, feel free to hit me up as well.
Quote from KosmoSounds rather cool, but please, try to keep away from the "rendered weapon models without textures" and try to release something playable even if it doesn't have all the core elements intact but something to tell that you are alive and developing it from time to time.
That why we dont have a site yet
Quote from CrackerjackWait wait... so this is another modern combat mod... just like BF2 and Insurgency (not bashing on the games just talk about their overall themes).. Im a little confused at what seperates your mod from all others. I mean I duck and shoot and take cover in DOD: S but thats because i dont want to get killed. I really dont see any interesting new features that pits your mod against the rest. And please dont give new graphical features as in realistic muzzle fire, night vision, weather,.. The community wants new gameplay!Well sir what ever you do goodluck.
I HOLD THE SAME OPINION YOU DO ABOUT CLONES, AND I PROMISE YOU NEW GAMEPLAY
Although I certainly can't speak for the other projects, our main focus is more than "modern combat mod". Infact, the fact that it is a modern combat mod simply speaks for the setting, and not the gameplay persay. Although we will have contemporary weapons, it's the way we are designing the game that will perpetuate firefights.
Again, where most mods might be looking to make a "modern combat mod", we are simply using modern combat as a setting, and in truth are making a "firefight mod in a modern combat setting".
I would explain further, but for now I'm trying to be discrete untill we have something representative, and can thus establish ourselves.
If you're interested, that is, would like to possibly join the team, hit me up on AIM or through email and I'll be able to answer more of your questions.
Also (sorry I know this is god awful long), check this out, it's a quote from a previous post.
Our project's focus is on the following:
Designing gameplay dynamics that support and perpetuate...
a) engagements that are significant and last
b) realworld tactics such as maneuvering around the battle field,
suppression fire, and flanking
c) the use of cover as an effective tool in combat (if you're behind
significant cover, but have a bit of a leg or something sticking out, the
odds of getting hit are fairly slim)
With regards to your question about realism... I see it this way: there are two schools of thought when considering realism.
The first is the prevalent model that focuses on high damage and an accuracy system that allows for very accurate fire under certain circumstances (i.e. CS, Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon, etc..). This sort of gameplay does not particularly allow a real exchange between opposing players, as the accuracy system only allows for pointing and clicking... and exposing yourself at all in games like this usually means death and the end to what could have been and interesting encounter.
The second is ours, the model focuses on the reality that firefights do not end quickly. Engagements in the realworld are struggles that involve more than just crouching, pointing, and killing. Engagements last for indefinite periods of time, but for lengths of time that are more than the standard game dynamics in the so called "Realism Mods" allow. There are elements like fear and skill with weapons that one cannot translate so well into a game (refer to the article written by W. J. Frisbee Jr. entitled "Fire fight Dynamics"). In order to have the same dynamics, one must look at other solutions to creating a sustained firefight in a game.
In my model the way you simulate this reality is by designing the game so that it is more about manuvering and getting the "one up" on the opposition, rather than finding the single pixel floating above cover and clicking on it. We change the objective from quick kills, to having to work for a kill. This involves manipulating dynamics such as accuracy, damage, movement, etc... so that no one person could end an engagement so quickly as they could in "realism mods"; but are still capable of killing, should they be in a tactically superior position/situation (whatever that entails). In the real world, it's all about exposing your target and making sure you are covered adequatley, and we have not overlooked that.
More about cover:
Where I think the first model mentioned above is lacking is in it's support of cover. Any "exposedness" in the first model equates to quick death, whereas in the real world that is not precisely true, and where in a game that makes for "point and click fests" rather than involved, exciting circumstances in which teams can employ necessary tactics in a virtual world.
Basically:
Having an engagement that can be ended by the click of a mouse before anything has really even begun is not as awsome as having to fire at eachother, suppress the enemy, and go in for the kill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefight Project - http://www.projectff.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary/Goals:
Our project is being designed with gameplay goals in mind. Those goals are to create intense, struggle oriented gameplay that incorporates the concepts of cover, flanking, and suppression in such a way that they are all effective and integral. Moreover, in line with the concept of a firefight, we are designing each weapon so that no player can so easily eliminate another player.
The kind of gameplay we are going for will have the players taking cover and manuvering, just as much as it will have them shooting and killing. The idea is to do away with conventional design where players simply frag, and move to a design where players have to acctually fight and struggle for a kill.
Setting:
This project is set in a modern urban environment, pitting US infantry against an opposing force, details about which we have yet to announce.
More Information:
Our current concern is developing the project. This is why our site is so simple and has no media on it. Our intentions are to build a productive team and produce substantial and representative content before we start releasing media to the public.
Although we currently have a substantial core team, we can always use more help. With that said, we are accepting members in all positions (Level Design, Programmer, Texture Artist, Weapon Modeler, Player Modeler, Model Animator, Skinner, Sound Design), and if you are interested, please contact Squirrel at [email protected].
Check the final post for more information
