The Firefight Project

[nervousquirrel]

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.

[Algor]

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://www.ProjectFF.com). 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?

So then, no questions asked; Project FF will be better than BiA?

[Crackerjack]

give him a break Algor.... I dont think he implied that, I think he was implying that his goal would be to fill in BiA's blanks and basically TRY to create a mod that would have more accurate and tactical firefights... ones that would be better and more intense than the "whoa look 2 more kruats behind a wall.. supressing team fire.. oh look their ducking... fire team go around the corner and kill them." I think he saying he is going to try to aid more "flare" and less repetitivness than BiA... Keyword in this post is TRY.

[Kamikazi!]

give him a break Algor.... I dont think he implied that, I think he was implying that his goal would be to fill in BiA's blanks and basically TRY to create a mod that would have more accurate and tactical firefights... ones that would be better and more intense than the "whoa look 2 more kruats behind a wall.. supressing team fire.. oh look their ducking... fire team go around the corner and kill them." I think he saying he is going to try to aid more "flare" and less repetitivness than BiA... Keyword in this post is TRY.

It is easy to say "I'm going to improve this" and never say how. That is the question he needs to clear up.

[mikezilla]

I think we're jumping a bit down his throat here heh.

Here's what I think about this.

1) BiA showed people a new type of gameplay that I think people latched on to. I don't disagree there is tons of room for improvement in the game model. I don't disagree that people will use the lessons we've learned as good and strong building blocks... who wouldn't? That's the cookie crumbling of the industry. We're piggy backers (not that you necissarily are... but more of a broad generalization that also applies to us. Many things taught us what not to do in a WW2 game.)

2) Having just spent 17 hours in meeting after meeting about the future of BiA I can unequivacally say we're making strides that go far beyond people's gripes and proposed solutions for those gripes. This gives me a certain comfortablility when it comes to situations like this. You mentioned how BiA did something and how you intend to do it. It's a logical comparison because there is so few games that rely so heavily on tactics and suppression to enunciate their gameplay. Making a game on paper that solves these problems is much easier than putting it into practice, but that comes with going through the sweat of making the product. I hope it works out for you, it sounds like you're gonna try something cool.

Also, Mapcore has a notorious classifieds section. People wait in the wings to lambast whoever is brave enough to step up and ask for help. We (mapcore) are especially quick to jump down the throat of a modern combat mod because of our (mapcore) percieved oversaturation of the mod community. Which is sort of a shame because the more we tear all the mods down and hate the system, the less the system succeeds in the end. I don't hide the fact that if you work on a mod it should be to build a portfolio to get a job in the game industry at an established company (if your goal to to work in the industry someday that is.) Working on an established formula is an excellent way to accomplish this. Just let go of the dream of starting a mod and turning it into a huge success that segways into opening your own game studio. It's a completely unrealistic goal; and the success rate is completely spotty at best (the only real one having been closed down only a few months after it began THANKS EA!)

So don't let it get you down. People will either come around to what they think is a solid design or they won't. If they don't, go back to the design and make it work until they do.

-mike

p.s. insurgency is the bestest. now cracka looks silly because i edited my comment.

[Crackerjack]

Very nicely put.. but i find what you said about us being a little short tempered when it comes to modern combat a little comical since there are a good number of members here that are on the Insurgency mod... heh what can you do though?

nervoussquirell, i will surely make a map for you guys.. because i have wanted to focus on a small and tactical level... but again, I would really like to see a good amount of progress in the mod before i start contributing my efforts.

[Algor]

Apologies, I suppose personal feelings got in the way.

And on second thought using other games or mods (although maybe solely for mod purposes) to use as comparison may be a good idea to help people put together a mental picture or what the game would be like.

[nervousquirrel]

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.

[JAL]

nervousquirrel 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

[Kosmo]

What the fuck is this? I say one bad thing about WW2 mods and half of the core comes for my blood and someone comes here to introduce their mod that happens to be MC game and half the core are after his blood. I see bit biased view here if you don't mind me saying that.

[nervousquirrel]

nervousquirrel 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.

[nervousquirrel]

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.

http://www.projectff.com/

[Argyll]

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.

I 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.

[nervousquirrel]

All hail, an updated site, and some media: www.ProjectFF.com

[nervousquirrel]

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.

I 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.