Upcoming tactical shooter from Blackfoot Studios: Ground Branch

[zoog 18]

The 'studio' was formed eight years ago, how can there not be any video of their premiere title by now?

They worked on a lot of other projects as contractor. The studio was formed years before Ground Branch went into development. So it's not like they'v been developing Ground Branch for eight years. And keep in mind that the project was announced at a stage where normal games you see in stores wouldn't be known to the public for at least 2 years while a solid team is working on getting it from pre-alpha to beta/retail.

Basic rough info, maybe not 100% accurate and might have errors: development started in 2007 to build alpha for publishers/investors. No publishers/investors were interested because it wasn't "the new Call of Duty" (too much niche), this took a while. After about I don't know, 1,5/2 years it turned out that investors weren't ready. Focus shifted to development of alternate smaller project to fund Ground Branch. This new project was Sky Gods and was, more or less, both a game and a potential simulation tool for some army training division (or something like that). Eventually this didn't work out for whatever reason. There have been lots of ups and downs, and as far as I know it was just a problem with budget. John eventually did "full time" contract work to support family/create income (I believe) and slowly kept developing Ground Branch alpha himself (no big team because there was no money).

So yeah, it has been a long road with lots of setbacks and all, but they kept going. If there is one thing you can learn from that is that it shows their dedication and true passion for this project. And now finally, with a Kickstarter campaign, this dream can come true. I mean, John has worked on games like Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear, original Ghost Recon and all expansions + a lot more games. If there is someone who can do this, it is him. It's all about funding, that's all.

Edited April 16, 2012 by zoog

[4 IN 1 0]

Emotion after watching GB teaser:

Emotion after seeing this thread : FPDR

Really, what the fuck is wrong with having 2 hardcore tac shooter on in development at the same time?

[Defunkt 431]

Really, what the fuck is wrong with having 2 hardcore tac shooter on in development at the same time?

Who suggested there was anything wrong with it?

[4 IN 1 0]

Who suggested there was anything wrong with it?

I don't know, maybe this hold page of pointless argument?:j:

Back on topic: I am sort of surprise that the holo sight in the teaser do not have proper parallax free effect, maybe because it is from earier build?

Edited April 17, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[zoog 18]

Let's just celebrate that there is a new tactical shooter on the horizon, and hopefully BlackFoot Studios will get a successful Kickstarter campaign. This game has so much in store, it's just a matter of funding really. If you look at the features and the Q&A section, it's like a dream come true. And those are no just some empty promises as we've seen from the bigger companies, who just use slick PR talk to get people hyped for a mediocre product. John's vision, integrity and core principles that he has shown in the past few years is something you don't see everyday in the gaming industry.

So shut up and take my money

I am sort of surprise that the holo sight in the teaser do not have proper parallax effect

Pre-alpha material. Normally, for most other retail games, you would never see this unpolished footage :) You would see moving images way down the line. But stuff like this can be a double-edged sword, because in general people do not always keep this in mind.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I like the video, purely because they actually showed some limited progress/content in realtime.

But reading through the site, the "holier-than-thou" talk really puts me off. Sure, feature list looks great and the promise of an old school tac-shooter is awesome, but come the hell on, for example the NORG page:

... In a multiplayer firefight, players do not have to guess if they can sprint or hop over a small low obstacle. Rather they have to ask themselves if they are feeling lucky!

Wait what? "You don't have to guess, but yeah, you have to guess punk".

Am I lucky enough not to get hit by a meteor while jumping over the obstacle? That Clint Eastwood isn't behind the cover waiting for me?

And then the rest of the page goes on lamenting about how the entire gaming industry is wrong in their ways of developing games. While, sure it's nice to read and believe in miracles, they should really put some backing behind their words, otherwise it's all hollow promises. If they're actually naive as the text made me believe, they're going to run into a reality check eventually.

[4 IN 1 0]

Pre-alpha material. Normally, for most other retail games, you would never see this unpolished footage :) You would see moving images way down the line. But stuff like this can be a double-edged sword, because in general people do not always keep this in mind.

...... maybe because it is from earier build?

I think I already covered that possibility:p

[zoog 18]

@Sniperwolf

Maybe this old post by John Sonedecker from 2008 sheds more light onto the NORG subject:

NORG is a doctrine that we operate by as the basis for our design. As mentioned, we are not out to simulate reality.... that is impossible with today's computers. NORG is not about building in everything that could possibly happen or every manner in which things happen, but to make sure that what is the game makes sense, follows realistic rules and is not made artificial due to some designer's idea of what is "cool". Sure, what is "cool" can still be NORG... without a doubt, and we aim to make a really fun experience. But that experience will not leave you frustrated due to silly "design" decisions or goofy restrictions.

That being said, NORG will always take a back seat to technical limitations. We use the principal up to the point that it is no longer feasible. It's a doctrine to follow when designing the game. It's a constant question in the back of our heads when we look at a scenario or feature..... How does that work in the real world we ask ourselves. Then we start looking at technical and even time limitations and go from there. What we NEVER do though is remove realism to promote realism. We never artificially balance something..... Real life offers a great set of rules and situations to work within and we are using them.

So sure, there are limitations to NORG. We never said otherwise, but it is a cornerstone of development here and the foundation from which all of our decisions are made. Weapon "balance" is a prime example. You will never see a "weapon balancing" listed in a patch from us because we don't do it. The game world has set properties and all weapons act as they would in the real world based on those properties. If one weapon is better than others in certain situations then so be it. We don't "reduce the effectiveness of X weapon at Y range".

Kris linked to HF's post at GR.net but I am going to post it here because it is a good read..........

Quote from Hatchetforce (= one of their Active or Inactive Special Forces contributor):

The player definitely shouldn't be frustrated more than necessary. Particularly by head shake inducing moments where the AI can do something a player can't. Or by a system that says a higher difficulty = AI that can withstand 2 headshots. We usually didn't have that problem in Dangerous Waters, right Krise? biggrin.gif

Recovery of battlefield weapons, for whatever reason - there are a host - is a necessity. Even if it only teaches you that you should not have done it. You can't carry ten weapons, but I have carried my main weapon, a sidearm, and an extra weapon such as a shotgun for breaching or a sniper system for other engagements. I won't go into the debate again. I have listed the reasons at least twice on this board. I will repeat my mantra though. Unless limited by design - and that time will come - removing realism to promote realism never works. It is the cheap solution normally only used by governments and beaurocrats. By that I mean solving the symptom instead of the problem.

"We removed weapon pickup because it isn't realistic." Wrong. Under particular circumstances it is. What has to be done is to make the weapon and the situation vary according to the rules of realism. That will solve the problem rather than developer interference when such interference is not needed...or wanted. Interference with what I have coined 'The Natural Order of Realistc Gameplay.' I know, I know, someone is bound to start calling it NORG.

Krise, a recovered weapons's capability will be dependant upon many things. For every geographic area, country, and unit, weapons will have a certain reliability. Why? Because that's the way things really are. I have seen new 74s with no front site post and grenade ammo that wouldn't slide into the launcher. It is up to you as an operator to study the intel and know this. You can't always tell by looking but a cursory inspection will reveal any obvious problems. Hoever certain weapons likely have shortcuts in manufacturing, lack of care, etc. and may carry with them operational issues. You reach a point though where you are just frustrating the gamer and this has to be noted. I didn't say corrected. There is a better remedy for that.

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

[-GR-Operative 10]

I like the video, purely because they actually showed some limited progress/content in realtime.

Wait what? "You don't have to guess, but yeah, you have to guess punk".

Am I lucky enough not to get hit by a meteor while jumping over the obstacle? That Clint Eastwood isn't behind the cover waiting for me?

I think you misunderstood the principle. They said that because in most tac-shooters the player is unable to do simple actions, like jumping. This is done on the development for balancing issues. The BFS philosofy says: if it's possible to do in real life, it should be possible to do in-game, with the realism providing the balancing. Like, you don't have to guess if the game allows you to hop over a small object, you will be able to do it like in real life, so you need to ask yourself if you are feeling lucky to not be hit by some enemy nearby while you perform such actions.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Operative;2136397']I think you misunderstood the principle. They said that because in most tac-shooters the player is unable to do simple actions' date=' like jumping. This is done on the development for balancing issues. The BFS philosofy says: if it's possible to do in real life, it should be possible to do in-game, with the realism providing the balancing. Like, you don't have to guess if the game allows you to hop over a small object, you will be able to do it like in [b']real life[/b], so you need to ask yourself if you are feeling lucky to not be hit by some enemy nearby while you perform such actions.

The sentence makes sense with the last bit added in, it's just that it doesn't bring itself across that way in their text.

@zoog

I understand what they're preaching, BI does similar things with "AI can do anything the player can". What I'm saying is that with such mantra and (to my knowledge) their theory which they're feeding us, is unproven, untested and it's probably on a path to hit a wall of depth.

To simulate reality in the way they're suggesting and avoid artificial balance, any kind of logic in the game has to go so deep to mimic the real world, which I believe will eventually prove unplausible and they will either have to take a step back and say "Ok that's enough", or fall into the pit of endless development and feature creep. Any artificial simulation is bound to have artificial limits and artificial rules due to constraints of the platform and it's acknowledged in the Hatchetforce's quote aswell as their NORG statement.

That being said, NORG will always take a back seat to technical limitations.

he main fact of NORG is that it never alters a fact or truth to change a game unless it is necessary for technical reasons

Now, don't take this the wrong way, I'm really looking forward to the game and I really hope they make a killer old-school tac-shooter. I think that currently they're preaching ideals to hopeful fans with nothing to show to support them. In the end it's going to be a game whatever way they want to preach it, and of what quality is to be determined when/if they're done with it. I hope that the fans that supported them don't end up disappointed by the high bar Blackfoot set for themselves. Do I even need to quote the BI's shot in the foot with the "ultimate war simulator" thing and the expectations that it put onto some fans? :)

[Defunkt 431]

I don't know, maybe this hold page of pointless argument?:j:

I have to wonder if English is your first language. Divergent viewpoints do not an argument make and none of what has been discussed is even remotely related to the suitability or not of having two tactical shooters in development.

My reservations parallel Sniperwolf's, that it's a bit pie-in-the-sky and that given the glacial pace to date the feature list (and there's little indication how much of this has been fulfilled) will mean that without a budget of millions it's unlikely to get done or at least any time soon (for all I really hope it does). Projects that are constantly delayed inevitably gather a certain aura (and not a good one). I think at this juncture a Kickstarter launch really needs a playable tech demo (something like that released for True Combat Elite) to reassure potential backers that there's actually something to iterate on and that the whole project isn't going to stall because the primary creative force can't bring himself to let go of anything less than perfection. Lord knows he's been keeping it all pretty close to his chest for the past five years.

Slightly surprised I can find no mention of positional audio (VOIP), certainly there are a heap of features listed I'd ditch in favour of this.

[zoog 18]

Projects that are constantly delayed inevitably gather a certain aura (and not a good one).

True. This potential negative aura might be a problem with Ground Branch. Even though that would not be entirely fair, because this project has never been "delayed" in the traditional sense. It simply was announced very early on when pre-production/development just barely started (more or less), so we were able to witness the birth so to speak, and all the ups and downs that came along the road. But we are used to first hear about a new title when they are at least quite far in development already (alpha state or maybe near beta). Well, BFS had their ups and downs, tried to get funding from publishers (this was the goal in the beginning), tried a second smaller project called Sky Gods which had to be cancelled, and they tried probably a lot more stuff behind the scenes.

But it's like, people expect that since the announcement in 2007, the studio has been working full time on this title with several people. There might have been times that this was the case, but I think there have been long periods where the project was on a low burner (is that correct english?), because in the end of the day you have to make a living and provide for your family. And if you don't have funding and you've spend your savings, and you're working on a product that does not make revenue yet, you don't really have the luxury to work full time with a development team, no matter how much you want it.

[jsonedecker 10]

Hi everyone,

I thought I would pop in here to explain a few things about Ground Branch, NORG and it's history so there are no misconceptions.

BFS was founded to be a contract for hire group in 2004 and have consistently done work for hire projects ever since. Sometimes it was just myself and other times there were others on board. Both games and military simulations. The last one being a 1.5 year stint with Tripwire on the latest Red Orchestra as well as some training stuff with the JFK Special Warfare Center and School at Ft. Bragg. I started Ground Branch in 2007 as an idea, a few renders and a set of design documents and set out to get it funded. I spent over a year and countless dollars trying to convince publishers to fund it with no success. I then spent another year trying to find a private investor with the same outcome. We started the forums and "announced" the game because we wanted to be a little different and provide insights to the community. This kind of worked against us a bit with some publishers actually. But that is how I wanted things to go.

During this time a small group of us were developing prototypes of features and making some art. We would share things that we could along the way. At all times though, everyone involved had other paying commitments whether they be jobs or contracts. So actual work on GB would go in spurts. We had times where 2 months would go by with no real work being done. Then have 2 solid weeks. This makes development very tough. To shorten the story, people had to leave the project and take on full time jobs to pay the bills or could no longer commit. I would be able to pay for help when I could and found a programmer that ended up taking those prototypes and building them into solid feature foundations. That was sporadic as well as I had to refill my savings to pay for the work. Along the way I learned UnrealScript so I to could help out on some basic things so that the project would not die.

So here we are today. We have a very solid foundation to work from, some good looking in game art and a working demonstrable game framework to build from. A lot of content needs to be made and features need to be finished and/or polished. A few secondary design ideas need to be implemented, but all pre-production is completed. Was the journey long? Hell yes, but it was also very non-typical with many starts and stop along the way. Self funding for an average guy like me is extremely tough.

As for NORG, people make it too complicated. It isn't to simulate reality like air density, how dew is formed in the cool morning or things like that. It doesn't mean you simulate cleaning your weapon either. It's simply stating that you do not make artificial changes to try to "balance" something or remove a realistic feature to compensate for something else. So you know, the quoted Hatchetforce is the one who developed NORG with me. He is a 20+ Army SF Vet that is an avid gamer and we worked this doctrine. It has it's limits and we have stated that. So it's not the ideal of simulating every aspect of reality.

I respect opinions, but want to make sure people have all the facts as well.

Cheers!

John

[Defunkt 431]

Hi there, welcome. Please don't take any of my reservations personally, just if I'm thinking it maybe others are too.

Yes, I imagine it would be pretty hard to complete such a project as a one man studio while retaining control (and I presume ownership) in fact I'd have said those days were over. Any time I've contemplated getting serious about developing ideas into a stand alone mod (let alone an actual commercial title) I've rather arrived at the conclusion that it would simply be too much work and beyond the resources available to me in my current circumstance (probably not unlike yours as a parent and sole bread-winner).

You've obviously attracted a devoted following, is it not possible to find volunteers on a profit-sharing basis to add development resource?. For that matter I know of a coder who's pretty keen on using UDK for some of the same goals you've set (true first/third person avatar with freelook/freeaim) though he's not so fussed on the purely militaristic side of shooters. There must be others like him on the BeyondUnreal board. At the end of the day, even if you raise funds to pay a team, you're eventually bound to end up being mostly a Project Manager.

[jsonedecker 10]

Hi there, welcome. Please don't take any of my reservations personally, just if I'm thinking it maybe others are too.

No worries. An eye of skepticism in today's world is a good thing. It's good to question what's presented to you so you can make accurate decisions.

It's not just me, sorry I wasn't clear. There are 3 of us plus a very dedicated group on the web side of things. We have had others come and go as well. I actually have a group of programmers ready to go to finish this thing off once the Kickstarter succeeds... Digital Confectioners. That team is led by James Tan, an experienced UE3 programmer and one of the guys that writes UDK docs for EPIC. We have worked together a few times in the past and will spearhead the programming side of things.

Anyway, we are truly an "indie" group working hard to make this happen. I have worked on many teams in my career and some of the most mobile and productive were the smaller focused ones. Sure, I will be doing plenty of project management, but will most certainly still be doing plenty of design and production work as well. High speed, low drag is the motto and you must wear different hats to succeed.

Please keep an eye on things and I would appreciate your support once you feel comfortable with what we are presenting. :ok:

[max power 21]

I would just like at this point to remind everyone of rule §4...

§4) Advertising commercial products

Do not advertise any commercial products other than those of BIS/BIA on the forums without prior BIS/BIA approval.

... to keep everyone mindful of it.

That said, it's quite neat to see the developers of Ground Branch come and discuss their game with us :)

[antoineflemming 14]

What's the fine line between discussion of non-BIS games and "advertising" non-BIS games? Just curious. Is advertising overtly saying "Buy this product"? Or per the rules, is it something more subtle (Perhaps this is a question for another topic)? I just think explanation here would help so that people don't cross that line. And, yeah, it's nice that the GB devs are willing to come on these forums and provide better explanation of their game. Also interesting to finally see a game that is implementing some of the features that BIS has implemented in their games. Maybe GB can be for the tactical shooter genre what OFP/ArmA games have been for the simulator genre.

[max power 21]

Well, subtley just went out the window. :p

The comment was more aimed at jsonedecker, as the proprietor of BFS. His 'explanation' sounds like a pitch to me. When he says

Please keep an eye on things and I would appreciate your support once you feel comfortable with what we are presenting.

He is saying, "come give us your money for a product". That pretty much fits the definition of advertizing for me.

When a user says, "I think you should support this because the market is flooded with the dried up husks of the tactical genre. Indie games are our last, best hope for a fair shake at a game that isn't designed around a nintendo controller", I think that's a fair opinion statement. When someone says, "I think you should give me money" for the same (or other) reasons, that's advertizing.

At any rate, what I said about the developer visit was sincere, we just can't really have other devs using this forum as a marketing target without approval from BI.

[antoineflemming 14]

Well, subtley just went out the window. :p

The comment was more aimed at jsonedecker, as the proprietor of BFS. His 'explanation' sounds like a pitch to me. When he says

He is saying, "come give us your money for a product". That pretty much fits the definition of advertizing for me.

When a user says, "I think you should support this because the market is flooded with the dried up husks of the tactical genre. Indie games are our last, best hope for a fair shake at a game that isn't designed around a nintendo controller", I think that's a fair opinion statement. When someone says, "I think you should give me money" for the same (or other) reasons, that's advertizing.

At any rate, what I said about the developer visit was sincere, we just can't really have other devs using this forum as a marketing target without approval from BI.

I honestly overlooked that statement ... well, yeah, that's clearly blatant advertising.

[dmarkwick 261]

Hi jsonedecker, welcome to the forums :) I welcome the NORG gameplay approach, I'm a big fan of emergent gameplay :) looking forward to a practical demo & examples of unique gameplay.

[jsonedecker 10]

Well, subtley just went out the window. :p

The comment was more aimed at jsonedecker, as the proprietor of BFS. His 'explanation' sounds like a pitch to me. When he says

Understood. My intent wasn't to "advertise" in a infomercial sort of way, but I see how it did go against that rule. Apologies.

[max power 21]

No problem. :)

Edited April 18, 2012 by Max Power

[Dwarden 1125]

welcome to the forums jsonedecker, good luck with the project

[jsonedecker 10]

Thank you... And same to you with Arma3! A big fan of both ArmA and the VBS side of things. Have used it quite a bit on some government work.

[Smurf 12]

If I didn´t knew the project from years ago, that "SWAT clearing room" image alone would get me hooked.

If I get it right, the game will work something like the America's Army series, but better in every aspect... nice.

The gaming world was in a need for a tactical shooter and from "nowhere" this, Takedown, Police Warfare, that Intruder Project all at once. We will have our hands full for a while...