new idea for immersion

[POTS 0]

AI reacting to being threatened. Such as walking up, telling them to stay back and having them hold their hands up backing away as you point your gun at them. New reasons for napa to be angry at you!

[Gustav62 0]

Hmm, sounds very movie-ish. What would you do after they put up their hands and start back-pedalling? And why would the AI listen to your character? Remember, they also have guns which they can point at you.

[POTS 0]

I ment disarmed people. Anyway, it's not just movie-ish, it's very functional, as you can force someone off their property if you need to use it, or any other simialer task. Then the obvious blowback would be the unsettled untrustful citizens, and then after a while NAPA becomes too angry and starts to attack you. That forces people to watch out for how many times they use it. Use it consistently, and watch out, here's napa!

[opteryx 1562]

Quote[/b] ] What would you do after they put up their hands and start back-pedalling?

Shoot them in the face.  

[11aTony 0]

Then they should add car jacking and police on every corner to search for murderers

[Electricleash 133]

I kinda like this idea actually... some moral dilemas for soldiers to find themselves in.

eg. Stay outside and get shelled or force your way into someones house for cover...

One episode of 'The Unit' has this situation, and it doesn't put the team in a very good light, but if without choice...?

or

Threaten someone to give up information that would otherwise, if left unknown, kill a squad of your teammates in an ambush.

More moral dilemas for the player would give an enhanced grittyness to certain situations. but maybe this is something that has already been implemented in the character dialogue system they have talked about.

[Gustav62 0]

I kinda like this idea actually... some moral dilemas for soldiers to find themselves in.

Like using human shields and such? Pistol-whipping people and turning their pockets inside out?

I think this game is meant to be a military simulator in its own tradition. Not a "Mafia" or "Grand Theft Auto" clone. The action in Operation Flashpoint focused on operational / tactical level military action, not on individual characters like in the vast majority of shooters.

[POTS 0]

I kinda like this idea actually... some moral dilemas for soldiers to find themselves in.

Like using human shields and such? Pistol-whipping people and turning their pockets inside out?

I think this game is meant to be a military simulator in its own tradition. Not a "Mafia" or "Grand Theft Auto" clone. The action in Operation Flashpoint focused on operational / tactical level military action, not on individual characters like in the vast majority of shooters.

This stuff happens all the time gustav, american forces must force people off their property all the time. It's just a part of war, why not have it if it's do-able?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Like using human shields and such? Pistol-whipping people and turning their pockets inside out?

I think this game is meant to be a military simulator in its own tradition. Not a "Mafia" or "Grand Theft Auto" clone. The action in Operation Flashpoint focused on operational / tactical level military action, not on individual characters like in the vast majority of shooters.

Spot on.

Quote[/b] ]This stuff happens all the time gustav, american forces must force people off their property all the time. It's just a part of war, why not have it if it's do-able?

Does it contribute to overall gameplay of a Milsim ?

You could also demand a torture-feature, a deportation feature a rape feature, a suicide feature, a burn-down-the-village feature...

Still, does it contribute to "game"-play ?

I´d like to have a limited friendly-fire feature at times but I can surely live without it anytime.

[icebreakr 3157]

There are military training scenarios like that. For example, rbels are "peacefully" holding the only road pass to the village where army convoy is headed and talks start. They refuse to let them through (they are armed & weapons concealed) unless army does a favour (bring something back from base, agree on something etc.). If army tries to pass they open fire, same in the nearby forest where 2nd rebel team is waiting in ambush. Of course strong ROE should be set and mission cancelled if orders are disobeyed.

Its actually a cool role playing element, same with checkpoints being controlled

We've had a lot of fun in ArmA where squad had to patrol the checkpoint and around 6 players played as civs and had their stories/lives to go about, such as:

civ1 - go through checkpoint, pickup wife(AI) and return home

civ2 - pick up 3 friends (AI), get drunk and them verbally harrass checkpoint guys

civ3 - fuel truck delivery man (VBIED hint-hint)

civ4&5- insurgent, trunk full of weapons/ammo, goal to kill as many as they can at checkpoint

etc.

[Electricleash 133]

Quote[/b] ]Like using human shields and such? Pistol-whipping people and turning their pockets inside out?

I think this game is meant to be a military simulator in its own tradition. Not a "Mafia" or "Grand Theft Auto" clone. The action in Operation Flashpoint focused on operational / tactical level military action, not on individual characters like in the vast majority of shooters.

'Pistol whipping' was not exactly what I had in mind, and I think your being a bit narrow minded as to what's possible in a 'Milsim'.

Quote[/b] ]Does it contribute to overall gameplay of a Milsim ?

I suppose, Balschoiw, in some ways your justified in that it may not contribute to 'gameplay' directly.

...but the fact is, a human in war is not an automaton, every soldier will have his own set of morals and at some point those morals will be tested... it creates internal 'conflict'

and for anyone who's studied screen writing, theatre, acting etc. conflict creates drama, ie: more conflict more drama.

... and I mean conflict in the widest term, not just military conflict but emotional, inter-personal, intra-personal, ideological, diplomatic etc.

Where this becomes important in my mind is in the writing of a campaign. You're trying to tell a story, moral choices are used to flesh out who your character and the characters around you are. One reason we cared more about the characters in OFP and Resitance over those in ArmA+QG are those moral choices.

I think IceBreakr gives a good example of it's possible use.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

This is the sort of idea that should be up to a mission-designer to put in. It would be good if tools allowed us to do things like this slightly easier, but as it is, it may be too specific to have as an option at all times in all missions.

[Gustav62 0]

This stuff happens all the time gustav, american forces must force people off their property all the time. It's just a part of war, why not have it if it's do-able?

I guess it does happen, but that situation is less "war" than "police business." Whenever there is active shooting, civilians make themselves scarce.

I don't mean to put down your suggestion, but it seems like the option of abusing random strangers would send the game more in the footsteps of GTA than OFP.

[Gustav62 0]

Quote[/b] ]'Pistol whipping' was not exactly what I had in mind, and I think your being a bit narrow minded as to what's possible in a 'Milsim'.

Maybe I am. I guess in training people for a specific situation, like raiding a house, that kind of option would be beneficial. But the truth is that there are already (probably) hundreds of shooters which focus on room-to-room shootouts. The OFP family of games is unique as a simulation of bigger-level combat. I would hate to see that watered down.

Quote[/b] ]... every soldier will have his own set of morals and at some point those morals will be tested... it creates internal 'conflict'

and for anyone who's studied screen writing, theatre, acting etc. conflict creates drama, ie: more conflict more drama.

. . .

Where this becomes important in my mind is in the writing of a campaign. You're trying to tell a story, moral choices are used to flesh out who your character and the characters around you are. One reason we cared more about the characters in OFP and Resitance over those in ArmA+QG are those moral choices.

Morality in a game is something that doesn't affect the outcome. In real life, a person could feel guilty for committing a crime, but not in a game. I suspect if they were to put in an option for abusing civilians, some people would use it at every turn (because there is no real consequence either way).

The other thing about "personifying" the player's character is that it's been beaten to death already in all other games. If you've played the Half-Life series, you know what I mean. The playable persona is treated like some kind of very special being and constantly praised by the allies and feared by the enemies. I thought OFP was so refreshing and novel by making the player feel like a unnoticeable cog in a military machine. The first missions especially made me feel like I was really there (in real life, just one person is an insignificant being -- strength comes from unity and numbers). I was impressed that, even without shooting anyone, I could help bring a victory to my side. Just like in reality. In the childish games, of course, the emphasis is on the player's character carrying the whole war.

Sorry for the rant. It is relevant to my point -- too much focus on the "personal choice," character development and heroization of the player will make Armed Assault II just another cookie-cutter shooter.

[Scrub 0]

Rather than watering down, how about thinking of it as being included like another feature? Not taking the place of something, but if the situation arises, let the pistol whipping commence. How would that situation come about? Last I heard, many people were rather pissed at BIS in ARMA for not letting AI/player control do smaller scale things well, like CQB. Now that we seem to have CQB ability, another list of probabilities opens up. Just the nature of the ops is up front and personal, unlike the majority of field tactics, you're 40m or closer. ArmA II combatants will come in all shapes and sizes as the factions show, and what if one of them, less than respectable, is in an enemies town, all alone and cornered. Human shield, anyone? Would be one hell of a dynamic for this game if the AI got desperate, made mistakes.

[Alex72 1]

I thaught ARMA2 will have elements of that. Overwhelm some AI infantry and they might give up. Dont know if i read it or was it from the intervju?

Or maybe im dreaming again.