Time

OK, whatever you say. Anways, I wanted to say that the world you play in must be more detailed even with details which might not have a direct effect on the game but to give the player the feeling he's really there. For more detailed explanation click the link which RalphWiggum above posted.

The people who have seen the "best game on E3 show" video know what I'm talking about. If OFP2 doesn't reach this level of realism like in that game, it will lose war in close quarters battles missions. I think that BI will have to reconsider a few things after this autumn or maybe even sooner.

On the previous thread I posted (the radiator thing) and made a few people go angry I will try to explain what I was trying to say. Firstly, when I said that I want to rip the radiator off the wall and throw it on the enemy like in HL2, I just wanted to say to BI to make a system that will make this kind of details possible (if Valve could do it, why not BI too?). The world would become much more useful to the player. And since BI is making as real as possible simulation, why fight only with weapons? If you're trying to make the virtual world real, you have to copy the ideas from the real world. The player will like the virtual world more if he can interact with it as in real world. That's why I said that about radiator. I'd like to chop down some trees and block the road to ambush a convoy. It is very frustrating, because I cannot dig in the groud, thus I'm just a sitting duck. If my tank gets hit and immobile in the urban aerea, I'd like to turn the houses around me into rubble to protect the sides of my vehicle from the RPGs. I'd like to make barricades on the street, fortify some houses with sandbags, furniture, etc. The best details are those which you don't notice. You probably never admired your real shadow, but the shadow in OFP was weird and you noticed. And now (hypothetically) BI will make fantastic shadowing better than in DOOM3  and every will   and   be astonished, wow, it looks so real. But the AI will not be as good and people will get disappointed. And that's why OFP was so good. All the elements of the game were as balanced on the weakest element in the game so they could work together as one. If you could drive only vehicles but not aeroplanes, wouldn't this be disappointing? That's why I said in my previous thread that CQB isn't just a good collision detection (although it is very important), but also AI which can adept to CQB, interactive enviroment, etc. So, there must be levels of detailed world. If you can rip the radiators off the wall, but you can't move the furniture around, the whole thing seems stupid and it would be better to make the radiators also static then. The big picture consists of details. The more details, the better resolution of the big picture. Or else, look at the better picture from distance so that the missing parts won't spoil the joy (and the truth ). In simulations the big picture means (the way I see it) the feeling of presence of yourself in the real world (which is actually the virtual one). Feeling of presence is information you receive from the world but you are not concentrated on. When you are trying to shoot a soldier 200m away you are concentrated on the aiming and not on the enviroment around you. But it is the enviroment that gives the feeling of presence. Unrealistic graphics, physics, sound and also AI spoil the feeling of presence in the virtual world, because they will disturb your senses which are used to real world. It's like when a BMP gets blown by a satchel charge and flys up 100m high in the air. It is disturbing. If I conclude this, making a realistic game means you must cheat your senses in order to convince them that they are receiving the information from the real world (The Matrix?!  - I'm afraid yes ) That's why details are important.

You're right, they better stick with realism. But this includes women too, doesn't it, vietnamese also, not to mention killing or even uglier things... Welcome to Nam, boy!

Now look what you've done I was taking you seriously and started a topic about that! If Valve did this physics engine then anyone can.

OK, I'll start more serious thread.

Every "big picture" consists of smaller elements as you look deeper in the structure. When I said I wan't to rip the radiator off the wall, I wanted to say "make things less static" and to show what makes the virtual enviroment belivable and realistic. You may never really need to rip off the radiator of the wall, but what about fortifying in the house by using the furniture, or chopping down the trees to barricade the road? This is what I call realism. War isn't just shooting, it's about how to save your life in a combat situation. The best soldiers don't use only their guns, they use their brains first. And thus, better interactivity with the world in the game would encourage people to ponder the possibilities they have and to choose the best possible. I'm tired of playing games where most of the things spreaded over a map have no participation to the game but to look nice. The world isn't static and made of sprites. Collision detection isn't all about CQB and it's just a bug.

I remember the Trespasser and I remember the physics. But it was buggy, pushing your hardware to the limit with some stupid dinosaurs running at you. But it didn't have the AI that Half-Life 2 has and it didn't have the facial expressions and emotions that HL2 has. And don't tell me that OFP was quite good at CQB, because my friend massacred a whole platoon on 30 metres and those soldiers were just standing there and did nothing! If Half-Life 1 soldiers met OFP soldiers they would have massacared them too. Do you remember them? This AI was introduced in december 1998 and I think that the AI in HL is still one of the best today at CQB. In OFP there couldn't be no real urban fighting because there were only villages but this is what I would really like to see in OFP2. Half-Life 2 will make my dreams come true even sooner (the SDK is going to be released before the game comes out!)

True. The big picture is much more significant in OFP. But what I wanted to say that physics I saw there and radiator was just one of the many thing you can do (not to mention how the guy barricaded himself in the house by pushing the table in front of the door and then the enemy went to do suppression fire through the window while another one was trying to open the door). And the feeling of street combat is very real or at least is very close. Any OFP fan should take a look at this years E3 winner to see what I'm talking about. I don't want to promote another game and say OFP2 will suck, but show where should OFP2 learn from.

If you got stunned and you passed out for some time the time would accelerate while you see nothing but dark. After a time you'd wake up and the time would go normal again. If you got incapacitated you would just lie there (the time would fasten again) and blackout. Your AI buddys would of course pick you up and send you in a field hospital. Then you would skip a few missions or even maybe end the game. What do you think (this already could be done by scripting you'll say, I know )

There are things for which they should be included, but since I don't know what will the Flashpoint 2 gameplay structure be. I'm not sure if they were all appropriate. But since all the topics are just "do this, do that" I'd like to discuss some basic things. Most of the suggestions I've read were acctually about what went wrong in OFP1 (I think BI guys know what went wrong, hey, it's their first game). I will try to point out the things which should be in every simulation of life-war-combat and might not concern OFP2 directly, but I think its worth to think about it. Please be patient because I'll try to be very thorough and systematic at the beginning. So relax and get yourself a drink . I must also say that I haven't played the latest games because my computer is rather old (it can't run OFP, I played it at my friends' , but I try to keep in touch with the gaming scene. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE PLACES YOU'VE NEVER BEEN TO? The first and most basic problem of all (by my opinion) is that we're trying to simulate something that is the most evil and horrifying that can happen to mankind? Why? Is there anybody who would like to fight in a real war? If you say yes, OFP fan, you've never been to war or you're need to visit your shrink and have a little chat about your childhood . So, here's our first anwser: you can't turn a real war into fun or you won't sell anything. Things must be balanced. Although OFP can be very frustrating, I belive that it didn't reach the degree of realism which would endanger its gameplay, but other things did (like the interface, which is not problematic only in OFP but almost in every simulation). And as said in the title, how do you know you're simulating a war if you've never been to one? THE KEYBOARD The realism of the games is actually limited by the number of keys on your keyboard, because in last 10 years everything got accelerated (graphics, sound) but the keyboard (accelerated keyboard, what would it look like? . You can't do things so fast on your keyboard as in real life, and so many thing all at once (I am talking about a moderate player, not some freak who spends a game playing 25hrs a day). So I belive the next big thing in game playing and the hardware should be the keyboard. Commands must be as intuitive as possible, or at least to enable fast learning curve. HARDWARE NIGHTMARE The other big trouble is the hardware capabilities. Is BI capable to implement all the requests on this forum, and even more important, on how powerful computers will be this game run on in 2004, including all the bells and whistles? Simulation is a quite demanding thing, but if Doom3 will be released in 2003 as they promise, people will have a reason to buy a new computer . What about a version for 64-bit Opterons? I heared the news that Unreal Tournament 2003 is already being optimised into 64-bit version. GRAPHICS The next thing I would like to stumble upon is the field of view, although I think this is completely a hardware problem. A man covers with his two eyes a 180° view, from that we can focus on field of about 90° maximum (correct me if I'm wrong) and when we're looking at a 17 inch monitor, we're are actually looking thorugh a scope or a tiny window, the rest of our view becomes useless, but in close quarters combat, it's the 180° view that can save us by seenig the enemy faster. But, as I said its a hardware problem, and it would be really bizarre if we had a 180° view on our monitor (something like alien view in Alien vs. Predator). So much about "ultra-realistic graphics" . SOUND The sound. What I miss in sims is the sounds that a man we play produces, like breathing, coughing, heart beating, being deaf... The problem with these man made sounds is that we can't record them properly. Have you ever recorded your voice on a tape and when you played it you sounded differently? For those who don't know this yet, our voice is transfered also through our bones, muscles to the ear, not only through the air. Thus, we have a problem of recording authentic sounds of our body. And when there's a massive blow beside your ear (a bomb for example), shouldn't be there ringing in our head, or even deafness for a few moments? And another problem I see is hardware again. We have Dolby Digital 7.1 (which isn't supported by any game) and it makes sound all aroud us, but what about above us (like planes) or below us (our feet)?! ARTIFICIAL IDIOTISM A.I. Not the movie but something less intelligent and without emotions Where are emotions?! I ASK YOU ONCE MORE, WHERE ARE THE EMOTIONS ?!?! We're people, not robots So, simulate emotions, fear, nervousness, morale, and many, many other things. Or at least take a look to Close Combat series, which is old about 8 years and has this from the begining. I want to hear yelling, crying, panic, see courage and anxiety. Those dudes in the game must show through their speech and reactions how they feel. Don't even dare to make an icon which shows the soldier's mood, at least not on hard difficulty level. I don't want to discuss tactics and intelligence yet, because I hope BI works hardly on it (still, improve close combat AI, because they act like mushrooms on 20 metres, no offence . DIFFICULTY Ah, yes, a lot-of-million-euros worth question. How to satisfy the hard core players and moderate players together? I don't know why the difficulty levels easy-medium-hard are not used for this as they should (although they are in OFP quite well managed). In most of the games "hard" means you get less ammo and medkits, on the other hand there are many more enemys, tougher to beat, better reflexes and other stuff. This is nonsense to me and should be avoided specially in simulations. Instead of this, difficulty levels should be used to increase realism as we play on higher levels and of course sacrifice gameplay. This means, for example, playing on "hard", no savegames, no HUDs, A.I. makes better decisions, and stuff like this. OK, this was a few (not all) general ideas how things should be improved if I was a game developer. I didn't mention things for which I (for now) belive they were already well discussed on other topics (like game physics). I'll add some more direct suggestions for OFP2 in a few days. I wonder how much attention does BI pay to the demands that players make for OFP2. I would be very glad if anyone anwsered this question.

OFP seems quite realistic in the overall picture, but in details it is a short-track runner (when the vehicles start to bounce and aeroplanes can't fly very high, when you find out that tanks have only coaxial machinegun and much less ammo than in real world and other similar stuff)

This is in connection with AI morale. In Close Combat the less experienced and demoralised troop are more likely to surrender if they estimate it doesn't make sense to fight on. In OFP2 should be AI that surrenders and you could surrender too (if you appreciate your virtual life ). The captured soldiers could be interogated then and we could pull out some prescious information about the enemy units around you. If the player got captured then before the next mission would begin the player would be asked to choose to escape or wait for his troops to free him (if the idea from topic "war thetre would be used). If he would choose to wait then the war thatre would run on and if the troops would really take over the prison camps and free the player, he could fight on then. If the player's army would be defeated on the "strategic campaign" the game would end in the prisoners camp. If he tried to escape the mission would start right away.

But the question is how much of this suggestions is actually being seriously taken by the BI. I think there are too many things that BI could include in time (but there's still hope)

Realism in games would be fun only if you pressed escape and you'd be glad that this is really happening. But now, if I get killed I just get angry because I did some stupid mistake. A game should frighten the player, that he would be saying "it only a game, calm down, this isn't happening" Than we could say it is really realistic.

There were the unfortunate who started to enjoy the killing. Â I don't think there were an incredible amount though. I've read an article about training the marines You get brainwashed in first three days. Then you are ready to do everything what you are told. Â And this is the best way to keep the fighting machine working.

There should be more civilians in the villages. I know this might be one of the sickest ideas but there should be something like My Lai (I don't know if it's written right) event just to remember the people what war is mostly - civilian casualties.Why? The way the games are made now is very misleading. War is very immoral, because civilians suffer the most not the soldiers who got weapons to defend themselves. In games we kill soldiers not the civilians, but look at any war of the 20th century. The numbers of civilian casualties were the highest, unfortunately. Of course, AI civilians should show feelings to make you sorry if you hurt them, not act like robots, because I'd show them no mercy then . Don't get upset, it's only an idea.

I might be too enthusiastic, I admit it. What is the real war like? Can you tell me? I was in war for 10 days when I was 6 years old. Luckily the war ended without any big damage or losses. But there was the anxiety present. I've played OFP enough to understand the principles it is based on. I don't care about the details, we all know that there will be more detailed world in OFP2. I'm interested in the principles of the games, AI mostly. And I would just like to point out some things that I don't see in the simulations, but these missing things are playing some key roles in real worls (AI, for example). I think that the game developers are dumping the importance of social reality, which is sometimes more important than physical reality.

I belive there is no new or good suggestions. There are only ideas which happen in real life all the time, but not in games yet and we would like to see them. And yes, it is much bigger question how to apply these "ideas" into the game.

Most of the US soldiers in Vietnam were 19 old boys with a few week training so they weren't really prepared for the combat situations. Marines are taught how to kill and have thorough mental and physical preparations to become fighting machines. They fill out orders you give them, but I've read also that they actually want to kill. Rookies don't have the guts nor the training to do that the easy way.

If "war theatre" idea would be used, the number of civilians would be already predicted in the geographical info of the map (besides other information). If the BI is trying to do the game sa much real as he can, then I ask you: how many of you would be capable of killing an innocent civilian right now, while he's crying and begging for his life? I know I wouldn't...

AvP1 did this rather well. A shame AvP2 really sucked at that. Yes AvP1 was the only game where I was sorry to kill a civilian. She just crouched there an cried. But still not enough convincingly . I wan't to see the fear in their eyes.

Oh yes the "flee,deserted or routed" options should be included, like in Close Combat. And of course, once you take over the surrendered you have to take care of him, take him to the gathering point for the prisoners, a lot of things to do isn't it? It's easier to execute him, isn't it? But if he's scared an begs you not to kill him, would you do it? This is war, and things like this happen all the time. Games we're playing are misleading and give a false feeling of war. BI has an oportunity to show the people what war really is.

How are wars won then? Yeah, yeah, of course, but you might fight 20% percent of the whole war time, the rest is guardin, pointless patrolling, pillaging, terrorising the civilians, burning the houses. When I meant "not the biggest" I meant the amount of time you spend for fighting. Of course, it is the most important

Yes, of course, obviously I forgot to say that this AI I suggested would be very practical in the Total Air War like (non-linear) campaign, whereas in linear mission system would be probably the scripting better. But still why write scripts for every mission if it could be implemented in the AI? I am an advocate of TAW-like non-linear campaign (check out the topic "War theatre" for more details, or go play TAW) because it gives longer lifetime (Civilisation is a great example of non-linear game, and I never get tired of it). Linear missions are almost always the same and predictable (even OFP isn't an exception).