Upcoming tactical shooter from Blackfoot Studios: Ground Branch [Archive]

Tactical Jerky

Feb 23 2007, 18:12

In the ghostrecon.net forums there is a thread where Jsonedecker (an original Rainbow6, Ghost Recon dev.) from Blackfoot Studios is giving hints about his new upcoming tactical shooter which you people might find interesting.

From: http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums....c=41105 (http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41105)

Quote[/b] ] You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal? That tension is long gone for me. As I bound from objective to objective, encountering the same scenario of a group of guys waiting to ambush me in one direction, just so that I can blow something up and then run off to my next task of 10 in a mission, I can't help but feel like a high-speed errand boy. It would seem these days players are content with scripted sequences and lots of incompetant enemies.

.........

Remember when you used to praise GR for it's realism and attention to detail? I used to be quite impressed with the detailed textures and models, most of them modeled directly from real loadouts currently used in the field. Yeah, the game was set in the near future, but what was really catching was GR's similarity to present-day combat. ess.

Those days aren't over, they are just taking a vacation.

The premise and execution of the GRAW games is great, but evolved a considerable amount, in my opinion, from the originals. The same can be said for the R6 series as well. That original design philosophy and love of the core gameplay mechanics are alive and well in one particular place.

Stay tuned.

-John

These are the teasers he gave:

Pictures:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/temp/Tease_01.jpg

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/temp/Tease_02.JPG

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/temp/Tease_03.JPG

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/temp/Tease_05.JPG

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/temp/Tease_06.JPG

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/media/Drager_LAR_V_small.JPG

Hints and useful info:

On a comment about the platform it will be released on: "PC first.... 360 second".

"Totaly obscure hint........ GB".

The second picture is confirmed to be a Tac-Board used in dive operations.

On a question if we have to think months or year about the game's release date John replies with: "Year".

The unit in this game has been confirmed not to be: Navy Seals, SBS, SF Combat Diver teams.

"THey are definately not conventional forces.".

In reponse to a question about the map sizes Jonh replies: "It will be of a fixed size, but I have no idea what that size is yet. They will also be open maps like OGR with the ability to take care of objectives and issues that arise as you see fit. We are not interested in the "do anything anywhere" or funneled hero character approaches.".

On the question if BFS will provide a full sdk with the game John replies with: "That is the plan. As you said, it's early so anything can happen though.".

Possibly encrypted teaser:
"As a side, my 3 favorite game companies, as a developer and for various reasons, are:
Epic
Gearbox Software
RSE 1997-2001

Maybe that will give some insight to some of the inspiration for BFS.".

"It's an actual unit, but the men are drawn from many different branches of the military.

I believe someone got pretty close in this thread, and there is actually a hint in this very post.".

Knowing his past projects (R6,GR1) and people around him I personally expect alot from this project.

AWDrift

Feb 23 2007, 19:54

Man, this is great. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

5cent_at_NY

Feb 24 2007, 11:43

YEAH!! finally we can play a TRUE combat sim? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif

4 IN 1

Feb 24 2007, 14:42

judge from the gamming market now a days? i heavily doubt that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

oh and dont forget that these shot is already easily taken from arma right now

Tactical Jerky

Feb 24 2007, 15:02

Trust me these guys aren't planning to bring the next Hollywood style shooter onto the market. Realism is the foundation for this game.

4 IN 1

Feb 24 2007, 15:19

Trust me these guys aren't planning to bring the next Hollywood style shooter onto the market. Realism is the foundation for this game.
i am a huge GR1 and R6 fans b4 OFP but since someone xcrew all CT titled game and having BIS as "how hard to be developer" example i have huge doubt about that

lets cross our fingers m8

Tactical Jerky

Feb 26 2007, 09:46

Since yesterday there forum has been opened: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?act=idx

maxqubit

Feb 26 2007, 10:20

Nice find ... keep us informed!

Heatseeker

Feb 26 2007, 12:07

I thought these guys were ex red storm doing artwork for other companies (like ubi). With GR now turned into sci-fi this is something i'll keep an eye for, even without a proprietary engine and in very early development they seem atleast willing to do something good http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .

Spartan2E

Feb 26 2007, 12:27

Awesome, can't wait to see if it turns out into something great! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

])rStrangelove

Feb 27 2007, 19:52

Mmmmh ... maritime SF units? Interesting.

Imagine R6 (RavenShield) realism mixed with driving boats / diving to shore and then dealing with tasks behind enemy lines - WOAH! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

Tactical Jerky

Feb 27 2007, 20:15

)rStrangelove @<hidden> Feb. 27 2007,21:52)]Mmmmh ... maritime SF units? Interesting.

Imagine R6 (RavenShield) realism mixed with driving boats / diving to shore and then dealing with tasks behind enemy lines - WOAH! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif
Yup following the clues such a game can be expected.

A new teaser image has been released that shows Drager Lar 5 breathing apparatus: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/media/Drager_LAR_V.jpg

])rStrangelove

Mar 1 2007, 19:59

What units are known to use this thing atm? Anybody knows? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Sanctuary

Mar 1 2007, 22:31

Always playing regularly and enjoying the 1st Ghost Recon, i will certainly have an eye on the future of this project.

BlackScorpion

Mar 2 2007, 11:58

Actually just started playing GR1 with the expansions again, in MP with a mate (Helping Hand), great fun. Looking forward to this.

Tactical Jerky

Mar 8 2007, 13:57

new screen: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums....t&id=11 (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=11)

Tactical Jerky

Apr 7 2007, 21:35

More screens have been released:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9

MAA3057

Apr 8 2007, 00:00

Redstorm Entertainment was undoubtly my favorite developer back in the day. I am glad they are making a comeback with other talented folks.

Commando84

Apr 8 2007, 03:05

love the desert pic with the soldiers who have fast roped down http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif

scubaman3D

Jul 13 2007, 14:18

New forums up:

Sounds sweet.

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums....s=&f=13 (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=13)

Maddmatt

Jul 13 2007, 15:23

They finally announced the name. Ground Branch (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1084).

Sounds cool.

Opteryx

Jul 13 2007, 15:55

scubaman3D

Jul 13 2007, 16:45

^ The infamous vehicle v. no vehicle debate.

I like vehicles myself, but I'm sure you'll be curious if/when a demo releases...

clandestine CIA ops will get my attention every time.

Maddmatt

Jul 13 2007, 16:46

Ti0n3r

Jul 13 2007, 16:53

Looks interesting, but it will probably just be another unrealistic USA-spreading-the-torch-of-freedom game where you fight the drunken Russian/fanatic middle easterner etc etc...

Let's hope I'm dead wrong.

scubaman3D

Jul 13 2007, 17:00

Ti0n3r

Jul 13 2007, 17:12

I don't trust what I read.

Heatseeker

Jul 13 2007, 18:21

Well I must admit that this game looked rather interesting until I read a certain statement by one of the developers.

Quote[/b] ]I don't forsee us making maps that require a vehicle to traverse to the other side, sorry.
The game just lost 80 % appeal in my book http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
Its impossible to create a very realistic full combat game/sim with huge environments where you can use vehicles.
In all cases (including BIS games) the implementation of vehicles turns out arcadish.

BFS are going with the foot/ground gameplay and hopefully will get it wright (i believe they will).

Arma "touches" realism but the gameplay is so open and diverse that its impossible to apply alot of it in every single gameplay aspect. Thats where the limitations kick in, you dont have a perfect rotary wing sim, a fixed wing sim, an armored sim or the best possible infantry sim all combined in the same product, you get something as close as it gets.

BFS's idea is alright (believable setting atleast) and well thought out it imo, after watching the gorgeous stupidity COD4 is presenting i think this game is one to look out for http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .

I want this game... yesterday http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif .

RedNova

Jul 13 2007, 19:23

I dunno about this it looks too "graphicy"...And so far the only game that turned out to be everything I've expected and more (and I've played them all) is OFP.

AWDrift

Jul 13 2007, 21:28

I don't trust what I read.
Why? There hasn't been anything to suggest the devs lied about the plot and setting of the game.

scubaman3D

Jul 13 2007, 21:31

I think the plot sounds interesting...and atleast its believable.

The Susser

Jul 13 2007, 23:03

Ti0n3r

Jul 13 2007, 23:44

I don't trust what I read.
Why? There hasn't been anything to suggest the devs lied about the plot and setting of the game.
I don't trust most stuff I read about games in development because I've learned that a lot of it is just yadayadayada. Let's just see.

echo1

Jul 13 2007, 23:56

Another Rainbow Sux game...yawn. Small maps and linear game play with a second rate illusion of open endedness. Yes and probably will have content like. Western Corporation bribes corrupt government (Take ya pick from South america to eastern Europe to the Middle east) Local people (oh noes Terrorists) don't like it and try to shut said corporation down.

recycled bollox
The same can be said for most games these days. The original Rainbow Six games (R6 and Rogue Spear) were brilliant for their day. I still play Rogue Spear often, although not quite as sophisticated as Swat 4, I find it less constraining or something, just some good old fashioned Terrorist hunt fun.

As for the later ones? Havent played Lockdown or Vegas, but from what I read they have nothing in common with the "Real" Rainbow Sixes. Raven Shield was sorta half way, but was still quite good.

RedNova

Jul 14 2007, 00:12

scubaman3D

Jul 14 2007, 05:03

"Take ya pick from South america to eastern Europe to the Middle east"

If there're any places in the world where corporations have highest influence on corrupted government it's in Western Europe and North America. South America Eastern Europe and the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD knows this. As a matter of fact you can find every significant mafia and organized crime gang from every corner of the world operating in and from north america.

Because there is the most money in N. America. And you want to talk about corruption...I've been to Russia several times, and Turkey. Those are corrupt countries - and the most corrupt people are the former communist leaders who seized state assets and privatized them.

Hell my fiancee is Russian and she tells me stories that you would NEVER hear in America about professors giving out grades in exchange for a good bottle of Vodka.

Point is, where ever there is money, there is corruption.

But you're just hating on the game so whatever.

ps, the cold war is over and the good guys won.

RedNova

Jul 14 2007, 08:36

Imo USA is far more corrupted than the soviet union ever was. Only big difference is these guys sweep it under the rug and hide it from the light of day far better than USSR did. But there's only so much dirt you can sweep under that rug before people start noticing a suspicious buldge.

What do you mean "Point is, where ever there is money, there is corruption."? There's money everywhere but in most parts of the civilized world you don't see governments blowing up their own buildings and people in false flag operations just to have a pretext to start a war in the name of corporate profitiering.

PS, Who would have ever guessed that commies and leftists were "the good guys" all along... or maybe the more appropriate moral to this story is that good guys really do finish last. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

Maddmatt

Jul 14 2007, 09:30

Imo USA is far more corrupted than the soviet union ever was. Only big difference is these guys sweep it under the rug and hide it from the light of day far better than USSR did. But there's only so much dirt you can sweep under that rug before people start noticing a suspicious buldge.

What do you mean "Point is, where ever there is money, there is corruption." there's money everywhere but in most parts of the civilized world you don't see governments blowing up their own buildings and people in false flag operations just to have a pretext to start a war in the name of corporate profitiering.

PS, Who would have ever guessed that commies and leftists were "the good guys" all along... or maybe the more appropriate moral to this story is that good guys really do finish last. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
WTF has this got to do with the topic? There are better places to go to if you want to have these "my country is better than yours" debates.

The whole world is full of corruption, you just need to know where to look http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

RedNova

Jul 14 2007, 09:47

Right pardon me ... back on topic folks nothing to see here.

[imghttp://www.retroremakes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/stapler.png[/img]

" Empires are not countries , they're just passing phases of immaturity" - RedNova

martinovic

Jul 14 2007, 10:17

I like the story, but the engine seems a bit spartan.

Seems the game probably won't have dynamic destruction of terrain and fancy things like that, which is a shame since i can already choose from a myriad of other tactical shooters that are realistic and, from a technological viewpoint, rather outdated.

They should combine the cutting edge of CoD4, Crysis and Co with realism... But that doesn't sell because Little Timmy doesn't enjoy getting killed and not being able to run n gun. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

Offtopic: About the cold war being won by the good guys... all wars are won by the good guys, since the winners dictate who is good and who is bad. If the commies win we would be reading horror stories about homeless people in the west living like animals and that brave communism saved the world from poverty.

RedNova

Jul 14 2007, 10:28

I think a better combination would be detailed body hit detecton from Soldier of Fortune 2 + RTS/FPS,moddability of ArmA + Complex AI of Metal Gear Solid.

Instead we're being brainwashed about the wonderful prosperity we get out of capitalism and how wonderous it's none-existant "freedom & democracy" is. Same thing if you ask me but in different packaging.

Heatseeker

Jul 14 2007, 13:24

Shadow

Jul 14 2007, 16:15

Rednova, this thread is about a game so keep politics and bad attitude elsewhere. Your Offtopic picture is also >100KB.
You're new here so I'm cutting you some slack. Next time I might not be so polite.

RedNova

Jul 14 2007, 16:17

Right I beg your pardons Shadow , http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif Will tame myself ASAP.

martinovic

Jul 14 2007, 17:51

BFS are a small studio making a game with a third party, licensed engine...
Their budget is likely to be very tight so making a COD/Crysis comparison (production value/technology) is out of reason.

If they can nail down the gameplay, netcode, the a.i. and come up with a reasonably good looking game i'll be all over it.

The old R6/GR games were very simplistic productions but they played and felt good
Yes, but the AI, netcode, etc. are just as expensive as the physics and graphics. So the tightness is going to reach there too. There is still a lot of room for improvement within realistic shooters, since dynamic destruction has a pretty big impact on real world combat.

Don't get me wrong, more power to anyone making realistic games, it's just that i dunno how much different this one will be from the old games i already played.

Heatseeker

Jul 15 2007, 00:50

Yes, but the AI, netcode, etc. are just as expensive as the physics and graphics. So the tightness is going to reach there too. There is still a lot of room for improvement within realistic shooters, since dynamic destruction has a pretty big impact on real world combat.

Don't get me wrong, more power to anyone making realistic games, it's just that i dunno how much different this one will be from the old games i already played.
Crysis should be the game for you then http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
I cant see what the big deal is about making destructible terrain on a game where you use handguns, SMG's, assault rifles, etc...

scubaman3D

Jul 15 2007, 05:03

Isn't realism what everyone screams for? I don't understand the push back on just the concept of a game that is meant to be very real and very tactical.

And about graphics, ArmA's graphics aren't that great on OFP was horrible - but they are good in their own right.

Why can't Ground Branch be the same way?

Sanctuary

Aug 17 2007, 20:10

I just noticed this post (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=2330998&postcount=181) on the infiltration forum.

Now that is some -very- good new regarding this blackfoot studios project.

Dwarden

Aug 18 2007, 01:46

in its times OFP and OFPR visuals were fine ...

and ...
i definitely missing it's shadows

they were way more 'tweakable' than any shadows before and after ...

i mean in arma who gets shadows till horizont ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Baff1

Aug 18 2007, 12:09

Quote[/b] ]
BFS are a small studio making a game with a third party, licensed engine...
Their budget is likely to be very tight so making a COD/Crysis comparison (production value/technology) is out of reason.

If they can nail down the gameplay, netcode, the a.i. and come up with a reasonably good looking game i'll be all over it.

The old R6/GR games were very simplistic productions but they played and felt good
Yes, but the AI, netcode, etc. are just as expensive as the physics and graphics. So the tightness is going to reach there too. There is still a lot of room for improvement within realistic shooters, since dynamic destruction has a pretty big impact on real world combat.

Don't get me wrong, more power to anyone making realistic games, it's just that i dunno how much different this one will be from the old games i already played.

That depends what game engine they are using.

If they are using Quake or Unreal, all the AI and netcode are pretty much already done for them.

I'm not opposed to cheap and cheerful games. Not every thing has to be a budget whopper like Crysis.

I think the hardest problem this company will have is funding.
From what I have seen development is a long way short of any Alpha, with just the odd 3D model on display last time I visited their website.
Nothing on display more encouraging than any mod announcement. A lot less work than most I've seen to be fair.
No reason for me to believe this is anything more than hot air yet.

I wonder who put up the money to lisence the software engine?
A lot of these games turn vapourware at the Alpha stage. At the point where they have to make a publishing deal or go out of business.
I think this is a lot of money to find unless you happen to be a multi-millionaire yourself to start the ball rolling. And even then..

I think a relatively low ambition game like the Rainbows is an excellent idea.
It's acheiveable and for players like me, very enjoyable.

Another all things to everyone title like Soldner and Armed Assault seems to be just a white rabbit for the low budget brigade in my opinion.

twcrash

Apr 19 2008, 20:19

we will have to wait n see but this has been talked about for over 2 years and they have yet to get an engine. So unless you have an engine you ain't got a game. Plus if you read their forums they are shopping the title so I would have to agree that it is probably gonna be vaporware. I watched it for awhile to see if it advanced any and it hasn't.

SWAT_CDN

Apr 19 2008, 22:20

Found this.

Dated April 17, 2008

http://www.simhq.com/_land3/land_101a.html

CameronMcDonald

Apr 20 2008, 05:41

A good spot... though I don't reckon these GB loons could last 2 rounds up against our SASR (or TAGs, god forbid), just quietly. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

I wonder if it will simply be an infantry simulator or whether there will be any diversification into vehicles, etc. From this article and the afore-mentioned information, methinks not. But from a purely infantry perspective, looks promising, I suppose.

twcrash

Apr 20 2008, 20:05

Quote[/b] ]I think a relatively low ambition game like the Rainbows is an excellent idea.

What? Low Ambition? what the hell are you talking about?. Rainbow Six Ravenshield was THE tactical game that all others strived to and STILL try to beat. ArmA will never achieve what Ravenshield brought to their genre of gaming.

4 IN 1

Apr 21 2008, 01:49

ARMA and rainbow 6 are simply two different type of game

both do the job on their own area, which makes it kind of stupid to compare them

twcrash

Apr 22 2008, 13:11

ARMA and rainbow 6 are simply two different type of game

both do the job on their own area, which makes it kind of stupid to compare them

I was commenting on the low ambition comment. RVS was and is still a great game. Well done with very few problems. I still play it on a weekly basis. hell imma go play some now. lol

Predator555

May 29 2008, 19:56

really hoping that this BFS game can be the continuation of the R6 and OGR series that we have all been waiting for

Mr Sonedecker certainly is making all the right noises.

Tactical Jerky

Jun 25 2008, 22:17

Quote[/b] ]we will have to wait n see but this has been talked about for over 2 years and they have yet to get an engine. So unless you have an engine you ain't got a game. Plus if you read their forums they are shopping the title so I would have to agree that it is probably gonna be vaporware. I watched it for awhile to see if it advanced any and it hasn't.

Well here's your engine: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums....ry44034 (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2679&pid=44034&st=0&#entry44034)

Ground Branch will use the Unreal Engine 3.

Also if you want to learn more about GB make sure to register at the BFS forum so you can view the newsletters.

twcrash

Jan 13 2009, 01:03

Welcome to 2009... Still waiting. Maybe 2010 will be a ground branch year.

W0lle

Jan 16 2009, 20:38

Welcome to 2009... Still waiting. Maybe 2010 will be a ground branch year.
And for that nonsense you dig out a more than 6 months old thread?

Closing until someone has really something important to add.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

Mr. Charles

Mar 26 2012, 17:21

Serellan put up a new video (which is pretty awesome btw) and put up a new working title:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9750971/Takedown.jpg

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355932838/crowdsourced-hardcore-tactical-shooter

€dit: goddamned ninja turtles creepin everywhere :mad:

SiC-Disaster

Apr 16 2012, 07:52

I figured it was about time Ground Branch has it's own thread on these forums, instead of posted about between the lines in the Takedown thread. It well deserves it.
So, let's post all news about GB here :)

Today is the day of the renewed BFS assault, with more news to come!
Check the new forums at: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?act=idx
And check the new Black Foot Studios website at: http://www.blackfootstudios.com
Their youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/BlackFootStudios/videos

A Ground Branch-specific website will be up soon at: http://www.groundbranch.com

Defunkt

Apr 16 2012, 08:29

Afaik most of the gameplay elements are in the game as prototypes and all the Kickstarter funds will go towards finishing those elements to a shippable state. By any means they have more work done and are more trustworthy than Serellan and Takedown.
How do you know this? I've looked in regularly for years and all I've seen is a couple of static (to my eye decidedly staged) screenshots revealed recently showing (once again) how Unreal really doesn't do naturalistic settings all that well.

I mean seriously, if they want to go the crowd-sourced route they're surely going to have to become an order of magnitude more forthcoming about what they have and haven't done. The 'studio' was formed eight years ago, how can there not be any video of their premiere title by now?

SiC-Disaster

Apr 16 2012, 09:05

Because it wasn't ready to show? But seriously, did you support Takedown? A game that hasn't even had anything at all but vague plans to show? They don't even have figured out which engine to use yet. IF so, than this discussion is a rather moot point. Especially considering the funding they requested don't even cover the planned costs and they need more to release a full game. It's all to start up their company and maybe, maybe get it to alpha state if they don't run out of money beforehand.

As far as the sentence you quoted, I read that somewhere on the BFS forums, a topic about fan-funding through Kickstarter. I'm looking for the exact post right now. He has however said several times before that before he would start asking money for the project he wanted to have something tangible first, not just promises.
Have a look at this thread: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5550&st=0

Gah, I can't seem to find the post I'm looking for.

EDIT: oh, and you're wrong about there not being any videos. Here you can see two video's that have been released previously: http://www.youtube.com/user/BlackFootStudios/videos
One is about animations and one is about a map fly-through.

Defunkt

Apr 16 2012, 11:40

I'd seen the map flythru already, it was posted on YouTube 2 1/2 years ago but there's been nothing since and in fact at least two of the three 'new' screenshots to surface recently are on that very map, I'm not sure they have any others. Maybe they will blow us all away this week with a huge reveal but I'm a bit sceptical. At least in Serellan I see a pragmatic approach to getting things done and a much clearer intention about the product than I've ever been able to glean from the GB site (campaign? multiplayer? co-op? adversarial?). The problem with games and mods that take too long is that by the time you're half way through the stuff you started with is no longer up-to-date and has to be re-done, the technology and consumer expectations move that fast.

SiC-Disaster

Apr 16 2012, 11:44

Well, our opinions on a clear intention for the product differ massively then. All I can say.

Defunkt

Apr 16 2012, 11:46

Well can you tell me (or link me to) something about the game. I swear I've not struck any sort of description of the goal other than that it's going to be tactical and in the spirit of some earlier Tom Clancy series (I forget which).

SiC-Disaster

Apr 16 2012, 12:27

Well their goals so far is ofcourse adding a multiplayer mode which will come first, after that they are going to add a co-op mode, after which they will focus on a single player campaign.
These single player missions will be in the style of oldschool tactical shooters like the original Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear and the original Ghost Recon. I'm not entirely sure if the planning system will be like Ghost Recon's or like the pre-mission planner like Rainbow Six.

There have been several news letters detailing more information though these are old as well. Unfortunately with the recent forum change 5 of them seem to have been lost. I'll post the remainder anyway so you can read them.
- http://www.blackfootstudios.com/newsletter/BFS_Newsletter1_Sept07.pdf
- http://www.blackfootstudios.com/newsletter/BFS_Newsletter_Vol1is7.pdf

The BFS business motto, which you might or might not know, is this: “Do not build your community around a game, build your game around a community”
They have the full intention of bringing back the oldschool tactical shooter.
"It is our opinion that the tactical gaming market has become fragmented and there is currently a void to be filled. We are dedicated to filling that void with the style of games that many would call "classic" tactical squad based gaming. There is still a huge market for this style of game and BlackFoot Studios is in a great position to capitalize on it." ~ John Sonedecker

Next to that, they are making GB by principles of NORG, or Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay.
I can't find the original article with all the details but it basically comes down to them not cutting features because it might imbalance the game (like jumping for instance) but retaining these features with the proper reactions. In line with the previous example, jumping will fuck up your aim considerably.

“Removing something as basic as jumping means now the gamer must examine what he is allowed to do and learn to act inside an unrealistic world. This inevitably and always leads to gamers throwing up their hands in frustration and saying, “That is total BS. In the real world I could have jumped over that wall or ditch and been safe. I could have got that guy! Arrrhhhh!” Instead, the player now has to replay the level. Gaming should be an experience, not an exercise in mental toughness and tolerance.

NORG takes a different approah. It asks, “If bunny hopping and shooting is so effective in a game why don't real soldiers bunny hop and shoot?” Simple. The game design that allows such is deeply flawed but removing jumping IS NOT THE SOLUTION. NORG takes a realistic action and provides a realistic response. People do not bunny hop in the real world because they would be shot.

[...]

NORG design allows a title to be built that thrusts players into an immersive environment that they can immediately comprehend.” ~ John Sonedecker

But ofcourse all of this stuff is old by now, though I don't have much fears that they have changed their intention at all.
It's best to wait out the rest of the day and see what more lies in store for us, what more information we get.

EDIT:
Though it's in Dutch we also have some screenshots here:
http://www.tangodown.nl/forum/thread-236.html

Defunkt

Apr 16 2012, 19:26

Thanks for taking the time to post that much. I still don't see the grounds for such unswerving faith but let's see what they have to show this week.

sparks50

Apr 16 2012, 19:31

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjyIyBGljdY&hd=1

Baff1

Apr 16 2012, 20:22

"coming soon"

hahahaha

SiC-Disaster

Apr 16 2012, 20:25

The official Ground Branch website is now live!
www.groundbranch.com

Take your time to read through the feature list, the Q&A, the explanation of NORG, and have a listen to the soundtrack. Oh, and take a look at the new screenshots ofcourse. I don't think it's needed to post the video anymore ^

froggyluv

Apr 16 2012, 20:52

Feature list sounds good and I'm defintely interested and support this type of gaming. Hopefully it doesn't end up abandonedware.

maionaze

Apr 16 2012, 21:29

Yeah the feature list is impressive... almost perfect if you ask me :) Though I don't see any mention on how many players they will allow per MP map.

BOTA:49

Apr 16 2012, 22:10

Yeah the feature list is impressive... almost perfect if you ask me :) Though I don't see any mention on how many players they will allow per MP map.

Last I recall this being discussed on the forums it was something he wanted to wait on and see how well server traffic could keep up properly with everything. It could be as low as 6v6 or as high as 16v16, it's undecided yet. Still, I'd bet somewhere around 8v8 or 12v12, which would be pretty good IMO. It doesn't need to be massive.

Feature list sounds good and I'm defintely interested and support this type of gaming. Hopefully it doesn't end up abandonedware.

Knowing John, and the fact that he (and the others) are still working on this after so long and so many ups and downs, I'd say it's almost guaranteed to release.

zoog

Apr 16 2012, 22:59

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.

4 IN 1

Apr 17 2012, 04:45

Emotion after watching GB teaser: :yay:

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

Apr 17 2012, 11:32

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

Apr 17 2012, 15:12

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?

zoog

Apr 17 2012, 15:17

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 :yay:

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

Apr 17 2012, 17:08

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

Apr 17 2012, 17:21

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

Apr 17 2012, 17:29

@<hidden>

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

Apr 17 2012, 18:15

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

Apr 17 2012, 19:31

Operative;2136397']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.

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.

@<hidden>

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

Apr 17 2012, 21:09

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 (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?116864-TrueCombat-Close-Quarters-Battle-alpha-release)) 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

Apr 17 2012, 21:57

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

Apr 18 2012, 01:27

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

Apr 18 2012, 07:46

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 (http://www.youtube.com/user/slowJusko) (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

Apr 18 2012, 11:37

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

Apr 18 2012, 11:46

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

Apr 18 2012, 12:20

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

Apr 18 2012, 12:36

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

Apr 18 2012, 12:39

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

Apr 18 2012, 15:10

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

Apr 18 2012, 17:22

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

Apr 18 2012, 20:00

No problem. :)

Dwarden

Apr 19 2012, 18:45

welcome to the forums jsonedecker, good luck with the project

jsonedecker

Apr 19 2012, 19:49

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.:thumbsup:

Smurf

Apr 19 2012, 21:50

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...

kimozabbi

Apr 22 2012, 02:48

It's strange that Bohemia have never developed a tactical shooter, they have all the resources to do so.

Phantom Six

Apr 22 2012, 05:34

ARMA 2 can be considered a tactical shooter. It is mostly played out that way. It is what you make out of it. There are simulator like VBS2 and ACE mod and simulate realism really well for your tactical needs.

kimozabbi

Apr 22 2012, 05:41

ARMA 2 can be considered a tactical shooter.

Realistic CQB simulation in Arma and VBS2 is miserably inadequate.

4 IN 1

Apr 23 2012, 14:07

Realistic CQB simulation in Arma and VBS2 is miserably inadequate.
Tac shooter for open area and a Tac shooter for confined space, simple as that.

Phantom Six

Apr 24 2012, 02:30

Tac shooter for open area and a Tac shooter for confined space, simple as that.

Basically that sums up my point. ARMA is good for open space Tac shooter while SWAT & Rainbow Six is good for confined space tac shooter.

And then the upcoming Ground Branch and Takedown will be good for confined space tac shooter.

Hans Ludwig

Apr 24 2012, 04:35

Basically that sums up my point. ARMA is good for open space Tac shooter while SWAT & Rainbow Six is good for confined space tac shooter.

And then the upcoming Ground Branch and Takedown will be good for confined space tac shooter.

Why can't I have both in a game?

Max Power

Apr 24 2012, 06:16

I'm less up to the minute on really recent games, but I would hazard a guess that because no game has really done both at once to my knowledge, it must be a technical challenge.

mrcash2009

Apr 24 2012, 10:06

Its also marketing. If a company focused on CQB had to spend time pandering to a large sandbox it wouldn't be worth it and maybe not sell well as they are more focused on CQB smaller aspects. The only place is someone who already has a large scope game on sandbox open battle and that's, well, who we are on the forums with now :)

Plus the fact that the genre fan base are split more and some who are CQB/smaller game area play wont justify buying a game where its focus was split and only want 50 percent of the games features.

I think only BIS can do what we would like as I say they have the sandbox & have covered the larger aspect, I would love to see some sort of CQB based team adopt an addon or DLC for Arma3 engine that would cover a CQB pack (complete focus on that area). I know BIS can do well already though, and maybe it wont be needed. Although I would still probably go for a separate game that deals with this aspect alone, will be watching this closely.

If BIS are adding thephysics/updated GUI that can be modded, animations to sort out CQB then it has the goundwork to me modded or added too by "someone" all you then need is the ability to stack orders mod a GUI wheel type function and so on as a expansion or mod.

Anyway, thats more Arma3 related I suppose :)

zoog

Apr 24 2012, 10:44

Why can't I have both in a game?

Ground Branch will have a bit of both, but not as sandbox as Arma! More a combination of Rainbow Six CQB and original Ghost Recon outdoor maps and everything in between. Based on this:

The play spaces will be mixed with lots of outdoor areas and lots of indoor as well. The aim is to provide outdoor spaces that are not channelized and just cliff walls that make you feel like you are outside. On the flip side, we are also not going for the great open expanses that some “sandbox” games give you. So basically we will have both outdoor as well as indoor CQB missions. Some maps will have a combination of both. Of course there will be plenty of buildings to explore.

Source: http://groundbranch.com/questions-and-answers/

kimozabbi

Apr 24 2012, 10:55

I would love to see some sort of CQB based team adopt an addon or DLC for Arma3 engine that would cover a CQB pack (complete focus on that area).

There have been literally tens of thousands of wishes, ideas and suggestions posted throughout the BIS forums over the years. You sir have posted the BEST idea of them all!

galzohar

Jun 2 2012, 01:54

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch

Not much I can say that isn't already in the video and description there. As a major Arma fan, I think Arma players would love this as well and might spend at least 15$ to get this project going. I'm very happy they finally got the kickstarter going so that they can actually release this game already, since it's been in (very slow) development for years already, and now with actual funds they might actually get it out in a reasonable timeframe.

Sakowski

Jun 2 2012, 02:01

Looking way similar to ArmA 2 by graphic wise I say but looks cool but I am sure they wont let people mod.
Well my point of view.

BOTA:16

Jun 2 2012, 02:29

Anything they create for modding the game will be available to the public to create their own mods. It's based on the Unreal Engine, in which case you can start creating content with the UDK now and have it ready to go when the game ships.

BOTA:49

Jun 2 2012, 02:32

Looking way similar to ArmA 2 by graphic wise I say but looks cool but I am sure they wont let people mod.
Well my point of view.

From the Kickstarter itself:

MOD SUPPORT: As far as we're concerned: modding is the lifeblood of PC gaming. Full modding support will be available very soon after launch. We are committed to supporting the mod community to the best of our abilities, for the lifetime of the product, and look forward to the content our community will create. We will not only support it in the sense that the engine is capable of it, but we will go out of our way to provide various asset libraries, and we will showcase quality mods on our website.

It's something that's been talked about at extreme lengths over at the BFS forums, and there's even a modding subsection already.

Rye

Jun 2 2012, 05:08

Some anims were cool, especially the pistol transition whilst orientating towards the target.
:) Cool.

Smurf

Jun 2 2012, 07:22

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?133507-Ground-Branch

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132120-Crowdsourced-Hardcore-Tactical-Shooter

Kirq

Jun 2 2012, 07:41

The kickstarter is up and running. I think that every Arma fan should al least check what Ground Branch is offering. Show them Your suppoort Guys, and they will give You tactical shooter of Your dreams.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch

BOTA:16

Jun 2 2012, 07:58

Looking forward to this.

Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/ugkm2/ground_branch_by_blackfoot_studios_kickstarter/)

Forums (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?act=idx)

Website (http://www.groundbranch.com/)

NeoGaf (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=476749)

Flogger23m

Jun 2 2012, 08:20

Going to be donating myself when I get a chance. Keep spreading the word.

Max Power

Jun 5 2012, 19:24

Sorry for the inconvenience. It is possible that this thread was closed when I was merging all of the various Ground Branch threads together. Carry on :)

jsonedecker

Jun 5 2012, 21:32

Thank you... much appreciated. :)

Flogger23m

Jun 5 2012, 21:47

Sorry for the inconvenience. It is possible that this thread was closed when I was merging all of the various Ground Branch threads together. Carry on :)

Thanks for reopening it.

If this gets the funding it needs, Takedown turns out well, we will have the major areas covered.

Small indoor CQC - Takedown
Outdoors and CQC - Ground Branch
Large, battlefield environments - ArmA 3

We have been sorely missing two of the three for many years.

If you have any interest in realistic tactical shooters do drop a pledge or two. Aside from ArmA and Takedown (still has very far to go) there is nothing else in store for the genre.

BOTA:16

Jun 5 2012, 21:55

easyco

Jun 6 2012, 00:47

Thanks for reopening it.

If this gets the funding it needs, Takedown turns out well, we will have the major areas covered.

Small indoor CQC - Takedown
Outdoors and CQC - Ground Branch
Large, battlefield environments - ArmA 3

We have been sorely missing two of the three for many years.

If you have any interest in realistic tactical shooters do drop a pledge or two. Aside from ArmA and Takedown (still has very far to go) there is nothing else in store for the genre.
The more tactical games on the market the better. Relive the glory days of Rainbow Six (except the dial up modems) and play something actually enjoyable.

Flogger23m

Jun 6 2012, 07:26

I think a game like Ground Branch could be a stepping stone for new players to the ArmA-verse. I know a lot of people when they hear "realism" they probably don't think it will be fun, but they may be more inclined to give a game like GB a try before a multi-faceted game like ArmA. Then when they realize "realism" can be fun, they might want to open up their mindset to more "realism" based games, i.e. ArmA. Just my $.02.

I would expect this as well. I believe a game like Rainbow 6 (the old ones), while still complex are a bit easier to jump into than ArmA. Get more people playing Ground Branch and they might eventually come over to ArmA.

Likewise, many will start with IL-2 before moving onto complex aircraft like DCS A-10C.

And lets keep spreading the word. We always hear about how we want more tactical shooters yet the Kickstarter turnout so far isn't that good. I realize many people, no matter how much they like tactical shooters are not interested in donating up front, but surely there has to be more than a mere 350 or so.

NkEnNy

Jun 6 2012, 07:39

blatant advertising removed

Max Power

Jun 6 2012, 07:51

NkEnNy

Without the permission of BI, you may not advertise commercial products on this forum.

+2 infraction points for advertising

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

NkEnNy

Jun 6 2012, 07:59

Listen and learn kids. This is what you get when you repost something you've written on another forum, to this forum without thinking.

Note that I am in no way affiliated with BFS. Suffice it to say that I think Ground Branch looks to be very neat.

-k

Max Power

Jun 6 2012, 08:13

It happens. Nothing personal.

I'm also excited about the project.

Now stop discussing the forum moderation in public!:whip: :happyagentSmith:

bekster

Jun 6 2012, 10:38

I really hope Ground Branch gets the funding it deserves! For the last years ArmA(2) was the only game I played but with Ground Branch I hope to see a new game that gives me more of a INFiltration (anyone remembers? ;)) feeling. So spread the word!!! :D

zoog

Jun 6 2012, 10:42

I think a game like Ground Branch could be a stepping stone for new players to the ArmA-verse. I know a lot of people when they hear "realism" they probably don't think it will be fun, but they may be more inclined to give a game like GB a try before a multi-faceted game like ArmA. Then when they realize "realism" can be fun, they might want to open up their mindset to more "realism" based games, i.e. ArmA. Just my $.02.

Definitely. It happend to me with R6 and GR. When OFP just launched I tried it a few times, but it was very hard to get in. Then years and years I played R6 and GR and in 2008(?) I picked up Armed Assault. And immediately went to Arma 2 when released. Somehow I was just not ready for OFP and the more accessible tac shooters like R6 and GR paved the way :)

Pledged $125. We need this game!

zoog

Jun 6 2012, 20:08

Update on KS page: introducing their music composer Jeffrey Hayat and 2 Ground Branch sample tracks you can hear right away

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch/posts

jsonedecker

Jun 7 2012, 16:00

We will be randomly drawing a name from all backers for a free BFS T-Shirt once we hit 500 backers. If you believe at all in the project we need any and all help getting the word out. We still have a long way to go but need to get people to show their support!

BOTA:16

Jun 7 2012, 16:03

Definitely like the mood the music conveys. Reminds me of early R6 games.

Icarus

Jun 7 2012, 19:08

Donated and told my friends about it. However that does not seem enough... :(

I wish Ground Branch was picked by staff kickstarter.com

easyco

Jun 7 2012, 23:03

Donated and told my friends about it. However that does not seem enough... :(

I wish Ground Branch was picked by staff kickstarter.com
Every little bit helps. Spread the word!

zoog

Jun 8 2012, 18:46

New promotional video for the KS campaign. Is this also considered advertising? If so, I'll pull it down (if a mod doesn't do it). Don't want this thread to get locked :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9e7Er-4LDA

GRS

Jun 9 2012, 02:05

That's awesome. I hope they exclude leaderboards too. I'm excited.

CameronMcDonald

Jun 9 2012, 02:32

That trailer has nothing I haven't seen before.

Flogger23m

Jun 10 2012, 03:07

That trailer has nothing I haven't seen before.

It was merely a shortened version with largely the same media minus all of the talking for the lazy types. Many people might look at an 11 minute video and simply pass over it. Though I much preferred it as it did a good job explaining about the game.

MBot

Jun 10 2012, 10:30

Already pledged. I think this project looks extremely promising. But it won't happen without the support of the tactical gamers (we who have been lamenting the sorry state of the gaming industry for years). So this is our chance to change that. Pledge and spread to word.

easyco

Jun 10 2012, 11:45

Kernriver

Jun 10 2012, 14:49

Pledged.

ARMA3 & Ground branch = no need for any other game on my HDD.

EDIT: Well, maybe SWAT4 :o

BOTA:16

Jun 10 2012, 15:09

Definitely. It happend to me with R6 and GR. When OFP just launched I tried it a few times, but it was very hard to get in. Then years and years I played R6 and GR and in 2008(?) I picked up Armed Assault. And immediately went to Arma 2 when released. Somehow I was just not ready for OFP and the more accessible tac shooters like R6 and GR paved the way :)

Pledged $125. We need this game!

Yep. I wouldn't be ArmA fan if it weren't for R6 and GR. They were my gateway drugs into the "real" world. ;)

Smurf

Jun 10 2012, 15:46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eVStChs5Uuc

BOTA:16

Jun 10 2012, 18:18

@<hidden> Don't think the actual KS video is allowed.

Chill xl

Jun 11 2012, 13:21

Pledge 15 and get the game dead cheap! If the project unfortunally does not make it you get back your 15 dollars, nothing to loose and a great game to gain.

Flogger23m

Jun 12 2012, 08:08

Pledge 15 and get the game dead cheap! If the project unfortunally does not make it you get back your 15 dollars, nothing to loose and a great game to gain.

This.

GB will have a larger emphasis on in door combat, which is an area the ArmA series lacks. ArmA will be great for your large scale infantry combat, but when you want to play on a small level, indoors with lots of micro management, GB seems like it will offer a different experience.

Both experiences are essential for tactical shooter fans.

MBot

Jun 12 2012, 18:16

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch

The Kickstarter page has been adjusted a bit to give a better overall idea what Ground Branch is about.

zoog

Jun 12 2012, 18:55

And don't forget: it will be available on Mac OS as well.

Really like the new kickstarter update, much better info, some extra stuff as well. All in all better presentation and worth a look.

Flogger23m

Jun 12 2012, 21:18

I like the new screen shots. I hope this game makes it because I am looking for a game that will allow us proper, realistic gear and weapon customization. The graphics are also remarkably nice for what is now a somewhat dated engine.

PuFu

Jun 12 2012, 21:39

UE3 dated? really?

Flogger23m

Jun 12 2012, 22:06

UE3 dated? really?

It is getting a bit dated, which is why UE4 is in the works. Texture pop in and whatnot seems to be prevalent in every UE3 game I've played aside from the ME series. The good thing is the graphics can still look very good while not requiring that fast of a PC.

PuFu

Jun 13 2012, 06:01

It is getting a bit dated, which is why UE4 is in the works. Texture pop in and whatnot seems to be prevalent in every UE3 game I've played aside from the ME series. The good thing is the graphics can still look very good while not requiring that fast of a PC.
Oh yeah, like any other engine out there, it has it's specific problems. Never had texture popping with UE3 though.

UE4, while properly good, at least from the info released, will most likely be a bit more demanding in terms of PC specs needed (seems it is aimed for next current gen PCs and next gen consoles, and NOT for the current generation of ps3/xbox).
That said, UE is still a very competitive engine, so it should really fit the needs for a game such a GB without a problem.

Flogger23m

Jun 14 2012, 18:17

Oh yeah, like any other engine out there, it has it's specific problems. Never had texture popping with UE3 though.

UE4, while properly good, at least from the info released, will most likely be a bit more demanding in terms of PC specs needed (seems it is aimed for next current gen PCs and next gen consoles, and NOT for the current generation of ps3/xbox).
That said, UE is still a very competitive engine, so it should really fit the needs for a game such a GB without a problem.

Which is why I said it still looks very good graphically.

Though I have noticed texture pop in in most UE3 games. RO2, America's Army, UT3 and Borderlands are some examples. Some games are worse than others. Probably depends on how good the developers are.

Smurf

Jun 14 2012, 21:36

UE3 on consoles is even worst regarding textures poping. In the PC it happens in the first load, after that is all joy.

MOH 2010, RO2, Mirror's Edge are some of the nicests looking games I ever played without those "make ups" found in games like Crysis or BF3. Dunno, they just look diferent.

Timnos

Jun 15 2012, 06:22

I really hope this game is eventually released because it has all the featured I have ever been wanting in a game.

sgtsn1per

Jun 15 2012, 08:39

This would be the only competitor towards the Arma series i guess, Which "could" be very good. About time there was some competition in the simulator section.
Personally i think i'll still go with arma 3 :P

Edit:
Ground Branch is nothing like Arma, as stated by Zoog.
Arma still holds it's own :)

zoog

Jun 15 2012, 09:47

This would be the only competitor towards the Arma series i guess, Which "could" be very good. About time there was some competition in the simulator section.
Arma is in a completely different league. Ground Branch maps will be around 400 ~ 800 meters, for infantry only (I think they have some game modes with AI controlled vehicles for insertion etc), and it's aimed way more at CQB instead of large scale combined ops. On top of that the first release will be Multiplayer (and some basic coop), so initially it will be really focused on PvP with randomized objectives, spawns etc. for dynamic rounds.

Maybe this gives a better idea about the scope of Ground Branch:

We are not creating an arcade game; nor are we competing with titles that model "War", like Armed Assault. The closest two working examples of what we are trying to accomplish are the Unreal Tournament modification, Infiltration (INF), and the early Ghost Recon titles (think of our game as sort of the marriage of those two, if that explains it in a sentence). We are creating a tactical shooter that focuses on the realistic aspects of player combat and movement. Those mechanics mean more to us than pure scale (ArmA).

sgtsn1per

Jun 15 2012, 09:56

ha, yeah as i read further into it, I found their would be no single player, possibly no editor, and very far from what Arma is.

zoog

Jun 15 2012, 10:13

ha, yeah as i read further into it, I found their would be no single player, possibly no editor, and very far from what Arma is.
Yeah, they really want to do Singleplayer, but it's so expensive it was not feasible for Kickstarter funding. They want to do it later down the line, from retail release revenue etc. There will however be an editor, like in, it's build on UE3 and there is full mod support and tools after release. People are already making maps using the UDK software from UE3 engine for Ground Branch actually. From what I understand, game modes etc. are actually tied to maps, that's how the UE3 system works, so you can have multiple game modes tied to one map and then release the map. I don't know how scripting works in UE3 and if you can build whole new game modes like in Arma with scripts. But they have full mod support, so mods should be at least able to do this.

snaiperskaya

Jun 15 2012, 11:18

I've watched trailers and the 11mins. interview. For now, it sucks, imho.

sparks50

Jun 15 2012, 16:36

They wouldn't be asking for money if they had the finished product in their hands.

Kernriver

Jun 15 2012, 17:29

They wouldn't be asking for money if they had the finished product in their hands.

Exactly.

At least they have some early stage developement footage to show, which in itself is an achievement, IMHO.

Regarding co-op, which is my main interest, there will be some co-op modes on release. Here are some posts from BFS forum:

...

"The initial release of Ground Branch will be a robust and unique multiplayer experience that focuses mainly on team-based and adversarial game types. We have some unique ideas being designed, including a couple of co-op specific modes, as we feel that cooperative gameplay is an important and often neglected element/aspect of current military-themed shooters.

..."

Taken from: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5851&#entry102999

We have game types like that planned for sure. Co-op can also take many forms other than just a story driven campaign experience. The old 'Terrorist Hunt' mode for instance is co-op and we will have that in the first release. Things will build from there.

Taken from: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5851&#entry103036

Now, how many of you have played good old Terrorist hunt in Raven Shield over and over? I know I did. :)

I'm an avid OFP/ArmA/Arma2, and soon Arma3 fan(boy), hell a few days ago I preordered the latest Arma2 DLC, no questions asked, but I am also genuinely excited about Ground Branch.

Flogger23m

Jun 15 2012, 18:48

ha, yeah as i read further into it, I found their would be no single player, possibly no editor, and very far from what Arma is.

Where as ArmA is terrible for CQC, GB will excel. ArmA also has a tendency to try and cover everything. This results in somewhat realistic infantry aspects with arcade like vehicles. GB is keeping itself focused: Special Forces/infantry combat. Some out doors and some in doors, though no extremely large maps. It is more focused on micro management of small squads.

Both GB and the ArmA series will simulate different aspects and scenarios. If you're a fan of realistic infantry combat then you should look into getting both.

GB will have some basic co-op, though they will make advanced co-op if they get the funds. Though I think this is unlikely as they seem to have difficulty reaching their minimum goal. This would mean that a better co-op and SP would be made after the PvP game ships and hopefully sells well.

Defunkt

Jun 16 2012, 05:16

At least they have some early stage developement footage to show, which in itself is an achievement, IMHO.
Pity that early stage development footage has taken 5 years to create.

Where as ArmA is terrible for CQC, GB will excel.
ArmA 3 may well do pretty decent CQC and that's well under 1 year away.

zoog

Jun 16 2012, 10:08

I've watched trailers and the 11mins. interview. For now, it sucks, imho.
As a last resort you might want to check out the Kickstarter project page. If you like their approach, vision or idea that would, to me, be reason enough to make a pledge, even if it's just a $15 pledge. No risk involved. But only if you believe in non-mainstream tactical gaming (and I assume you do when you play arma).

Like Jonathan Conley said about Kickstarter:

"One thing to keep in mind about Kickstarter is: you're paying for an idea [...] If you ever want this genre to exist again, even if GB doesn't meet every single one of your expectations (yet!), you are investing in the philosophy and the minds behind the product. Kickstarter is a platform for supporting change and innovation."

And "this genre" is not tactical shooters in general, but specifically what GB tries to do. Small scale detailed infantry with open & CQB battles.

ArmA 3 may well do pretty decent CQC and that's well under 1 year away.
But on the other hand, $15 for another tac shooter which focuses on the smaller scale and CQB kind of field is not so much considering what you will get for it. Going to the theaters is even more expensive than 15 bucks and it's the same as the Czech DLC price. I'll get Arma 3 as well, but when there is another developer who want to go against mainstream and doesn't want to dumb down their games, I fully support that. Even if it's just out of principal. We can all nitpick about some details, but the truth is this is one of a few developers who wants games like this to be made AND also interacts with their community AND also supports modding all the way. They have many similarities with BIS, but in a different area within the tac shooter genre.

Defunkt

Jun 16 2012, 23:55

But on the other hand, $15 for another tac shooter which focuses on the smaller scale and CQB kind of field is not so much considering what you will get for it.
I believe the campaign is fundamentally flawed (and seemingly others do too). US$425,000 isn't a 'kick-start', for a PC-only title without singleplayer it's more akin to full-funding the resulting capital from which will then belong entirely to BFS. Compare this to something like Ravaged which set a modest $15,000 target (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2dawngames/ravaged) just to help get their project to market, that to my mind is what KS is about, providing the absolutely essential folding cash that no amount of passion and dedication can substitute for. It just seems to me that Mr. Sonedecker and Co. are too encumbered by RL and familial commitments to bootstrap a niche, indie start-up and for me that fundamental problem is all too evident in their apparently glacial progress to date, the size of the sum sought and even the amount of time between belatedly announcing a KS campaign (after Serellan effectively stole their space) and actually getting it up and running. A project like this needs a leaner, meaner team who're willing to put their life on hold and get more done with less. Sorry, nothing personal, just calling it like I see it.

MBot

Jun 17 2012, 07:58

New video with developer commentary of the movement and shooting mechanics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1UOtnlwyjg&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Looks simply awesome to me :)

zoog

Jun 17 2012, 08:57

I believe the campaign is fundamentally flawed (and seemingly others do too). US$425,000 isn't a 'kick-start', for a PC-only title without singleplayer it's more akin to full-funding the resulting capital from which will then belong entirely to BFS. Compare this to something like Ravaged which set a modest $15,000 target (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2dawngames/ravaged) just to help get their project to market, that to my mind is what KS is about, providing the absolutely essential folding cash that no amount of passion and dedication can substitute for. It just seems to me that Mr. Sonedecker and Co. are too encumbered by RL and familial commitments to bootstrap a niche, indie start-up and for me that fundamental problem is all too evident in their apparently glacial progress to date, the size of the sum sought and even the amount of time between belatedly announcing a KS campaign (after Serellan effectively stole their space) and actually getting it up and running. A project like this needs a leaner, meaner team who're willing to put their life on hold and get more done with less. Sorry, nothing personal, just calling it like I see it.
Yes, no worries, thanks for explaining your view. Yes, the kickstarter is about fully funding the rest of development of the MP portion. Because they already put their life on hold for the past few years while trying to self fund though. Tens of thousands of dollars from savings accounts and income from contract work has been put into the development to get the fundamentals done and some basic stuff visually. What John always has said is that he would not low ball the goal just in the hope to reach stretch goal which would actually be needed to complete development. This is what they need to deliver what they say, anything less and they would not make it and everybody would be scammed. But I understand your point, 425,000 is a lot, not in game development in general, but for a Kickstarter, yes. Again thanks for sharing, it's good to get insights into why people feel it's not worth it or why they are not interested to pledge.

Still I don't see why anyone doesn't want to pledge $15 just to show support, if they don't make the goal you won't get charged any way. If they make the goal, you'll get a new tac shooter to play with. At least they are trying stuff in the right direction instead of most other shooters out there. But that's just my opinion :)

MBot

Jun 17 2012, 09:46

I agree, $15 (if you don't feel to give more) for a new hardcore tactical shooter is just an awesome price (you actually buy a copy of it with that, it's no charity). And if they don't make the Kickstarter you don't loose anything. I am surprised that the Arma community is so reluctant. I mean it must be a player base of thousands that is interested in exactly this sort of game. And BlackFoot has has already produced the pre-alpha build that shows that they are willing and capable to do it. Now they need the funds to make it happen.

BOTA:16

Jun 17 2012, 23:06

I could care less whether or not they have a super duper Kickstarter campaign, I happily pledged based on the type of game that Ground Branch wants to be. Which is something that hasn't existed since early Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games. If their KS campaign is flawed then they may or may not make their goal, but I pledged based on the game they are trying to make, nothing else.

4 IN 1

Jun 18 2012, 05:01

Wait, game development is cheap?
My god, I must go out to tell every inde developer about that !

*sarcasm*

[GR]Operative

Jun 18 2012, 19:30

I think the kickstarter campaign is starting to takeoff!
Kicktraq: Ground Branch (http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch)

~~~~~~~

The commented walkthrough video reached over 30k views. Probably thanks to this (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/17/ground-branch-aims-to-revive-the-tactical-military-shooter/#).
If BFS only had reached the gaming specialized media before launching the KS campaign...

BOTA:16

Jun 19 2012, 05:28

Hopefully it is. Been getting some media coverage and it's helping, but there's along ways to go.

sparks50

Jun 19 2012, 18:15

rockpapershotgun Ghost of recon Past" (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/19/ghost-of-recon-past-ground-branch-kickstarter/)

Kernriver

Jun 20 2012, 08:13

Good article.

I think BFS should emphasize more the fact that several (at least two) co-op modes will be in the first release, since I get the feeling, reading comments on the RPS article, that is what lot of people want.

Flogger23m

Jun 21 2012, 04:27

New video show casing some of the sounds in game. Entire sound library will be released for modders to use. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS5fuz-Z4fs&feature=player_embedded

zoog

Jun 21 2012, 08:11

Love it! Great attention to detail. I knew from some remarks of John that they were trying to get all details, but this surpassed my expectations actually.

paecmaker

Jun 21 2012, 15:53

I love this kind of game, however looking at the money they need and how much people have given so far it doesnt look that good(its still 15 days left but the havent even passed 100 000 yet.

OnlyRazor

Jun 22 2012, 16:09

I love this kind of game, however looking at the money they need and how much people have given so far it doesnt look that good(its still 15 days left but the havent even passed 100 000 yet.

Don't worry. With the summer break approaching, there's gonna be lots of lonely students forking over the cash.

SiC-Disaster

Jun 23 2012, 03:04

I wish more people would jump onboard with this project, I really do.
For years I've heard people grumbling about how gaming isn't as good as it used to be, and how tactical shooters have all died off and had their soul replaced by big money-grabbing corporations. But now, now there is a chance to return to that golden age of the genre.

This game so very clearly wants to do exactly that, with a no nonsense approach and without giving in to mainstream demands that has diluded our game experiences for so long now. In all honesty, if people don't jump at the opportunity to support a game and a developer like this, to me they will lose all rights to complain. You have become part of the problem. It is up to us to fight for the revival of the genre. A genre that has died a long time ago. And come on, we all love zombies right? So let's bring this genre back from the grave with a vengeance!

Now I also hear a lot of people saying "It's not interesting to me because ArmA does everything that GB does and more".
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE ArmA, I've been playing BIS's games since the release of OFP:CWC and haven't skipped on a single release or DLC, and I've sunk hundreds if not thousands of hours into OFP and ArmA both.
But it does NOT fill the hole left behind by Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six, at all. There is something about those games that was special. They were (imo) every bit as hardcore an experience as ArmA, but without any of the down-time that can often occur in ArmA. They were games that you could boot up and play straight away, without being about constant action or high body counts.
The mod support of Ghost Recon IMO was even far superior to that of ArmA, because of the way it was implemented: you were simply able to enable and disable them at your leisure from within the options menu, without having to quit and restart the game or any of that other hassle that often comes with ArmA.

But more importantly, they nailed a form of combat that ArmA completely lacks. The CQB environment. Clearing houses and rooms felt a million times better and more natural than they do in ArmA. Sure you can do it in ArmA, but it doesn't even get remotely close to the actions you could perform in Swat 4 or Raven Shield, or the older R6 games. GR was a bit more difficult in that regard but it still felt a lot more responsive than it does in the ArmA series.
In the end though, to me R6 and GR were the perfect combination of realism, hardcore difficulty and fun, combined with a form of tactics that I love the most. OFP/ArmA shine in the large open area combat, R6/GR shined in the urban and CQB environments. ArmA does not replace them.

I urge everyone here to make a pledge, even if it's just 15$. Every bit helps, and the more people back it, the more others will start to believe in the project and pledge also.
Rarely have I seen a developer this dedicated to the genre, apart from BIS. These guys want to go all the way and as far as they have to go to make the game as they had originally envisioned it: a game with a fully working single player campaign and co-op with smart, responsive and dynamic AI, and a fully working MP experience. But it all has to start with the MP version. If we can't find the money to make that, you can kiss an SP/Co-op experience goodbye as well.

And I'm one of those guys that never played PVP in R6, GR or ArmA. For that I always resorted to Red Orchestra, which imo did it best of all. That was my go-to game for a multiplayer adverserial experience. But from what I've read about the way BFS is going to handle MP, I have no doubt that I will fully enjoy the experience they are going to offer. Largeish maps with random insertion points, random objectives, and possibly even randomly blocked-off routes, ensuring that every map can deliver a ton of different experiences sound extremely great. That way people can play a map for a long period of time and still not know what to expect, keeping teamwork essential for winning. In every other game people figure out a map in about 3 playthroughs and teamwork falls away. Everybody kind of knows what to do and goes off to do their own thing. With GB that doesnt sound nearly as big a possibility. Teamwork and tactics will prevail, as the defending team gets a while to set up a defense/ambush as the attacking team is flown in to a random point, from where they have to make their way to a randomly placed objective, not fully knowing from what direction to expect the defenders. How awesome is that? What MP game has offered a similar experience without providing maps so huge you can spend half an hour without encountering a single person?

This game is too promising to fail. Let's not allow that to happen, for the love of god.

[GR]Operative

Jun 23 2012, 13:00

Disaster, I'm with you on this one. The ArmA2 community could show a bit of love to GB.

Bosnian

Jun 23 2012, 13:24

A.M.A.Z.I.N.G.
Definitely, Will buy.

zoog

Jun 23 2012, 15:59

Absolutely agree with you SiC. Arma never filled the gap that was left by R6 and Ghost Recon. Arma 3 won't fill that gap either.

The ArmA2 community could show a bit of love to GB.
So true. We are all tactical gamers. Help each other out when there is a developer who wants to do things right for us. How many people buy DLC's for Arma 2, not because they want the DLC content, but because they want to support BIS. Sure, BFS still has to make their game, but they have the right mindset and attitude, and also interact with their community without any bullshit PR and also respect modding as the life blood of PC gaming. It doesn't happen very ofter to have this type of developer in the tactical shooter genre!! Even if it's not 100% your game, there are still reasons enough to pledge at least $15 to show your support IMHO.

BTW:

Jonathan Conley (producer) and John Sonedecker (founder of BFS) are going to be doing a AskMeAnything on reddit Sunday 06/24/2012 at 4pm EST.

BOTA:16

Jun 23 2012, 16:21

Very good points SiC, couldn't agree more. Sadly time is running out. Bothers me quite a bit when someone nitpicks at the KS campaign itself with some superiority complex as reason(s) not to pledge, instead of looking at the idea and what the end product is trying to be to make their decision. If they like the idea and what the game can become they should contribute. If not then they shouldn't. But a game like GB or anything remotely close to will not ever get made without the fans of these types of games stepping up.

MBot

Jun 23 2012, 22:24

Well spoken Disaster!

Defunkt

Jun 23 2012, 23:49

Bothers me quite a bit when someone nitpicks at the KS campaign itself with some superiority complex as reason(s) not to pledge, instead of looking at the idea and what the end product is trying to be to make their decision. If they like the idea and what the game can become they should contribute.
If you're referring to my 'nitpicking' (and I'm pretty sure you are); ideas are all well and good but where money's concerned you absolutely must have faith that it's going to be used wisely because Kickstarter offers no guarantees, that's where it falls down for me - I don't see that these guys are necessarily deserving of the best part of a half million dollars capital to chance without any accountability or personal risk (given they'll be paying themselves a wage all the while). If they did realise their entire feature list I'd certainly buy the game even though I dislike the Unreal engine (another reason I'm not keen on the project and now slightly dark on Takedown). However I see no grounds at all for your blind faith that they will (in fact I think the small but obviously zealous following around this project are a trifle soft in the head), after five years and 'countless thousands of dollars from their life savings' there's hardly anything to show, certainly compared to what volunteer mod teams are routinely able to achieve for free in their spare time. Again, sorry if you don't like my take on things or see me as having a 'superiority complex' (wut?), but you're going to encounter divergent viewpoints on an Internet discussion forum, some of them might actually be based on sound reasoning.

SiC-Disaster

Jun 24 2012, 01:30

While I have little interest in becoming involved with a discussion that I might seemingly not win regardless of reasoning, I feel I must step in here. Because seriously, somehow GB fans are 'soft in the head'? Really? That is so terribly elitist, you know that right? I don't see that much sound reasoning from your part.
As for not having much to show, I whileheartedly disagree there. If anything, GB has more to show right now than any game on Kickstarter so far, who all come with ideas and artwork and not much else. You have working gameplay mechanics and prototypes and the bare basics of a whole lot of the features are in there in rudimentary shape. And for some reason those games that offer only ideas and promises seem to be met with more enthusiasm than Ground Branch, which is very, very disappointing to say the least.
Your argument is that somehow mod teams are able to do better. Let me ask you this, how many mods start up and quit after a certain period of time? They drop by the hundreds. If they do make it, usually their quality isn't all that high with exception of a select few. This isn't a mod project, this is being worked into a AAA title standards. That takes money, and that is why the Kickstarter is there.

What else you should keep in mind is that most mod teams progress usually takes as long as it takes for hell to freeze over. It is because they work in their spare time, and that is what BFS has been doing for a long time now, and that is why it is taking a long time too. What's more, BFS members have families to maintain. They can't decide to go live off of ramen for half a year like a college mod team. So they need the money to be able to work on the title full time, as spare time work will take forever to develop a game up to the quality they want to achieve. Obviously you don't like that idea for some reason, but in reality you are doing the same thing when you have your car serviced. People get paid so they can maintain a family, they won't work on your car in their spare time either. If you want the game, you have to pay for it one way or another. The difference with KS is that you pay upfront so yes, there is room for doubt and hesitation.

But keep in mind this: BFS has tried every possible way to get funding for the game. Publishers simply are not interested. They have been trying for a long, long time. During that entire time, they have not once given in to any of a publishers demand, rather choosing to keep going on their own. You may doubt it but they have unquestionably poured their own personal money into the project. Many licenses including UE3 have been bought with that money, and what they couldnt manage themselves they have hired out to other people. All of that has taken money. They have managed to keep afloat and going for years now, and now they are running out. Things simply cannot continue going on the way it has been going. Does it require trust? Definitely. Have BFS earned that trust? In my opinion they have, based on their conviction and unwaivering loyalty to the concept of Ground Branch. Never have they made a promise that they have not kept.

To me there is no doubt that they will finish the game if given the proper funding, and they will finish it their way. Does that make me soft in the head? Apparently so. But know that this is the case for many of BFS' community that have followed the game since it's announcement. We are not blind fanboys, but rather have learned from experience the fact we can trust BFS. I guess you have had to be there. And I guess you are simply a skeptic of KS alltogether too, so there is not much else left to say. Either trust or don't. I do.

Defunkt

Jun 24 2012, 03:13

Never have they made a promise that they have not kept.
It's pretty easy to avoid breaking promises if you never make any.

But know that this is the case for many of BFS' community that have followed the game since it's announcement. We are not blind fanboys, but rather have learned from experience the fact we can trust BFS. I guess you have had to be there.
This is kind of what I mean. I think I first became aware of Ground Branch in 2009 after following a link in galzohar's signature here. Even then (2yrs post-announce) it appeared to be a textbook example of vapourware, no screenshots and nothing at all to see and you zealots have been there another three years since still with no signs of progress all the while. Are you seriously telling me you never felt like you were having your chain yanked, even just a little? I'd be really concerned if you hadn't, it'd make you look even more like creepy cult followers than you do now. Where money's concerned you should use your head, not your heart.

SiC-Disaster

Jun 24 2012, 05:04

Could you please stop acting so condescending, it makes it hard to maintain a friendly conversation. 'We' are not zealots.
As a matter of fact even I had a period of time where I stopped frequenting the GB forums because of the lack of news, and only recently came back. Before the recent events I only checked in there once every half a year or so. As far as I know the people that did stick around were those who donated some money at the start of GB and became donators. They had access to a special donators forum which showed them some stuff every now and then, things not available to the general public. I didnt have any money or a means to donate back then and so I never got access to it because BFS stopped taking donations after a while. But for them there was an actual incentive to stick around, and not a blind fanboy cult that clung to empty promises.
As to myself, the recent footage impressed the hell out of me even in it's alpha stages, because I can literally feel the design is in the same spirit as it was for the original Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon. It feels like the natural evolution I always wanted out of a sequel. It's like an unofficial Rogue Spear-like sequel: the design is unaltered, and the mechanics move forward. Watching the ingame footage I can envision what the game will ultimately play like, and that vision more than warrants the small price tag of 15$.
I pledged 140 so that might make me seem like some kind of nerd fanboy again but I honestly don't give a shit.

Whereas money is concerned, for projects like these I happily follow my heart. Money in the end is meaningless and I don't care for it much. For you that might be different, by the sound of it you'd make a better Dutchman than me.
Kickstarter is all about heart, it's always a chance no matter the project. Either you get behind that mindset or you don't, in which case you may resign from the KS project in it's entirety.

zoog

Jun 24 2012, 09:08

Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I just think it's sad that a developer like BFS, with such a passion for the genre and community, is just kicked down by so many people (seeing that the backer numbers are still around 1300). :( The last years they gave everything for this genre, poured their heart, soul, free time and personal money into this, only to be slapped in the face by the general tac shooter community. The logic of this is beyond me. Like we have so many developers to pick from :confused:

Unfortunately, our financial realities won out over sheer will and heart to move the game along. This has been a very tough road to go down and ultimately led us to the conclusion that it was a vicious cycle of stop/start development that we simply could no longer sustain but no matter what we would not let the project die.

Using our own savings and income we've managed to build a solid pre-alpha build as a proof of concept with the foundation for most of the systems that make the game unique in place. Now is the time that we need proper financial resources to complete this project.

One philosophy of BlackFoot Studios is that when looking for people to give you funding support, you yourself must have obligated a significant investment as well. John has put in his personal savings and, with others, countless hours of hard work. We are dedicated to completing this project on greatly reduced salaries; any financial rewards will come from the sales of the game.

On a side note, while Ground Branch was becoming as some people claim "vaporware", they simply worked on different projects as contracters on games like Red Orchestra 2 and US Government projects to generate some income. Maybe BFS should have been open at the times when there was no work done at all. Sometimes as long as a year passed by while they couldn't work on Ground Branch at all (IIRC from the previous longer version of the KS project page). That's just putting your project on the shelf because of financial realities. That has IMO nothing to do with incompetence or being a "vaporware" developer.

So there has been this long time with almost no money (slow or no development) and now when there is the moment to actually get proper financial backing (fast serious development) people hold their history of not having enough money against them, expecting that when they actually have money to properly do something they will still be slow as before. While the reason that they were slow was lack of money in the first place! :confused:

BOTA:16

Jun 24 2012, 17:42

If you're referring to my 'nitpicking' (and I'm pretty sure you are); ideas are all well and good but where money's concerned you absolutely must have faith that it's going to be used wisely because Kickstarter offers no guarantees, that's where it falls down for me - I don't see that these guys are necessarily deserving of the best part of a half million dollars capital to chance without any accountability or personal risk (given they'll be paying themselves a wage all the while). If they did realise their entire feature list I'd certainly buy the game even though I dislike the Unreal engine (another reason I'm not keen on the project and now slightly dark on Takedown). However I see no grounds at all for your blind faith that they will (in fact I think the small but obviously zealous following around this project are a trifle soft in the head), after five years and 'countless thousands of dollars from their life savings' there's hardly anything to show, certainly compared to what volunteer mod teams are routinely able to achieve for free in their spare time. Again, sorry if you don't like my take on things or see me as having a 'superiority complex' (wut?), but you're going to encounter divergent viewpoints on an Internet discussion forum, some of them might actually be based on sound reasoning.

Directed at you? Not necessarily. But after reading your others posts on this topic, I guess I can see how it would look like that. And it would be a waste of time to try and change your mind with any kind of logic and just makes me ask why would you even post in this thread to begin with?

there's hardly anything to show, certainly compared to what volunteer mod teams are routinely able to achieve for free in their spare time.

That comment there just shows your ignorance or you are just trolling.

batto

Jun 24 2012, 18:43

That comment there just shows your ignorance or you are just trolling.

Defunkt is right. There are already some good and not so trivial games (not just ArmA mods) done by volunteers in spare time for no money.

Don't get me wrong. I'd really like to see this game finished. I wonder why don't they take loan...

BOTA:16

Jun 24 2012, 19:15

Defunkt is right. There are already some good and not so trivial games (not just ArmA mods) done by volunteers in spare time for no money.

Don't get me wrong. I'd really like to see this game finished. I wonder why don't they take loan...

Could you please point me to them?

Mr. Charles

Jun 24 2012, 19:34

Could you please point me to them?

Try http://store.steampowered.com/app/17700/

BOTA:16

Jun 24 2012, 20:30

Try http://store.steampowered.com/app/17700/

Yes, played it quite abit. Beppo, the lead programmer for Infiltration has helped with Ground Branch.

Infiltration was first released in 1999 (13 years ago). The last update was released in 2003.

Mr. Charles

Jun 24 2012, 20:45

Not modern warfare, but quite realistic and authentic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEIcTMTZE4k

Don't forget PR.

SiC-Disaster

Jun 24 2012, 21:11

AMA! http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/vjam4/indie_game_developer_ground_branch_by_blackfoot/

I tried Resistance and Liberation, as well as Insurgency, but neither of them managed to grip me. They both feel really clunky, and especially Insurgency had maps that were complete crap. Ins feels a bit better in terms of gameplay than R&L, because R&L was nearly unplayable to me. I guess it comes down to the Source engine which is an action game engine and imo completely unsuitable to tactical gaming. I have yet to see one work on that engine.
Project Reality is good though, that can't be denied, and it's quite the achievement. Especially considering it's free. But what do you guys want to prove with this? That from now on any tactical shooter should come for free, with no cost to you at all? That's a bit unfair don't you think?

batto

Jun 24 2012, 21:17

@<hidden>:16:

Here you go:

http://www.xonotic.org/
http://springrts.com/
http://red.planetarena.org/
http://www.openttd.org/

Note that they work on everything. They don't use UT engine.

These are games I played or play. There can be more.

Sanctuary

Jun 24 2012, 21:21

The point is obviously that you don't need gigantic amount of money to build a serious tactical game, not that tactical shooters should all be free.

By example "Takedown (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355932838/crowdsourced-hardcore-tactical-shooter)", that other tactical shooter project managed to reach its target Kickstarter founding, but "Takedown" was asking "only" (as it's still a lot for showing nothing) half the money Ground Branch is requesting.

Maybe they should have revised down their projected budget on this.

Defunkt

Jun 24 2012, 22:07

Here you go:

Honestly batto I think you might be missing the style of game they're after.

I've no doubt the particular mix proposed by Ground Branch would attract a devoted following who don't have too many options right now but it would appear there aren't enough PC (only) gamers prepared to gift this team the $425K they would require to make it. Again I would question whether this is the right team to invest so much money in. Having a family is very rewarding but there's no denying it's going to make a lot of the adventures you might otherwise have undertaken a great deal more difficult - something touched on in THIS (http://www.ofpec.com/intel_depot/index.php?action=read_on&id=572) interview with one of the Iron Front developers about getting their indie game up and running:

I am not married. You have only one choice - make games or get married.

I also think it's akin to madness to attempt such an endeavour without a programmer amongst the principals (and ideally an animator as well), no wonder they need so much money if they're going to pay top dollar to compete for coding talent with the big studios. By comparison, I'd like to know what THESE GUYS (http://superbossgames.com/node/14) have been up to in the past three months, based on what they put together in just one month they could have a killer proof of concept in place and ready to launch on KS right now for all we know. That's the sort of team I could really get behind if they worked hard on presenting their goal and I reckon they could complete it with a fraction of the funding.

By example "Takedown (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355932838/crowdsourced-hardcore-tactical-shooter)", that other tactical shooter project managed to reach its target Kickstarter founding, but "Takedown" was asking "only" (as it's still a lot for showing nothing) half the money Ground Branch is requesting.

The Takedown model is quite different, they were only looking to fund a proof of concept and prove a market existed but their ultimate goal is more ambitious in that they want to include consoles so they needed less money initially and could appeal for it to a much larger potential audience. Mr. Allen is certainly a chancer and benefits from being something of a raconteur but I think the model's pragmatic and realistic and if he gets there his IP is still going to be mostly owned by other investors. In the case of GB they'd pay themselves to make the game *and* wholly own the IP at the end of it. I might be more charitable about their campaign if they were offering shares in the company but as it is they can't lose.

Directed at you? Not necessarily. But after reading your others posts on this topic, I guess I can see how it would look like that.
Pretend much? Here's a LINK (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5844&st=340#entry105224) to you quoting my earlier post in full a week ago (along with an uncharitable opinion on all ArmA players I might add).

batto

Jun 24 2012, 22:15

Honestly batto I think you might be missing the style of game they're after.

I'm not =). I've just replied to BOTA request.

Icarus

Jun 24 2012, 22:22

@<hidden>

Takedown only asked money to get hardware for their studio...
They hoped to find some investors for funding the actual game. So Takedown will never be created either...

Blackfootstudios (creators of Ground Branch) on the other hand have a studio and had already unsuccessfully tried to find investors, so they are asking money for funding the creation of actual game.

Icarus :j:

jsonedecker

Jun 24 2012, 22:50

I have tried to stay out of this but I always find id frustrating that people try to compare mod teams to what we are doing. For some reason they think using UE3 includes some sort of gamemaking magic bullet that requires less work or something. Mod teams that make full games are great and I love seeing them, but in all honesty they are far and few between. They are building a "game" on top of another game and have at least 50% of the work done and usable already. Making "realistic" weapons usually consists of a new model, animations and tweaking the built in weapon system. And how many have a fully working full body awareness system?

For Ground Branch, we have have a working game engine but the entire character/movement and weapons systems are designed and built from scratch. Getting that full body awareness system built so that is actually works is no small trivial task. Our weapon system is 100% new and does not use anything that you find in UT. So there is a LOT of foundational work that has been done that mods don't need to worry about.

The other thing that bothers me is that we asked for a very reasonable $425k. You people must have no idea what so ever what it costs to make a game that people would pay for. Mods are great. Free games are great. But very very few carry the level of quality and features that most people would actually pay money for. They are super as mods or freebies, but once you slap a $30 price tag on them people bitch and moan about how buggy or "dated" the graphics are. It happens all the time.

Also, why is it that no one seems to complain that more well known developers ask for the same amount of money. Why is it not 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' that Harebrained Schemes asked for $400k to do Shadowrun? Or that InXile asked for the ungodly amount of $900k for Wasteland 2? I mean really..... professionals have to make a living.

And for the love of all that is holy... why do people not understand that Serellan asked for $200k to get an office and make a demo to show investors? They promised a full retail PC version PLUS 360/PS3 console versions! That money will barely cover the making of the demo when hiring of actual professionals is involved. If there is no, or not enough, investor money then that is going to be one huge !@<hidden>#$% sandwich. How is that approach any more logical or "trustworthy" than my upfront 'tell you exactly what our plan and budget calls for to deliver exactly what we are offering' approach? It dumbfounds me.

Defunkt

Jun 24 2012, 23:51

Also, why is it that no one seems to complain that more well known developers ask for the same amount of money. Why is it not 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' that Harebrained Schemes asked for $400k to do Shadowrun? Or that InXile asked for the ungodly amount of $900k for Wasteland 2?
Personally my gaming rarely strays from first-person-shooters so those other campaigns aren't really on my radar. I guess they've hit on something identifiably different for which there is a large untapped audience while Ground Branch hasn't demonstrated a sufficient difference from everything else in the crowded shooter space. I'm sure we all understand how it's different but I guess for most people it looks like just another military shooter. And of course, Takedown got there first.

For the rest I don't know how much more I can say that I haven't already. I don't think something like Ground Branch is impossible but its fine points of difference make it fairly niche and getting it done is going to require something other than the pay-all-the-people approach a less niche title can employ.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Actually what I will add regarding the comparison with mod teams is that most endeavours in gaming are either done for love (by amateurs) or for money (by professionals). You're trying to reach a place where you can do what you love for money (and score ownership of a potentially valuable new IP in the process). I certainly can't fault you for trying but I guess (not surprisingly) it's infinitely more difficult than just doing one or the other.

jsonedecker

Jun 25 2012, 00:28

Yeah Defunkt, you more or less hit the nail on the head so to speak as to why things aren't going better for the KS. Though, my "rant" above was aimed more at why we specifically get attacked or questioned for doing either the same things as others or for trying to justify why we do certain things by providing concrete examples and legitimate answers.

I'm not not necessarily trying to argue the "why isn't Ground Branch being received better" point.

metalcraze

Jun 25 2012, 01:03

I wonder why don't they take loan...

Because loan has to be paid back and kickstarter donation - isn't. For better or worse.

For some reason they think using UE3 includes some sort of gamemaking magic bullet that requires less work or something.

Well considering how most of UE3 shooters are I wouldn't be surprised if it had "Generate generic cover shooter" button.

It's a pity though that this is going to be MP-only PvP shooter unless I'm missing something.
My friends and dudes I play with who love early GR and R6 too also were like "it's mp-only pvp? meh". I'm not saying that's any indication, but I guess there are people out there who want a tactical SP-coop game like GR/R6 from a game that is claimed to be their follower and not just another America's Army and that's why GB doesn't get more support.

I guess they've hit on something identifiably different for which there is a large untapped audience while Ground Branch hasn't demonstrated a sufficient difference from everything else in the crowded shooter space.

Well Ground Branch indeed does not look much different from a free America's Army.

SiC-Disaster

Jun 25 2012, 01:41

There will be co-op present in the first release of GB, but with simple AI in a regular terrorist-hunt mode. Read through the AMA, it's in there :)

Nicholas

Jun 25 2012, 01:43

What is "AMA"?

[GR]Operative

Jun 25 2012, 02:11

Ask me Anything, on Reddit.

BFS plans to include SP. Really, this question was asked and answered several times.
If the KS were to achieve 700k, they would include Kynapse AI and SP. If not, a solid MP experience, to fund the whole SP thing.
I don't know if the 700k remains true, after the KS page updates, but SP is still in the plans.
Also, the campaign is going far from great, but it's not already lost.

~~~~~~~

John, several people really think GB is MP-only. I think it became unclear in the whole text and spread words here and there. It would be nice if it was actually stamped in the KS campaign, visible and easy to find.
Also, all videos descriptions should make this clear, and, if possible, annotations in the start of each KS video.

Sanctuary

Jun 25 2012, 05:28

Didn't knew that Takedown thing was to found something else than their game, i didn't cared enough to check i guess, but thanks Defunkt for the precision anyways.

For the GB MP-only release subject, on the RPS article (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/19/ghost-of-recon-past-ground-branch-kickstarter/#comment-page-3) own comments system it has been said, i think by their lead, that for their launch there will be the RS/GR-like skirmish option, while not the same kind of coop fun like in GR it's still something to play in cooperation instead of GB being only about adversarial tdm.

zoog

Jun 25 2012, 13:09

It's a pity though that this is going to be MP-only PvP shooter unless I'm missing something.
My friends and dudes I play with who love early GR and R6 too also were like "it's mp-only pvp? meh". I'm not saying that's any indication, but I guess there are people out there who want a tactical SP-coop game like GR/R6 from a game that is claimed to be their follower and not just another America's Army and that's why GB doesn't get more support.

Funding SP via Kickstarter would run into millions of dollars for development costs. They are forced to go the MP + basic COOP > full coop + SP route because MP is cheapest to make so the goal of Kickstarter will not be too high. They want to do SP, but financially it's not possible atm. I believe they want to do it from revenue generated by retail sales of the MP portion of Ground Branch. Maybe people think it's a long shot, but this is the closest you've been from a true sequel to GR and R6 with SP capabilities. Once the franchise is on it's feet you certainly can expect an SP portion for Ground Branch.

So if you really want to have this type of game, even only SP, I think you should try and support Ground Branch if you can. You will have a very good chance to end up with great SP eventually.

Dead3yez

Jun 25 2012, 13:12

Seems kinda stupid to me to make a kickstarter right after people have just forked out for that whatjoomicallit takedown thing.

I don't know if people would be willing to part with their money after funding a very "similar" product so recently.

metalcraze

Jun 25 2012, 13:20

With Takedown though Serellan promises SP/COOP right away. Not "maybe my grandkids will add it to the game"

And then again - why Ground Branch over America's Army? Since basically with MP focus it will be in the same "niche"

zoog

Jun 25 2012, 13:20

Yes, that's a problem. Takedown really hit a spot at the right moment.

I don't know if people would be willing to part with their money after funding a very "similar" product.

With Takedown though Serellan promises SP/COOP right away. Not "maybe my grandkids will add it to the game"
Again: there is absolutely no guarantee that Takedown will become a reality. People funded the startup of a studio and the development of an INVESTOR DEMO to get investors interested in the future. Considering they promised to make a PC and console version we're talking about millions and millions of dollars. If Serellan doesn't find investors (just as BFS has tried a few years ago without succes) all those pledgers won't get anything. So it's still a very big question mark if Takedown will ever be made. But most people don't seem to care somehow or don't realize what they paid for when backing Takedown (for the record: I backed them as well).

People seriously think Serellan will develop a new game from scratch with SP and coop AND PS3 and XBOX versions for the $200,000 which he asked on Kickstarter? That amount probably barely covers the costs to buy enough development consoles :rolleyes:

From Kickstarter:

What will the $200,000 be used for?
$200,000 will bring TAKEDOWN to Alpha
With Alpha he means one demo level which showcases features and show SP/coop elements (explained in one of his Q&A videos). That's what people paid for by pledging for Takedown Kickstarter. Nothing more. And remarks around the internet like "Takedown did it for $225,000 less than Ground Branch". This is just inaccurate. You're funding completly different things, an alpha investor demo (Takedown) vs full MP & (basic) coop retail game (Ground Branch). Don't get me wrong, I really hope Takedown succeeds. It's just that people keep comparing these two Kickstarter campaigns, while they are fundamentally different in what you are actually funding.

[GR]Operative

Jun 25 2012, 13:53

I really don't think AA is that similar to GB, but I see your point here metalcraze.
Well, I expect GB to be a improved GR and Infiltraion mashup, and, imho, it's what it appears to be heading to.

metalcraze

Jun 25 2012, 14:14

Nothing is certain on Kickstarter. The only difference is promises.

zoog

Jun 25 2012, 14:31

Nothing is certain on Kickstarter. The only difference is promises.
But you do see how there is a fundamental difference between what Takedown is doing and what Ground Branch is doing, right? One is about funding the development of an alpha demo while the other is about funding the development of retail (MP) game. The biggest difference lies in the "What will the money be used for?" section.

Serellan can promise anything, but as long as he doesn't have any investors Takedown won't see the light of day, that's a simple fact. Ground Branch uses the money to build their alpha version into a full retail MP game. The expansion of the game (possible SP etc.) will come down to amount of retail sales, sure, that uncertain as well. But at least you're funding the actual development of the game to get it ready for retail release.

But I don't want to make this about Takedown vs Ground Branch. But people really have to realize there is a fundamental difference between the two campaigns and what you are paying for.

Flogger23m

Jun 25 2012, 20:17

Ground Branch will be DRM free, though you will also get a Steam copy. More reasons to support BFS.

Ground Branch has a DRM-Free version, and supports Offline play!

Some of our community has expressed interest in being able to play the game, independent of Steam. We are pleased to announce that, every backer of Ground Branch, will now have the choice!

We will be providing two executables:

1. A Steam Release (which uses Steamworks for online features such as matchmaking, VOIP and Mod Distribution through the SteamWorkshop) and...

2. A DRM-Free version of the game, which can be played without an internet connection, and used for gamers with LAN-only setups or that want to play the solo portions of Ground Branch without connecting to the internet.

Both versions are free of install limits, and we are not using services like SecuROM. The Steam version can be used for offline LAN as well, but must use Valve's "Offline Mode" if you plan to be without a connection. Either way, all current and future backers have access to both, in the event that they need to be away from the internet! This is great news, if you're deployed, or just want to more easily host a LAN party and play our game!

Gamespy is no longer being considered.

With Takedown though Serellan promises SP/COOP right away. Not "maybe my grandkids will add it to the game"

And then again - why Ground Branch over America's Army? Since basically with MP focus it will be in the same "niche"

America's Army is a poorly done game with little content. Ground Branch will offer much more in terms of weapon and movement realism. It will push the standards of the genre further ahead in such aspects.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

With Alpha he means one demo level which showcases features and show SP/coop elements (explained in one of his Q&A videos). That's what people paid for by pledging for Takedown Kickstarter. Nothing more. And remarks around the internet like "Takedown did it for $225,000 less than Ground Branch". This is just inaccurate. You're funding completly different things, an alpha investor demo (Takedown) vs full MP & (basic) coop retail game (Ground Branch). Don't get me wrong, I really hope Takedown succeeds. It's just that people keep comparing these two Kickstarter campaigns, while they are fundamentally different in what you are actually funding.

You're simplifying it a bit too much. For one, multiple maps are already being designed. I can't go into many more details as they are for Kickstarters only. But this is the overall case. Serellan is looking for investors who will fund the rest of the game. The $225,000 bought things such as a UE3 license, was used to hire developers, and other game studio equipment including computers. Save for the investor part, this has been the deal with all Kickstarters, including Ground Branch ($200,000 needed to buy software for advanced AI).

Ground Branch is putting money purely into developing the game, related software licenses and developers to hire. This is the main difference. They are not getting investors to partake, nor are they setting up a studio.

There is a much larger risk with Takedown, no doubt. Many people did not feel comfortable Kickstarting it and rightfully so. Ground Branch is much more defined. Unlike other projects, this has defined goals, and is more than a concept. They have the basic game done. Now.

MBot

Jun 25 2012, 21:46

Here are some words from SideStrafe about Ground Branch:

http://youtu.be/HzjOQcWACvg

He has 33'000 subscribers. Hope this will cause a boost :)

Defunkt

Jun 25 2012, 22:01

They have the basic game done. Now.
Well they need to have more of it on show and I suspect the reason they don't is because it's not all that 'done' and I expect the reason for that is that they don't have a programmer amongst the partnership. First order of business (years ago) should have been to find a programmer who wants to get in on a startup developing a tactical shooter, I can assure you they exist.

BOTA:16

Jun 25 2012, 22:28

zoog

Jun 26 2012, 08:49

Well they need to have more of it on show and I suspect the reason they don't is because it's not all that 'done' and I expect the reason for that is that they don't have a programmer amongst the partnership. First order of business (years ago) should have been to find a programmer who wants to get in on a startup developing a tactical shooter, I can assure you they exist.
They found a programmer to get the bare basics done (basics of the true first person system, basic of the reloading/inventory system, etc. This all had to be build from the ground up with lots of stuff under the hood). Finding an experienced programmer who basically must work for free for a few years? I don't think that's very easy to find actually :)

If Kickstarter succeeds, as you can read on the Kickstarter page, they will hire this programmers team:

We have contracted the 3 person team at Digital Confectioners as our main programming 'go to' partners to add to our small but experienced team. DC is headed by veteran programmer James Tan. James has many years of experience with Unreal Engine 3 on both the C++ engine side as well as extensive knowledge of getting the most out of Unrealscript. He has also been tapped by EPIC Games,Inc. to write official documentation on Unreal Engine 3, for their Unreal Developer Network. These are some of the most knowledgeable and gifted Unreal developers out there. We are confident in their skills and believe the game can be finished in an extremely reasonable amount of time with their help.

Still the logic of the argument that they should have more to show, I simply cannot understand. I've never seen any other kickstarter project who already had so much working footage. Most Kickstarter projects are just concept art or walls of text without any tanglible stuff. It seems you either just don't like Kickstarter or are expecting to place a pre-order for a game that is basically finished already (or you just have some kind of grudge against BlackFoot Studios). That's really not what Kickstarter is about. Kickstarter is about supporting ideas and supporting change. It's about what their ideas represent. If you believe in their ideas, their vision, what BFS wants to do in the gaming industry you could support them, regardless of how far along their game currently is. If you don't like their ideas, their vision or philosophy you don't support them, simple as that. But not supporting them because you think they haven't progressed enough or aren't showing enough..... I'm really at a loss for words if that's the case, and it seems that you're completely missing the point of Kickstarter in general. On top of that you really seem to be looking at the past and telling what they should have done instead of looking at the future and see the possibilities. I'm really not trying to attack you, I hope it does not come across like that! I you want me to I'll let it rest. I just think we have a very different view of what Kickstarter is about and what kind of perspectives you can take.

What is Kickstarter? (Kickstarter.com)

Kickstarter is a new way to fund creative projects.

We believe that:

• A good idea, communicated well, can spread fast and wide.

• A large group of people can be a tremendous source of money and encouragement.

Defunkt

Jun 26 2012, 09:53

Well I'm not going to carry on wasting my (virtual) breath. Keep repeating that party line and let us know how it worked out in 10 days time.

Snafu

Jun 26 2012, 11:26

Well I'm not going to carry on wasting my (virtual) breath. Keep repeating that party line and let us know how it worked out in 10 days time.

I don't understand what point you're making. You prefer Serellan stating its intentions are much clearer but I fail to see how. If you look at the features list for Takedown, it's very vague, with the game trying to please different communities (SWAT 4, Tom Clancy Rainbow Six, SOCOM etc.) and I don't see any information on what engine will be used. Nor did they have anything to show to give people an idea of what they were aiming for. No, that's wrong, they did - a few real life pictures stolen from places on the internet and photoshopped which the project lead initially denied! Extremely poor way to start off a business IMHO. Whereas with GB, the features are much more clear and nailed down and they have things to show off which gives people are far better idea of where the game is headed.

Note, I am not a member of the GB forums and I only heard of it through these forums. I didn't back Serellan because of its lack of clarity and having nothing to show. I haven't backed GB either but I am considering to do so because their KS succeeds in the critical areas where Serellan's failed.

metalcraze

Jun 26 2012, 11:34

One of the videos showed that there was some kind of MP functionality no (at least I saw several people running around)?

Showing how tactics are applied within Ground Branch even in PvP game would've went a long way towards hyping up people if they don't have much else.

By now it's pretty clear that the tactical community is way too jaded and will be on a fence until a last second (see how Takedown lacked 70k in the last day and then it received considerably more donations than the needed budget over the course of the day)

I'd think when most people hear Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six they think about tactics, commanding team, breaching rooms in various ways. Realistic movement/shooting mechanics are good and all but GR/R6 had none - just a hitscan crosshair and a floating camera. It's that people were able to command soldiers and do tacticool stuff is what mattered.

zoog

Jun 26 2012, 12:40

One of the videos showed that there was some kind of MP functionality no (at least I saw several people running around)?
I think you're mistaken the video you've seen, because Ground Branch hasn't shown any MP footage.. They have some MP replication issue which means that a lot of stuff is not replicated (certain gear, I believe some things with animations etc). So they currently are unable to show anything with multiple actors in it. There are however screenshots which have multiple characters, which you do by positioning them in the editor etc.

jsonedecker

Jun 26 2012, 15:59

Just thought I'd let everyone know that we are going to include SP/Co-op of Ground Branch FREE to all KS backers. Here is the official update:

We have heard the message loud and clear and are happy to announce that we are going to offer ALL of our Kickstarter backers that pledged from the minimum $15 reward up, the Singleplayer/Co-Op portion (with advanced AI) of GROUND BRANCH for FREE. Every copy of the game gets this; So for example, if you get a FIRETEAM EDITION then all 4 copies will be eligible for the additional release.

This will be available some time after the initial release that will include full multiplayer (objective-based TvT, PvP) and core single player/co-operation gameplay (e.g. terrorist hunt against bots) from the start.

Let the world know so that we can all enjoy GROUND BRANCH!

Flogger23m

Jun 26 2012, 17:22

MBot

Jun 26 2012, 21:03

Free SP/Coop with advanced AI for Kickstarter backers is big news!

New interview at fpsgeneral:
http://www.fpsgeneral.com/news/ground-branch/20746-exclusive-ground-branch-interview-with-blackfoot

Kernriver

Jun 27 2012, 07:04

Great news indeed.

Upped my pledge. :)

Flogger23m

Jun 30 2012, 17:57

New video on map design:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfXYO8nnD18&feature=player_embedded

I like this video, at least the parts with the drawn map layouts. Shows that the maps are open with multiple insertion points and the player will have freedom to encircle or move in, and then back to the outskirts of the map if needed.

ShadoStalker

Jul 1 2012, 09:30

Hey Guys/Girls, I'am new here but have been an active supporter of BI since 2001. This is great news and I've up my pledge for a third time due to this latest video. ArmA is trully a great franchise, but lets be honest the only way games like this can improve is with robust competition, TakeDown a good start but we also Need Ground Branch too. This game hits all the marks, Great Developer, more realism then you can poke a stick at, ongoing mod and other support and all for the price of a Mcdonalds meal, you just can't beat that. :)

OnlyRazor

Jul 1 2012, 09:35

I'm kinda having doubts this project'll get $380,000 in five days, but hey, 120 hours is a lot of time. I really hope this makes it because it's one of the few projects that have actual footage to back up their statements.

ShadoStalker

Jul 1 2012, 09:48

I can definetly see your point, it is alot money to raise and they need more backers. However other Kickstarters have achieved this goal in the same amount or less time so it is doable. People however need to make a decision and stop sitting on the fence otherwise this project won't succeed. :(

Archosaurusrev

Jul 1 2012, 10:24

The way how Kickstarter works is that 3rd person companies eye the product, and monitor its popularity.

Then in the last 3 days or so, BAM, all the money is thrown in if the product seems to succeed.

Baff1

Jul 1 2012, 19:15

Co-op puts this back on my radar.

I'll have a look at kickstarter and see what I think.

OnlyRazor

Jul 1 2012, 20:27

Well. Good luck developers and backers. I'd back you as well if I could, but I can't.

metalcraze

Jul 2 2012, 10:24

You should've announced it right away. I bet many people still don't know it's not planned to be just MP-only now.

But good luck either way. I hope even if Kickstarter fails it won't mean the project will go belly up.

TheRev709

Jul 3 2012, 18:07

Sniperwolf572

Jul 3 2012, 18:29

They raised $100k, while short of their $400k goal that's still no small amount. $100k can carry them while they develop more funding strategies. These guys seem like a smart bunch, so I'm willing to be they have contingencies.

You do understand that they will not see a single cent from all the pledges so far unless they hit or overshoot their goal?

It's clearly labeled on the project page:

THIS PROJECT WILL ONLY BE FUNDED IF AT LEAST $425,000 IS PLEDGED BY FRIDAY JUL 6, 6:56PM EDT

What happens in 3 days if the goal is not reached, only jsonedecker knows I guess.

TheRev709

Jul 3 2012, 20:06

You do understand that they will not see a single cent from all the pledges so far unless they hit or overshoot their goal?

Just learned this today. Shucks.

PapaReap

Jul 3 2012, 23:31

I've only found out about Ground Branch a few days ago and it sure looks worth backing, less that the price of a small pizza.

I also just started playing the ArmA II series and find it very refreshing recently, because of being sick and tired of BF3's total junk of late (sorry I ever got sucked up into that franchise).

So to me the future is looking much brighter now after finding the ArmA series and hopefully GB if they can get it funded (fingers crossed), however with the launch of EA's Premium service I can only hope that others like myself will say enough of this gargage jump ship and start supporting titles like ArmA and GB.

PuFu

Jul 4 2012, 04:34

just a note, EA's Premium has over 800.000 subscribers...(less than COD elite or whatever, but even so). I guess that says something about current game industry....

PapaReap

Jul 4 2012, 07:00

just a note, EA's Premium has over 800.000 subscribers...(less than COD elite or whatever, but even so). I guess that says something about current game industry....

True, 800,000 is a lot, but given the fact that they have sold around 15 million that is only around 5% of original purchasers. Most likely a lot of players have given up on the series after seeing that the quality of game play is lacking, (bugs, hacks, lack of customer support and such) and the direction the franchise is headed is turning a lot away. Also, Premium is getting quite a lot of negative feedback at the moment.

metalcraze

Jul 4 2012, 09:14

just a note, EA's Premium has over 800.000 subscribers...(less than COD elite or whatever, but even so). I guess that says something about current game industry....

Blame gamers.

Want it or not but EA just goes with the flow.

[GR]Operative

Jul 4 2012, 13:42

People forget to vote with their wallets, or maybe that's exactly what they want, who know :P

jsonedecker

Jul 7 2012, 13:07

Well, we didn't make it this time but thanks to all those that supported us on the Kickstarter.

Time to regroup and figure out the best way to charge ahead!

Timnos

Jul 7 2012, 13:34

Well, we didn't make it this time but thanks to all those that supported us on the Kickstarter.

Time to regroup and figure out the best way to charge ahead!

I pray that your project eventually comes to fruition and honestly beleive you will have huge success with Ground Branch if you can just get the ball rolling. I have a suggestion for you, it's possibly a stupid one, but I'll put it out there anyhow because I'm desperate to see your dream become a reality. Perhaps you could develop and sell a 'pop-up target firing range mission', it would be a good opportunity for people to try out some of the weapons and test their skills at the same time. I'm sure lot's of people that didn't contribute to the kickstarter would be more inclined to spend their money if they get instant fun in return. What I'm basically saying is that it might be a relatively quick way for you to start obtaining the funding that you require to finish your project. I'll buy 2 copies, and I will definitely get the highest score on the shooting range. :)