Upcoming tactical shooter from Blackfoot Studios: Ground Branch

[zoog]

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]

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

[sparks50]

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

[Kernriver]

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/foru...1&#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/foru...1&#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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1UOt...=youtu.be&hd=1


Looks simply awesome to me

[zoog]

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 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