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.
Look at my ArmA 3 missions in this topic:
Definitely, Will buy.
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.
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.The ArmA2 community could show a bit of love to GB.
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.
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.
Well spoken Disaster!
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.