Reality vs. Playability

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Reality vs. Playability

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Hired Guns: The Jagged Edge >> Reality vs. Playability

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Reality vs. Playability - 1/19/2009 5:36:11 PM

SlickWilhelm

Posts: 1854
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline

I may be opening up a can of worms, but the discussion on weapons damage got me to thinking about how the level of reality in HG. On the one hand, I feel that the weapons and ammo should be as realistic as possible, based on "real life" stats.

I would also like the AI to use "real world" tactics as much as possible. Unfortunately, HG as it stands now is weak in the AI's self preservation behavior. I try not to exploit this to my advantage when I play. I challenge myself move out and take the fight to the enemy, instead of laying low and let them come into my kill zones.

One area where I'm glad the developers made a concession to playability, is in the "rapid heal time" utilized in the game. This allows us to keep the same mercs and grow attached to them. If reality were adhered to in HG, I'd need a pool of about 100 mercs to choose from to replace everyone that's in the hospital.

I've got mixed feelings about the damage model. Part of me is glad that Jabby was able to survive(barely)a grenade exploding between his legs, even if he's singing soprano now.

On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if the whole "points-based" damage model was the wrong decision to go with. I mean, if someone gets hit in the legs, they should be done for that mission. They should not be able to get back up and run around. Ditto if someone gets hit in the arm. Shouldn't they drop their weapon? Maybe this part of the game suffered by the rushed development. I say this because when hit in the head, sometimes the helmet comes off. Wonder why they didn't apply that to the arms as well.

LOS? Well, I think we can all agree that the LOS is the real achilles heal of HG. There's not much realism about it, so no need to flog a dead horse.

Any other thoughts, gents?

_____________________________

Beta Tester - Brother Against Brother
Beta Tester - Commander: The Great War
Beta Tester - Desert War 1940-42

Post #: 1

RE: Reality vs. Playability - 1/19/2009 6:36:48 PM

Edgewise

Posts: 34
Joined: 1/18/2009
Status: offline

You have two brands here, Matrix which is involved with quite a few high realism games, and the JA series on which HG is based which is the modern incarnation of an old SSI game based on action points and played on an old apple 2E greenscreen monitor circa 1982.� The SSI game was for it's time, cutting edge realism squad level combat. What made it super hard however was that ALL troops friendly and hostile did their pre-plotted activities at once as opposed to JA where only one friendly/enemy troop is taking action at a time.� So you had to tell soldier X to go to window Y and shoot any enemy he sees in Arc X for Z�action points worth of time,�while the soldier behind him throws a grenade at where you�'think' the enemy will be when it explodes with the first soldier essentially covering him.� You had only one map to play on and a premade set of troops which were represented by X's on the screen.� You had to do alot of double checking to know who was prone, who was facing where covering what arc, etc.� Anyhow... neither Matrix nor JA/HG is really a mainstream mass-market high budget 50�million dollar developement�per game kind of brand.� They both are aimed at a�specific market of gamers who like military strategy games, realism, and in many cases, a fair amount of -both- bean counting and grand strategic thinking.

EDIT: for HG I'd say Realism IS playability to a point. Realistic equipment, realistic tactical environment, etc. Issues like recovery from wounds, magically instant delivery of goods from DJ's to your backwater location are less of an issue since people don't play this game to do logistics. They play to shoot things in a challenging way! Fight a war that you never die in! ...and not go to jail or die like you would if you cracked open your gun case and went down to the bank to have a tactical confrontation with local police.

< Message edited by Edgewise -- 1/19/2009 6:52:27 PM >

(in reply to SlickWilhelm)

Post #: 2

RE: Reality vs. Playability - 1/20/2009 1:24:32 AM

LimeyBugger

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/11/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

I would also like the AI to use "real world" tactics as much as possible.

I agree completely - the AI blows. While some developers balk at the idea of AI development, I've seen some pretty simple AI models which turn out respectable computer behavior. As a programmer, my opinion of HG AI is pretty low.

quote:

I've got mixed feelings about the damage model. Part of me is glad that Jabby was able to survive(barely)a grenade exploding between his legs, even if he's singing soprano now.

There's certainly room for improvement in the damage model. But I think the question is, "will it improve game play?". I can't see how enforcing location specific damage rules would make it any "better" to play.

I'd like to see low damage, high effect injuries. For example, a 10 point shot to one's armoured legs (thus low damage, point wise) increasing movement costs, but not otherwise affecting APs. So the merc can stay still and shoot fine, but can't run. Unfortunately, that's not how it works, it seems.

quote:

...if someone gets hit in the legs, they should be done for that mission.

Given the nature of gunshot wounds - well, that'd make for a pretty boring. They'd have to change soldiers, so you could recruit and train your own, were they to do this. You'd need an enormous stable of mercs to recruit from, to keep up with losses due to death or injury.

quote:

Any other thoughts, gents?

I don't see why they couldn't simply put in some sliders for the player to choose from. Wound lethality (lowest setting, your soldiers go to dying, but never croak - "Hollywood" setting, whereas they drop dead 75% of the time they're shot at the maximum end) - let the player choose the setting.

While this might cause them to whine about the QA and play-testing involved... well, from what I can see, HG didn't get much loving in either of those areas. Can't see how it'd make it any worse.

(in reply to SlickWilhelm)

Post #: 3

RE: Reality vs. Playability - 1/22/2009 1:01:03 PM

R@S

Posts: 46
Joined: 12/11/2008
Status: offline

I don't play these kind of games to experience realism but rather to solve tactical problems. I don't care that you can't jump some fences or other things as long as the AI can't do it. It's a game, and a game has rules, otherwise there is no joy in playing it. As long as those rules apply to me AND the AI I have no reason to complain.

(in reply to Edgewise)

Post #: 4

RE: Reality vs. Playability - 1/22/2009 3:12:50 PM

Edgewise

Posts: 34
Joined: 1/18/2009
Status: offline

I don't wanna say this difinitively but I think the AI can jump short fences, but they also seem to have the same pathing issues getting on the roof with jumping on and off the box then on then onto the roof. It doesn't always happen, just happens often enough to be annoying. My normal solution to the fence jumping problem is to shoot the fence with a silenced weapon, but the AI does not think of doing this as you'd probably immagine.

(in reply to R@S)

Post #: 5