Firstly, I never claimed action-based games are bad because I don't like them, but because they have no depth beyond physical interactivity with the game world. By 'action' games I mean games in which combat is based around 'action' commands, ie how quickly the reflexes of the person behind the monitor can react.

This is unrealistic because it assumes that someone playing a video game is the same as a solider in a gun-fight, the only real way to simulate things like morale, movement speed, accuracy, etc, would be on a stat and dice-roll basis, so it's not the person behind the monitor who is in charge of how quickly you can take cover or fire a weapon (simply by holding ctrl or left-clicking the quickest) but the stats of the character you control. Left-clicking is not a realistic simulation of firing a weapon, and holding W is not an accurate simulation of running.

In an ideal tactical game, every-time you performed a dangerous action with a soldier it would require a morale roll, things like running out of cover into direct line-of-sight would add negative modifiers to the roll, so there's a chance your soldier will simply panic, curl up in a ball and refuse to run out to his death. Don't you think a system like that is superior to a bunch of wannabe-commandos playing a point-and-click... (sorry shoot) game to "pwn" each other over LAN?

And secondly, their can be a real-time tactical game, if you read my post I did point to Syndicate (it's sequel Syndicate Wars counts too) as good examples of RTT, I would also add the Close Combat series, Myth II and some others if you include non-gunplay based tactics.

Thats your opinion. You think that they have no depth or anything, but you cant say for sure that this is a fact and every gamer feels the same. This is why i said you were being a bit too arrogant. Youre trying to make your opinion an absolute truth.

Because dice-rolls and stats are very realistic, right? "I have spotted an enemy soldier, oh wait, let me roll the dice to see if i can hit him or not". These are games, some rely more on thinking, some require quick reflexes like COD and some require both thinking and reflexes (like ARMA, and the older R6 and Ghost Recon). If you want something that realistic i think you should look at something else other than gaming.

So? This can be simulated in a real time game. If im playing an FPS and there is a high penalty for dead (like waiting for the whole round to be over) ill certainly try to preserve my life and not go rambo around. Its a matter of game design. People go rambo in COD because they can respawn as soon as they die.


Play ARMA and youll know what im talking about. Or even Red Orchestra, which is pretty tactical too.

Weird, in my opinion Syndicate is far from being tactical. When i played it, i just ordered my soldier to run around like crazy in panic mode. Even Starcraft 2 is more tactical than that. Cant talk about Syndicate wars because i have never played it.

@Crosmondo: so a game is 'tactical' if it minimizes twitch-based gameplay, and is reliant, as far as possible, on stats?

K.

Moving on...

Reliant on rules which simulate actual tactics, yes.

No offense mate, but, you're talkin' out yer ass, and as a fan of tactical games, you should know better.

By your definition, Special Forces Operators aren't employing tactics, because they don't "soul swap" by hitting keys on a keyboard. Also, if you're going to say that PC gamers aren't soldiers, and therefore, can't employ tactics, you've just defeated your argument against games like JA. Sounds like a bit of a conundrum to me, mate.

Our game still employs LOS rules, and everything you'd expect from a tactical gaming scenario. We take it a step further by supporting things like material penetration and accurate projectile ballistics. There is no turn-based combat in real life, and you don't always have to directly control others, you simply must be able to rely upon them.

It sounds like you weren't a fan of our genre to begin with, and that's fine. I have fond memories of forming a team, making friends, and depending on a group of guys to cover my six. I actually preferred that camaraderie, to micro-managing AI in games like X-COM or JA (though, I enjoyed those games too, for what they were). That's fine -- nobody is holding you at gunpoint, forcing you to give us any money. All that I ask is that you don't spread FUD about us. We're not "big publisher-backed devs, chasing after the 'graffix' crownd"; we're a tiny group of passionate developers, that would likely fit in your bedroom, working on a game we care about as a non-paying secondary job to our day jobs.

We're providing gamers with the training tools they'd need to learn how to apply real-world tactics to in-game scenarios. These tools are being designed, in concert, with actual Operators. The in-game realities of lethality and failure for lone-wolf play styles will "fix the glitch", in terms of gamers that initially don't "get it".

I hope that you'll change your position.
No offense mate: neither of us are trained Operators. You have to appreciate the fact that these guys practice these drills for hours on end, daily. They can do this stuff in their sleep, while wounded, et cetera.

That said, and I can't stress this fact enough: this is a pre-alpha build being shown. Nothing, including our sight picture, is even remotely close to being final. We have plans to introduce randomized muscle tremor patterns to simulate muscle fatigue, and to make shooting somewhat more challenging to the players.

But trust me when I tell you this: Operators are well-oiled machines. You can see one of our liaisons in our KS pitch video, as he demonstrates low-ready to his aiming posture, as well as his sidearm transition. It's lightning quick, because he's had 20 years to perfect those skills.

There's zero artistic interpretation on the speed of these things, on our part. All of that stuff is motion captured.

Pretty neat, right?

Cheers, mate. I appreciate the hell out of that.

Please, continue to spread the word by notifying your friends or gaming communities. We need all of the help we can muster.

Thanks again. :)

That's a fair point.

This sounds exciting. SWAT 3/4 and Rainbow Six are great tactical CQB games, but they lack the simulation of physiological conditions (other than having been shot at). It will be interesting to see how far and how well GB simulates this.

Anyway, one reason why I believe the KS hasn't been doing as well as it should is because of Serellan's sca-- I mean Project TAKEDOWN. I've been trying to get people to look at this, but the typical response has been underwhelming, either because they feel TAKEDOWN will fill the niche, or because they're burned out on KS projects. I've been tracking GB for a while, so I was anticipating it even before the KS, but it seems the general gaming public, even tactical shooter fans, are unaware of it, or not immediately and completely captivated by the pitch. What are your plans regarding this?

I'm going to second this concern - any DRM that requires any connection to the internet is intrusive, be it SecuROM or Steam.

Steam can be a fine thing though if it's optional. It becomes a problem when it becomes a leash. The approach taken by many indie developers these days is a two-pronged approach, namely to offer a DRM-free download directly from the website and bundle a Steam key with it for the Steam users.

The Steam fanatics within the community will no doubt only buy from Steam, which is fine. But there is a sizeable element of the gaming community that will refuse to buy from Steam outright, and an even larger proportion who will only buy from Steam at sale prices. If you go the Steam-only route, you risk stalling the sales of your game until it ends up in a daily deal, weekend deal or holiday deal.

As I say, I'd recommend going the above two-pronged route. It's an excellent show of trust to gamers - something which is always good for word-of-mouth marketing, and you're providing an incentive to buy a genuine product in the form of a Steam key (assuming you're adding Steamworks features such as achievements and Steam Cloud support).

+1

I don't disagree with that at all, and like I said: nothing is final yet. We may do exactly that. We'll come to this decision way later, but are already an approved title on Steam. I'm just being open with you guys, instead of saying "Stay Tuned" or "No Comment".

Basically, we just need to be able to use a matchmaking / master server service that doesn't blow. It's really that simple. It isn't our fault that Valve chooses to do things that way. That said, the Steam Workshop is a great tool for the deployment of mods (which is a huge focus for us, and allows our gamers to maintain compatibility via auto-updates).

Anyway, here's our new video on Sound Design, and small details. Please spread the word: http://youtu.be/rS5fuz-Z4fs

Cheers. :)

I haven't pledged yet because they haven't quite come clear on the DRM-free-ness of the product. There's still this "cd key check" on install? (Sounds remote -- and a post up above says it might be GameSpy-based).

I'd emailed the creator of the project, and got a reply back to half my question ("LAN play will be able to be done without an Internet connection") but he dodged the Internet-free installation half of the question.

Keychecks, if any, should simply be peer-to-peer to make sure there aren't any duplicates on the same server. If that. (Remember: Steam is DRM.)

I want this game made still enjoying the hell out of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield 2.0 this game and Takedown

I want this to go 100% funded, this needs to happen, it deserves. Pledge what you reasonably can pledge, even if it is $15... Futurely we can make a GOG group for multiplayer, with only GOGers. ;)

Currently at $60,000 and 2 weeks left.

Thanks for backing us. Please spread the word to all of your friends. We can't do this without the community.

As per the ongoing DRM-scare convo: we're looking into providing a binary to all backers, that will be used for LAN and offline play (similar to what Carmageddon is doing). It won't tie into Steamworks (obviously), but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.

Cheers. :)

I'm sure I am going to sound like the odd man out here, but really? I do not believe in them. Meaning I do not feel there is a good enough, or even justifiable reason to ever hand give money to said kickstarter. It sounds like a cheap cop-out for money. They do not even have to actually succeed, and they do not have to give a refund, and the list drags on.

If they want money for their "project" they can go to a bank, and apply for a loan. Otherwise they can walk into a publishers office, and proceed with talks. Best of luck to them, but yeah - my money is not going to some "kickstarter". They can help themselves, and are able bodied persons.

Or.. Get this they can budget themselves, and start out really small with using out moded techniques. Go retro, with eight bit, or sixteen bit. No one is forcing them to spend hundred of thousands on building a game that has to compete graphically with other modern titles.

Hate me as you wish, but yeah.. Kickstarters piss me off. It's just another notch on the long list of - what is wrong with this industry. What's next? ElectronicArts asking for handouts on producing the next DragonAge, or other IP? Bollocks!