Ground Branch - A Return to Realistic Tactical Shooters

What a terrible title lolbiggest_loser

You mean that a game based on the CIA's SAD Ground Branch is a terrible name for a game? Those operators, who come from various SF branches world wide mind you, do deniable ops behind enemy lines and work closely with SF teams. Who would be a better group to create a game around? Sony has Navy SeALs, Ghost Recon's Green Berets have gone AWOL and are no longer the ghosts they used to be and Rainbow are no better than the ghosts. Sad really.

Realism.. what is the fascination with this in video games I wonder?

Realism.. what is the fascination with this in video games I wonder?

MLBknights58

Coding something yourself adds a lot of schedule risk and feature risk to your project. If it's not your secret sauce, better to get it off the shelf and let your programmers focus on the code unique to your project.lowe0

Someone just needs to put out 6 Days in Fallujah already. I'm still hoping that game or something like it comes out someday.

As far as planning goes, I will let the founder and CEO fill you in.

WhiteKnight77

, there is a market and fanbase for tactical shooters on consoles with last genbeing a great example of that. AcidSoldner

First of all, a lot has changed since then, not just in console gamers' tastes, but also levels of sales required to make profit.

Second, even last gen there wasn't really any place for pure tactical shooters on consoles. THe one that truly succeeded (like SOCOM or Rainbow Six 3 for Xbox) were all mixes of arcade and realism.

THat said, I think there's a place for RainbowSix 3-like scenario. Where you make a hardcore tactical shooter for PC and then use the a lot of the same art assetets to make a different console game with more arcade elements thrown in.

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"], there is a market and fanbase for tactical shooters on consoles with last genbeing a great example of that. AdrianWerner

First of all, a lot has changed since then, not just in console gamers' tastes, but also levels of sales required to make profit.

Second, even last gen there wasn't really any place for pure tactical shooters on consoles. THe one that truly succeeded (like SOCOM or Rainbow Six 3 for Xbox) were all mixes of arcade and realism.

THat said, I think there's a place for RainbowSix 3-like scenario. Where you make a hardcore tactical shooter for PC and then use the a lot of the same art assetets to make a different console game with more arcade elements thrown in.

I will pledge. The game looks very interesting. I also like supporting self published companies like this.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Coding something yourself adds a lot of schedule risk and feature risk to your project. If it's not your secret sauce, better to get it off the shelf and let your programmers focus on the code unique to your project.AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

OK, time to try and dispel some myths or untrue facts or notions.

GB will have planning, and the ability to change plans on the fly as all plans fall apart after the first shot is fired. One cannot expect to be able to plan for every contingency before hand and being able to change orders on the fly is paramount.

Nex, GB wasn't supposed to be released yet, but the devs were hoping to soon, but the need for funds has hit it's wall. The adaptive AI, yes, adaptive AI, that BFS wants to use is an expensive license and if they cannot meet their stated goal, how can they afford the extra money to license such AI (Kynapse Adaptive AI Middleware for Games by Autodesk)?

AdrianWerner

Also..planning? Those guys here are talking about R6-like planning, which I don't see how it could work in MP game. Link?

I'll let the producer of Ground Branch explain it to you.

This is the kind of thing, where, I think the ignorance of the masses is absolutely killing us. Your average gamer has no clue about how much it actually costs to produce a game, these days.

Talented AI programmers aren't cheap. In fact, they are one of the most highly-specialized fields in the games industry. "Making your own" isn't exactly easy; it is often way cheaper to license a working solution (which is why so many companies offer solutions like this). To give you an idea of some rough costs, it would take us around $120-130k/yr (on average) to employ a talented and proven, full-time AI programmer. The thing is: we're competing with the big companies, in hiring these guys. Why come work for some small indie dev, when Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Microsoft, Sony et cetera, are all willing to pay top dollar for you? Unless they have the passion for the subject matter, and agree to do it for peanuts (just on principal), we're competing with every other company trying to hire these guys.

So, hey, if anyone out there knows of a talented AI programmer that is fed up with his cushy corporate job, and loves military realism: send him our way! Otherwise, we're trying to license Kynapse.

We're not allowed to reveal the licensing costs for Kynapse, due to an NDA; I can say this: it is significantly cheaper, and offers us more than what we need for this game. Building your own technology is not only extremely costly, it is often counter-productive.

Those same people might also ask, "Why license Unreal Engine? Why not just make your own?" And to that, I must respond with the same information.

It's easy to assume. That's all I'll say.Jonathan Conley

I said it earlier and I will say it again, it is cheaper to license an AI solution verses building ones one, especially when the studio is on a shoestring budget.

A lot of people have also asked why GB wouldn't be on consoles. Look at the price of a console game. Notice that it is $10-$20 more than PC games. Why is that? Licensing to be paid to MS and Sony. You have to pay those two (the same for Nintendo applies too, but few shooters make it to the Wii that I know of) for the priviledge of developing a game for those two consoles. That doesn't count having to buy the develoment consoles or the SDKs needed to (the XBox develoment console was $10,000 alone and had a transluscent green shell) run the games and convert them to console games from PC games. We are talking the $20,000 range or more nowadays. Also, you have to be associated with a big publisher in order to have your game appear on a console.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

OK, time to try and dispel some myths or untrue facts or notions.

GB will have planning, and the ability to change plans on the fly as all plans fall apart after the first shot is fired. One cannot expect to be able to plan for every contingency before hand and being able to change orders on the fly is paramount.

Nex, GB wasn't supposed to be released yet, but the devs were hoping to soon, but the need for funds has hit it's wall. The adaptive AI, yes, adaptive AI, that BFS wants to use is an expensive license and if they cannot meet their stated goal, how can they afford the extra money to license such AI (Kynapse Adaptive AI Middleware for Games by Autodesk)?

WhiteKnight77

Also..planning? Those guys here are talking about R6-like planning, which I don't see how it could work in MP game. Link?

I'll let the producer of Ground Branch explain it to you.

This is the kind of thing, where, I think the ignorance of the masses is absolutely killing us. Your average gamer has no clue about how much it actually costs to produce a game, these days.

Talented AI programmers aren't cheap. In fact, they are one of the most highly-specialized fields in the games industry. "Making your own" isn't exactly easy; it is often way cheaper to license a working solution (which is why so many companies offer solutions like this). To give you an idea of some rough costs, it would take us around $120-130k/yr (on average) to employ a talented and proven, full-time AI programmer. The thing is: we're competing with the big companies, in hiring these guys. Why come work for some small indie dev, when Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Microsoft, Sony et cetera, are all willing to pay top dollar for you? Unless they have the passion for the subject matter, and agree to do it for peanuts (just on principal), we're competing with every other company trying to hire these guys.

So, hey, if anyone out there knows of a talented AI programmer that is fed up with his cushy corporate job, and loves military realism: send him our way! Otherwise, we're trying to license Kynapse.

We're not allowed to reveal the licensing costs for Kynapse, due to an NDA; I can say this: it is significantly cheaper, and offers us more than what we need for this game. Building your own technology is not only extremely costly, it is often counter-productive.

Those same people might also ask, "Why license Unreal Engine? Why not just make your own?" And to that, I must respond with the same information.

It's easy to assume. That's all I'll say.Jonathan Conley

I said it earlier and I will say it again, it is cheaper to license an AI solution verses building ones one, especially when the studio is on a shoestring budget.

A lot of people have also asked why GB wouldn't be on consoles. Look at the price of a console game. Notice that it is $10-$20 more than PC games. Why is that? Licensing to be paid to MS and Sony. You have to pay those two (the same for Nintendo applies too, but few shooters make it to the Wii that I know of) for the priviledge of developing a game for those two consoles. That doesn't count having to buy the develoment consoles or the SDKs needed to (the XBox develoment console was $10,000 alone and had a transluscent green shell) run the games and convert them to console games from PC games. We are talking the $20,000 range or more nowadays. Also, you have to be associated with a big publisher in order to have your game appear on a console.

IIRC Adrian is a games journalist. No excuse for not knowing something this basic about software development.lowe0

Wanna know the funny part about it. He has been a member of the BFS forums since 2008 and has followed the develoment off and on since then. It didn't dawn on me that he was a member of the BFS forum until Jonathan said the same as you. Ironically, you and Jonathan have said pretty much the same thing.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

GB will take and merge Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear with Ghost Recon for a game that offers the best of those two worlds.AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

GB will take and merge Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear with Ghost Recon for a game that offers the best of those two worlds.RyuRanVII

As been said, the reason why there will not be an SP campaign from the get go is it is expensive. The Devs want to get something out the door so that sales earnings can be sunk back in to complete the SP and Coop portion of the game. As the above posts states, it isn't cheap to build AI or license some. If you pledge $15, you will get the full game, the MP and basic Coop first (think terrorist hunt agains typical bots or AI) then you will get the SP and Coop missions free once they are completed. Normally that is $50-$60. Would you rather pay$50 or $15 for a complete game?

Ground Branch to include 2 exectutables with the game, one without any DRM of any sort, for LAN play while the other will still be a Steamworks .exe. Good news for gamers tired of DRM that hogties a person to the internet.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]What a terrible title lolWhiteKnight77

You mean that a game based on the CIA's SAD Ground Branch is a terrible name for a game? Those operators, who come from various SF branches world wide mind you, do deniable ops behind enemy lines and work closely with SF teams. Who would be a better group to create a game around? Sony has Navy SeALs, Ghost Recon's Green Berets have gone AWOL and are no longer the ghosts they used to be and Rainbow are no better than the ghosts. Sad really.

Ground Branch to include 2 exectutables with the game, one without any DRM of any sort, for LAN play while the other will still be a Steamworks .exe. Good news for gamers tired of DRM that hogties a person to the internet.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Ground Branch to include 2 exectutables with the game, one without any DRM of any sort, for LAN play while the other will still be a Steamworks .exe. Good news for gamers tired of DRM that hogties a person to the internet.

skrat_01

That is one of the differences between the big studios and the indie studios. The smaller studios listen to gamers.

If Ground Branch ever does come to consoles it will be unchanged from the PC release. AcidSoldner

Yes and when it does it will flop epically sales-wise on consoles precisely because of that. I just hope it still manages to make enough profit for them to continue proving real tactical shooter experience on consoles. For publishers it would be easy choise - add arcade and watch console sales soar through the roof. The only hope is that for Blackfoot sales aren't the most important thing.

Despite your previous claims that SOCOM isn't a tactical shooter (lulz) the SOCOM fanbase flocked over to Takedown with a promise of a console version, just go check out their forums. The market for tactical shooters on consoles is there, it just need to be tapped.AcidSoldner

I said it earlier and I will say it again, it is cheaper to license an AI solution verses building ones one, especially when the studio is on a shoestring budget.

WhiteKnight77

Also..the reason why they even want to license Kynapse is simply because they do not have a AI programmer in the team. They're not full blown developer with all positions filled it. Look at every other small dev, most do their own AI, because it's simply cheaper. The reason why BFS wants to license AI is because they lack the capability to make it themselves and lack funds to hire people with such ability. Most of the time middleware is licensed not because it's cheaper, but because it's faster and easier and in big team projects it's priceless.

Ground Branch has been in development hell for years because lack of money. So for the love of God, just restrict your ambitions and create smaller, but working project instead of shooting high and failing. I know many PC devs just love to support their fans as much as they need to, but to often it's done at their own expense. You don't need to deliver everything whiny fans are asking for.

Heck, I've pledged to both Takedown and Ground Branch, even though I have no clue if any of those projects will ever be made at all (of course assuimg GB will be successful, so far it unfortunatelly seems unlikely, so they won't get any KS money :( ). It's just a way to support genre I love, but it would be nice if it would end up being more than than that.

I realize I might be coming on as agressively negative, but I'm just tired of waiting (it's been 7 years since last good CQB game) and genuinely angry as well as dissapointed that this Kickstarter isn't doing better, so it might just be coloring my responses in unpleseant way.I'm just devastated that this project isn't doing any better, even taking the terrible timing of KS start into account it should be bigger. Not only it's from proven people and from genre that's one of the rarest around these days, but also they have so much to show for it. There are very few KS where you can actually see how the game will look like instead of just listening to devs telling you how it might look like :(

You mean the Takedown that will turn into TPP for console version? And no, there's no real market for those type of games on consoles. If Takedown delivers what it promises SOCOM fans will be very dissapointed to find the game doesn't have much in common with their beloved IP.

AdrianWerner

I'm not going to turn this thread into a PC vs Console debate. I've given you plenty examples to prove my point but apparently you have some crystal ball that tells you otherwise. What ever makes you hermits sleep at night...

The current focus is on a PC release with BFS showing an interest in bringing it to consoles later when funds become more readily available, without compromise.

And what does being in 3rd person have to do with anything?AcidSoldner

It shows it won't be the same game as on PC. Who knows what other changes they will make. Especially since they will need console publisher and those publishers told them console players are too dumb for this type of game.

Oh right, nothing. Allen and his team conveyed exactly what game they are producing and the SOCOM community ate it up for a reason. They want a realistic tactical shooter on consoles, as do many others.AcidSoldner

I don't doubt there are people on consoles who want this games. What I doubt is that there's a big number of them. Kind of like fighting fans on PC. What I'm certain of is that if you take console tactical shooter and add crapload of arcade it will sell 2-3 times better.

You might claim all you want that there;s a lot of people who want full blown tactical shooter on consoles, but that's just wishful thinking, since nobody has tested that before properly.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

I said it earlier and I will say it again, it is cheaper to license an AI solution verses building ones one, especially when the studio is on a shoestring budget.

AdrianWerner

Also..the reason why they even want to license Kynapse is simply because they do not have a AI programmer in the team. They're not full blown developer with all positions filled it. Look at every other small dev, most do their own AI, because it's simply cheaper. The reason why BFS wants to license AI is because they lack the capability to make it themselves and lack funds to hire people with such ability. Most of the time middleware is licensed not because it's cheaper, but because it's faster and easier and in big team projects it's priceless.

Ground Branch has been in development hell for years because lack of money. So for the love of God, just restrict your ambitions and create smaller, but working project instead of shooting high and failing. I know many PC devs just love to support their fans as much as they need to, but to often it's done at their own expense. You don't need to deliver everything whiny fans are asking for.

Heck, I've pledged to both Takedown and Ground Branch, even though I have no clue if any of those projects will ever be made at all (of course assuimg GB will be successful, so far it unfortunatelly seems unlikely, so they won't get any KS money :( ). It's just a way to support genre I love, but it would be nice if it would end up being more than than that.

I realize I might be coming on as agressively negative, but I'm just tired of waiting (it's been 7 years since last good CQB game) and genuinely angry as well as dissapointed that this Kickstarter isn't doing better, so it might just be coloring my responses in unpleseant way.I'm just devastated that this project isn't doing any better, even taking the terrible timing of KS start into account it should be bigger. Not only it's from proven people and from genre that's one of the rarest around these days, but also they have so much to show for it. There are very few KS where you can actually see how the game will look like instead of just listening to devs telling you how it might look like :(

Show everyone where BFS is wanting to include AI at release unless they meet the Stretch Goal of $700,000 with their KS campaign. You admit that your reponses are colored due to the length of time it has taken to get GB as far as it has and the response the KS campaign has garnered. The fact that the devs have already sunk all of their savings and then some into the game with no one taking a salary shows that they are willing to get a game to the community. John has been very up front with wanting to release the MP portion of the game first, with very basic AI (the standard UT bots) so there can be some Coop play such as Terrorist Hunt.

It will only be after the game is released in MP form and some sales are made and enough revenue generated will they concentrate on giving everyone who bought the game, a proper SP game with a campaign and a Coop campaing that follows the SP one. I will take what Jonathan Conley stated about licensing AI over creating their own as being the cheaper route. The work has already been done and the adaptive AI that Kynapse offers will be better than what someone can come up with in 3 years time. AI has to be the hardest of any component of any game and it is not cheap to hire someone to do so. $300,000 is two years of someone working full time on AI that may be as good as UT bots whereas Kynapse has been in use for 4 years with development lasting longer.

As a "games journalist", you could have current stories about games in development, but your only story about GB is over a year old and it is one sentence and an old screenshot. That has been BFS's biggest problem with the KS campaign, reaching the masses, especially the Tac-Sim fans that loved GR and R6. And yes, it is surprising that BFS is having a hard time even meeting it's stated goal as they actually do have assets that are playable compared to other games that have not one asset that is even viewable.

As a "games journalist", you could have current stories about games in development, but your only story about GB is over a year old and it is one sentence and an old screenshot.

WhiteKnight77

Straight from the top, looks like they are adding a terrorsit hunt/co-op mode to all Reward Tiers shortly after release:
http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5989

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.

No DRM and a Steam version for all backers. Choose which version you like, and download it! If you don't like one solution you always have another.

Free co-op/SP for all backers? My interest in Ground Branch skyrocketed. I've been looking forward to the SP portion since 2008 or so.

And here is a new video about map design:

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

I like this video, especially 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.

Oh how I loved the realstic tactical shooters. So few of them today. Quite a shame.

I really want to support this project, but I'm a bit strapped for cash after losing a bit of money gambling recently. I wish I had $125 to spare for this project - I too, yearn for old tactical shooters not seen since SWAT 4.