Every fantasy story has its flaws and its contradictions. They can be incredibly simple like Little Red Hood, or incredibly well developed. But even the big writings like Holy Bible or a Tolkiens writing, they are never a fully developed reality simulations, they have limits and they are written to a certain depths. For example, you can never go beyond a certain depth. For example, you can never expect to read say the full DNA structure of any creature out of a painting of some fantasy character, this depth is just not there. If super intellingent beings would write a fantasy stories, they would probably have thought out everything to a detail, that you can extract a DNA of a unicorn or have a full mathematical formulas of a magical powers and whole books about technical details of a spells and mana in action. That is a whole books about "magical physics", that are just as detailed as our books about newtonian physics or human anatomy.

Yes, it would be interesting to investigate such a depth, but but there is no story like that. Unless its based on real world, but we did not make a real world. Thats because humans making these stories have mental capacity limits and they usually pay theyr attention to emotional part of a story, rather than trying to work out whole universe all together. You can't expect Lucas to write down the full description of each weapon found, spaceship or droid in Star Wars down to a smallest mechanical parts. You can study every gun, computer or robot, that exist in real world and tell how it exactly works. You can tell what is the difference between AK-47 and M4, or M16 and M4 in great depths you know. But blasters are like "magic" objects, they have no technical data about them, telling how each and every one of them works. Here is my point, what is the most "technically" advanced fantasy story to date? Yes, i do know that i probaly should look towards computer simulations, rather than fantasy books in that regards. I'm only asking here :P And my writing is probably not sophisticated enough to pass an english exams, lol

Just finished writing an article about guerrilla warfare. I will spell check latter. I'm also working on another article talking about new idea i have about open world gaming environments.

Here, thats it. I think this is how at least one FPS should be played as:

You are an insurgent in an enemy territory. And you literally have to sneak around and plan your attacks all of the time. And you also have to add escape routes into your plan, in case things turn out too dangerous to deal with. By the way, nobody is telling you where that escape route or enemy is, you have to find out it all by yourself by observing the surroundings. Also, the game should be mainly based around a free play and have very little of the typical "go there, this needs to be done" type of missions. If any.

I also would like player respawning in this kind of a game, instead of 1 life policy. So you can't just unmake your failure by simply reloading game from a checkpoint/save file. Bad calls have premanent consequences and you are stuck with them. Yes, you may be able to save game all of the time, but you can't quit without saving. So no undo button, lol. There also has to be a harsh penalty for dying. So you can't just die, respawn, rush back to battle, die again, respawn again, repeat. One possbility is death = losing all the gear. And remember, better the gear = harder to get. You could easily spend hours to get your hands on some good sniper rifle, or a good camo suit or armor for example.

One example of rare equipment would be something like 5 cm Granatwerfer 36, which you can carry around, deploy and actually fire at hostile targets. But remember, once you deploy it, you can't just pick it up and run away with it like in Far Cry 2. If you have to immediately leave, its on your own if you want to risk taking time to pack it, or leave it there alltgether. It also weights a lot, so you can't move very fast with it. But you should be able to carry ammo and weapon separately. For example, you can move some mortar rouns to a certain hidden place first and then carry your mortar after. Then take your ammo from hideout and start laying some waste on opponents. But be wary, enemies might easily return fire once they figure out where are you shooting from.

Sometimes it is possible to re-gain your lost gear, if lets say nobody has found your "past life" body before you do. You respawn always like day or longer after your death, so its not sure if your stuff is still there or not. Enemies should mainly pick up your gear and often they will start to use it. Sometimes when you die, you take your enemy with you, so nobody might not know where your body is. Or if you get killed by unlucky mortar shot, fired blindly at the places, where they think you might exist. To your relief, you don't have to wear all your stuff with you. There has to be some secret "safe houses" around on the map, to store your important stuff. Here is example of hidden bunker used by anti-soviet resistance after the ww2.
example hideout:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Bunker_of_lith_partisans.jpg

These bunkers were built as hidden safe havens for anti-soviet resistance movement, but i bet
every resistance have used a hideouts. Yes, there was a guerrilla war against soviets from end of WW2 till the mid 50s troughout the Eastern Europe. The resistance started immediately after soviets had occupied the territory and ceased slowly by the mid-50s.

Another idea, is that you don't play for "objectives" as much as you play for "kill score". Well, the main objective of any forest brother (insurgent) is to wear down its enemy. And you wear them, by taking out its troops, by blowing up theyr equipment, bridges etc... If resistance is stronger, you raid some of theyr smaller outposts. Weaker resistance usually fights a defensive battles. So you should never run from one objective to another like in Far Cry 2 or worse - in Red Faction Guerrilla! Sometimes all you do, is sneak close to enemy patrol or outpost, take out few guards and run like french :P I think weapon stats should play important role, like individual weapon stats, kills, shots fired etc...

And don't forget, gameplay can never beabout smashing trough a main gate, killing whole army in 2 minutes and and then completing your "objective". Maybe you kill some more on your way out or not, but eventually you get your ass out of there and win. I think its important to actually add in an outposts, lets say military bases and some other locations, that are so heavily defended that you either never really "capture" them, or you do that after a series of hit and run raids. But attacking some most of the outposts head on is as good as suicide, especially bigger bases. Besides, enemies can call in reinforcements, they also conduct a large scale raids sometimes.

Finally, enemies should never just pop into existence out of nowhere. They have to travel in from outside of the map. That could also generate some traffic. Because some travel around in trucks or come in from a train. A traffic also has to cross places such as bridges. And bridges can be blown, if you can get past the defenses. Another thing, is enemy would have some traffic anyway, either its convoys passing trough the country or patrols within the country itself.

Finally, this game would take extreme amount of resources to render, as all of the enemies troughout the map should be counted all of the time. In no way NPCs should be generated out of a thin air like in Just Cause 2. There has to be a clear picture of how many units there are, what are they doing and that troughout the whole world. Even if they are not directly rendered, they should be there. Altlrough i didn't mean, that player knows where everybody is. I meant, that computer running the game should know. As in some games, such as Just Cause 2, NPCs are randomly generated after you reach to certain area and rest of the world practically has no NPCs in it at all. Only the areas, where player currently is.

It seems, that for games like Call of Duty campaign part has barely changed in time. They literally have added very little in that period. There are some new ideas and the setting change. I barely see anything fresh in there. All they have done is adding a different setting and some better graphics to same old. But in general, there is barely any change at all. be it Modern Warfare or World War 2 or something else, makes no difference - it still feels like the same old, same old. Me personally would like to see some serious change - agree or not. Altrough the "same old way" can work to some extent, but right now its like the only way to play a campaign mode.

*This is my "serious change" -
For instance, i hate the pace of a games. You usually just rush trough the game environment, you run your own personal mini-blitzkrieg. Think about a game, where player can easily get stuck in a same level for a very long time instead. And that this is not just some weird in-game glitch, but purposely added gameplay element. Players always expect to be able to defeat all the enemies right away. They expect, that they suppress the enemy in seconds, charge over to the other side, finish off the remaining troops and carry on at the same pace throughout the most of the campaign all the way to the end. But what if they can't? What if enemies are so persistent, well dug in and so perfectly placed? And above all, completely random so you never really even know how many of them are there, or where exactly they are located in the first place. Or where more of them could come into to the gaming environment as reinforcements.

Think about an open world game, where fighting AI is so hard, that getting across the first street alone feels like a mission of its own! And there are dozens of streets! That you never really know, when its clear to run from one house to another or not. You have no idea, if some sniper or loads of units open fire on you, from a position you thought was surely a cleared. That enemies can come back and retake areas, that you already cleared out. Yes, it would be so easy to die in this game, so it would maybe evoke some sort of respawning with or without limited number of extra lives. But so what, be it that way. At least its different in terms of a gameplay. Besides, I'm done with the "downed mode". Its way too overused!

The sheer fact, that enemies are often dug in and use crossfire, makes some positions very persistent. They don't have to break cover every 5 seconds, like they did it in Modern Warfare 2. In fact some of them should never move outside of they're "perimeter", should never really break cover. This all makes rushing to enemy occupied house to flank a them very risky business. But it also evokes cooperative gaming elements, such as suppressive fire. Some players have to lay down some cover fire, force enemies to take cover. While others take a risk and try to cross the open space. Some other person might look out for flanks and possible counter-attacks. Even if everything is perfectly planned, battle can turn very quickly from success to a total failure. And it can eventually end up with enemies counter-attacking and taking the players position altogether!

Think about this - easy comes, easy goes. If the winning is so easy, the sense of accomplishment is very low, sometimes it barely exists at all. Sometimes it even feels totally dull. In fact too often it feels dull. Thats why people stop playing cooperative mode, thats why nobody really played trough World At War campaign more than a few times. I think finishing some extraordinarily hard mission will feel like 1000x more accomplishment, than getting trough yet another dull and boring campaign, where average enemy AI lasts about 10 seconds. I think this would be a perfect game for a cooperative gaming. And especially perfect for the LAN party! A something that actually demands a cooperation, not rushing.

I just hate the current state of campaign gameplay. F*** it, I'm not gonna get next Call of Duty. I'm mainly a singleplayer/cooperative fanboy and i don't see anything new coming from these sections. They probably put theyr focus mainly on some dumbf*** zombie mode, messed up spec-ops or who knows what Also, there should be differently ****s and/or ability to choose which weapons you want to use in your missions, before the mission even starts. And not use some pre-selected sets. I also like stats, especially the individual weapon stats like "shots fired", "kills". Could make some excel document ****page, where you can also see, which enemy types killed with which weapon. And that all should add-up on some main stats page

Tell me what you want to change regards to campaign mode in games like that? I'm especially talking about gameplay mechanics, not about setting.

Im thinking that almost every fantasy world has some form of "dark elves" in it.The LOTR, the Warhammer, Warcraft etc...But differently from any other fantasy, dark elves in LOTR were never an "evil" ones.Can anyone tell me when did "dark" elves become "evil" ones?Here is a description of what dark elves are in middle-earth.

In J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Moriquendi or "Elves of Darkness" were a group of the Elves that did not join the Great Journey across the continent of Middle-earth and the Sundering Seas, and thus did not behold the light of the Two Trees in Valinor. The Dark Elves were in no way more "evil" than the Light Elves; the latter just had a surpassing knowledge and skill, and were more "noble" and potent. Tolkien was hesitant about the precise definition of the term; according to different writings, the character Eöl was one of the Moriquendi, as well as the Silvan Elves appearing in The Lord of the Rings.

And are there any other fantasy world, that does have dark elves in it, but just not the "evil" dark elves?

I decided to post my writing about Modern Warfare 2 Spec Ops mode.Its basically a list of ideas and changes i'd like to see in this game.They probably wont be added, but what the hell.It was fun to play trough the missions by the way.Most missions felt bit short, no matter how slowly i tried to play them.

*Choose a weapon before each battle.You know, like you can choose weapons in multiplayer.It just would be cool, if i could say, what weapons i will be using.Missions that are stealth based, have certain marking on them.

*Last stand mode.Survive as long as possible , against increasing number of enemies.You can merge it with a score based mission, like in bodycount was.That would make this survival into a high score game as well.

*Frontline.This thing would be a difficult to add (maybe) , but players struggle against endless spawning NPCs to take over control points.Both players and hostile NPCs can take over map points.Who ever pushes other side to they'r main base, wins.This gameplay might include players respawning.

*Add friendly fire check for units like enemy Predator drone.In fact all of the units should have a friendly fire check, so they don't shoot trough each other.Or blow up each other.

*NPCs break cover too easily.I think NPCs souln't break cover so easy.They also run next to burning car and die in an explosion.Cars shoul'nt explode at all, this is some video game bias, that cars explode like that.

*M16 and M4 should share same ammo , as they use same mags.In fact all weapons that use same ammo type, should share it with other similar ones.So if you have MP5k and walk over an UZI, you should get some... candy.

*It would be nice if there was weapon stats for singleplayer/spec ops in same manner like Left 4 Dead has.They have a profile related stats that say, how many kills, shots and damage done with each weapon etc... So all the game sessions would add to that profile.Thats what i'd like to see.

Hi, i decided to try to blog on gaming subject.I mainly play FPS games and thats also the main subject to me.If i get some feedback, i might add more posts.If i get... But then again, i might just write for the pleasure of writing.Anyway, here is my first post.Enjoy.

Modern games have changed a lot in time.But FPS storytelling has changed very little in at least the last decade.They do have gotten more cinematic, but the gameplay itself has not changed much.I think sinleplayer gaming can be inproved in many ways, to refresh the experience and i now represent you a few of these ideas.The same applies to cooperative gaming too, for most part.So i don't have to meniton coop at all.You get it, if you are smart enough.

Most singleplayer is a heavily scripted, linear and predictable.Here is a random scenario i made, to make a point.During some night time raid, you approach near a village and every single time, a flare pops into the sky at the excact point, signaling the enemy that you are approaching.Then the enemy starts storming on your position.You defeat the attackers.Then your position is shelled by mortars from the village.Then you storm the village.The machinegun nests are always in same position, the enemies storm out only from certain buildings.Everything works the same way.

Its not so hard to really figure out, whats the problem here.And one of the best cure for that is to introduce a randomness.You see, the singleplayer scenario is not really one fixed unchangable entity.Its all about small details.Like position of the enemies, AI behaviour, position of different weapons etc... Its not like, when you change one detail, the rest absolutely breaks appart and dies.Well, it can die.But if done well, it wont.

Instead of giving us the same repetive scenario, i have better idea.For example, the flare does not always have to go off.Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.Which means enemy sometimes spots you, sometimes don't.Which leads to a next element, the attack by the enemy towards your position.It can happen, but not always.Same with what happens after you enter the village and try to take it.They might counter attack you with massive forces near the end of battle, in the middle of it or never to do it.The position of snipers, static machine guns and all the rest too does not have to be fixed.There are many possibilities.Snipers can exist in many places as well, they can be in one or the other location.In both.Or in none of them.

Same is with the notion, that player always has to move foward in a world.He always has to "progress" trough environment by the minute.Always has to rush somewhere else.But with good AI and loads of randomness, it too can be changed.I don't think, that players would throw away game, if they had to fight over one village many times over and over.If the AI is good and does provide a difficult challenge and when it does not feel so scripted, it can work that way.I always wanted at least a one FPS, that has static battle elements in it.Its never been done so far.

And least of all - all game developers have a stupid idea, that good singleplayer must be a loads of pre-scripted unchangeable missions and thats it.I do see very little scenario editors in games.Arma 2 had it.It think that adding in ability to easily change or make scenarios would be a vital, it would be simply a cool feature to add some fresh stuff to the gameplay.Besides imagine all these 1000 AI battle videos, that people are gonna make! All the player has to do, is to add/remove AI units, spawn positions, items, player (re)spawn locaion and simple stuff like that.

The game developers just have to make sure, that all the AI elements such as AI nodes work, so if you toss a helichopter into a game, it knows how to fly in the given level right away.Same with any other NPC.They have to know, how to navigate the world without player having to program theyr AI.The AI nodes and stuff can be difficuly for most players to work with, so that part has to be done by developers.Also, make it so, that players can tell AI, which areas to defend and which to attack.Some NPCs are also meant to be static or stick to certain area/building/room.Now, think about all the possible scenarios you could have in a same exact village? An infinite?

And for finally, i love stats.The stats in Left 4 Dead where fantastic, though i don't like zombie apocalypse theme much.I just like stats system in that game.