• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Black Foot Studios: Ground Branch

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
O

Omar The Insurgent

Grizzled Veteran
Mar 23, 2006
255
109
#1
I'm surprised nobody made a thread about this. Its basically a brand new tactical game in development by team consisted of people from original rainbow six series and an experienced mod maker (infiltration). They are striving to make a new standard in tactical shooters. What made me interested in it is that they are going the radical way developing it so it should be something completely new in the genre. They are using NORG (The Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) as foundation of the game. Its name is Ground Branch and here are some links to get you started on reading:
Always friendly and very active forum
http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showforum=13
Exclusive interview
http://www.paniczoom.eu/story-350-pz-exclusive-interview--part-i.html
 
Last edited:
#6
Overall it looks interesting. The premis is so cliche though. That said, I'm more concerned about the gameplay. The new sights system sounds promising, but it's one of those "wait and see" things.

Problem I have is that the theory is to build what the community want. That's all very nice, but reading through what that particular community want is a sobering experience. Seems like most of them are console players and want crosshairs, cookie cutter gameplay and as many elements from crap like "R6 Vegas", "Lockdown" and "GRAW" as they can get. Thankfully Hatchetforce (one of the devs) seems to have a sensible head on his shoulders.

I'll watch this one with casual interest, but without much expectation. They can claim it's going to be wonderful as loudly as they like, but until they have something solid to back up the claims, I'm staying wary.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Looks good enough, for me that is.
As long as gameplay is good, i can deal with bad, mediocre or great graphics, doesnt matter at all to me.

i do wish people would stop making middle-eastern combat games, im getting tired of it.
I wish someone would make something eastern-european again, like stalker and Operation Flashpoint (style of houses etc) in a cold war style setting or something similar.
I just love the old soviet feeling.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Funny you should say that. They're screaming this very instant over on the flashpoint boards that ArmA 2's US vs Russia yet again and why can't they do something new, wah, wah, waaaah, etc.

Of course, that's only one small complaint in a sea of angst, but still, you get the idea.

That said, those doing the complaining are begging for an original conflict involving a European nation against either another European nation or an Asian nation. Something no-one's really done before, which would allow for a huge range of brand new weapons, vehicles and terrains. I can't say I'd be against it, since I'm well and truly sick of playing as the Yanks. "US Marines save the day yet again", yeah right. That before or after they bomb a friendly convoy/shoot down a friendly aircraft/ambush a friendly unit?
 
Upvote 0
#10
Omar The Insurgent said:
in development by team consisted of people from original rainbow six series and an experienced mod maker (infiltration).
Click to expand...

Where'd you get that info? according to the interview they did two XBox Ghost Recons... which really doesn't look too promising. But if you're right, it could become awesome.
 
Upvote 0
#12
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN said:
[...]
Problem I have is that the theory is to build what the community want. That's all very nice, but reading through what that particular community want is a sobering experience. Seems like most of them are console players and want crosshairs, cookie cutter gameplay and as many elements from crap like "R6 Vegas", "Lockdown" and "GRAW" as they can get. Thankfully Hatchetforce (one of the devs) seems to have a sensible head on his shoulders.
[...]
Click to expand...

I did not get that impression. Maybe the reason is that you do not necessarily get flamed if you post your opinion.
That mutual respect part is really something I could use a share of sometimes.
 
Upvote 0
#13
It's not about respect, it's about the community not always being right. Sure that's just an opinion, but so's everything else on these boards and theirs will be no exception. I never said anything about flaming or not flaming - you can post your ideas and opinions here and not get flamed for them - but most of the features being "suggested" are so backward it's not funny.

These guys stated that they want to build a uniquely realistic game using their new NORG system to keep it as true as possible and yet people are begging to have things like crosshairs and 3rd person views. If they were to listen to those members of the community, their stated goal would be a lie and they'd be completely disregarding their NORG system.

They can't have their cake and eat it too. That's not how the World works.
 
Upvote 0
#14
They like Ghost Recon and the old Rainbow Six games so at least they have a good taste in games.
Norg sounds to me like it was a marketing gag because they are still developing a game that has to run on an engine after all. Just because they are doing it with their Norg doctrine doesn't make game-problems go away. Like they said with the destructible environments: They try to make it, but they can only make it halfassed because they don't have the resources and manpower to do it any better. So, where was Norg then?
EVERYTHING in a game is related to the resources and manpower necessary to develop it and to the engine and the computers that have to run it in the end. Just because you get your ideas filtered through Norg doesn't help you to go around problems other developers have to face and their stance on destructible environments shows this. In the thread linked above where someone discussed the (dis-)advantage of a zoom feature but the Norg-guy couldn't give him a straight answer as to what it would be like in their game, he just said that that problem doesn't exist due to Norg-thinking and that the poster just didn't get it yet.
Well, explain it then!
Until I read an explanation I can fully understand, Norg remains a marketing gag for me but the fact that they want to break new ground for realism gaming and that they seemingly go for realism first and gameplay-balancing later if at all, and that they like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six makes me confident.
Looks like something at least interesting is coming up there.
 
Upvote 0
#15
You get nasty answers here very fast PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN, did not see that there.
So if someone says he wants to have a crosshair they still discuss the pros and cons - they argue contrary to flame - and as far as I have read there they are opting for iron sights.

For me NORG is not just marketing. It is what they say it is, some kind of mindset they want to base their game on. And after all they themselves have to make sure what they can do, maybe that's why some answers are not satisfying now. Well for me it's same business as allways: Wait and see, and never hold your breath (ok, keeping my fingers crossed maybe). ;)
 
Upvote 0
#17
I don't believe that NORG is a marketing scheme, it was knitted by community after all. You shouldn't really compare BFS to other mainstream developers. Just because others failed to create something revolutionary(they never even tried nothing else except to make $$), it doesn't mean its impossible for others to try. I feel disgusted with gaming industry of today. Yesterday I tried moh airborne demo, its call of duty on steroids. I remember watching gameplay clips of it from november 2006, it was slower paced, iron sights aligned, less shiny-ness, but it looks like EA dictated development because now you get to jump and shoot in ironsights perfectly, you only aim with front iron sight(I guess it was too much view obstructing to have both IS in fuction), you get unlimited ammo with colt .45, etc. etc. Still, thats not what worries me, people that get brainwashed over and over by titles that only have more shiny holywood action and love it, thats what worries me. As far as I'm concerned, Ground Branch all the way. Plus a developer said they are aiming for their title to be constantly upgraded over at least five year period, that means, you wont get Ground Branch 2 with few new maps and 3 new weapons(graw2 anyone?), and original GB would fall in oblivion. I wont get my hopes up high, but in the mist of dark titles swerves one that might just be what people like me are looking for.
 
Upvote 0
#18
You have to bear in mind though, that asking for crosshairs here and asking for crosshairs there are two different things. That game is still in early development and asking for that feature to be added, although abhorrent to me, is still a valid question. By contrast though, RO's been around for 4 or 5 years and the lack of a crosshair has always (well, since the removal in 1.2 - I think it was 1.2 anyway) been touted as one of its distinguishing features.

When someone comes in and requests the reversal of a long standing feature that was a major selling point for the majority of players, well I'm not surprised that they'd get their head bitten off. Nor am I that sympathetic to be honest. That might make me sound like a total bastard, but I don't buy existing games and then try to have them changed, so I feel that others should perhaps do the same.

To be honest though, it doesn't worry me overly much what happens with this Ground Branch game. If they come up with something unique and realistic then I'll be all over it like a rash, but if it ends up being yet another realism/arcade hybrid (with the arcade features making the realistic ones redundant a la CoD) then I'll just forget about it. Yet one more indie developer trying to compete with the big boys in the mediocrity stakes and inevitably failing. That said, I'd still be disappointed. I really want the majority of the gaming industry to stop living in the 90's as they stubbornly continue to do and indie developers are the ones to make it happen.
 
Upvote 0
#19
Here is the thread about iron sights vs. crosshairs: http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93

Btw. the aiming process we have in RO or other iron sight games is not that reallistic either. No kind of high ready in most games, aiming without sights feels more natural and easier in rl than in the games ...
You still can argue that the crosshair is an abstraction, they way it is used in the R6 games.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu