Ramm-Jaeger and his views on the Console Mod development

  • 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/

Aeneas2020

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 23, 2006
1,016
1
0
kinda off topic but it is unlikely that IW that make CoD would license a the UE3 engine their previous games were based on quake 3 tech (yes even cod2 and cod3, made by treyarch, highly modified of course). Their engine history and alligience to activision which tends to favour Id engine games (check the percentages) would suggest the next cod games will eithe be built with their own engine or with something other than UE3...also as far as i was aware MOH:Airborne had its own engine, please correct me if im wrong.
 

WickedPenguin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
669
8
0
Miami, FL
ut2004.wickedpenguin.com
Since RO:Ost was released, there have been a million theories as to what the next TWI game will be.

Regardless of what the subject matter is, there is one thing to consider: the business end of things. What this means is that whatever they make needs to appeal to a certain amount of people so they can sell a good amount of units. I don't mean they need to sell out by adding crosshairs and arcadey compromises. I just mean that the setting itself needs to be chosen carefully in order to appeal to the market.

It would be amazing to have a Winter War game, or a Romanian Front game, or a Japanese-Russo war, or an Afghan invasion, or a Cuban Revolution, or a Spanish Civil War. However, the fact is there are an unfortunate amount of people outside of this forum who don't know or care where Finland is (and that - wow- they kicked Russia's ass?), or who the Mujahadeen were. Zero awareness = zero interest = zero sales.

At least RO:Ost combined two countries that people were familiar with, Russia and Germans. They may have not known they fought each other (lol, RO as alternate history) but they knew who they were.

Maybe I'm selling the average Joe short, but in conversations over the years I've gotten the impression that apparently the only wars fought in the 20th century involved Americans.

The things I think are possibilties are:

* The Korean War: It has never been done to my knowledge, at least as an FPS. This is the last stand of "classical" warfare before missiles and satellites took warfare out of visual range. Lots of WWII weapons mixing it up with early Cold War weaponry. (Scoped PTRS= woohoo!) It has the Americans, so that right there is a market selling point. Also, it has many different types of battlefields, from mountains to marine amphibious invasions.

* Eastern Front Redux: A bigger, badder Ostfront. Stock usable mortars and AT guns, more complex destructible environments, a King Tiger for all of the whiners, improved physics, visible damage on vehicles, etc. Also, it could feature the addition of the other countries involved in the conflict, such as Romania and Poland. Plus, a campaign mode tied in with the streaming map technology that would allow servers to set the game up as a real war, being waged back and forth across the continent from battlefield to battlefield. I hope the latter gets implemented in whatever they decide to do.

* World War I:
Bolt-actions, early machine guns, early tanks, early aviation, and some nasty trench warfare. It would feature major players such as the British, French, Germans, Russians, and Americans in one game. Hell, we'd still be using the Mosin Nagant on the Russian side. :) I don't know how successful this would be since WWI is perceived as pretty stagnant (trenches) compared to the highly mobile combat of later wars.
 

SchutzeSepp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 23, 2006
1,540
8
0
36
* The Korean War: It has never been done to my knowledge, at least as an FPS. This is the last stand of "classical" warfare before missiles and satellites took warfare out of visual range. Lots of WWII weapons mixing it up with early Cold War weaponry. (Scoped PTRS= woohoo!) It has the Americans, so that right there is a market selling point. Also, it has many different types of battlefields, from mountains to marine amphibious invasions.

i mostly agree with your thread^^
but not with the korean war,
what amazes me about RO is the huge amount of eastern europeans and russians who play the game. because the game is about them!

a korean war game will appeal to americans and koreans, eventually british...
but i couldnt care less about the korean war, and i would feel no satisfaction at all the play as a korean guy.

THat is why ww2 is always popular, because many people feel related to it.
 

DirtyRat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 12, 2006
1,623
59
0
Glasgow
www.outlawgamers.com
kinda off topic but it is unlikely that IW that make CoD would license a the UE3 engine their previous games were based on quake 3 tech (yes even cod2 and cod3, made by treyarch, highly modified of course). Their engine history and alligience to activision which tends to favour Id engine games (check the percentages) would suggest the next cod games will eithe be built with their own engine or with something other than UE3...also as far as i was aware MOH:Airborne had its own engine, please correct me if im wrong.

MoH:Airborne was indeed using its own crappy engine, but then EA decided to go UE3 with it, which is what lead to the delays.

I agree CoD has always used the Quake Engine, indeed even the latest CoD iterations are just on the Quake 3 engine with some internal additions added...one of the reasons I was so dissapointed with COD2, as it was obviously the same game, just with better textures and badly optimised DX9 fx!

The engine they have developed for Quake Wars: Enemy Territory looks very impressive with its megatexture technology, I think if that game does well, we could see a bout of FPS games come out using that engine, but UE3 is winning awards galore, because of its fantastic toolset, support and flexibility for use on different genres, I cant see the Quake engine being much competition.

--

I agree with WPs post with regards war setting etc.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
kinda off topic but it is unlikely that IW that make CoD would license a the UE3 engine their previous games were based on quake 3 tech (yes even cod2 and cod3, made by treyarch, highly modified of course). Their engine history and alligience to activision which tends to favour Id engine games (check the percentages) would suggest the next cod games will eithe be built with their own engine or with something other than UE3...also as far as i was aware MOH:Airborne had its own engine, please correct me if im wrong.


What allegience>?? Perhaps you are unaware, but BOTH IW (Infinity Ward) and GMI (Grey Matter Inc. absorbed into Treyarch) were bought out by Activision over a year ago. Absolutely no major policy decisions are now made by either IW or Treyarch without Activsion's approval.

Yes IW and Treyarch use the Q3 engine to one degree or another. Because if its age, much of the Q3 engine as used in the CoD Franchise is now heavily modified by both IW and Treyarch.

__________________

MOH:Airborne will indeed be a "cut above" according to Blackhat and Patrick Gilmore. All because of the UE3 engine. Of course, all the hype in the world does not make a game better or worse, the actual gameplay will tell all.

The UE3 engine is in fact, breaking all kinds of new ground and establishing records left and right. I can only imagine what RO will be like running with the new engine.

As for scenarios... Frankly whatever the TW team comes up is fine by me as long as its WW2.
 
Last edited:

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
Maybe I'm selling the average Joe short, but in conversations over the years I've gotten the impression that apparently the only wars fought in the 20th century involved Americans.

As a matter of fact WP, the Americans were involved, not as you put it; "apparently the only wars fought in the 20th century involved Americans" but I must point out, the Americans were there because they were needed. That comment is so disrespectful and out of line, I can honestly say its upsetting. Unfortunately you've either inadvertantly or unknowingly left out the facts about the Americans being either forced or begged to enter into those wars. Additionally, you seem to have forgotten the personal sacrifices of each and every American and every other person in the Allied Nations. Thanks!

Please, for record with no flames intended.

All the direct and indirect anti-american remarks are getting old. My Father and Mother, Uncles and Aunts who sacrificed for the WW2 years, my uncles who like many others gave their lives, need NOT be dismissed or ignored because of current anti-Bush sentiments or bashing Americans being in vogue. The USA of WW2 is/was NOT the USA of today.

I lived through the war years and remember the food rationing, gas stamps, war stamps and war bonds etc... The darkened troop trains and freight lines with flatcars loaded with tanks and trucks of every description passing by our house more than once a day! I may have been young but dammit, I was aware. I clearly remember the crying and sorrow when the news came that a loved one was KIA. Not just in our family but in the entire neighborhood. It seemed like it was happening every day.

The Americans gave willingly and generously to all the ALLIES... the folks at home were never really under attack or, understood what horror and death war brings home. They did however, understand the hurt and sorrow and as a result, they gave until it hurt and then gave more. The Americans were indeed the arsenal of the allied world during WW2. Before you go blowing us off as "inconsequential" do the research and see who supplied ALL the Allies.

Please, remember the ALLIES won the war. Not just the Americans or any other single Allied country for that matter..
 
Last edited:

melipone

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2006
1,672
259
0
I don't think he's bashing USA, just commenting on the average gamer's knowledge of 20th Century history...

Anyway. IMO TW already has a good market: US...what usually goes wrong with sequals is the attempt to get more interest by appealing to a bigger market. What generally happens when you do this is you fail to appeal to the original core market AND the product isn't liked by the new market. It happens in music, games, films...and they usually fail completely. I know its still going to be a realism game, but if you go down the route of trying to appeal to people that think only games featuring Americans are worth playing then you're going to get players that won't like the core RO-style gameplay and it won't be a hit with them anyway. What will happen then is the gameplay will start being altered to make it more suitable for these new players. Just stick to what makes RO a great game: unusual setting and hardcore (comparatively) gameplay.

If I were TWI I would just make a game that grabs the core market again. People that just want to play games featuring USA probably wouldn't like games that are like RO anyway. Anyway USA weapons are boring. Mostly semi auto's aren't they? If they did make another USA game then I personally wouldn't enjoy it as much as RO simply because of the type of weapons you get, and because the teams would be quite unbalanced wouldn't they.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
I don't think he's bashing USA, just commenting on the average gamer's knowledge of 20th Century history...

I never said HE.... was bashing anyone.

Anyway. IMO TW already has a good market: US...what usually goes wrong with sequals is the attempt to get more interest by appealing to a bigger market. What generally happens when you do this is you fail to appeal to the original core market AND the product isn't liked by the new market. It happens in music, games, films...and they usually fail completely.

Very true.. in depth demographic analysis should help.

I know its still going to be a realism game, but if you go down the route of trying to appeal to people that think only games featuring Americans are worth playing then you're going to get players that won't like the core RO-style gameplay and it won't be a hit with them anyway. What will happen then is the gameplay will start being altered to make it more suitable for these new players. Just stick to what makes RO a great game: unusual setting and hardcore (comparatively) gameplay.

My personal feeling is TW should add to what they have now and include the Western European Front including the Brits, Poles, Swedes, Czechs, Free French and the Americans in one or more roles.

If I were TWI I would just make a game that grabs the core market again. People that just want to play games featuring USA probably wouldn't like games that are like RO anyway. Anyway USA weapons are boring. Mostly semi auto's aren't they? If they did make another USA game then I personally wouldn't enjoy it as much as RO simply because of the type of weapons you get, and because the teams would be quite unbalanced wouldn't they.

I refuse to assume anything.. as we all know what assume really means. I say TW should definitely appeal to its core market but at the same time, expand its horizons and envelope the rest of the European theater with ALL of its participants in accurate, memorable battles.

I won't address your negative comments about US weapons... except to say they were far from boring and were readily accepted by our Allies. Just look at what the Brits did with the Sherman... I'd love to see the Firefly in the game.

The Thompson was far from semi-auto only, as the BAR was also far from semi-auto only. Then comes the heavier weapons... you had better do some in-depth research about US weapons before claiming they are/were boring.
 

RedGuardist

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 14, 2006
1,697
349
0
40
My personal feeling is TW should add to what they have now and include the Western European Front including the Brits, Poles, Swedes, Czechs, Free French and the Americans in one or more roles.

Sorry Mike for this nitpicking, but now I have to correct you.

Only Swedes who fought the war were the couple hundred volunteers in Winter war. And they did not see that much action, though they were preciated.

Ofcourse selling ore to germany would on the other hand make an interesting game, but not in RO genre.:) (No fence dear neighbours. Just a bad joke.)
 

melipone

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2006
1,672
259
0
I just mean I find the gameplay you get with them less interesting than when its mostly bolt actions like in RO. I don't know how many bolts there were generally used by US troops, but I assume the semi-auto (and full auto) to bolt ratio was quite different to most other countries
 

{FUX}busterhyman

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 10, 2006
175
0
0
personaly i like RO because it excludes america, and therefore alot of the fools that will only play a video game that glorifies thier countries role within that perticular conflict. Lets not begin to argue about who saved who or what country is the most evil.
including the americans in the next episode of RO is IMHO a mistake. yes it would be considered "selling out" to market the newer game version to a less aware society. no doubt TW will lose a good bit of the fanbase that brought them this far. There are alot of community members who will prolly move on because they liked how the game made you think and learn. perhaps you might consider all the interesting things that people can learn from playing a game that is just a bit beyond the realm of what they know. making the next version for the masses sounds like something i hope doesnt happen. after all if you make another DOD, BF2, COD game, what makes you think that you will stand out? i really would like to see TW expand the game, just in a far less american focused way.
 

Amarok

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 11, 2006
114
0
0
57
Costa Blanca, Spain
Mostly semi auto's aren't they? If they did make another USA game then I personally wouldn't enjoy it as much as RO simply because of the type of weapons you get, and because the teams would be quite unbalanced wouldn't they.
Erm... as would have been the german, soviet and any others if they'd been capable to produce semi-autos for everybody. I don't really know what may be boring for you, but it's a matter of taste anyway.

The teams would be as unbalanced as right now, as the best german weapons were better than the best allied weapons... just not enough figures. Imagine germany would have been capable to produce i.e. as much Panthers as Russia T34s, or as much Tiger II as IS 2... and had enough fuel and ammunition for them, of course. So if it is possible to balance in the east, should also be possible to balance the west front, isn't it?
 

SgtH3nry3

FNG / Fresh Meat
Yes, I totally agree with WickedPenguin.

From a business perspective, they would probably go for another Ostfront or anything that comes very close.
Why?

Well, because they simply put CAN'T FAIL with this option.
They are familliar with it, the community is familliar with it.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
Sorry Mike for this nitpicking, but now I have to correct you.

Only Swedes who fought the war were the couple hundred volunteers in Winter war. And they did not see that much action, though they were preciated.

Ofcourse selling ore to germany would on the other hand make an interesting game, but not in RO genre.:) (No fence dear neighbours. Just a bad joke.)

Here's 'nother box of nits.... hahahahahahahhaha

The Winter War however, was a very interesting scenario. If I'm not mistaken the Russians got handed their "whatis" on a silver platter.. It gave Papa Joe second thoughts.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
I just mean I find the gameplay you get with them less interesting than when its mostly bolt actions like in RO. I don't know how many bolts there were generally used by US troops, but I assume the semi-auto (and full auto) to bolt ratio was quite different to most other countries


In that respect you are correct.... but if you do the research, what was it a German General said as he inspected the Garand? The Garand in the battlefield was murderous.
 

WickedPenguin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
669
8
0
Miami, FL
ut2004.wickedpenguin.com
As a matter of fact WP, the Americans were involved, not as you put it; "apparently the only wars fought in the 20th century involved Americans" but I must point out, the Americans were there because they were needed. That comment is so disrespectful and out of line, I can honestly say its upsetting. Unfortunately you've either inadvertantly or unknowingly left out the facts about the Americans being either forced or begged to enter into those wars. Additionally, you seem to have forgotten the personal sacrifices of each and every American and every other person in the Allied Nations. Thanks!

Wow, relax. You are really going off for no reason. Ok, first-off, I am American. Secondly, I was making a comment on the general public's lacking knowledge of military history.

Ask people on a typical U.S. street who defeated Germany in WWII, they'll more than likely say the Americans. (This is partially true of course since our bombing and our western front heavily damaged or captured the German war machine's industrial complex - but it was the Soviets that broke the German back). Ask who invaded Berlin. They'll say the Americans. Far too many people here do not recognize the involvement of Great Britain, Canada, USSR, Romania, Australia, Poland (poor bastards), Finland, or other countries in what they consider American wars. In both WWII and WWI, combatants had been slugging it out for years before any noticeable amount of American blood was shed. I guess you could say we were tie-breakers or spoilers in a way, since we helped enable the combat to resume in the Allied favor. However, we certainly didn't do it alone.

All I'm saying is that this perception is unfortunate, and from a gaming perspective doesn't help sales. I'm thankful that the IL-2 series had the guts to throw in so many nations so we could experience the war from all sides. I hope TWI can pull of something similar to that, so we can really get a taste of different nations' experiences. I'd really like to hunt some Russians with my Finnish Suomi SMG in the middle of an arctic night. :)

ALL of the Allies AND the Axis countries should get their due. I just hope market forces allow for it.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
personaly i like RO because it excludes america, and therefore alot of the fools that will only play a video game that glorifies thier countries role within that perticular conflict. Lets not begin to argue about who saved who or what country is the most evil.

Nobody has claimed any country to be "evil"........ YOU brought up that ugliness.

including the americans in the next episode of RO is IMHO a mistake. yes it would be considered "selling out" to market the newer game version to a less aware society. no doubt TW will lose a good bit of the fanbase that brought them this far. There are alot of community members who will prolly move on because they liked how the game made you think and learn.

Nice... including the Americans along with the other allies would be selling out. What a concept!! Selling out to whom or what?? Perhaps the USA "sold out" by supplying the Allies? There is always the slight chance the huge USA consumer market might like to see their GI's in the fray also? Thus dramatically boosting RO sales. Less aware - in WHAT respect? Eight out of every ten American families have a WW2 veteran among them. What unaware! It appears the market we now have in many instances, is unaware of many true historical facts. I won't move on if they include the Brits & Americans. In fact, I'll go the distance promoting the game as the most accurate FPS representation of the WW2 European Theater available. Is there something wrong with that?

perhaps you might consider all the interesting things that people can learn from playing a game that is just a bit beyond the realm of what they know. making the next version for the masses sounds like something i hope doesnt happen. after all if you make another DOD, BF2, COD game, what makes you think that you will stand out? i really would like to see TW expand the game, just in a far less american focused way.

Ah yes.... a derisive, convoluted reasoning to exclude major players in WW2. What would people/players learn from that? Ahem.... your bias is showing. I believe we should see the whole story, especially the Brits and Americans accurately portrayed, along with the current cast of characters, in a future release. After all, everyone is always yapping about historical accuracy... to purposely exclude ANYONE destroys any concept of "accuracy". Instead it becomes political. That is the last thing that should be perceived.

TW has a real and genuine winner on their hands... they should run the entire gamut and produce a blockbuster that portrays the ENTIRE EUROPEAN THEATER. After all, they rightfully deserve the success. Why anyone would campaign that they stay in their niche and remain "small potatoes" is not only selfish, its incomprehensible.
 

SchutzeSepp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 23, 2006
1,540
8
0
36
i also think there is no need to change wich theatre the game would cover, if they make it as easy to mod as it is now, or more easy, then again the community will take it in hands. therefor any of the major WW2 theatres is a good choice for the next game. thats why a non-ww2 theatre is a verry bad choice, because to mod it to ww2 you would need to start from ZERO.
and nearly every war after WW2 reached hardly to the scale of an average WW2 campaign.

but again all this doesnt matter, what really matters is HOW they will make the game.
if they just do a remake of RO but about vietnam, then i would call that a joke.
what i expect they will do is to make a game that is so realistic, with features we didnt even know existed, a game that will make RO-ost look like a 1960's ww2 movie compared to it.

if you think the ww2 genre is dead, then you probably thought "band of brothers" shouldnt have been made... or didn't you??
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
Wow, relax. You are really going off for no reason. Ok, first-off, I am American. Secondly, I was making a comment on the general public's lacking knowledge of military history.

I'm not "going off" as you say, WP. I'm simply offering a responsible, informed and strenuous counter opinion.

Ask people on a typical U.S. street who defeated Germany in WWII, they'll more than likely say the Americans. (This is partially true of course since our bombing and our western front heavily damaged or captured the German war machine's industrial complex - but it was the Soviets that broke the German back). Ask who invaded Berlin. They'll say the Americans.

Sure, the Soviets nailed the Germans on the eastern front... with extensive help via US supplies. The German backbone was BROKEN by the USA, British and their allies when Germany tried to push through Bastogne to the coast attempting to divide the Allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge.

Germany had brought its finest from the Eastern Front and central Europe along with its meager resources of old men and young teens in a last ditch effort using their best armored divisions. The German High Command advised Hitler against such a move to no avail. That's the "when and where" Germany got its back broken... Patton and Monty hammered the Germans. When the Germans capitulated at The Bulge, they were all but done. Further, the only reason the Russians went into Berlin first was because Patton was ordered to hold back the US Third Army and not to go in first. Had he been allowed, Patton would have been there well before the Russians.

Far too many people here do not recognize the involvement of Great Britain, Canada, USSR, Romania, Australia, Poland (poor bastards), Finland, or other countries in what they consider American wars. In both WWII and WWI, combatants had been slugging it out for years before any noticeable amount of American blood was shed.

Because they do not recognize the depth of involvement and the contributions those countries made... makes it right?? Sorry, there are some serious misconceptions there. Sure, 1939 and the Blitz were before the Americans were FORMALLY in the war, but truthfully speaking, were Americans not already dying right alongside the Brits, Poles, French, etc..?? Not to mention the American lives lost by the US Navy Gun Crews aboard the ships and US Merchant Marine running the ships before the US formally entered WW2. US Navy Destroyers escorting and guarding the convoys headed for Great Britain that were sunk cost many American lives.

I guess you could say we were tie-breakers or spoilers in a way, since we helped enable the combat to resume in the Allied favor. However, we certainly didn't do it alone.

Tie Breakers - Spoilers?? I wouldn't dare to minimize the US participation in WW2 in such an off-handed manner. You need to re-read your history books... especially those from the UK and Germany... you'll learn some very interesting facts.

All I'm saying is that this perception is unfortunate, and from a gaming perspective doesn't help sales. I'm thankful that the IL-2 series had the guts to throw in so many nations so we could experience the war from all sides. I hope TWI can pull of something similar to that, so we can really get a taste of different nations' experiences. I'd really like to hunt some Russians with my Finnish Suomi SMG in the middle of an arctic night. :)

ALL of the Allies AND the Axis countries should get their due. I just hope market forces allow for it.

Believe me, the market is not only ready - its begging for TWI's composition of the RO accuracy and gameplay for the ENTIRE EUROPEAN THEATER. I firmly believe TWI can walk away a huge winner. I've heard and read nothing but "where are the Canadians, Americans, Australians, Poles, Free French etc".. but especially one hears the cry for the Canadians, British and Americans done with the accuracy TWI is known for. TWI will undoubtedly be a big winner.
 
Last edited: