realism vs playability?

[bootneckofficer]

these are questions to all the community,

At what point can we say a mission is too realistic (time wise) so as to be unplayable or boring??

As most real life missions would take over an hour/ hour an half does a balance have to be made to so that realism is as high as possible but the mission is still entertaining (short enough for the average opf gamer to enjoy)?

Can a long mission still be entertaining if it had features (ie music, cutscenes) that kept you entertained (not necessarily more enemy troops)

bootneckofficer

[Kendo J]

Dear Bootneck,
 this is a good question, in my opinion i love realistic missions. However, there must be a level of editor involvement to ensure the mission isn't boring.

Most importantly, OFP gives us all the opertunity to build both realistic and arcade style missions. It just turns out that i have more fun reaserching and constructing realistic mission than playing them (even if they suck sometimes).

I have attempted to make an arcade style mission where there is lots of action but it sucked so i stuck to what i knew.  if you see it don't play it... "kendos nam"

Furthermore, I enjoy playing both style missions. The dynamic campaign w/ jam2 is a good example of an arcade style game and it is amazing to play. where as some of the CoC missions give you the other aspec of ofp that makes gameplay so good and that is command and planning. giving all the levels of experience in a war simulation.

Kind regards
Kendo

[Mikero]

I think you need to play Abandoned Armies on the Beta forum and as a consequence, re-think your question. It's a *minimum* of 18 hour mission time. Not the time you will actually spent immersed in it, the minimum amount on the game clock from approx 6am to about midnight.

The context of a player being 'held' for about an hours game play is out the window.

[General Barron]

In terms of mission time length, a 'real life' combat mission might involve a 3 hr hike out of friendly lines to the objective. There is no way anyone would play such a realistic mission. Nor could it even be made in OFP, since soldiers can run indefinately (arcadish gameplay is built in, to a certain degree).

However, I'm not against a 1-2 km hike in OFP. Any more than that, and I think it gets tedious. Usually I get impatient and hit time accel, then I either (a) get killed if there are enemies along the way, or (b) encounter no enemies whatsoever and feel like I just wasted my time. A short hike where you have to watch out for enemy patrols without hitting time accel can be tense and rewarding, but don't stretch it too far.

Another aspect of realism, IMO, is how many friendly forces you have with you. Most missions involve the player single-handedly (by himself or with his squad) turning the course of battle. Many don't even have any other friendly elements to speak of whatsoever. That's fine, but it is definately arcadish. I'd say the perfect balance would be where the player has to do just a little bit in order for his side to win. It may sound easy, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun. More bullets flying = more immersion.

[bootneckofficer]

@mikero

was the abandoned armies mission all action? or was there long periods of no combat?

@ everybody

so in effect, it is possible to say that ofp is arcade realism, in the sense that it will be realistic up until the point where the realism makes the mission boring,
i only ask these questions as a mission im making would (realistically take 24 hours (dawn til dawn)) but seeing as most/all players 1.do not have the time 2.couldnt be bothered   the mission will have cutscenes for specific events during the day/night and then skiptime to the action so that it keeps the "sense" of it being a real mission, but still playable, even if it does take 3 or 4 hours!

bootneckofficer

[Mikero]

>was there long periods of no combat?

in order to stay alive, i'd say half was no combat at all.

Although it seemingly contradicts GenBarron (and I heartily endorse what he is saying), the key element is 'suspense', 'terror', 'excitement' and blah. In fact, 1/3rd of the mission is spent doing precisely what Gbarron says is the recipe.

But, there's only one real way you'll find out, n'est pas?

[dmakatra]

It's all about atmosphere and the mood of the player. If I'm in the right mood and if the mission makes clear that this is a realistic mission, I have no problem crossing half of Kolgujev.

If however the mission maker make me feel like this is a mission that isn't realistic and I'm not really in the "right" OFP-mood, then I have no problem playing a simple take & hold-mission.

Mikero, I wouldn't exactley see Abandoned Armies as 'realistic'. It has the non-fighting scenes of a realistic mission but when after all, it is kind of arcadic, isn't it? Doesn't mean it isn't good.

In MP, it also depends a LOT on the players. If you're playing on a public server you'll probably not even manage to keep in formation, nevertheless perform delicate military maneuvers. This could be fun on more unrealistic missions. If however, playing with TS on a private server with friends that you know and with a realistic mission, you (at least not me) have no problem walking across half Kolgujev.

To sum it upp; you can't do "wrong" and you can't do "right" when it comes to the age-old playability/realism-question. Every player will think differently depending on their taste and mood. When I was an active scripter I usually made (or at least started... ) as realistic missions as my knowledge allowed me.

:beat: *Gets Shot* :beat:

[nominesine]

I have enjoyed sniper/stealth missions where I lie motionless for one hour, watching, observing, waiting for the right time to attack. Mostly in MP deathmatches against several human oponents. The key element, I would say, is the feeling that "something might happen any minute now". If that feeling goes away, it becomes boring to wait. As long as the feeling is there, I can wait for up to two hours before I fire my first shot.

[.pablo.]

when thinking about the timing/pace of a mission, you have to consider that there are other characteristics of ofp which will come into play.  for example, in r/l you might walk 3 hours to get into position, but you might also then get into a 3 hour firefight, with both sides dug in/pinned down/etc.  this doesn't happen in ofp.  so it becomes necessary to kind of "scale" the timing down, so that a player won't have to walk a realistic 3 hours in order to experience an unrealistic 3 minutes of fighting.

i think phaeden of the wargames mod said it best:

Overall, in order to keep the general [realistic] feel of the WGL total conversion, it is necessary to alter individual components which, when looked at individually, may not appear to support 'realism.' However, when taken as a whole, each subsystem supports each other component to create a thoroughly realistic and enjoyable simulation experience.

[LoTekK]

I personally think that balance, in this context, doesn't necessarily have to eschew realism per se. To me, the key is not that you painstakingly depict all of the things that happen in real life, but that the immersion factor is there. Sure, many patrols may end up being fairly unventful, but I don't need to experience that first hand in a game. As a mission designer, you could, for example, simply have some banter at the beginning of a patrol mission where the player or his squaddies complain about "yet another boring patrol" or something to that effect. After which you throw a reinforced platoon at them partway through.

Same goes for insertions. If you're planning on an insertion route through completely unpopulated terrain, use a cutscene. Skip out the boring bits. If you're going to make the player trek 4 km to the objective, make sure there's something to do along the way, be it sightseeing or dodging enemy patrols. Nothing annoys me in a game more than a half hour trek through completely unpopulated terrain. It's a waste of the player's time, and doesn't serve to keep him/her engaged.

I'll have to be honest. a 24-hour (real time) mission does not sound at all engaging. At the very least, there are going to be precious few people who would be willing to sit through that long of a mission, especially if it incorporates, say, 8 hours of lull as the enemy forces regroup for a counterattack at dusk. If there's going to be 8 hours of lull, use a cutscene.

There could be exceptions to this, however. If, for example, you could actually use those 8 hours to accomplish something that would affect future events, you might have something going. Say, during the enemy regroup, the player could send out scouts (or lead a scouting mission himself) to assess the enemy disposition. Or send out a sniper team for the purpose of demoralizing the enemy by taking out key combat personnel. You'd have to keep it thoroughly engaging, though, because 24 hours is a long time. I think nominesine's point about there having to be the anticipation factor is spot on. If the player knows that the enemy counterattack, for example, won't happen for another 8 hours, then it's simply 8 hours of waiting that can be easily avoided.

[dmakatra]

I must both agree and disagree with you LoTekK. As a hobby film director I know that silence and tense waiting is one helluva good tool in making a good action scene. Not knowing when or even if the enemy will come is perhaps the most nerve-cracking feeling you will ever get in OFP.

For example, one of my best OFP experiences ever is from Devilchaser's Nightwatch (yes, yes, I know it censors it. It's Night-watch). In it, you are supposed to guard a tree line from a Soviet invasion. First time I played it I accidentally did not trigger the attack (by not talking to my CO at the start of the mission) and stood with my small guard team at the tree line for like 45 or 50 minutes without anything happening. I know it sounds stupid but I was scared shitless. I had already used up my claymores and just about every M16 round I had shooting at what I though was attacking russians.

However, I do agree that the player can absorb an extreme amount of "boring" elements if only he's motivated enough to do it. How many hours I've spent loading AK74's onto a truck in 'em resistance campaigns (especially McHale's The Partisian, that campaign is simply brilliant) I do not know. But you keep doing it because it's vital for your own survival. If someone would create a mission where one of the objectives is 'transport 50 AK74s to your camp' for no reason, hardly anyone would put up with it.

Just my two cents.

:beat: *Gets Shot* :beat:

[LoTekK]

Good points, dmakatra, and I have to agree. Suspense and anticipation are definitely very important factors. The key here is that there is something to anticipate. This could be anything from an impending infantry assault, to enemy patrols, or even civilians friendly to the enemy who may leg it upon sighting you and report your location to enemy forces.

Pertaining to the examples I gave in my previous post (and bootneckofficer, I'm not saying that you would do this, these were simply examples off the top of my head), with a 4km hike to your objective, you'll want to throw something into the fray to keep the player on his or her toes. Whether or not the player actually encounters these things is another matter entirely. The point is that there may be enemy patrols en route, for example. If you leave the ingress route entirely unoccupied, you may as well have a cutscene, or simply start the player closer to the objective.

In the defense example, if you keep some random elements involved, an 8 hour wait may actually work. Well, to an extent, anyways. Say, as the mission starts up, your squad/platoon is preparing for an enemy dusk assault. If you successfully repel the attacking forces, they may decide to wait til dawn before attacking again, in order to regroup. In the meantime, as you wait, they could send out probing attacks. Say, a mortar team sets up somewhere away from the main group and starts lobbing shells at your position. You may decide to just dig in and wait it out, hoping for the best, or you could send out a fireteam or squad to take care of the offending mortar team. Or the enemy could send out small infantry teams to harass your unit.

Now the kicker is this. If you do a piss poor job of taking care of these threats, the enemy may just decide to press home the advantage and attack sooner. Say, the mortar team manages to take out your .50cal, or your own mortars. Or the harassing teams take out a good portion of your manpower over the course of the night. This would absolutely give the player some purpose for the waiting. The enemy may decide to not send out any advance teams or shell your position, but the player doesn't know that intrinsically. I think this would give a good amount of suspense and anticipation, and also serve to give the waiting period a purpose.

[dmakatra]

I couldn't say it any better myself. I totally agree with you.

One thing I miss in 99% of all "frontline hikes" is dialog. Talking to your soldiers, or soldiers talking between themselves. Your CO going through the mission one more time or someone talking about how many babes he got during his last leave in Petrovice.

In MP, this doesn't have to be there. If you're playing serious you might want to practise your formation or tactics before you actually get to the frontline. I play a lot of MP games with the SFP (Swedish Forces Pack) team and there's a mission in their forum called Captives. In it you and your team are to infiltrate enemy territory and rescue a POW. Before you actually get to the frontline there's about a 500-1000 meter walk. We usually use this time to go over the mission and how the leader wants the formation and subteams. This way we're already prepared (as we've already walked in the wanted formation for 500 meters) when we actually reach the frontline.

:beat: *Gets Shot* :beat:

[Mikero]

The more missions I play, the more I've come to the opinion that the basic critical ingredient is storyline. A player will forgive many sins if it 'makes sense' to the story, to what he's expected to achieve, why he's where he is and etc.

No amount of fierce firefights (which ultimately become monotonic) beat it.

naturally and of course, this is hardly _the_ answer, but it goes a long way to explain (for me) what works, what doesn't. Whether it takes 5 minutes to complete, or a week, if the storyline backs up the rest, that's the key.

[bedges]

3 words - suspension of disbelief.

it is a game. no getting around that. a friend was telling me recently about his experiences with doom III, about how he could play the game as just that, a piece of software which has certain patterns and outcomes. alternatively, he could draw the blinds, stick on the surround-sound, sit with his face an inch from the screen and immerse himself in the experience, thoroughly scaring the wits out of him in the process.

for me, good flashpoint missions allow suspension of disbelief very easily. all of the points made above contribute to this - storyline, believeability, timing, balance. in gubes' "making good missions" he tells us to ask why something is there, why these loons are doing this, all to contribute to believeability.

if a mission designer simply puts an enemy squad where he knows the player is going to be to create some action, that slips into the realms of arcade. as mentioned above, sometimes a player will be in the mood for a fragfest. sometimes the player will be in the mood to fire up abandoned armies and see how stamanov is getting on in his 15th hour of gameplay...

the point is, if you veer towards either extreme, either realistic or arcade, eventually the player will be disappointed. in the realistic case, no matter how many ultra-detailed, true-to-life addons are included, no matter how realistic the situation, the ai loons will always act stupidly at times. in the arcade sense, the player can run around fragging and blasting and still be taken out with a single shot from out of nowhere, instead of the usual taking-hits-until-health-bar-reaches-zero.

as with most things, balance is the key, and i think mikero is right in saying the storyline is a major factor in this. when watching a film or tv show, how many times do you as a viewer think "hmmm, i'm sat here watching a film or tv show..."? if it's a bad film, you know it. you feel like you're wasting your time. if it's a good film, you sit there for 3 hours and want to go back in after it's finished. why? storyline, characterisation... in short - suspension of disbelief.