Home   Help Search Login Register  

Author Topic: realism vs playability?  (Read 5145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bootneckofficer

  • Guest
realism vs playability?
« on: 24 Oct 2005, 15:01:31 »
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

Offline Kendo J

  • Members
  • *
  • Britain Has more varieties of cheese than France
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #1 on: 24 Oct 2005, 16:42:22 »
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

Offline Mikero

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • ook?
    • Linux Step by Step
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #2 on: 24 Oct 2005, 16:46:05 »
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.
Just say no to bugz

Offline General Barron

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • Semper Fi!
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #3 on: 24 Oct 2005, 21:58:25 »
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.

HANDSIGNALS COMMAND SYSTEM-- A realistic squad-control modification for OFP
kexp.org-- The best radio station in the world, right here at home! Listen to John Richards!

bootneckofficer

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #4 on: 25 Oct 2005, 00:51:54 »
@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

Offline Mikero

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • ook?
    • Linux Step by Step
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #5 on: 25 Oct 2005, 02:51:29 »
>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?
Just say no to bugz

Offline dmakatra

  • Members
  • *
  • Better known as Armsty
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #6 on: 25 Oct 2005, 13:54:22 »
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:

Offline nominesine

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • I'm NOT back!
    • The IKB Forum
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #7 on: 26 Oct 2005, 21:54:40 »
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.
OFPEC | Intel Depot
RETARDED Ooops... Retired!

Offline .pablo.

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • When in doubt, empty the magazine.
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #8 on: 27 Oct 2005, 03:24:12 »
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:
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 27 Oct 2005, 03:26:14 by .pablo. »

LoTekK

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #9 on: 27 Oct 2005, 18:49:45 »
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.

Offline dmakatra

  • Members
  • *
  • Better known as Armsty
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #10 on: 27 Oct 2005, 19:11:01 »
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

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #11 on: 28 Oct 2005, 12:15:17 »
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.

Offline dmakatra

  • Members
  • *
  • Better known as Armsty
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #12 on: 28 Oct 2005, 17:40:34 »
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:

Offline Mikero

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • ook?
    • Linux Step by Step
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #13 on: 29 Oct 2005, 01:12:07 »
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.

Just say no to bugz

Offline bedges

  • Administrator
  • *****
    • OFPEC The Editing Center
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #14 on: 29 Oct 2005, 12:35:25 »
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.

Offline Blacknite

  • Members
  • *
  • Chiefs runs the navy!
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #15 on: 04 Dec 2005, 05:07:04 »
People demand realism but they play it like an arcade, I dont get it...  I mean, they want realistic patrols and everything, with guards and vehicles (no dogs though), but yet, when we do that, they just arcade it, like go around the bases at the far edge, or just go in loud and take on everybody.  They always look for a, whats the word, a loop hole?  Anyways, if they cant beat it by arcade style, they will complain and say its too realistic or too hard.  If they do beat it by arcade style, they will complain its too easy or unrealistic.  So dont worry about realism, make it hard if you wish or make it easy if you wish, just make it beatable for an average player.  Make it the way you want it.  Or do what some people have done, make it crazy (check out Wolfenstein or the Gauntlet to see what I mean, or see my MP missions, Crazy Race).

ProudPotter2490

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #16 on: 04 Dec 2005, 18:56:52 »
I myself prefer missions that have a realistic setting (base etc...) without the hassle of travling from my base 20 miles south of the objective.

To me, an arcade style shooter reminds me a little of Medal of Honor. One man vs. the world. Fun, but the actual combat is unrealistic. I guess it's the adrenaline rush that makes it so fun.

Operation Flashpoint isn't like that. For me, it get's me thinking. For example, if i'm tasked with taking a base on Kolgujev, how should I approach it? Should I knock on the front door and bang my way in like an idiot or should I sneak in at the flank and blast my in with a Satchel Charge and raid the base. For strategy, Operation Flashpoint is like no other (provided you can remember the radio codes etc...).

With realism, I often think some people take it too far. I am never that impressed with missions that take 24 hours to complete. Some people might disagree with me there, and take nothing from the authors. But often, I ask what is the point.

You'll never please both audiences. I like missions that are 30-40 minutes long... an hour at a push. I like missions that have a high 'replayability' factor. 24 hour missions don't give me any of that. Others might disagree and like the idea of a day long marathon behind the PC.

yankme

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #17 on: 05 Dec 2005, 14:41:45 »
as long as people think its realistic thats one thing, but i get the hint most players just want to shoot something!!!

LoomChild

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #18 on: 05 Dec 2005, 15:12:00 »
ProudPotter is right, one can't make a mission that is good and fun for all players.

But speaking for myself, realism "is the shit". I have played a few missions I realy just can't beat. There's too many enemies, too many choppers, too little ammo, too good an AI-setting, too bad weapons (M92FS isn't good for storming ;) ).

The strange thing is with those missions, I usually enjoy them the most. Because it forces me to think, rethink, think again, take a break and eat something, think again and again and again. I don't mind being outsmarted (well, in the short run I do...). I prefere to sneak and crawl to just run around with a MG blasting everything I see.

Heck, most blast-your-way-through-missions I can usually do by just laying way off from, say, a base that's to be taken and snipe everyone in the base. Because there won't be any patrols comming out of the base. There are no chopper comming to give a birds view to the enemies, no reinforcements are comming (or will drive right into the base and be just as easily sniped)...

Give me a pain in the *** and force me to think. If I want to blast I'll get Q4... ;)

Although, campaigns are a bit different. Don't make missions unbeatable because, well, one wants to be able to continue. But don't give the player a sniper rifle and set all the enemies to "safe" either.  :P

Offline wcrvieira

  • Former Staff
  • ****
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #19 on: 06 Dec 2005, 16:21:09 »
Olá ;)

Now this is a topic ALL mission editors should read  ;D Nothing better than knowing what people are expecting from your mission.
In my humble opinion... I prefer a mix between realism and arcade styles.
I don't mind being in the role of a sentry for 1 hour or 2...like in that FDF campaign mission... It is realistic of course, but can be boring.
I personally use OFP as a real military simulator, for instance...those missions that are just bang-bang...I will hardly play them. Now if a mission makes me think in my squad, in the approach and that stuff, I bet my fingers I will love it.

That's the case of Realistic Combat Patrol...my favourite mission of all time! I MUST think as a squad, and not play as a John Wayne or Rambo...Or like in Rescue Durant where you are so pinned down knowing there is no way out...that you start saving bullets because some loon can come in the worst time ever (like when you run out of bullets from the pistol and the main weapon).

But for instance I also like some arcadeish style missions, I actually made one to myself that eventually submitted it to beta-test. It isn't a realistic mission (well I try to make it to be a bit, in the gear selection and stuff) but for Christ sakes...1 man against almost 65? Of course it isn't realistic. But it was made just for personal enjoyment and to test, test and retest the OFP AI. See how they move, react and engage you... But most of the time I am not in the mood of playing that mission...

Other missions I love are sniper/stealth... taking your time to acquire target, sneak undetected from enemy soldiers...etc...

Concluding: OFP is the best military simulator I ever played (too poor to buy VBS ::)) therefore...a realistic mission will always catch more my attention than an arcadeish style one ;) :P

Dubieman

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #20 on: 07 Dec 2005, 02:55:55 »
This is great seeing everyone's opinion on this. I haven't worked on a mission in so long, I feel out of the loop but I always liked the realistic missions. Not overly hard, but passes the test for realism "whatever that is, different for everyone". A mission in the sweet spot like that, real enough that its not me vs the Russian army and not so real as to make me hike 3km and make sure I catch enough Zzzs, that mission is one I want to play. If I want some bang bang shoot em up action then I'll do Halo pc online where stuff blows up and gunfights never end, but you think too. Must think a little otherwise your mind turns to mush....

Hope you get my point... sorta...
Cool topic... 8)

Offline Wolfsbane

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • Rubber Duckie! Mah rubber duckie!!
    • OFP Editing Center
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #21 on: 09 Dec 2005, 21:03:44 »
*Stretches and dusts off the cobwebs*

I remember back in the day, you yung'uns won't recall... When OFP was fresh and smooth like a new born babies bum... In Wolfs Mission Masterclass, *Laughs*, I did a section on this very subject.

What I stated, was that yes, when people play your mission, they will try and cheat their way through it. Why? Various reasons. To see if they can beat the mission, beat the author, find new and inventive ways of dealing with the problems you set them.

The one solution I could find to this problem, was to play test your mission, as the author states in his opening post, arcade style. Play it through properly, attempting to complete it in the way you intended for it to be completed. If that went without issues, then look around and try to complete it by using workarounds, or by using the time speed to alternate how the enemy reacts to your movements. If possible use the scenery and surrounding items to assist you in basically, breaking the mission.

Everytime you find a workaround, jot it down on a notepad, and at the end of the session, summarise, then ammend. For every workaround, figure out a solution.

Someone manages to sneak in and get that chopper from the compound before your realistic pilot blokey manages to get to it?
Question: Does having that chopper ruin the fundamentals of the mission?
Yes - Lock the chopper
No - Leave as is

By increasing passage of time, they can run all the way around your carefully constructed and laid out defence to find a gap that you never expected to be used, and achieve the objective or wreak havoc.
Question: Does that factor ruin the challenge and does it skip important waypoints?
Yes - Place extra units, or create impossible to pass barriers.
No - Leave as is

Gamers are ingenious little creatures, like the pixies that sneak into HuBBas house at night and pleasure him whilst he sleeps. He know's it's happening, he just doesn't know how to stop it.
You need to do it yourself, and see where the flaws appear.
You'll never make it foolproof, but you'll certainly give the sods a run for their money, and if they persist after that point, then nothing except rear end loving from a donkey will make them happy.

:)
The greatest days, with the greatest people.. OFPEC.. The friends are never forgot.

LoomChild

  • Guest
Re:realism vs playability?
« Reply #22 on: 10 Dec 2005, 03:17:48 »
Wolfsbane, Good little writeup. I'm just like that myself. I try to "outsmart" the missions.

It's not to beat the missionmaker or anything, but as any military mastermind-super-ninja-soldier (any soldier who can use any weapon, fly anything, drive anything...that's the title ;) I try to use anything that is at my disposal. If that means sneaking of to kill that small scoutunit I spotted so I can get their rocket launcher that I could use so I don't have to place satchel charges _inside_ the enemy base, that's what I will do.

I'm somewhat new to the game and even newer to missionmaking. But I try to do what you just described. Beat my own mission in the "wrong" way. But I only remove the stuff that realy gets things off balance.

Now, to get to the point before I make this too long. I feel that if the player can find a smart way around some problems, let them. Don't make it easy, but don't force them into a linear mission if it doesn't have to be one. If they want to take that UAZ, let them. If they can sneak up to that truck and get that Dragunov (with only one or two clips of course), let them. If they want to set off the alarm and then fast as h*ll sneak away to take out the reinforcements with an RPG-7, let them.

As you said. Don't let them just bypass the mission, but endorse good thinking and planning. Let them get a small edge if they know to look for it.

So to sum this up and end it. Even if one finds a "bug" in ones mission. Perhaps one should not only ask oneself to let it be or to block it. One should also ask "can I limit this and let the player use it"?  One small hole in the fence, with three guards and a patrol that will come if fired upon). A chopper but no ammo. Sniperrifle but only 10 rounds. RPG-7 but only one rocket... Frontal assault is easier if you can take the few guards in the guardtowers and the BMP first, but it's not impossible to begin with, and it's not a "be all, end all"-tactics either.

PetriHonka

  • Guest
Re: realism vs playability?
« Reply #23 on: 07 Sep 2006, 19:07:52 »
I agree with LoomChild.
I hate the type of mission where you HAVE to do this or MUST do that.
A little way around the problem or make it a little easier also gives a bit of replayability. Say if i was to make the base easier to penertate by taking out the guads on the gate with a sniper rifle then sneak through. I wouldn't mind as long as there was another challenge inside the base. I might do the mission again later but not use the sniper rifle and the mission is completely different.

Offline DEADRABBIT

  • Members
  • *
Re: realism vs playability?
« Reply #24 on: 03 Oct 2006, 20:16:01 »
People enjoy realism as long as it doesn't feel too complicated.
OFP's main attraction is the simulation aspects. In many regards, OFP is a simulator, yet in other regards, it's also toned down to be entertainable.

Therefore, OFP is a complex mix of realism and entertainment. You think from a certain reference, like a general mindset of tactical gamers, and you create this mix and use elements that fit and rule out the ones that don't. But it all depends upon the players you try to appeal to with your mission. It's in fact the challenge of mission designers to make annoying/realistic tasks, entertaining or exciting to do! If you can achieve that as a mission designer, then you come a very long way to make a realistic and entertaining mission.

Offline Mr.Peanut

  • Former Staff
  • ****
  • urp!
Re: realism vs playability?
« Reply #25 on: 04 Oct 2006, 00:37:33 »
Make the mission that you would want to play.  That is the only way that the process will remain creative. For me, mission  making is 35% creative fun and 65% drudge.  You better like what you are creating to get you through the debugging and testing, which can be fun but can also be a horror. the horror!
urp!