realism vs playability?

[Blacknite]

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]

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]

as long as people think its realistic thats one thing, but i get the hint most players just want to shoot something!!!

[LoomChild]

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.  

[wcrvieira]

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

[Dubieman]

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...

[Wolfsbane]

*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.

[LoomChild]

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]

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.

[DEADRABBIT]

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.

[Mr.Peanut]

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!