I'd say generally for every game out there and more specifically in the case of tactical military shooters, REALITY is usually the best (and it could be argued, only) place to go looking for answers to your game design questions.
Just found it out myself today but, devs behind Ground Branch (one of whom was involved with the OGR) formalized this idea into a game design philosophy, referred to as NORG:
Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay (NORG)
A legacy term originally coined by "Hatchetforce", a retired Special Forces Operator who contributed to the early start of Ground Branch. He defines the Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay (NORG) as a doctrine or concept surrounding the design and development of realistic tactical/military simulation games. Some arguments about the clearest definitions of NORG exist, and Tactical Operations Center has their own definition of the NORG philosophy, which it is shown below:
Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay 2019+ (NORG2019)
The Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay mandates that the player consider every action taken in-simulation with the same weight, and consequence as one would in-reality. The situation in-simulation is, and should be throughout, an experiential journey of applying real-life consideration to an otherwise digital experience; the goal of which is to set a high standard for realism during the active operation of said simulation; asking reflectively 'would I do this in reality?'.If the answer weighs heavily towards the negative, then the act should be avoided in lieu of an answer in the positive.
What NORG is...
is a philosophical framework that supports realistic consequential forethought toward any action in-game
provides a system for checking how 'realistic' the current state of play is, and when possible, enhances it
reinforces the notion that being 'realistic' in-game, is a positive mentality that encourages immersive play
Pro-Norg Examples
Situational: 'this door may conceal several well-armed hostiles awaiting my entry, what would real-life troops do?
Logistical: 'this equipment might be too heavy, or inappropriate for the mission. What would real-life troops use?'
Physical: 'this terrain requires careful navigation to avoid enemy detection. How would a real-life squad travel?'
What NORG is not...
a hard and fast set of rules that govern player actions, rather it is a manifesto that is flexible in its application
a dogmatic set of principles in which to judge another player's adherence to realistic gameplay via discussion
a cure-all for reality:simulation equations; some things when applied in a game, do not successfully translate
Anti-Norg Examples...
Situational: 'I'll just open this door and run in guns blazing, I can always respawn later. It's a game, afterall...'
Logistical: 'My fireteam benefits from everyone taking 'the best' guns, rather than considering what troops do'
Physical: 'Jumping around and dodging using crouch is perfectly fine, it gives me an edge over the enemy...'
https://unofficialgroundbranchwiki.com/getting-startedl.
Here's a pertinent video from a creator whose approach to historical, immersive and fairly ARMA3 content, serve as a fine showcase of what could be achieved through the application of these concepts.
For the record, I know GR isn't ARMA, however the "spirit" or "animating force" driving both franchises used to be one and the same.
Bit ranty up to the 9:45 minute mark where the actual analysis begins:
Regarding the anti NORG comments, what I think helps influence that is actually the game design.
Is weight a factor
Is body armor a factor
How well does the game handle realistic movement.
Neither of those first 2 is true in GR so jumping around and choosing weapons etc becomes the reality of the game. If weight affected movement you’d likely see a lot less of people trying to do a chicken dance. They would just get shot and be noted on YouTube videos of people doing stupid stuff. People do what the game allows. Better movement, injury and body armor systems that are more real would drive people toward more realistic behavior.
In this regard, the Russian game "Escape from Tarkov" is very close in your mind. The only thing that stops me from diving into this game is the loss of all my equipment when I die. Yes, it's realistic, but I don't want that in the game. But in terms of the gunsmith, immersion and sound- "Escape from Tarkov" is very good. Moreover, the gunsmith is much better than in Breakpoint, you can see this by searching for the corresponding video. In all other respects, this game is inferior to Breakpoint.
That's called "gear fear".Originally Posted by Nova_RUS_ Go to original post
I recomend you try out the game. The mechanic is not just realisitic, it adds to the stakes and makes you NOT want to get killed. Getting killed is that much more stressful, but the adrenaline and dopamine hit when you first have a succesful raid (and even get kills) is worth all the sweat, tears and salt.
I think NORG only makes sense in a game designed with realism as a priority, otherwise it's effectively just roleplaying. Not that there's anything wrong with roleplaying, but in some games running in with the best guns blazing while bunny-hopping around is the best strategy for success.
Put another way, if NORG improves one's success in a game, it's a realistic game, and if not, it isn't.
Where Breakpoint fits in all that is debatable, but I think the more successful a NORG approach would be in Breakpoint, the better the designers will have done their jobs.
This isn't so much about Breakpoint, its the path/philosophy that GR as a franchise needs to return to.Originally Posted by MajicNomad Go to original post
Realistic or not, games need to be fun or what's the point? In the example of Tarkov above, things like that is why I would NOT buy the game. Yes, I like things to be realistic... to a point. If those were options that could be toggled off/on, then fine. I like to replay content with harder and harder options. But, if I had the game for instance, made it partway through and I lost all my gear, I'd probably not play it again. Why? That. Isn't. Fun.
Tarkov was brought up only as an example of the philosophy. I don't think anyone here is asking for the "gear fear" feature, but some other consequence to failure to make players care more about their actions and character is missing from GR. WL's permadeath was an approach to this and it frustrated people who collected the weapons and attachments they wanted, but lost it all when they died. It wasn't something we expected or wanted. The character dying was fine, but going back to square 1 wasn't.Originally Posted by Bambihunter71 Go to original post
I think this philosophy would be better applied to failing a mission. If your story or faction mission HVT gets away, or your target vehicle gets destroyed or driven away, there's no retry. You have to soldier on and do extra story missions to complete the story. If it was a faction mission, you simply don't get the credit for that mission and just move on to the next.
In Wildlands you can at least do local saves to restore from so it isn't really permadeath, just a nuisance getting killed. For me that is a nice balance. I have a save with my 2nd and 3rd characters having done all the weapon and skill objectives but no missions. The only skill point applied was for c4 to breach the communication buildings. I use them as a starting point whenever I want to restart a character.Originally Posted by Keltimus Go to original post