NORG and it's crucial importance to the Ghost Recon franchise. | Forums

[Keltimus]

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.

Still, local saves should have been unnecessary.

[Bambihunter71]

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.

I realize that. But, my real point was for every player that wants extreme difficulty, there are others that want a story experience and nearly everything in the middle.

For most games, I'd be happy if they quit requiring missions in vehicles and character sway and/or headbob as I unfortunately have had motion sickness issues all my life. But, I love FPS and this type of game so here I am. There's been some that sure seemed like crazy fun that I just couldn't ever play unfortunately.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Games are not simulators.

Tarkov pretends to be "realistic" but it's really just Half-life 2 with jacked to fcuk punishments.

This NORG idea is just chasing a paradox; games are games; reality is reality.

[Steven527]

Games are not simulators.

Tarkov pretends to be "realistic" but it's really just Half-life 2 with jacked to fcuk punishments.

This NORG idea is just chasing a paradox; games are games; reality is reality.

"Are your eyes lying to you? Are your ears lying? Which is reality, maybe both are real" - D J Perrico

The NORG idea isn't a paradox. You think there is no point to it then go play wolfenstein.. oh wait that probably isn't "realistic" enough eh? Face it we all want some level of reality, but that level varies for all of us. Options are a good thing.

[Jazz117Volkov]

"Are your eyes lying to you? Are your ears lying? Which is reality, maybe both are real" - D J Perrico

The NORG idea isn't a paradox. You think there is no point to it then go play wolfenstein.. oh wait that probably isn't "realistic" enough eh? Face it we all want some level of reality, but that level varies for all of us. Options are a good thing.

Yeah, I don't disagree. Games are about aesthetic choices, mechanical choices; some games aim to have you believe "this could really happen", and they usually write that on the box, but some aren't concerned with that. Games have narratives, or at least themes, and they're designed and tailored to be evocative in specific ways. I don't think something like NORG has no value, but almost everything relating to realism in games is sensory, or narrative, and it's subjective.

[El_Cuervacho]

I don't think something like NORG has no value, but almost everything relating to realism in games is sensory, or narrative, and it's subjective.

I strongly disagree, there's nothing "subjective" about what I'm suggesting here, quite the opposite in fact. We're talking mechanics, multiple systems working together to provide measureable, predictable effects in the game world, where every tactical decision you make has gameplay consequences.
Tactical military shooters are above all about the job; about selectively replicating, tactics, scenarios, settings and equipment in a highly systematized game environment.
Take for instance gear (weight, ballistic protection, carrying capacity, weight, insulation, camo index, etc), weapon (caliber, weight, length, ballistics, ammo types, etc) and mission/role specific equipment (AT weaponry, breaching tools, medical, etc) selection, should all be taken into account prior to embarking on a mission. Said hypotetical mission could take place in an urban environment, a jungle, a forest, a desert, the arctic or whatever "biome" you can think of; at whatever time or in whatever weather conditions possible.
In this day an age, virtually any AAA openworld game will be quite capable of replicating these conditions I've just enumerated albeit superficially; as most of these games do nothing with their biomes past the candy, which in my mind does a huge disservice to the whole enterprise of creating an openworld game in the first place. And in nowhere is this more painfully evident than in the context of the tactical military shooter genre, precisely because, for the people who play these games, we derive pleasure from preparedness, strategic planing and ultimately dealing with and overcoming variables such as: terrain, weather, enemy force and defenses, with the tools and tactics that make most sense in order to accomplish a set objective.
The more detailed that interaction between systems is the more enjoyable and deep the experience will be.
Same goes for the consequences for mistakes and bad planning, which should be dire if not deadly, as anything less would render the whole endeavour fruitless.

[FCacGRdvWD]

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.

Fun is only had when there is a sense of accomplishment, otherwise fun transforms into monotonous and you get tired sooner than later to the same rinse and repeat. There is something to be said for the saying leave them wanting more. In BP the opposite is what dooms you.

Too much of anything is not good for you, baby - Barry White!

I realize that. But, my real point was for every player that wants extreme difficulty, there are others that want a story experience and nearly everything in the middle.

For most games, I'd be happy if they quit requiring missions in vehicles and character sway and/or headbob as I unfortunately have had motion sickness issues all my life. But, I love FPS and this type of game so here I am. There's been some that sure seemed like crazy fun that I just couldn't ever play unfortunately.

I wish you could go play the Original Ghost Recon to see how wrong your statement could be. Yes, it punishes you but in a way that life does as well, nothing easy has much meaning but when you fall, dust yourself off an accomplish what you started is when you feel invincible, like a million dollars so to speak, like a bad *** operator.

if all you do is shoot at paper targets and die when the shotgun sniper gets you than it is fun the first few times, after that you start hating the game for those jarring moments because life and logic tells you that even in the game, the mechanic should be different.

Games are not simulators.

Tarkov pretends to be "realistic" but it's really just Half-life 2 with jacked to fcuk punishments.

This NORG idea is just chasing a paradox; games are games; reality is reality.

Perhaps you should try playing Crash Bandicoot instead, in this game you will have everything you are looking for in a shooter.

[AI BLUEFOX]

The original GR had very few of the obvious physical mechanics to make decisions consequential; no ballistics model, no weight penalty, no camo effect and no stamina or accuracy penalties, but it did engage players by having them command a squad they cared for. The decisions in my case were very much about "would I do that" (go here, go there, shoot first, risk team mates) rather than "could I do that" (carry the weight, feel too hot or cold, not be accurate or fast enough) and they felt consequential as a result of having a leadership role. Of course the premise for the "would I" decision being consequential is a believable real world scenario in a near future where the Ghosts' presence is highly sensitive.

To advance the franchise for me as a player, I think the team management needs to be reintroduced and then the physical "could I" decisions added to that. Arguably we have neither at the moment; if I lose a team mate I just travel 400m and they come back to life, if I get downed they pick me up. As much as I really want the physical layer of consequences too, the priority has to be that team dynamic; explored in the Breakpoint story through Weaver, Holt and then Midas, but not through gameplay. Weaver should only have died because I made a different decision that play-through, and in other play-throughs he'd live. Make me care by making it my responsibility.

[Steven527]

Weaver should only have died because I made a different decision that play-through, and in other play-throughs he'd live. Make me care by making it my responsibility.

Not even sure why they had Weaver die. In that scene Walker is simply a cold blooded murderer and yet he goes out of his way to enlist Nomad. Just one more complete inconsistency in the game. If the idea was to make that a more emotional point in the game they missed the mark as you rarely ever dealt with that in the campaign.

[Gmoneymozart]

Seeing the AC model and where Ubi Paris has taken GR I don't doubt that this is the complete opposite of where they want to take GR. They want a tac-sim light with RPG elements, just like AC. It's now assassins light with RPG elements.

I doubt we'll get gear that matters, with weight, and camo that actually affects how AI sees you and all the stuff we talk about and discuss,

With seeing what Anvil-Next 2.0 is pumping out it seems clear that Ubi builds out these systems in their engine and all the teams utilize what has been built. It's why the gear model is all the same and you can see little mechanics that are similar like when you hide in a Bush etc.

The only thing we can do is wait and see. The next iteration of this franchise will let us know if it's core audience is being killed off for a new generation of hopeful customers.