Home » OTHER STRATEGY » JA3 Wish List » A new approach to Jagged Alliance?
A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190613] Sun, 13 July 2008 01:17 Go to next message
MikeT
Messages:7
Registered:July 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
What I would really like to see? I would like to see the whole Jagged Alliance turn based concept moulded in with real-time, first person shooter action.

In single player, you could play the game in turn based or real-time. When the game is in turn based, it's the basic original concept - view the game with a camera you can move around.

But in real-time, you can either command it like your standard real-time strategy, jump into all your mercs heads and control them first-person shooter style, or have your own character command the rest of your squad through a list of commands, and be stuck in your own characters head.

If that was combined with a real-time environment, the game would be awesome. Real economic simulation. Real supply lines. Real day and night cycles. Real weapons physics modelling and destructible environments. And massive, fully explorable maps.

Just imagine the original Arulco? You could drop in at the start and command your squad, from a first person perspective, and fight the whole battle over again.

The first person element would add a whole new layer to multiplayer, as the game becomes a tactical shooter, with the same ingrossing story lines and role playing of the original Jagged Alliance games.

Of course, that's a big undertaking. Having the original Jagged Alliance turned-based strategy style, PLUS the first person real time option, would require alot more work and experience outside of what would be required of original game concept.

But hey, the positive side is extra playability. In multiplayer, you could even have players working for the 'bad guys' in the game. As a mercenary, the player would be able to work for the highest bidder, or take a moral stance and work for the good guys only (but not for free). A multiplayer campaign could easily involve up to 100 players on an island the size of Arulco. Campaigns could last for weeks or months depending on the skill of the players and how often they play.

You could even combine the 1st person shooter element with a real-time strategy element, where a small group of players, say 16, goes up against a single player, who commands the armys of the 'bad guys' from a top down real-time strategy perspective.

[Updated on: Sun, 13 July 2008 01:21] by Moderator

Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190624] Sun, 13 July 2008 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
SharkD

 
Messages:362
Registered:July 2003
Worst. Suggestion. Ever.
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190642] Sun, 13 July 2008 13:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lockie

 
Messages:3968
Registered:February 2006
Location: Scotland
aren't there about 50 fps games out there already . have to second the motion as worst suggestion ever .
sorry ! Uh Oh


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190705] Mon, 14 July 2008 09:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MikeT
Messages:7
Registered:July 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
But think about this for a second guys - they're already moving into 3D environments with Jagged Alliance 3 right? 3D environments is already a given. All you think have to do, is adjust the point of view to be the characters point of view, change the game to run in real-time, and BAM you have a first person shooter.

Like I said - the original Jagged Alliance concept (turn-based strategy) is still there.

How many of you have put on 'timed turns' to make the game more difficult so you don't have hours to think about your next move? So you actually have to think fast like the situation would require in reality?

Well giving players the option to play the game in real-time, with a first person perspective, would take that one step further - you have to think of your feet, in real time.

But yet again, like I said, it's only an option.

You might not like it personally, but as a business decision, it is a good idea. It would satisfy the hard-core Jagged Alliance fans with the original turn based option. Satisfy real-time strategy fans with a real-time option (eg. Commandos), and satisfy the hard-core tactical shooter fans with a FPS option (eg. SWAT 4, Armed Assault), and regular first-person shooter fans (eg. Soldier of Fortune), and still capture the role playing elements of the entire series. That, and you could even have short matches with team based objectives.

You basically end up having 5 games in 1. Turn-based Strategy, Real-Time Strategy, Tactical Shooter, First Person Shoot'em Up, and Role Playing game.

This would provide hundreds of hours of playability. And the fact that they've already gone to a 3D engine makes expanding the game to include what I've said extremely easy.

Furthermore, it would provide good scaling opportunities. Clearly, some systems wouldn't be able to operate in full real-time realistic first person mode. But if the player just wants to play the game like the original JA series, then they don't need a system with all the bells and whistles. But for players with the latest and greatest systems, with brand new graphics cards that provide AI and Physics processing through DirectX 10, then they have a game which they can play again and again and again. In both single and multiplayer modes, and in turn-based, real-time, first-person or top-down strategy modes.

My question to both of you, who think this is such a terrible idea, is if the game came out tomorrow, at the price you would be willing to pay for Jagged Alliance 3 as a pure turn-based strategy, with a great storyline, great original Jagged Alliance style game-play, and all the things which make Jagged Alliance great, but it also had the options which I just described, would you NOT buy it? Would you say "I'm not buying this game, because it's got the option to play it as a real-time strategy and a first person shooter!"

Or as a different example - if two version of the game came out, one for $50 that was just the original Jagged Alliance concept, and one for $51 that had all the extra oprtions that I just described, would you only buy the $50 version because you didn't want to pay the extra $1 for all the extra options? What if it was $2 differ? $5? $10? $20?

If you can seriously say that you wouldn't buy it because of an 'option' that you won't use, or you wouldn't pay a little extra for hours and hours of more playability, then I'm afraid you need your head checked.
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190821] Tue, 15 July 2008 05:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Lol I wouldn't really suggest it goes to FPS shooter type style. Its more of a management game than a Shooter.

I like it Turn-based but then I would also like it real-time, problem with real time though is you would need to have an AI system to play the characters you don't currently have selected.

If a combination was done similar to FF12 then I wouldn't mind as that was quite a fun way to play, certainly better than the rock paper scissors of Turn Based. But it all comes down to personal preference here, so there will always be the odd few who want more real-time based games and others who like to take time to plan strategically (though I think you can do both with both just in different ways).

Having just played Mass Effect a fair bit, I have to say that the FPS style RPG worked quite nicely with one MAJOR flaw. The AI cannot compete with a human. As is always the case. So if JA2 were to go FPS you would basically end up with a Mass Effect style game which would leave you disappointed that you couldn't have a challenge.

Also a little problem for your 5 games in 1 theory. If it is a bitsa of 5 concepts moulded into one, how can it excel at any one of the five different play styles?


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190866] Tue, 15 July 2008 15:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MikeT
Messages:7
Registered:July 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Thanks for the input Kaerar. Clearly, AI difficulties is an issue. It's one of the reasons why I suggested that the game would scale well between systems. Alot of systems (including my own), wouldn't be capable of handling the most modern AI systems in games. However, someone with a new video card from nVidea or ATI will know that they have built in AI processing that can be accessed through Direct X 10. That does introduce difficulties ofcourse, as you're basically forcing the designers to program simultaneously for Windows XP and Windows Vista users at the same time.

And yes whilst AI can't compete with human's, the issue is that in a single player game, AI wouldn't have to. They would be, for a large part, competing with other AI that have the same AI systems they do.

As for management - well good management takes time. Carefully laid plans are not concocted instantaneously in the minds of their creators. So playing the game in real-time would require the player to find a careful balance between planning and timeliness - there is no point spending 2 hours creating a plan for an opportunity that will have passed in an hours time. There would be no point micromanaging the supply of ammunition to the frontlines when you know one of your outposts is dangerously low on ammunition and supplies. And as an option, you could probably even pause the game (in single player), to lay out your plans, give your commands to AI, including go-codes, etc (much like you can plan your operation in Rainbow Six before executing), and manage supply lines.

Like I said, the key point is to give the player options - turn-based or real-time, first person or 3rd person camera, sci-fi or realistic, locked in the head of your own avatar or the ability to jump into your teams heads. It would definitely be much more of a challenge in my opinion if you had to make plans on the fly (within reasonable limits, because clearly I can't communicate my plans to an AI soldier as quick as I can to a real person).

Implenting AI would also allow the player to delegate better. Having an AI soldier drive a truck of supplies down a well known and well controlled road would be something I can simply send them command to do. Simple tasks would be assigned to AI in a few clicks. More complex tasks, such as infiltration of enemy installations, are something that I can lay out careful plans for.

Its possible that I could simply send out orders to AI to do all the work, whilst I stay hidden and get information back from my AI. This would allow my face as the leader of a group to be concealed, so I could allow myself to do covert ops in enemy territory later, as the enemy doesn't know that I'm a threat.

As for the 5 games in 1 concept not allowing the devs to focus on making a good game in one style, well that is clearly an issue. But I think that when utilising modern AI programming, the turn based and real-time elements would blend together, in that the calculations that go on in real time are the same calculations that happen in turned based, it's just simply how frequently those calculations are done that changes. Either once every 10 milliseconds or once every 10 seconds.

I honestly think that giving the player options on how they want to play the game is where games are heading. Think Bioshock - do I save the little sisters or do I harvest them? Think Deus Ex - stealth or gung-ho run and guns? Think Grand Theft Auto IV. Think non-linearity, high replayability, wide audience appeal, and a variety of difficulty levels.
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190870] Tue, 15 July 2008 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lockie

 
Messages:3968
Registered:February 2006
Location: Scotland
obviously you've thought about this , but imho ,it just isn't JA World .Too much of a mishmash for me but , of course you're entitled to an opinion .As for Bioshock etc. I doubt JA could compete with them in story , graphics etc . without turning into a whole different game . Lowest common denominator = sell more games for consoles .Game companies need cash and dont give a toss for quality and time consuming PC games like JA anymore .Ah well , back to real work for me I'm afraid !


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190880] Tue, 15 July 2008 16:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
If it was to happen I would keep it as an overhead view management game like it currently is. But utilise 3D in its favour. That is get large environments, the capability to zoom in and out (fog of war is obviously going to be there so outside of sight range you cannot see the enemy etc...). Have buildings that are multi-story even allowing for relatively large towers and numerous underground levels.

Adapt the current old style turn-based to a more fluid system. Maybe simultaneous turn-based with real time inbetween sort of thing. The ability to turn TB on and off as needed (unless in combat). The ability to try to talk way past enemies if they don't recognise or know you. Expand on the basis of the current game and expand the RPG elements too. Make the side quests more interesting, make the character progression and expansion more interesting. Make it so that your choices limit how good your character can become in certain areas.

Not that I have given it any thought at all!


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190888] Tue, 15 July 2008 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lockie

 
Messages:3968
Registered:February 2006
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Have buildings that are multi-story even allowing for relatively large towers and numerous underground levels.
sounds like BE5 Kaerar , most of your points anyway , and it wasn't great either mate , if you see it cheap , give it a go .


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190909] Wed, 16 July 2008 07:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Yeah I heard of Brigade E5 but never got around to messing with it. Problem is I feel that most games like that don't come up to par compared to JA2 so I get a feeling of disappointment when in some cases they are actually not too bad.

Thing is not many developers now are willing to do long and detailed games. We are still discovering just how much attention to detail (and coding stuffups) went into JA2, yet if you dissect a newer game you can find very little more that what you see on the surface.

A few things I would like to add, is a proper economic system (see Hardwar for a good working ingame economy) and proper townships with scripting for the characters (like in the new Fallout 3) making them actually live rather than be stationary points in the game. Also have a system which determines how people react to you depending on your actions. So you go and root out a group of bandits in an abandoned mine. You can choose to join them, call authorities on them or kill them. The first gives you a boost in rep with town A but a drop with towns B, C and D. The second option gives a minor drop in town A and a minor boost in towns B, C and D. The last option gives you a hostile rating in town A (i.e. locals refuse to talk and armed ones will open fire on you) whereas you gain a huge rep bonus and associated benefits in towns B, C and D.

Simple stuff and more RPGish but I think of JA2 as a squad management RPG.


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190934] Wed, 16 July 2008 14:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
the scorpion

 
Messages:1842
Registered:September 2004
Location: CH
yup, but it requires some time spent with ja2 to realise it operates a lot according to RPG rules

i call it an "RPG sui generis" because the RPG element would go far beyond mere squad management

also, allowing NPC's to actually live, you *can* do quite a lot in this respect, actually. It's just that the way ja2 is played, a player hardly ever sees this, so we usually don't bother with it.

reason: most of the time spent in tactical, where the player could see NPC behaviour, is during combat (no ideal moment to talk to peasents) and immediately afterwards. So around 5 minutes gametime. Of course if you only see 5 minutes of a day, you won't notice a lot of NPC's *living*

sure an NPC's shedule only has 4 entries, but you mix that with placement orders and player interaction and have a very detailed NPC behaviour with simple means, however, spread over 24 hours, you'll only notice it if it interferes with your plans, otherwise you don't notice it Smile
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190946] Wed, 16 July 2008 15:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3538
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
// RANT //

Again I'll say, if Betsheda manages to screw up F3, considering they have a great RPG engine and a great TBS title on their hands they would be biggest idiots in game history.

BE5 and it's succesor, 7.62, are 3D smart-pause-strategy-games (the most common crossbreed of TBS and RTS) but everyone who has played those thinks they are so hard to learn it's not even fun. They are more close to a training simulator than to a game.

So that leaves us only with F3 to wait for. Sadly the latest gameplay video I've seen involves a lot of Quake style mutant blasting and little or no strategy. Oh dear...

// END OF RANT //

Now regarding the use of 3D in TBS games, it's obvious it would be a great advantage. Simply because a 3D enviroment is more realistic, has better physics and in general makes for better gameplay.
Why nobody has had the guts to make such a game (3D TBS) is simple: the game companies are like sheep. If one makes something 0.0000001% succesfull then it's a good thing to copy it. These companies are run by accountants and marketing managers. People who never played a game in their life. They understand only numbers, sales figures and so on.

The time of the small developer with a dream is long gone by. The only who who survived is the famous Will Wright. That's why I am buying Spore - because it has never been done and he had the guts to try something new. But otherwise there's nothing out there but copycats of the same models, repeated over and over again.

[Updated on: Wed, 16 July 2008 15:49] by Moderator



Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190953] Wed, 16 July 2008 16:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Hmm I think you ended the rant early there Shanga!

But you do hit upon a good point. TBS for 3D is non-existent in any real sense. I used to think in FPS terms when I looked at a possible JA2 port to 3D, but I was so wrong back then it wasn't even funny.

After having re-evaluated the pros and cons of TBS and how to implement it in 3D I do believe I have an idea that would work, plus it wouldn't lose the feel and certainly unique flavour of the Jagged Alliance style. Obviously I have no intention of placing it in the JA2 universe as that would be plagiarism and breach of IP, so I have a story that I think would be ok for it yet doesn't lose the feel of JA2.

The benefit of 3D is proper size and distance management as well as sighting. No more inaccurate object sizes to hide behind, invisible sand bags and such like. Basically the engine would determine each hit separately, maybe even including things like weather effects (rain, wind, fog). Sector size is always a difficult one, but I think with maps the size of Crysis it would work relatively well. Not too large and you are wandering forever searching for tango's and not too small you never get out of the pistol arena.

I have to say the first thing that struck me when I played Crysis with the realism mod was, how good would this game be if you could manage a commando squad JA2 style. I got bored of the FPS style and was hooked by the graphics engine. So much potential, far too high a system spec needed! Seeing as the engine really isn't optimised for gaming though (its actually a simulation renderer) it copes pretty well.


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190969] Wed, 16 July 2008 18:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3538
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
Here at Bear's Pit we started discussing about 3D in JA2 almost before there were 3D games made. Wanted to point this out, it's kindda funny.

A lot of years after it's clear, as you say, that 3D has evolved from being FPS-oly to being a mature gaming enviroment. It's only up to the developer to decide where the damn view camera sits - in first person, in 3rd, isometric and so on...

I've played some great strategy games, RTS only sadly, that made ME undestand that's the future.

Sadly, everything about the games of today is speed, fast-food, instant gratification, clickfest, wam-bam-thank-you-madam. Thinking while playing must've proved dangerous to player's health, so they removed it completely when TBS died.

[Updated on: Wed, 16 July 2008 18:18] by Moderator



Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190976] Wed, 16 July 2008 18:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
the scorpion

 
Messages:1842
Registered:September 2004
Location: CH
i've had a look at a rather recent fps video (presentation) that was far cry2. (there was a link somewhere... forgot, might have been a different forum)

I think 3d has its advantages very closely related to the size of things, to point of view and to "camera speed"


sure you can zoom in, zoom out rotate etc. in real 3d, but actually good looking are the things only if rather large, which is the most frequent look in FPS games. Zoom out for a better overview and things look worse due to lack of detail and level and especially object size will be a problem, take silent storm with its awfully tiny levels.

3d, like our real 3d world, has a big disadvantage compared to isometric because at a certain distance, things just become tiny. Characters you'd want to aim for become 3 pixels small and such... objects too small to figure what cover it could offer and such.

FP view just makes best use of this. From real world we're familiar with very little oversight, which allows to make things in the front big and scale them small farther back fast, using little ressources.

Keeping the overview over a squad and maintaining the nice optics forces tiny maps and objects like in silent storm because otherwise it'll look generic and boring very fast.

Speed. Have you ever wondered why almost every FP 3d game happens at insane speeds (okay maybe except for the hitman series and other sneak/ stealth games), where you run and fire your machine gun or rocket launcher and jump and all at once and the distance you cover in 3 seconds game time equals 500 meters map size?

I think it wouldn't still look good otherwise. Seriously, the use of 3d models, skins, textures etc. encourages making a game fast and hectic, because we know from our real world that things get blurry when we move fast, so the blurry bland generic textures look right in FP.

*edit* as opposed to this, ja2 usually plays rather static. if you have a large map and operate large ranges (and if i have 3rd person view, i'd want to take longer distance shooting, NOT like silent storm) then you have very little movement of the background gfx, so, turn-based with longer times of little shift of the background doesn't take advantage of 3d either.


now in 3d person look from behind or such it still works, but as soon as a squad which has to be visual at all times or at least needs to be made visual all of them at once, these advantages of 3d are no longer. At the distance and abstraction level of something involving a lot of tactics, these 3d advantages are minimized

IMHO that's one of the reasons there aren't really as good looking 3d tactical games compared to 3d FPS. I think it is very tricky and ressourcehungry to try making something like ja2 in 3d. Even if you have the same graphic quality, it doesn't look as good anymore because the perspective of a squad is different to the one of a single character or a single character plus a buddy of some sort.



in that respect the initial poster has a point, we'd better be looking for a game setup where something remotely similar to ja2 can be made but that can take advantange of modern graphics and tech. Just porting ja2 to 3d doesn't really benefit enough.
i'm aware that it wouldn't be ja2 anymore. I mean something that could offer some of ja2's features and still use modern looks and tech
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190986] Wed, 16 July 2008 19:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
I can see what you are getting at Scorp but I have to disagree with that now. Having played Crysis and CoD4 a lot (well more CoD as I'm in a team but hey) I can say that not all are limited to small maps now.

CoD4 isn't huge I will admit but its certainly no smaller than the map sectors represent in JA2, whereas Crysis is just plain huge (8km by 8km maps) and movement speed isn't increased greatly over reality unless you use the suits speed ability. Playing as a marine though is more fun Wink

Then you have the 3D RTS crew. The scale used is generally smaller, but there is always the exceptions to the rule. I have to mention Supreme Commander here. 81km by 81km maps at largest. With good mappers they aren't repetitve or boring either (though I find the gamplay boring in SupCom). The models aren't exactly not detailed either with some being up to 25000 poly's. Higher poly models have been added by fans too and it hasn't had an adverse effect on the game. The drawback of it though is the rather overambitious system requirements. Unless you run it with 4gig of RAM on a 64-bit machine you are just dreaming if you think you'll get performance from it.

To get ambient movement in the terrain is not a problem (I'll use CryEngine2 for the examples) since wind patterns are now able to be used (though they didn't use wind in Crysis it is in the engine). The wind is simplistic though and limited to specific channels currently. It won't be long before wind will be all the rage for new 'lifelike' FPS games. Like water was with Far Cry.

Texture mapping is up to the people putting in the effort. You can have great textures (Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3) or crap ones, but if the engine is capable enough it will not be an issue with the right artists.

Currently 3D worlds use a flat skybox which isn't animated or properly utilised. I think it would be great to have true clouds (now viable with particle physx and volumetric particle engines) with a moving light source (sun) and full day night cycles for maps (also possible). To include full variable weather conditions would end up with one of the most realistic sims to date.

The scary thing is its all possible now. Another thing is sound. Very effectively used for obvious things, and grossly misused for things like ambient sound. To have a living world, wouldn't it be good to have birds, animals and other ambient things (plants etc...) that all produce their sounds from their position (ok insects is a little be too detailed Razz).

Anyway this turned into a bit of a braindump, so I'm off to bed.


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190987] Wed, 16 July 2008 20:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3538
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia
@Scorp - you've got a point if we think of 3D as a "perspective camera" viewpoint. And crappy textures.

I was thinking of an isometric viewpoint, where the perspective deformation is minimal. My idea of a perfect 3D JA2 involves fixed camera(s). One isometric, for tactical & movement phase. One first-person for sniper shots. A zoomed down isometric for dialogues and stuff like that (like in The Fall).

Since the camera would be pretty high up, the textures would look good enough. I've seen this done in RTS.

The best benefit though wouldn't be the different view. The benefit would be the terrain properties, read destructible stuff. Not SS like though (taking down a house with a HMG). Also decent cover and stuff like that.

If you think about it hard enough, JA2 is just a simulation of 3D. They try to "fake" 3D properties using JSDs and graphical illusion. A good 3D engine should simply provide those properties.

[Updated on: Wed, 16 July 2008 20:11] by Moderator



Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #190990] Wed, 16 July 2008 21:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
the scorpion

 
Messages:1842
Registered:September 2004
Location: CH
kaerar

those games are all FPS. i never said you can't have huge maps for FPS gameplay because you can scale it so extremely given the POV. On a POV like in ja2 where you have to see at least the bigger number of squad members and some hundred meters of terrain, those levels that represent a huge landscape simply wouldn't work because as opposed to FPS games where your typical gunfight range without scope is around 10 to 15 meters, you have to actually see a freakin lot of it and be able to quickly scroll over to some more hundreds of square meters of it. The ressources to display all of this would go way beyond the Uber-requirements of current FPS. Since you can't go further with requierments than the FPS games, you can only get shittier looks, essentially wasting ressources, potential and possible customers. Developers are most likely not going to do it or at least not succesfully. That's what logic implies at least, i *do* hope a lot for the contrary, as probably mos ja2 fans might do.

Shanga

you're more talking of a physics engine rather than 3d or not. i think that's a different matter.

what's the matter with 3d and destructible stuff? The only things not destructible in ja2 is the ground you walk on (okay, rooftops as well because that works like ground) or the water you swim through. Most of the rest is destructible, it isn't my fault that the initial devs and most modmakers tend to ignore this fact ;-/

i know a big number of people think that ja2 only allows very limited destruction of ingame objects and make this one of the bigger point against ja2. Fools.
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191009] Thu, 17 July 2008 05:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3538
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia

@scorp - guess I am seeing "3d" as something else. To make this reply short - JA2+FPS=NO in my book.

But I might be biased, I just hate all FPS.


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191016] Thu, 17 July 2008 05:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Lol, actually it would be rather easy to set up a squad management game based on the CryEngine2. I think you missed my point there regarding map size. Remember its still TBS not pseudo TBS. So you have two groups of mercs moving up hundreds of metres apart. Its no big deal the graphical detail scales as you zoom in and out. You still have a mini-map so you can quickly move the camera to the correct position. I think a zoomable camera would be necessary though because as you gain guns like the Barrett you will need to see further and if you cannot zoom out to the Sniper's visible range you are basically stuffed.

As for resources used, its not really any more than an FPS in a busy section. For instance I get stable and reasonable framerates in Crysis (I know its an FPS). I have relatively good hardware though (having said that it is very cheap to build a powerful AMD system now, just ignore Intel and nVidia) with a Phenom 9850BE, coupled with an Asus M3A32 Deluxe mobo. Graphics will be a 4870x2 when its released (currently using a 9600GT rather well). The graphics is held back by the 9600GT to limit it to about 25-30fps constant in Crysis, which isn't bad considering you cannot see frame loss or artifacts. In fact for CryEngine2 you really need to double the true FPS figure to get the same feel in other engines.

Everything in the engine can be assigned a damage parameter so everything is destructible. So its at least as capable as JA2 in that matter.

For graphical quality well all I have to say is have you seen the game on a reasonable graphic level. If a 3D version were to be developed, that level of graphical detail (or even the level in Unreal Engine 3) will be the standard. Personally I want to have dynamic light sources, so you can shoot a lamp out of a lamp post to make the area darker at night. The Sun gives a wide focal point light source so the engine makes soft shadows on the ground rather than hard shadows and such like. Especially impressive were the light shafts which at the right times of day were stunning.

Also play Crysis on normal then with the natural mod. The difference is just amazing. Instead of having silly blue/amber/orange filters, you get really clear and crisp colouring.

If you think that FPS are the king of sys req's though you are mistaken. SupCom is the king of the CPU/GPU killers. Due to the engine design if you have pretty much anything running other than SupCom, and you don't have a dual core or 4GB of RAM good luck to get further than 2 hours into the game. Even the most powerful computers now cannot comprehend an 8 player skirmish with 2500+ units ingame. Mainly because the Sim engine cannot calculate all the actions fast enough. When you have an engine that actually calculates the rise and fall of the projectiles and the collision position of the projectile itself rather than the shortcuts taken by most RTS games you can see why its such a resource hog.

I can tell ya with a small squad of commando's and enemies on the same level as Crysis (i.e a shit load) you could have a very good game with mid-level requirements that would look very good at medium settings. Then you have the eye-candy for the higher settings and higher spec comps. There are some very simple methods to speed up CryEngine2 for example like using the software supersampling in place of anti-aliasing. It runs a lot faster and the graphical difference is minute. Its just a matter of optimising it to work for mid-level systems and having the heavy stuff optional.

Don't take it that I am just plugging CryEngine2, as I am just using it as an example. There are many different engines out there that are suitable or similar (UE3, the SupCom Engine, Stalker to name a few), but none would be ideal for a TBS at the moment. All would need a major overhaul to be suited to it.


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191044] Thu, 17 July 2008 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
the scorpion

 
Messages:1842
Registered:September 2004
Location: CH
Kaerar
There are many different engines out there that are suitable or similar (UE3, the SupCom Engine, Stalker to name a few), but none would be ideal for a TBS at the moment. All would need a major overhaul to be suited to it.


even then it would be a waste of ressources and time --> money, hence why it isn't done. I certainly dream of the same naive stuff as you do, but at the same time i don't think it will be done. There's a huge gap between what looks good on a ja2 like POV and what looks good in an FPS. I guess you totally omitted the entire point layed out in the last 3 postings :sleep:
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191050] Thu, 17 July 2008 16:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Not at all mate, I understand what you said, I just don't see it valid any more with the newer engines coming out. You go back to Far Cry for instance and you can see the texture tessellation when you zoom out just a short way from the main view (very obvious in the sandbox editor), however you do the same in Crysis and it is almost non-existent. The water was the same in Far Cry, yet in Crysis again with an updated algorithm there is random (as close to) troughs and waves. The opening sequence is a paradrop from about 3000 feet. There is barely any tessellation at all and the scenery looks stunning (I'll grab a couple of screenshots for you Wink ). But all of that is just eye-candy which real gamers shun in favour of gameplay, however if you want unit sales then you need both. It needs to be intuitive and fun (not necessarily fast as the target audience is the RPG and Strategy crowd) so the eye-candy is there for the high end stuff but as long as it looks good for the mid to low end machines then it'll be a quality product.

Believe me I have though long and hard about this. Designed mods and entire games on paper but never had the connections or time to actually follow through and develop any of them.

I ma not suggesting that the engines mentioned are used, or that a mod is made, but then what is the point of this thread if we aren't brainstorming possibilities as to what can be done.


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191055] Thu, 17 July 2008 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
the scorpion

 
Messages:1842
Registered:September 2004
Location: CH
shouldn't great engines like that have big modmaking communities were at least some trials could be done?

IMHO people should figure some special requirements if they want to design and engine or tweak an existing engine to fit a gameplay like ja2's.

ja2 has a lot of simplifiactions that are required for the gameplay, starting with turn based mode and isometric view. the question is how to enable that gameplay in a modern game where iso and tb would lead to bad sales/ small audience?

either keep tb and iso (or fake iso like i think shanga is suggesting) but add a lot of stuff extra so it comes closer to modern, publishable games

or go the way of BE5 rtwp and 3d but somehow add a ton of extras to save the gameplay

or maybe some even more specific properties have to be used, like iso-like 3d in certain situations and real 3d in others or what do i know

just from what there was so far, it doesn't look like somebody has already found the sweet spot in regards of designing a ja game in line with modern standards.
Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191058] Fri, 18 July 2008 00:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shanga

 
Messages:3538
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia

It comes down to Darwinism in the end. From dumb to dumber. Hope I am not around to see the dumbest.

If I win a couple of million euros in the lottery (not that I am playing the lottery... but don't let that discourage you) I make a solemn vow to buy you guys a great game engine and the JA license to go with it.

Until then, hold your breath... or maybe not.

Very Happy


Re: A new approach to Jagged Alliance?[message #191066] Fri, 18 July 2008 02:31 Go to previous message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2089
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
Fair enough Shanga you're on!

But I just want to point out that CryEngine2 (as an example) has a camera that can be set to have a focal point (like a camera lens) or be a flat view (traditional isometric view). This camera can also be positioned, rotated and zoomed by the user as desired (in sandbox mode normally). The best thing is you can set it so certain settings are transferred over to the game. Hence in normal Crysis you have 1st and 3rd person views, this can then be changed to a 3rd person and Isometric viewpoint. You can set the parameters in the Iso viewpoint so that the map/camera is rotatable/zoomable. So then you have the viewpoint needed (all this info is on the Crytek Modding Portal).

Things like the GUI/HUD can be added easily as its just a matter of a few image files and the supporting click grid. The slightly harder bit is adding support for cursor control and multiple squad selection. It is possible but requires a bit of coding.

Unreal Engine 3 has already shown that it is capable of having a sector map and multiple linked maps in Mass Effect. Change the setting from space to Earth and the sectors into a map config and you are sorted. The RPG aspects are expanded and it wouldn't be hard to initiate TBS for it using fractions of seconds and the distance in actual ingame distance, which also goes the same for CryEngine2. Both are far more suited to what we want than I expected plus you don't have the issues of BE5 and Silent Storm to worry about. Personally I think CryEngine2 has the edge though in its full destructible terrain, plus with the right optimisation it will work wonderfully on mid to low end computers without too much problem. Hell if I can run at a consistent 25-30FPS on DX10 (allegedly 20% slower than DX9) then I'm pretty certain most would be able to run it at fairly decent settings with the shadows and dynamic lights sorted out (the major cause of the slowdowns).

I think if a sequel to JA2 were to be made it would need new IP as to make a sequel to the current IP (barring legal crap) would result in a disappointing game regardless of how well its done. Mainly due the 'it's not JA2' effect.


Previous Topic: Sci-Fi
Next Topic: now this ja3 i would play
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Dec 13 07:02:56 EET 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01003 seconds