Ground Branch (oldschool tactical shooter in development)

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
well I've never used Kickstarter before.

but I assume all of your "investors" don't actually share in the profit; regardless of how much they contributed. it doesn't turn me off of the idea, I might consider dropping 10 bucks on the project because I like their goal, but I can see why others might consider it kind of a sham.
 
Apr 21, 2003
2,274
2
38
Europe
There are those who are in for a reward. They drop $10 or $15 during the Kickstarter and are offered a free copy once the game is released for a retail price of, $25 to $45. Call them deal hunters. It's still a risk, as there is no guarantee the game will be actually made. But losing $10-15 is not such a great loss, so it's a matter of perspective.

For others it is about principles. They know first hand how they despise the console port ridden game industry of current times and if a team comes along asking to support their intention to make a really nice oldschool PC game, they don't think twice and drop in a few coins, in good faith so to speak. They still may collect the reward, but their motivation to back the project was of pure nature.

Others are just fanatical believers (such as myself I guess). I am most disgusted by current gen games and was wishing for something like Ground Branch for a whole decade now. To me Infiltration was the only option for me and I saw a great future for it, but once it was clear that INF is done and over with, I thought that was it, never there will be a die hard realism game, ever. But then there was this guy who founded a studio and said he want's to make it. So here I am, trying to support it. And yes, not from a pure heart, but because I want that damned game.

It's that simple. If you decide to pledge something, big thanks to you, but if not than it's all fine, but try and see if you have friends or game buddies who could eventually be interested in such a game and you still helped.


We are not investors in the direct sense. We invest, but not to gain profit from it, we will not receive any (except the promised reward, like a free copy of the game and such), but to get the game that we want done. It's like private funding.
 
Last edited:
Apr 21, 2003
2,274
2
38
Europe
A promo video for Ground Branch was released, it's really good:

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9e7Er-4LDA&feature=player_embedded[/M]


i want to support but i dont have a credit card.
Tomcat, I hope you resolved your problem with paying. If not, maybe try and ask for help on the BFS forums.
 

Capt.Toilet

Good news everyone!
Feb 16, 2004
5,826
3
38
41
Ottawa, KS
Another dev jumping on the kickstarter bandwagon. Pretty soon lugnuts like EA and Activision will join in. Kickstart the next Call of Duty or Battlefield game and get the next overpriced DLC package for 10% off.
 

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
I still get annoyed by the employment of the term tactical in these games. There is nothing more tactical about this than any other multiplayer shooter. Call of Duty is just as tactical of a game, providing, essentially, the same tactical tools to the players: a method of communicating via voice (and/or text), various sets of weapons, a ruleset (ie: the game) and maps with objectives that must be met. Sure, the weapon selection and itemization here is more granular, but all that means is that there is more micromanagement available, not that it is in any way more or less tactical.

I mean, we can all understand that tactics are simply the methods that people employ to achieve their goal, right? Basketball is an intensely tactical game, for pete's sake. Further, we can all understand that the "genre" (I'm using this terms semi-sarcastically) of tactical shooters was more or less restricted to the Rainbow Six games, as they allowed for the single player game to establish a plan for achieving their goal (strategy) and modify it as the mission played out (tactics). Within a single player game, this is a very different beast than most other shooters, as they consist simply of acting on your own, having no larger strategy and merely reacting to the various pieces that get tossed in front of you. That's great! Within multiplayer games, however, it wasn't new at all. All team based games are exactly like this. There is a plan that is set forth (I am, of course, referring only to well-coordinated teams, because any game, even a "tactical shooter" without good coordination is as tactical as Wolfenstien 3D) and executed within in a shifting, expansive way.

The only thing that separates a game like this and a game like Call of Duty is the level of "realism" within it. COD wishes to replicate the idea of SoF, to get at the ephemeral, superhuman nature of the most elite--doing so in a very stylized way that may best exemplify how incredible these people are. This game (and the games like it) wish to emphasize the fragility of the human body and the fact that there are few guns that are legitimately useful in any given scenario. They want to make the player have a lean button to peak around corners instead of doing a back and forth strafe. Neither of which is particularly realistic, as both are wildly unnatural actions that only approximate how such a situation is handled in reality. Likewise with cover mechanics. Taking cover is far more than crouching behind an object, but far less than shifting into a 3rd person POV with a controllable reticule to accurately aim while hiding for a pop and shoot. Crouching behind an object deemphasizes the situational awareness such an elite operative would have beyond what a videogame can portray in such a way that they feel dull and not very capable, going to a 3rd person cover mechanic overemphasizes this by giving them a godlike omniscience of things they cannot see. Both, however, are equally tactical. The player must recognize the benefits and the limitations of their system and adjust their squad dynamics accordingly so that they may execute their strategy and achieve their victory.

None of this is to say that this game won't be cool or whatever, and it looks just fine. It is also unfair for me to heap all of this on this particular game, as it is merely following the (stupid) convention of late of calling games with this particular "realism" tactical shooters, even though the term is completely meaningless in a multiplayer environment (which is all that this game offers). So if you're a dev or a diehard supporter, I apologize if this feels unfair--it is, and I know that. But damned if that promo video wasn't aggravating to the word nazi of my heart.
 

jsonedecker

New Member
Jun 14, 2008
10
0
0
Thanks for the input!
I completely agree with your assessment of the term "tactical". Almost anything with an adversary requires tactical thinking. We spent a long time trying to come up with a new definition for this style of gameplay so that is continued to reference and build upon the original Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon experience. Really, that genre of game was defined as Squad Based Tactical Shooter. So part of me wants to stay with that moniker in some way.

Tactical Realism may be a better description, I don't know. Realism in player abilities and in game cause and effect are the goal. Every modern military shooter has "authenticity" these days. They are model an M4 is glorious detail, but none capture the proper functionality or handling of the weapons. Not to mention the experiences a player finds in game are far from realistic.

Real Special Operators use specific tactics in the real world and don't use others as they would get themselves killed. Lean vs. strafe is one and so is bunny hopping all over the place. So you are right that "realism" is the focus, but so is the proper representation of "tactical" when it comes to portraying a Special Operations individual in game and what they would or would not do in real life.
 
Apr 21, 2003
2,274
2
38
Europe
@dragonfliet:

What makes Ground Branch more tactical than other games is the solid implementation of realistic consequences. Similar as in the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six running out mindlessly gets you neutralized very quick, so you have to adapt and use creative ways of playing (team to have various angles covered, slower movement and more look around, more precise shooting by using semi automatic).

See games as a platform, you can do what you desitre, but there is always a foundation that gives things a direction. While in Call of Duty you can play as tactical as you want, it is simply not needed by design and can be even an obstacle to higher scores, while in truly realistic games tactics are a natural way to success and approaches that are fundamental to arcade games, like CoD, are simply a disadvantage and makes you fail more than win.



---------------------------


By the way, a Mac version was announced and nice hot pics added to the Kickstarter campaign.

[screenshot]http://groundbranch.com/wp-content/gallery/characters/weaponcustomization.jpg[/screenshot]

[screenshot]http://groundbranch.com/wp-content/gallery/characters/charactercustomization.jpg[/screenshot]
 
Apr 21, 2003
2,274
2
38
Europe
A video with developer commentary:

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1UOtnlwyjg&feature=player_embedded[/m]


Features are really well explained.
 
Last edited:

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
What makes Ground Branch more tactical than other games is the solid implementation of realistic consequences. Similar as in the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six running out mindlessly gets you neutralized very quick, so you have to adapt and use creative ways of playing (team to have various angles covered, slower movement and more look around, more precise shooting by using semi automatic).

See games as a platform, you can do what you desitre, but there is always a foundation that gives things a direction. While in Call of Duty you can play as tactical as you want, it is simply not needed by design and can be even an obstacle to higher scores, while in truly realistic games tactics are a natural way to success and approaches that are fundamental to arcade games, like CoD, are simply a disadvantage and makes you fail more than win.

While it isn't that profitable to argue this for too long, I'll just say that I disagree. I prefer these kinds of games, personally, but they aren't any more tactical. In COD, while you ARE able to take more hits, move and jump faster, etc.--all much less "realistic"--you are still utilizing tactics to get the best score. You are using the right weapons for the right situations, outfitted with the right attachments, implementing your killstreak bonuses, etc. You don't get these kinds of options in a realistic shooter, but rather you get a different set of abilities/limitations that drastically changes the game. And a shooter like this, provided that you are a very good player, can be played on a pub server without any teamwork and you can rack up the points just as how a game like COD, should you be playing against an organized team, no matter how good you are, if you aren't coordinating you'll die.

Being amazing at the game is just great either way, being on a good, well coordinated team will trump that in both games, etc., even though they play significantly differently. Just as how, with a game like this, looking at a wall and strafing back and forth is the best way to pop around corners and take out people, that tactic is stupid in games like this, requiring you to be x feet back (length of gun) and lean around. They're different, appealing to different styles of play, but are both examples of tactics (leaning v strafing) to accomplish a goal (killing other person) as part of a larger strategy (larger, more cohesive, complete plan that is modified throughout by individual tactics).

Tactical applies, pretty much, only in single player, to differentiate a shooter in which you must utilize tactics as part of a whole team from one in which you go down a corridor, shoot what you see, go down the next one, shoot what you see, etc.

And yeah, the new vids look great. It is a shame that, so far, the game isn't really getting that many pledges. I saw it featured on Joystiq the other day, but that didn't seem to do too much, strangely enough.
 

tomcat ha

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2002
2,819
56
48
35
Visit site
there was another tacitcal shooter on kickstarter recently and maybe that is why?
another reason prob is that tactical fps is a fairly europe centered genre and a lot of euros myself included dont have credit cards.