GROUND BRANCH - BFS 2.0
- Thread starter Psychomorph
- Start date
-
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.
People say you can use some kind of temporary credit card or such to pay, some people did pledged in KS like that.
You may ask on the BlackFoot forums for specifics. It is in their interest to help you pledge, so the community should be helpful. If not, I'll kick their arses to be.
This game is for you, it would be a shame if you couldn't support it.
I see that. There could be various reasons, due to E3 the game has minimum public exposure (on gaming sites, etc). That could change after E3 is over.
What does concearn me though is how limitted support is from the very community. 300+ backers, the Ground Branch and Ghost Recon communities together have several thousands members. Either word didn't reach them, or they are f#cking lazy hypocrites. No idea really.
A month to go, so lets wait and see, but do your best to spread the word, on any forum you visit, talk to your gamer buddies, etc.
Last edited:
@tomcat ha; what kind of debit card do you have? I have a Visa debit card and I've had no troubles buying stuff from Amazon over the years.
If not, then there's always the option of getting a prepaid credit card as mentioned on the BFS forums.
If not, then there's always the option of getting a prepaid credit card as mentioned on the BFS forums.
Psych, I think a lot of Infers could be interested in this game, but also i think a lot of us are a little put off by the false promises of numerous "realistic" fps in the last 10 years. Arma, RO, AA, OFP, insurgency, etc, there has been a good number of games that we hoped to be "the next Inf", and most of them were anything but that, when they weren't complete disappointments.
Also, the fanboyism isn't helping. I'm actually considering pledging, but what's bothering is to pay for a game that can show no real in game footage, and that is making the same promises as many other games before. Maybe if Beppo would officially vouch for it it would help.
Or if there was a possibility to withdraw your pledge if the Beta fall short of our expectations
Also, the fanboyism isn't helping. I'm actually considering pledging, but what's bothering is to pay for a game that can show no real in game footage, and that is making the same promises as many other games before. Maybe if Beppo would officially vouch for it it would help.
Or if there was a possibility to withdraw your pledge if the Beta fall short of our expectations
This.
I can't believe people are ignoring it and still say there is zero gameplay. BFS worked their ass off (including Beppo) to bring that game as far as seen in the video, with zero funding (only with the help of those of us who donated to them years ago).
It is the same thing I see on GhostRecon.net. All the bitching and moaning how the industry went south and how they want their Ghost Recon or Infiltration back and now when someone actually shows that they want to make it and ask for support, people all the sudden act royal demanding to be convinced they will like the game.
This of course is not directed at you personally ant75, as you are pending with your decision, I'm just seeing these attitudes largerly among communities that complained about not having a good tac game at their disposal and now they have doubts. This is upsetting.
I know BFS' history, that they made that game for eyars and the outcome is very weak, but the actual reason was that they had no funding and no money, hence were not able to hire professionals to make a proffessionally looking game. THIS is what they are asking for now, the funding to make the game you want. They made the math, the calculation about what amount of money they need to hire all the pros to make the game shine. This amount they present you in the Kickstarter. If you don't support them now, you simply don't truly want a game like this and should stop pretending it.
I know you are asked for your money and a Kickstarter is not 100% guarantee, but I can tell you there will not be a chance like this in the next 10 years. This is the next best thing to INF. I can understand why the ArmA people are less excited, but INF was always the closest thing to what BFS wants to do. I hope INF players will see that.
As BTH said, pledge at least a minimum (you get a free copy in return) and you will know you contributed. There is no "maybe" or being neutral for those who always asked for a real realistic tac game. You're either pledging for it or against it, it's either yes or no. If you don't support, you are part of the reason it (the KS campaign) failed, if it should fail. If it does, you haven't lost your money anyway.
Besides, 15 Dollar are only about 12 Euro.
Last edited:
How can we find out if everyone who was interested in the project already knows about the kickstarter campaign?
If we send some people a private message will they get told with an e-mail?
Has anyone already tried posting about the GB KS campaign in the INF facebook group?
If we send some people a private message will they get told with an e-mail?
Has anyone already tried posting about the GB KS campaign in the INF facebook group?
This might be relevant to Infiltration players:
I tell you, INF all the way.
Jonathan Conley said:
I tell you, INF all the way.
We'll l've thrown in my support. I do hope they support community maps. That's what made infiltration for me. The fact that me and my friends could play between so many maps was great!
Hey 2_SeeK_U, thanks for the support!
This game is based on the Unreal Engine 3, it will have full mod support, you can use the free UDK tools to make whatever you want, maps, weapons, mutators.
The community is made of various people, Infiltration fans, Rainbow Six fans and Ghost Recon fans. Ghost Recon still has new mods, maps and missions released, you can be assured there will be TONS of community made stuff.
This game is based on the Unreal Engine 3, it will have full mod support, you can use the free UDK tools to make whatever you want, maps, weapons, mutators.
The community is made of various people, Infiltration fans, Rainbow Six fans and Ghost Recon fans. Ghost Recon still has new mods, maps and missions released, you can be assured there will be TONS of community made stuff.
That's exactly it. I keep saying this is the closest thing to INF, we will likely not have anything that close to INF's depth in a while. Since Beppo is associate with it, he put alot of his input into the project, things he planned for the next INF.
They're marketing this thing all wrong. They're not competing with Call of Duty of BF3. 99% of those players aren't interested in a ground branch style game. Their target market are people who Play ARMA2 ACE. It has all the features GB has and more. Its one weakness is the CQB of the ARMA engine is shit. That's where GB can fit in to the market.
They need to market to that niche audience of hardcore tactical gamers and fill the gap that the ARMA/OFP series has never been able to fulfill rather than targeting a group of people who will never care for or want to play GB. Personally I prefer the long range open gameplay of ARMA to INFs close up TDM style but there is a sizeable minority of ARMA players looking for something like GB.
Tactical gamers, like most gamer, don't like promises that aren't kept. They hate previews and they hate nebulous dates like "when it's done". Especially since groups like the ACE developers regularly release huge updates like clockwork. GB needs to put out exciting and innovative videos that demonstrate unique gameplay above and beyond anything that's already available out there. So far it just looks like a UT2k4 mod. I know it's alpha but there's no seed of originality there.
I've been following overgrowth regularly. I like how their innovating the entire Beat Em Up genre popular in the mid to late 90s. I pre-ordered just off the idea alone. I'll give when GB promises something more than a pretty INF in 4 to 10 years from now.
http://blog.wolfire.com/page/2
They need to market to that niche audience of hardcore tactical gamers and fill the gap that the ARMA/OFP series has never been able to fulfill rather than targeting a group of people who will never care for or want to play GB. Personally I prefer the long range open gameplay of ARMA to INFs close up TDM style but there is a sizeable minority of ARMA players looking for something like GB.
Tactical gamers, like most gamer, don't like promises that aren't kept. They hate previews and they hate nebulous dates like "when it's done". Especially since groups like the ACE developers regularly release huge updates like clockwork. GB needs to put out exciting and innovative videos that demonstrate unique gameplay above and beyond anything that's already available out there. So far it just looks like a UT2k4 mod. I know it's alpha but there's no seed of originality there.
I've been following overgrowth regularly. I like how their innovating the entire Beat Em Up genre popular in the mid to late 90s. I pre-ordered just off the idea alone. I'll give when GB promises something more than a pretty INF in 4 to 10 years from now.
http://blog.wolfire.com/page/2
Last edited:
Innovative? Originality?
You can't be innovative or original when you are copying real life or else you're doing something wrong. Besides, people complain that there hasn't been a game like the original Ghost Recon, or Rainbow Six, or INF. So if Ground Branch wanted to be innovative it would be doing it all wrong. Originality killed all tactical games: Rainbow Six Vegas, Ghost Recon Future Soldier, that "Infiltration 3.0 Impact Theatre" , those are actually very innovative and original. Doesn't mean they are good... at all.
You can't be innovative or original when you are copying real life or else you're doing something wrong. Besides, people complain that there hasn't been a game like the original Ghost Recon, or Rainbow Six, or INF. So if Ground Branch wanted to be innovative it would be doing it all wrong. Originality killed all tactical games: Rainbow Six Vegas, Ghost Recon Future Soldier, that "Infiltration 3.0 Impact Theatre" , those are actually very innovative and original. Doesn't mean they are good... at all.
It's amazing how people see things different, chuckus. You say they are managing it wrong by not focusing on what makes them unique in comparison (competition) to ArmA, but all that they focused on in the KS video was showing a CQB shooting range training course, which had a slight militaryish R6 flair.
You know, that's the thing that is killing the KS campaign right now, this terrifying discordancy among the tactical communities. I read peoples opinion on this and I fail to find words to express my absentmindedness.
You say it is not innovative, but while it may not look shiny enough at the moment, the fact that the gun is carried at lowready (in 1st person, as well as the 3rd) and aimed to engage, that the NV is activated by pulling down the goggles, how is this not innovative? This hasn't been done before.
I also feel like the ingame content actually makes more damage than good, because people focus only on that ignoring that it is pre-alpha, just a rough example and that the vision is described in words and is mean to be reached with the funding.
I have to agree with this though, I played the pre-alpha as a donator and in its state I felt it was not ready to be used as a presentation, and I feel like I see it confirmed, but that alpha was the only thing they could work with.
People keep demanding from them what they can only do when they actually get that game funded.
By the way, John said they will adjust some things and make a new presentation addressing the critique points made but the community. Let's see, but I stil hope you guys don't give up on GB and support it.
You know, that's the thing that is killing the KS campaign right now, this terrifying discordancy among the tactical communities. I read peoples opinion on this and I fail to find words to express my absentmindedness.
You say it is not innovative, but while it may not look shiny enough at the moment, the fact that the gun is carried at lowready (in 1st person, as well as the 3rd) and aimed to engage, that the NV is activated by pulling down the goggles, how is this not innovative? This hasn't been done before.
I also feel like the ingame content actually makes more damage than good, because people focus only on that ignoring that it is pre-alpha, just a rough example and that the vision is described in words and is mean to be reached with the funding.
I have to agree with this though, I played the pre-alpha as a donator and in its state I felt it was not ready to be used as a presentation, and I feel like I see it confirmed, but that alpha was the only thing they could work with.
People keep demanding from them what they can only do when they actually get that game funded.
By the way, John said they will adjust some things and make a new presentation addressing the critique points made but the community. Let's see, but I stil hope you guys don't give up on GB and support it.
That's horsecrap. The reason infiltration was successful was because it was one of the first to do things no other "tactical" shooter ever did. It's why Beppo and other coders were trying to find ways to innovate the genre again 3 or 4 years ago (ie doing OFP's in-head cam properly in a way that didn't feel and look awkward. I have the original mut for ut2k4 but I can't find the post for that).
That's a mischaracterization. Those games didn't kill tactical gaming. They were original for the Arcade shooter genre. Originality is always good. Newer and better aimview. newer and better simulation of bullet ballistics. newer and better ways of immersion. Realism is simulation. Not reality. You need to innovate and generate new models and way os of simulating the real world. To sit here and say INF is perfection and should just be re-made is so insular and backwards it guarantees Ground Branchs failure if that is all it seeks to do.
I'll be honest with you psych. People don't just want someones interpretation of reality. They want a good game. Which means good simulation of reality ALONG with a good feel, good immersion and a unique gameplay experience. The amount of people who want a game that plays like INF are exactly the amount of people who currently frequent these forum boards. That's not a lot of people. Ground Branch has shown a nice basic Alpha but they are asking for peoples money to be risked on a project that has folded once already.
When inf put out its preview trailers they showed slow weapon reloads/tactical reloads (never before done properly). Smooth Aimview (never before done properly). An impressive arsenal and a new game type. Two innovations and eye candy. No project that looks like a basic UT Mod can go around asking for 100s of dollars in donations. All the features you mentioned are things people have done as mods for ARMA 2 so they really need to find a hook that sets them apart.
I know its tough to make a game with no funds but the fact that there are people with no budget able to make a project like INF proves that what they brought to the table is just not enough.
You have your mind made up I see, but there is one thing that I hate to see in forums and it's quotes like that and the one where you say "...groups like the ACE developers regularly release huge updates like clockwork".
Those drive me nuts every time I see similar comments about "well if a mod can do it" crap. You refer to MODS and not games made form the ground up. Mods are built on top of an EXISTING GAME and already have the majority of systems they need in place. GB is a STANDALONE game and not a mod. Every system needed to be built from the ground up to do what we need it to do. A lot of those things are simply "under the hood" and don't mean squat to the end user. But without them the things that the do see that matters wouldn't be possible.
If we were able to show all the glitz and glamour and whiz bang stuff you want to see to believe then I assure you we wouldn't even have a Kickstarter. We would be fully funded and on our way. It's a chicken and egg thing here... Self funded game development is like that.
Last edited: