don't be discouraged by any hate devs

[anon474]

On 4/6/2023 at 5:52 AM, Solaris_Wave said:

The thing is, what precisely is a 'spiritual successor'? How far do you go with it? How much do you modernise it after many years have passed? Do you give it the same kind of graphics or leave them looking similar to the game of 20 years ago? Will people mind that or will they be okay with it? I'm not disagreeing here, but what I am getting at is that everybody will have different ideas of what a sequel could be. For me, I don't want anything cartoony and I want the combat to have as realistic calculations as possible, but only because I eventually saw the flaws and limitations with JA2 when I started to want more.

Also, throwing money at something doesn't guarantee anything anymore, especially in the days of Early Access. Look at Star Citizen. So much money has been given by the public and the game looks amazing but it is still not even in Beta a decade later. Some people will say how incredible the game is right now but is it because their imagination is filling in the blanks for what the game currently doesn't have but might promise? Others will say it is still a bug-ridden mess and their patience is exhausted. You get jokes made about the game being something that someone backed and that one day, their eventual grandkids will get to enjoy the game. I have joked that by the time the game comes out, humanity will have achieved outer space colonisation for real, so nobody will need the game. Chris Roberts has spent so long trying to achieve his dream that he is probably using left over money to build an artificial body for himself, so when his current human body dies out, he can port his brain profile over, just so he can carry on development of the game.

You also have to take into account that Star Citizen is a spiritual successor to his earlier game, Freelancer (a game he also couldn't finish making, so it was finished for him). The ambition with the new game is through the roof and into the stratosphere. No amount of money has helped it get finished.

That means that a true successor to JA2, if JA3 is considered to not be it, could potentially be anything. One thing Haemimont have said that they are determined to do is to make JA3 moddable. How moddable remains to be seen but at least if anybody wants to add or change something, the potential for keeping JA3 going long after release is there, whether Haemimont's finished article satisfies or not.

I don't think you need to modernize it at all, aside from maybe making it more complex, not less. JA2 was already pretty complex back then, different ammo types, item durability as a mechanic, multiple slots for gear on the character, multiple characters, multiple stats. If anything in modern gaming people made a lot of titles a LOT dumber, especially on console (no offense to console crowd, but I'm also not looking for any kind of mechanical complexity in a console title).

[Hendrix]

18 hours ago, anon474 said:

I don't think you need to modernize it at all, aside from maybe making it more complex, not less.

I have suggested in other threads that JA3 should have a wide area of options for difficulties, gameplay mechanics and complexity. Like the tons of guns option in JA2. 

While most of us here on the forum would probably be OK with 1.13 levels of details and mechanics, I find it very hard to belive that there is a large enough audience out there that would be willing to dive into it. Many do not know and definitely do not care about the difference between A Beretta 92F and Glock 17. Or a Steyr AUG and a FAMAS etc. They couldn't give a damn about LBE gear or different frag grenades. They just want to sit down and play the game whitout a lot of hassle.

I do think it is important to have options in the game that will allow the game to reach as large audience as possible. A lot of the rpgs released in the last 10 or so years has had a story mod or equivalent. I belive that could be a good option for JA3 aswell.

[anon474]

5 hours ago, Hendrix said:

I have suggested in other threads that JA3 should have a wide area of options for difficulties, gameplay mechanics and complexity. Like the tons of guns option in JA2. 

While most of us here on the forum would probably be OK with 1.13 levels of details and mechanics, I find it very hard to belive that there is a large enough audience out there that would be willing to dive into it. Many do not know and definitely do not care about the difference between A Beretta 92F and Glock 17. Or a Steyr AUG and a FAMAS etc. They couldn't give a damn about LBE gear or different frag grenades. They just want to sit down and play the game whitout a lot of hassle.

I do think it is important to have options in the game that will allow the game to reach as large audience as possible. A lot of the rpgs released in the last 10 or so years has had a story mod or equivalent. I belive that could be a good option for JA3 aswell.

That will be tough to balance, and mechanics are hard to switch on and off (and balance).

Maybe the devs can think about creating advanced startup options where you can change enemy patrol frequency, enemy squad size, how quickly enemies get better weapons or how slowly.

I think difficulty settings are already a given.

But the number one thing I'm concerned about is making sure JA is ready and developed, adding more features is great but, you want to make sure it doesn't come at the expense of derailing development.

Edited April 10, 2023 by anon474

[Lunokhod]

26 minutes ago, anon474 said:

But the number one thing I'm concerned about is making sure JA is ready and developed

Ofc its developed. They uploaded some trailer or teaser, release date in this year. Time to show some clean gameplay btw. Only one question: how bad its gonna be. We will see very soon i guess.

[anon474]

4 hours ago, Lunokhod said:

Ofc its developed. They uploaded some trailer or teaser, release date in this year. Time to show some clean gameplay btw. Only one question: how bad its gonna be. We will see very soon i guess.

I mean, my friend, there are different kinds of development lol.

[Hendrix]

 

10 hours ago, anon474 said:

Maybe the devs can think about creating advanced startup options where you can change enemy patrol frequency, enemy squad size, how quickly enemies get better weapons or how slowly.

Yupp those are some if the kinds of options I am thinking of. And maybe it does not have to be there at release, they could add it later.

 

11 hours ago, anon474 said:

That will be tough to balance, and mechanics are hard to switch on and off (and balance).

I do not see how game mechanics and the level of impact they have on the gameplay would be so hard to implement. It requires work hours of course.

When it comes to balance, well sure you need to keep the game in some way balanced, but do the large crowd want a perfect balance all the time? Some would likely just want to conquer sector after sector whitout caring about much else, someone else want The Sims level of mercs needs and wants. The next one wants to personally equip every single milita in every sector, while someone else just want to hire milita straight of so the can get on whit the game. Then you got someone who thinks the impact of the weather effects are to harsh on the gameplay and another person who wants them cranked to 11.

I do not see how you get all ends of those kinds of spectrums to enjoy the game whitout alot of different options to adjust and turn on and of. I am exaggerating in my examples above but I think you get my meaning.

 

10 hours ago, anon474 said:

But the number one thing I'm concerned about is making sure JA is ready and developed, adding more features is great but, you want to make sure it doesn't come at the expense of derailing development.

Yeah that's the hard part. From what they have said so far THQ seems to be content at the moment of Haemimont to try stuff out at what works and not. My largest fear is actually the shareholders of THQ demanding income and THQ then forcing Haemimont (and other studios) to release something they are not done whit developing and testing.

I have worked both as supplier, contractor and purchaser and there's alot of very strange decision being made in projects simply to get a better outcome of the next quarters financial, especially at the end of the year. It does not matter if it ruins the projects, requires people do work 80 hours a week or fucks up the next serveral quarter finances.

[Lunokhod]

1 hour ago, Hendrix said:

but do the large crowd want a perfect balance all the time?

"Large crowd" wants to play a good game. With good animation, with good story. Okay, its XCOM in JA setup, for me its not critical. I saw some XCOM2 gameplay on youtube and this was okay. I dont like this camera movement in battles, but it wasnt bad animated at all. But it was 2016 year game. If they do in 2023 much worse then XCOM2 its gonna be another shame for JA series. And that what i dont want to see. I mean another parasitism on Jagged Alliance big name, this genious game by Sir-Tech dont deserve another "f*cked up". So im very critical to those devs. I dont know, mb they are great guys, mb they have great families, they know alot of good stories and will be awesome to drink beer with them. BUT! Im not sure about gamedev skills of those guys. For me they looks lowskilled, but mb im wrong, proof me wrong. I want to be wrong.

[Hendrix]

@Lunokhod

Well I haven't played any of Haemimonts other games so I am the wrong guy too judge them for their development skills. They are a established studio however and not some upstart developer so I will give them that. Do you know of a studio you would rather see developing JA instead of Haemimont? And would you be absolutely sure they wouldn't fuck it up?

Look I am not saying you shouldn't be sceptical or vocal about the game. By no means do you have to like it. We do not know however what THQ requires Haemimont to do, how much freedom the contract allows them to have. In reality Haemimont could have very little say in the development for all we know. 

As for XCOM, I won't bring that discussion up again since it's been talked about enough in other threads. Rest assured there are few of us that wants that for JA.

[Solaris_Wave]

As long as the developers go by what the fans and the public want, rather than being directed by the executive suits and shareholders, JA3 has a far greater chance of success. Gaming history has shown that when something is dictated by suits and shareholders, innovation suffers and the gamers themselves will often say things like, "If only the game was this instead of that." Obviously, I am generalising what gets said but there are always missed opportunities because some guy with a Rolex watch and a Porsche has more say than the fans, even though that person has probably never played a game in their life. And no, Candy Crush doesn't count.

The ironic thing is, if profit and recouping development costs is the driving force behind what gets made and when it gets released (often prematurely as someone up top says, "It's good enough. Release it now."), the game would do far better if the people that actually play and love the games were listened to more than the guys with the fancy suits. Profit is the main concern but the fans who will want the game most of all are the ones that create that profit. They buy it, are happy to see that it is a great game and let others know, which then causes more people to buy it. Popularity increases and sales increase, which means better profits.

If you ignore the fans and just think of the general gamers who might buy it, the game could end up average at best and another wasted opportunity. That obviously lowers the sales, which leads any future attempts on that game franchise to be seen as risky, causing it to be abandoned or given a lower budget.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[anon474]

11 hours ago, Hendrix said:

but do the large crowd want a perfect balance all the time?

What people generally mean by balance is not impossibly difficult, but also not too easy, and that depends on how many enemies there are, how much ammo you can and should carry into each mission, are you expected to replenish ammo using enemy's ammo, how does that work. What about durability, what is the optimal speed of durability decrease, is it a weapon gets broken after 10 missions, maybe 20. Or only 5. If you change mechanics around you'll also have to now re-balance the entire title to make it more fitting for that set of mechanics.

The difficulty and stats of enemies should rise in line with progression, and there are some philosophies around how to do this.

Edited April 11, 2023 by anon474

[DougS2K]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:35 AM, Hendrix said:

I have suggested in other threads that JA3 should have a wide area of options for difficulties, gameplay mechanics and complexity. Like the tons of guns option in JA2. 

While most of us here on the forum would probably be OK with 1.13 levels of details and mechanics, I find it very hard to belive that there is a large enough audience out there that would be willing to dive into it. Many do not know and definitely do not care about the difference between A Beretta 92F and Glock 17. Or a Steyr AUG and a FAMAS etc. They couldn't give a damn about LBE gear or different frag grenades. They just want to sit down and play the game whitout a lot of hassle.

I do think it is important to have options in the game that will allow the game to reach as large audience as possible. A lot of the rpgs released in the last 10 or so years has had a story mod or equivalent. I belive that could be a good option for JA3 aswell.

Fair point. Would be nice to have the option of the complexity for us though but your probably right that it just won't happen. Maybe they could added the complexity but make it togglable like 1.13 did for things like tons of guns, LBE, and such. That probably won't happen either but a man can dream can't he? 

[Hendrix]

1 hour ago, anon474 said:

What people generally mean by balance is not impossibly difficult, but also not too easy, and that depends on how many enemies there are, how much ammo you can and should carry into each mission, are you expected to replenish ammo using enemy's ammo, how does that work. What about durability, what is the optimal speed of durability decrease, is it a weapon gets broken after 10 missions, maybe 20. Or only 5. If you change mechanics around you'll also have to now re-balance the entire title to make it more fitting for that set of mechanics.

The difficulty and stats of enemies should rise in line with progression, and there are some philosophies around how to do this.

Yeah but what ever mechanic/setting one person love someone else will absolutely hate. Just because you can tune or switch off different aspects of a game would not necessarily make it unbalanced. For example if someone really enjoys the very highest tactical difficulty when it comes to the combat and only want to focus at that. Maybe they would like to tone down the need sleep of for the mercs, maybe they could just buy milita straight of whitout having to train them. I don't see that as unbalanced.

[Solaris_Wave]

I would probably go for maximum complexity if I was allowed to customise the in-game options but a game doesn't have to go over the top with obsessiveness. My idea of complexity is like having the difference between tactical and full reloads, giving one extra round that was still in the chamber and a shorter reload time meaning less action point cost. Lots of games have that (mostly FPS games). Where you can go too far is if you want every single Glock model out there, especially when it doesn't come down to different calibres and might just be slightly lighter and smaller (i.e. Glock 17 vs. Glock 19). Things like that won't really matter in a game that can't translate that kind of information.

"Guys!!!!! Please add a nickel plated M1911 and a gold plated M1911! That would be sooo coooool!!! That would make it the best game evar!!!!"

Something like that is just excessive and a waste of time, effort and RAM.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Hendrix]

8 hours ago, Solaris_Wave said:

"Guys!!!!! Please add a nickel plated M1911 and a gold plated M1911! That would be sooo coooool!!! That would make it the best game evar!!!!"

Yeah but you know... goldplated guns do more damage... just like red cars goes faster... basic physics!

[Solaris_Wave]

Also, if you have a gold plated pistol, don't forget to hold it sideways while doing pelvic thrusts every time you pull the trigger.

[Hendrix]

1 hour ago, Solaris_Wave said:

Also, if you have a gold plated pistol, don't forget to hold it sideways while doing pelvic thrusts every time you pull the trigger.

"Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood" is a great documentary for teaching people gun skills! 😁

[Solaris_Wave]

I was thinking of that exact same film when I wrote that post! 😄  That film comes from the same family that made the equally brilliant, I'm Gonna Git You Sucka! That too is well worth seeing.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[anon474]

13 hours ago, Hendrix said:

Yeah but you know... goldplated guns do more damage... just like red cars goes faster... basic physics!

I actually wouldn't mind a few luxury or cosmetically different guns. I get what you're saying, I think you're referencing COD type cosmetics, but I don't think 1 or 2 of these kinds of guns is bad. Could be a cool collectors item for your main merc. Have him carry a golden 1911 instead of a regular one.

[Hendrix]

21 minutes ago, anon474 said:

I actually wouldn't mind a few luxury or cosmetically different guns. I get what you're saying, I think you're referencing COD type cosmetics, but I don't think 1 or 2 of these kinds of guns is bad. Could be a cool collectors item for your main merc. Have him carry a golden 1911 instead of a regular one.

Sure I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it doesn't come with some magical stat increase. Could even be something you loot from a named enemy and could sell to a weapon dealer for a good price if it is in pristine condition.

[Solaris_Wave]

I suppose such unique weapons wouldn't be that unreasonable, as long as they are very rare so we don't end up with a 'looter shooter' game. Saddam Hussein had a gold AKM, I think (or maybe a short barrel AKSU of some sort) while Gaddafi had a gold Beretta 93R. They could have a slight increase in certain stats, such as a little extra range and damage to suggest premium components and a better barrel. They could have a slight decrease to action point cost to fire them, to suggest an improved trigger. They could even possibly have a slightly quicker reload due to customised, smoother magazine wells.

Custom M1911s are quite popular in the USA, with a lot of work going into them internally and externally. They are very expensive and I'm not sure but might require more frequent maintenance.

[anon474]

1 hour ago, Hendrix said:

Sure I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as it doesn't come with some magical stat increase. Could even be something you loot from a named enemy and could sell to a weapon dealer for a good price if it is in pristine condition.

Yeah I think they're called trophy guns and are actually handed out to officers in the military upon retirement. That's where the tradition of engraving firearms comes from.

But I would also not separately mind very unique custom versions of guns that give maybe even a small boost on underlying values, a 1 ap reduction here a +1 damage there, maybe +10 magazine size. Nothing huge, but something that would make the end game trying to find not just the best weapon but the best version of that best weapon, which would be extremely rare.