Combat distance

[CatsPaw]

Hello to all community members. I'm glad Jagged Alliance has gotten another (hopefully this time really the heir to the original) sequel. I looked at the screenshots of the future game posted on the site - an order of magnitude higher than the original. I can only congratulate the people in charge of the graphics. If these are really screenshots from the game, and not pictures drawn by artists, then this is what the continuation of Jagged Alliance 2 deserves. I especially liked the 11th screenshot, where Ivan, Vicki and Buns are standing in the center of the village. Everything is great. I caught myself thinking that I want to see just such a scale in the game, both in combat mode and outside. I even fantasized a little about how I would clean up this sector. And as a result, the question arose about the optimal shooting distance. In many tactical games I was annoyed to see how all the battles take place but at a very short distance. If in urban conditions this is still understandable, then in open areas it looks at least strange. People armed with automatic rifles and machine guns approach each other until a pistol shot. As a result, the battles are very fleeting, and out of 10 bullets fired, about 8 hit the enemy. In practice, in collisions in open areas, the distance is quite large and hitting 2 bullets out of 10 is an excellent result, if we are not talking about snipers. I understand that in practice, almost any hit to the center of mass takes a person out of the battle, and in the game the characters constantly absorb a lot of hits with the possibility of continuing the battle. In my opinion, due to the fact that battles take place at a very short distance, the very tactics of the battle suffers. It boils down to a banal head-to-head shootout. The player does not need to make any flanking maneuvers, because in this case the player understands that a winning tactic is the concentration of all the trunks from one place to the point to which the opponents are running. In this case, the very atmosphere of the battle is lost, there is no need for planning and tension from the battle. Which is not very good for a tactical game.
I am very interested in what you think about this. I ask community members to answer the following questions below:
1. What do you think should be the default scale of the game, should the camera be far enough away from the character, or do you want a closer view of the camera to the character?
2. What should be the combat distance for different types of weapons (pistols, automatic rifles, sniper rifles)?
3. What percentage of hits would you like to see on the average character?
4. How many hits should the character withstand, and what should be the consequences of hits?
Attached a screenshot with notes where "1" is a close distance, "2" is an average distance, "3" is a long distance, "PChar" is a conditional position of a player, “NPC” is a conditional position of an enemy.
Thank you in advance for your answers.

[CatsPaw]

Small clarification:
Attached a screenshot with notes where "3" is a close distance, "2" is an average distance, "1" is a long distance, "PChar" is a conditional position of a player, “NPC” is a conditional position of an enemy.
Thank you in advance for your answers.

[GODSPEED]

I think this an interesting topic to discuss as it is incredibly relevant to the type of game (and for anyone who actually cares a little about firearm specs/stats and a hint of "realism").

 

That said, I'm not certain if you played JA2 1.13 with NCTH (New Chance To Hit) system that you can activate when creating a new game, but it was intended to address this specific issue.

 

It is a highly mathematical problem that also brought on new issues concerning balance, suppression, realism and the length of firefights.

 

 

For gameplay reasons and the fact turn-based games slow down time to an extreme degree, having firefights that would last as long as a real firefight, with all the missing, suppression fire and everything that beings along, I feel that it would make the game difficult mostly on our patience and it would become a fristrating affair with simple 5-10 monute battles into hour-long marathons.

 

As I'm pretty certain most of us here are old enough to understand that warfare is so far away from the portayal it gets in video games and movies; it is often more like entrenched squads that suppress areas and exchange bullets for extended periods of time to cover and for another squad to move in, or armored support or a drone strike..

 

Games tend to be heroic, and as much as I appreciate realism, I think for the purpose of having fun and also not taking TOO much of my time, I think most tuen-based games have a decent length in terms of to-hit ratio; from the old x-coms, jagged alliance, silent storm, 7,62 high calibre to the newer xcoms, phoenix point, etc..

 

I enjoy being able to miss a few shots, but to try emptying a mag before maybe ever getting a shot on target would mean I would have to carry over a dozen magazines for a fight on a map with 20 or so enemies, or, habe very little enemies.

 

Honestly, for effect, I would prefer more enemies to help make the setting feel more realistic (you are taking on a small country), but slightly "game-efied" combat like we've already seen.

 

If it was a realtime game, I'd say YES alot of missing shots, lol!

 

It's hard to give numbers though. I think it depends on how the game plays. I want the possibility for a well place headshot to become a one-shot kill (unarmored) but a helmet should protect to a certain degree against small calibre firearms.

 

I REALLY DO NOT WANT A GAME WITH BULLET SPONGES!!!!!!

I don't want enemies to get progressively more health as the game furthers deeper into it's story. I do NOT want bosses that will require Resident Evil levels of shots to take down!

 

In JA2, Deidranna went down as easy as ANY soldier.

 

 

 

As for camera, I ALWAYS want completely free camera, I want to zoom out far to get a good overview of the enemies that are at the maximum possible firing distance in the game. I also enjoy being able to zoom in to see the details of the equipment, pouches, camouflage, clothing. I like the wode picture, but the devil is in the detail!

 

I'll look over this topic further later on when I won't be on my phone.. but thanks for bringing this up, and welcome to a friendly community!

[GODSPEED]

23 minutes ago, CatsPaw said:

Small clarification:
Attached a screenshot with notes where "3" is a close distance, "2" is an average distance, "1" is a long distance, "PChar" is a conditional position of a player, “NPC” is a conditional position of an enemy.
Thank you in advance for your answers.

In my opinion, I would like to see:

 

Assault rifle scale to be PChar able to accurately shoot as far north as possible in the screenshot.

 

Pistol should not be much more accurate than where the NPCs are standing between 3 and 2. Beyond that it should lose so much accuracy, you would not want to use it.

 

Sniper rifles should really be anything like an Assault rifle with added rage accuracy depending on the scope.

I also think sniper rifles should be a "rare" thing, and more focus should be put on more realistic real-world behavior of a squad carrying a Dragunov, where it helps to lay down support at longer range.

 

Shotguns should be in between pistol and assault rifle, depending on buckshot or slugs (slugs accurate to 200 meters) and no wide spread of buckshot like in many shooter games.

[CatsPaw]

GODSPEED,thanks for the answer. Yes, of course I played 1.13. I was satisfied. I agree with you that you should not transfer reality into the game completely, since in reality it is hard work, and the game is only entertainment. But I wanted to hear from the community to what extent it is worth bringing reality into the game. As for the camera, of course a free camera is the best option, but I would like the option with a camera distant from the character to be available. I also agree with damage-absorbing sponges. And speaking about the distance of the shot, I even more had in mind the distance at which the average NPC will start shooting at the PChar with different weapons. In my opinion, if this is a sniper, then from position "1", if a submachine gunner is somewhere between positions "1" or "2", if he is armed with a pistol, then from a position between "2" and "3" (although in reality, run to convergence in a straight line is a bad option, but unfortunately all bots are guilty of this). I am far from game design, but I think that somewhere in the code the percentage of hits after which the bots start shooting at the enemy is spelled out, and in many games this percentage is too high, which makes the bots go for a risky approach.

[GODSPEED]

21 minutes ago, CatsPaw said:

I even more had in mind the distance at which the average NPC will start shooting at the PChar with different weapons.

Ok, I see what you meant!

 

The distance at which enemies will shoot would vary greatly depending on the element of suppression.

 

UNFORTUNATELY, I would think 'suppression' is a mechanic that is too "hardcore" for the approach most companies take on these games.

 

Let's say this game has some elements of suppression; i think the enemy should prioritize taking shots from far away even if the weapon is innnacurate, so that you could potentially lose AP for movement and help the AI with shoeter range weapons to approach/flank with SMG.

 

As an example, if you have some enemies with pistols, smgs and ar; the ones with AR should go in cover further away and shoot as much as possible as the smgs and pistols start getting closer.

Maybe something like, AR between 1-2 and then pistol would need to be at 3 to be effective.

 

But this is very "normal" behavior, I would hope that they can have flanking enemies.

 

If you play JA2 1.13 with the +AI executable by sevenfm, the AI is crazy good at flanking and using camouflage to hide! They will also try to suppress you with high volume of shots so you lose AP.

 

 

Unfortunately, I do not think this JA3 will have suppression; and I expect firefights to be something like Back in Action and enemies to simply stay where they are and rush when there is nothing else to do.

 

I think it is very hard for me to think what is possible, because I have never seen this game engine in a tactical game. If it is close to the game engine as in their previous tbs Omerta, we can expect a simple tactical experience and minimal distance/range.

 

What do you think?

[CatsPaw]

22 minutes ago, GODSPEED said:

What do you think?

Yes, it's hard to talk about something you've never seen. But if we assume that this is really the heir to Jagged Alliance 2 released 20+ years later, then of course the mechanic's groove must be. There must be a system of suppression from enemy shots, possibly less aggressive than in 1.13, hits should affect the abilities of all characters. I believe that the game should inherit the original. JA3 has no right to be superficial. After all, Jagged Alliance 2 at one time was a progressive game that used the latest developments for that time. Just why then call it by the name of this legendary series, because it is clear that a lot of older fans of the game immediately after the release will write a lot of negative reviews if they feel deceived. I think that if the developers had called the subsequent released remakes of ja 2 somehow differently, their rating would have been much higher. Jagged Alliance 3 is a heavy duty.

[GODSPEED]

1 hour ago, CatsPaw said:

JA3 has no right to be superficial. After all, Jagged Alliance 2 at one time was a progressive game that used the latest developments for that time. Just why then call it by the name of this legendary series, because it is clear that a lot of older fans of the game immediately after the release will write a lot of negative reviews if they feel deceived. I think that if the developers had called the subsequent released remakes of ja 2 somehow differently, their rating would have been much higher. Jagged Alliance 3 is a heavy duty.

You are EXACTLY right and this is also one of my biggest worries.

I worry that a series that was truly unique and original will end up being generic and feel like a clone of some of the modern turn-based games. Not because those games are bad, but because we will lose what made Jagged Alliance so special.

But, in any case, this is hard to know when they have released very little information..

I think we need to see more gameplay to have any idea of the game engine and how they will handle the distance scale.

Will weapons actualyl have realsitic statistics with range? and will it work with the scale of the maps or will we constantly be playing CQB with sniper rifles?

[CatsPaw]

GODSPEED, In general, the developers have a difficult situation. On the one hand, the generation of people under 35, to whom the name Jagged Alliance does not really mean anything, on the other generation of people over 35, who are ardent fans of the series. For success, and this is coverage of two audiences, developers need a kind of revolution in the genre. But if you make the game a complete copy of the mechanics that were exclusive to the original game, it will only be popular with 35+. If you make a copy of XCOM2, many 35+ will write negative reviews as a game that did not meet expectations, but younger players have already gorged themselves on these products.
In my opinion, we need a "tactical game" in the full sense of the word, but they are not on the market now. The game is in real time and with real weapons, without blasters, magic and undead. You need a game with deep mechanics, and deep mechanics do not always mean difficulties for users. I don’t understand when they say that 20 or 100 action points is difficult. Always the question for whom is it difficult? If the character is under fire and, as a result, he has fewer of them, what is the difficulty? This is an objective reality. Or does someone doubt that an overhead machine-gun burst will not force him to press himself into the ground? If the character ran 20 meters from one cover to another in the sprint mode, will he really keep his breathing and this will not affect the shooting accuracy in any way, at least for 1 or 2 moves in turn-based mode? Or if he was wounded in the arm or leg, because it should somehow affect the character. I find this difficult for developers, not for players regardless of age. It is the developers who ask themselves whether the time spent is worth the amount of sales. Due to my age, I myself play only a few games, one of them Starcraft 2, this is where the really complex mechanics are, the economy in which the amount of minerals and gas is calculated to one, where the whole procedure is scheduled down to a second and per minute for a normal result you need to click on the keyboard more than 100 times, a good result is from 250 - 300 times. So for some reason there it is much easier for 14-18 year olds to do it than 35 year olds. But we will of course be told that it is difficult for the younger generation, they are not ready to deepen the mechanics. But this is not the case. And JA3 is a tactic, and deep mechanics are a must, just a must. We need a good animation of suppression from enemy shooting, animation of the damage received and the consequences of them (possibly in the form of icons above the character), etc. and then the players will have no difficulties. Yes, you also need a game with beautiful graphics (on the screenshots it already exists, once again I express my gratitude to the people responsible for the graphic part), you need a free world in the game, you need deep characters, you need everything that was in JA2, taking into account that the new game is coming out significantly later 1999. In my opinion, the deepening of the mechanics of the game with an adequate interface is "a kind of revolution in the genre" since there are currently no such games.
This is, of course, if the budget of the game meets our expectations from the game.
What do you think about the deepening of the mechanics?

[GODSPEED]

2 hours ago, CatsPaw said:

What do you think about the deepening of the mechanics?

This is such an easy question for me to answer, but it is - like you said - such a complex problem to solve for the dev team.

 

You have exactly the same thoughts as me on the subject.

 

I want Jagged Alliance 3 to be an upgrade like Jagged Alliance 2 was an upgrade to the first game. I do not expect the same level as 1.13, because many features are too complex and also experimental.. but, 1.13 provides good examples of features that have improved the original JA2... one of the important ones is SUPPRESSION.

 

This is an important strategy and complexity to add to a tactical game, making soldiers lose AP or unable to move, becomes an important way to create strategy for movement. It also creates the simple logic of the importance of a support unit with a light machine gun.

 

 

But, what you said is what I believe is important. It is the dev who wonders if complex features are worth the time and money.

 

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that gaming is not what it used to be.. it is less about pasionate game designers, and more about businessmen running companies who want the products to be easy to make and easy to make money. So, instead of figuring out new and unique features (taking risk), most will simply be satisfied to nearly copy (or copy and tweak) features from modern games that make good money. (why modern xcom clones work well).

 

Another issue is the multi-platform approach. I do not have anything against consoles. There have been games unique to consoles that I have greatly enjoyed.. and maybe for a modern company, it is necessary for financial reasons?

But I believe that in the end, the PC gamer is the one who gets the short end of the stick.

 

A computer is the ideal machine for more advanced strategy, tactical and simulation games. Not only because a mouse and keyboard make it easier for many features, but also the seating position is ideal for serious thinking.

But the last decade, we have been given games that are made for consoles, that are simplistic and "easy" to learn that offer very little freedom and very few choices to make.

 

A good example I like to share is a game I really loved when I was a young adult; Battlefield 2.

This was one of my favorites games to play. I used to play with a squad and we used to practice playing together. The game, for a shooter, had alot of strategy, because you had a commander who could issue commands to squad leaders and squad leaders were the ones who had to request various support options from the commander; like artillery, supply drops, uav drones, etc..

So it was important to practice communication within your squad so the squad leader could best know if and when he should requests features from the commander.. this was way more important than having a good kill/death ratio.. as everything was a team effort.

 

Now, when you talk Battlefield, most do no even know about these layers, because since Battlefield 3, it was made for more mass market and consoles.

 

Another ecample was Rainbow Six 1-3. Just planning the missions could take hours, and it could be complex. But instead of tweaking that formula, Ubisoft now makes some of the most simplistic copy/paste games that require no planning, no thought, no strategy..

 

Jagged Alliance 3 suffers this problem as you said; us old fans, we want Jagged Alliance 2+

..new graphics, new story, some new mercs, all the voiceovers, tactical battles, freedom to what you want, how you want as quickly or slowly as you want, with realistic weaponry and simulated ballistics of bullets, realistic equipment features like magazines, bullet variations (FMJ, JHP, AP, etc..), better attachment systems, etc...

 

 

But is it worth it for Haemimont Games to want to make the very small market of old fans happy? Or is it more worth it to make a game like more modern games and get all new players but also MAYBE get old fans because of the name it has?

 

I have my worries unfortunately.

 

[GODSPEED]

And to come back to your original post about COMBAT DISTANCE, this is one of the most important aspects that seriously need an upgrade!

 

Jagged Alliance 2 had to solve a problem of low resolution game engine and distance.

 

So, they "fixed" the problem by using 2 different scales. The size of the maps, the buildings, roads, characters are all on one scale, but then, the view distance of the units and the shooting distance ate all scaled to a square that represents 10 meters by 10 meters.

 

So it looks ridiculous on modern systems.

 

Combat Distance and the scale of firefights is important, and we have that boosted capacity because of 3D engines. I am really anxious to see more and I hope I can one day play Jagged Alliance and really feel fear for my squad as a distant Sniper could be extremely dangerous!

[CatsPaw]

15 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

I want Jagged Alliance 3 to be an upgrade like Jagged Alliance 2 was an upgrade to the first game. I do not expect the same level as 1.13, because many features are too complex and also experimental.. but, 1.13 provides good examples of features that have improved the original JA2

I agree with it. I think that you shouldn't demand all 1.13 mechanics from the developers when the game is released. I look at the screenshots and they please me at the moment. I feel in them the heir to JA2. It will be good if the game comes out imbued with the spirit of JA2, it will already be a success.
On the other hand, if the developers release DLC with the mechanics of the 1.13 mod and conditionally give it the name "1.15 mod", then it will be very strong. Few games can boast of the world famous DLC title. How can fans of the legendary series force themselves not to buy DLC with that name? They will be obliged to do this.

[Hendrix]

Combat distances (CD) can really make or break the game in this case. This next sentence might sound contradictive but hear me out: I think most of us wants a game that FEALS realistic, not is realistic. Most of all it must be fun!

Like stated above in this topic. If CD is to low, combat will turn (at lest in my belief) into something like the latest XCOM Games. In my opinion, that is not JA! Situational awareness will become "luck-based" since you cannot spot enemies trying to flank you. 

If CD is to long, I believe combat will become very, very, very tedious and boring. It might be realistic, but I do not think it will be fun. If CD are to long, as soon as combat begin, every enemy on the map would converge and take up positions at optimal ranges of your mercs since they can spot them from 500+ meters. Realistic? Well yeah kinda, fun though? Call me sceptic.

 

Looking at your picture CatsPaw (great name!), I believe I would like to se something along the line of:

Pistols/revolvers/MP. From PChar to 3: Good/average hit chance depending on merc skill. 3 - 2 Bad hit chance, 2 - 1 5% hit chance.

Shotguns/SMG/PDW. From PChar to 2: Good/average hit chance depending on merc skill. 2 - 1 Bad hit chance, 1+ 5% hit chance.

AR/LMG. From PChar to 1: Good/average hit chance depending on merc skill. 1+ Bad hit chance. Shed above NPC 1 5% hit chance.

SR/DMR From PChar to 3: Average/bad hit chance depending on merc skill. 3 - 2 average hit chance depending on merc skill, 2 - 1+ Good/average/bad hit chance depending on merc skill.

The different weapons could have different suppressive effects. Maybe shotgun, LMG and SR could have the highest suppresive effect of targets, AR, PDW and DMR medium effect and Pistol, revolvers, MP ad SMGs low? Something along those lines.

 

As for enemy behavior I think something like this could be fine.

AR/LMG enemy engages at distances 1 - PChar, maybe a 25% chance the enemy instead tries to flank.

SR/DMR enemy engages at distances 1+ - 2. If distance is shorter than 2, switches to pistol etc. or tries to increase distance to PChar.

Shotguns/SMG/PDW enemy engages at distances 2 - PChar, 25% chance the enemy instead tries to flank. If distance is longer than 2 tries to flank or close distance.

Pistols/revolvers/MP 50% chance enemy engages at distances 2 - PChar, 50% chance tries to flank or close distance to 3 - PChar.

 

It is hard to say until we se some more gameplay. From what little combat we could se from the trailer though, I thought the combat distances were entirely to short!

 

[GODSPEED]

1 hour ago, Hendrix said:

I think most of us wants a game that FEALS realistic, not is realistic. Most of all it must be fun!

From what little combat we could se from the trailer though, I thought the combat distances were entirely to short!

+1

 

Jagged Alliance 2 is a great example of walking a fine line between a wargame and a normal rpg. It manages to "feel" realistic, but is never complicated and always about "fun".

On modern resolutions, the sight and weapon range scale kind of made it lose some of that feeling; but 1.13 huge library of weapons and tweaks gave it back that feeling.

 

This topic made me think that I would wish Jagged Alliance 3 to be very similar to SILENT STORM in TACTICAL gameplay.

The Combat Distance feels very realistic within the scale of the game.. While remaining playable.

 

 

And I know I say this often, but I really fear that JA3 will simply be another tweaked nu-xcom clone, in which case we can say goodbye to ANY feeling of realism.

[CatsPaw]

10 hours ago, Hendrix said:

From what little combat we could se from the trailer though, I thought the combat distances were entirely to short!

Hendrix,Thank you for your feedback. I like the photo on your profile. I agree that the developers need to find a middle ground in firing range and combat distance

 

7 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

I really fear that JA3 will simply be another tweaked nu-xcom clone, in which case we can say goodbye to ANY feeling of realism.

Here on the forum there is a topic with films on tactical themes. Of course, there are a lot of them. But I would really like the developers to get together and watch the movie "Black Hawk Down (2001)". So that they would be inspired by the atmosphere prevailing in the film, and would try to transfer it into the game.
It was also unpleasant for me to see Ivan and Fidel slipping three meters to the stone in the trailer for the game, this is certainly not something that brings the atmosphere of the game closer to "realistic". I asked myself how this can be explained logically. Loss of time, breathlessness, loss of opponents from sight, and if they already spent their time on reducing the area of destruction and increasing the stability of the position, why did they stand up again? I couldn't find the answer. I would like to be able to disable this slide. Well, or so that the developers would bring it to a state so that at least visually, this sliding was organic.

[GODSPEED]

6 hours ago, CatsPaw said:

But I would really like the developers to get together and watch the movie "Black Hawk Down (2001)"..

If you like Black Hawk Down, I very highly suggest you watch NOKAS, 9th COMPANY, LONE SURVIVOR. You will really love these!!

They are not "hollywood" movies with big explosions and heroes and james bond effects.. they have realistic weapon effects, real tactics and gunfights I wish every movie would be like.

 

I'll be very blunt and I hope you will not take it the wrong way.. because I love discussing these topics, but the same time it is hard to do so.

Many of us have been here since the first day of this forum, and not a single dev has yet come to join or talk to us.

 

Some of us have not really come back to talk much, because we have so little information to control how we think of JA3 or what we can expect.

 

I've had very friendly discussions with some who wish the game to be more like the new xcoms/phoenix point and others who want more hardcore features like 1.13

 

It is hard to think of my favorite tactical game with such beautiful graphics and camera angles, but with a very lite tactical style of gameplay.

 

I think the gameplay part of the trailer tells us exactly what we can expect. I believe we will have classes (assault, support, medic) that have abilities and perks like most modern games, and the gameplay will be extremely close to Phoenix Point with many cinematic views like new xcoms, no bullet "physics", no "real" suppression like shooting an area..

This is NOT what I want, but so far, this is what I saw and what I believe from the trailer. I think battles will have the same type of range as well.

 

In Phoenix Point, you can zoom out far like in the screenshots, but the maps are small and combat feels too close.

[CatsPaw]

2 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

Many of us have been here since the first day of this forum, and not a single dev has yet come to join or talk to us

This is really weird. But there must be some explanation for this. It is hard to say. Perhaps they themselves have not yet fully decided on the concept of the game and are trying different options.

 

2 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

the gameplay will be extremely close to Phoenix Point with many cinematic views like new xcoms, no bullet "physics", no "real" suppression like shooting an area..

It will be even stranger. I can't remember the exact source, but I had information that the developers themselves insisted on the JA2 remake, i.e. they came to a publisher with this idea. Therefore, I still have hope for a worthy continuation of the JA series.
But if it is a clone of XCOM2.... We can speculate together. Here is a game that has a target audience. For 20 years, this audience has been asking developers to make a sequel to this game. The requirements are simple: everything is the same, but taking into account the passage of years (modern graphics, deepening mechanics, greater realism). The developers answer: approx. Then, in a narrow circle among themselves, they decide that they know better what the target audience wants. They release a product that is not at all similar to what the audience asked for. And then they are sincerely surprised by the low ratings of the product. And so it happens over and over again. If this time it will be so, then what can we say...
Well, then call the product J-COM, and develop the product for a different audience. But if you chose the title "Jagged Alliance 3", maybe you should stick to the canons of the series?

[Hendrix]

55 minutes ago, CatsPaw said:

Then, in a narrow circle among themselves, they decide that they know better what the target audience wants.

As much as it might hurt our feelings, I really think each and everyone of us must ask them self:

Am I, the target audience for this game?

It is easy for us to say: We need this! Give us that! etc. And we might be right when it comes to what JA is at its core (so far established by the earlier games). But game development today is an industry, there is time and money invested in a product that some were in the future is expected to turn into profit.

I am not defending the developer, simply stating facts.

If they turn this into JA-COM my biggest problem is that they bothered with calling it JA instead of creating a new IP free of all the history. But maybe this will also create a new interest from some of the young'uns about the older games and create new fans of the originals. And we, the old, grumpy, cane wielding, pipe smoking original fans can rise up on our unstable legs and as one with our hoarse voices mumble: THIS IS JA! 😂

[CatsPaw]

3 hours ago, Hendrix said:

As much as it might hurt our feelings, I really think each and everyone of us must ask them self:

Am I, the target audience for this game?

It's strange to read it. If the developer says what makes the successor of JА 2, then who is meant by the target audience of the product? Football Manager fans? No, this means that the developer directly indicates the target audience. I'm not against Football Manager. Tell me that it will be him, and I'll just walk by. But when they are lured by one, and at the end they are given another, many will feel deceived. Which is what happened with the previous remakes. After all, in general, the games there were not bad, if you remove the name. But their grades are bad, largely because the fans of JА 2 gave 0 or 1, because considered themselves deceived.

3 hours ago, Hendrix said:

THIS IS JA! 😂

The problem is that all the fans want to exclaim this JA. But how many re-releases have there been? Result...
XCOM is a great game. Great, high quality, with a huge budget, an order of magnitude more than the JA2. But JA2 fans didn't exclaim "THIS IS JA", precisely because it is different.
But trying to repeat XCOM2 does not mean that the result will be close to XCOM2. So much money, work and professionalism has been invested in XCOM2 that it is extremely difficult to repeat.

[GODSPEED]

8 hours ago, Hendrix said:

Am I, the target audience for this game?

I am not defending the developer, simply stating facts.

If they turn this into JA-COM my biggest problem is that they bothered with calling it JA instead of creating a new IP free of all the history. But maybe this will also create a new interest from some of the young'uns about the older games and create new fans of the originals. And we, the old, grumpy, cane wielding, pipe smoking original fans can rise up on our unstable legs and as one with our hoarse voices mumble: THIS IS JA! 😂

We are exactly on the same page. I think the fact we are an older crowd also means that we are able to think outside of what "I want". Sure, I want JA3.13 right now... but, deep down, I think it is unrealistic to expect that.

Am I, the target audience for this game?

No. 
They do not want a hardcore old fan of tactical games like JA2, Silent Storm, 7,62 High Calibre, etc... They want to work on the current generation of turn-based strategy games that are popular on the market. It has to be easy for fans of the style to say, "oh this looks close enough to xcom or phoenix point in a new setting! Sure! Looks great, let's try this!".

AT THE SAME TIME, the name carries enough weight that they do pocket us old fans to a certain extent.

 

4 hours ago, CatsPaw said:

It's strange to read it. If the developer says what makes the successor of JА 2, then who is meant by the target audience of the product? ...
XCOM is a great game. Great, high quality, with a huge budget, an order of magnitude more than the JA2. But JA2 fans didn't exclaim "THIS IS JA", precisely because it is different.
But trying to repeat XCOM2 does not mean that the result will be close to XCOM2. So much money, work and professionalism has been invested in XCOM2 that it is extremely difficult to repeat.

The gameplay part of the trailer shows that much. There is NO ressemblance to the old ways of making turn-based games. We are in the modern generation of style.

THQNordic is a relatively big studio.. Haemimont Games do not make bad games at all, but they do not make the style of game I am mostly attracted to.. and I mean that with all the respect that they deserve, because they have really great games to be proud of!

But I am not the target audience, they might get a few sales from us old fans because of the name it carries and some characters it shares; but deep inside, I feel it is as far as the ressemblance goes. It isn't to pay homage, or continue a legacy... it is a business that needs to make some money, and they will take the best route they think they know for it.


In the end, like ANY other JA game, I will give this one a chance. Just because something isn't EXACTLY as I want it, doesn't mean it will be bad. Who knows, maybe like @Hendrixsaid, it will bring more interest in the old series. We do not know all that happens behind the studio doors, what they want, how they plan to do it...

Even if I do not believe the game will be what I want, I still remain with some hopes that there will be some factors that will make it enjoyable to play.

[Hendrix]

7 hours ago, CatsPaw said:

It's strange to read it. If the developer says what makes the successor of JА 2, then who is meant by the target audience of the product?

2 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

they might get a few sales from us old fans because of the name it carries

This.

Same goes for Fallout 3 and 4, I do not find much similarities to Fallout 1 and 2. I can not say they carried the legacy established by the first two games very well. I did enjoy Fallout 3 and 4 for what they were though, they are not bad games.

 

2 hours ago, GODSPEED said:

it is a business that needs to make some money, and they will take the best route they think they know for it.

Exactly! This is what will decide the gameplay mechanics of a game in the end.

[CatsPaw]

I would not like to reduce the discussion to an argument. But I really don't understand why you think the 35-45 generation of players is "insignificant". I agree that 20 years ago this could be so. People who reached this age stopped playing computer games. But now everything is different. People in their 40s continue to play actively, and are not much inferior in this regard to the younger ones. But at the same time they are the most solvent category. Why should developers ignore them?
The problem is different. The tactical games genre has never been particularly popular. It is easy to verify this by going to STEAM and look at the number of players simultaneously playing at the moment. The number of CS players will be two hundred times that of XCOM2. At the same time, there will be more players playing XCOM2 than playing all similar games combined. But XCOM2 is not currently played by millions. And behind the success of XCOM2 is the huge amount of work, talent and money invested in the project, as well as the novelty of the mechanic at the time. She created the illusion of fresh air, which many people liked. But as time shows, not all players now agree with these mechanics. Many consider them simplified.
Take Phoenix Point as an example. A fresh game based on XCOM2 mechanics. The average number of players at a time is from 600 to 900. This is not a lot. It is possible that now there are a little fewer people playing in JA2, and maybe the same.
Another example is Diablo II: Resurrected (2021). The story of the game's development is similar to that of JA2 and Fallout 2. Fans have also been asking for a sequel. There were the same wishes: to leave everything as it was in the original, but taking into account the influence of time. The developers did not change anything at all, except for the graphics. The plot, locations, weapons and armor, dialogues and even the scale of the maps remained the same. Affected only the graphic component. And everyone is happy, the game with the mechanics of 2000 is successful. It took its own niche. Sold well by publishers.
But when it comes to JA 2, for some reason, the argument "either as XCOM2 or failure" immediately appears. Why should this happen all of a sudden?
XCOM2 took the mechanic as a novelty, now it's commonplace in a dozen games. If developers want success comparable to XCOM2, they also need to give something new. And if the JA2 mechanic update does not bring success comparable to XCOM2, then at least the game will occupy its own niche. And she won't be forced to share her audience with a dozen games with similar mechanics.

[CatsPaw]

52 minutes ago, Hendrix said:

Same goes for Fallout 3 and 4, I do not find much similarities to Fallout 1 and 2. I can not say they carried the legacy established by the first two games very well. I did enjoy Fallout 3 and 4 for what they were though

Perhaps this is due to the fact that you are a good person by nature. This is the only way to explain how this could be forgiven at all.😁

[Hendrix]

32 minutes ago, CatsPaw said:

I would not like to reduce the discussion to an argument.

Me neither and so far I think we are having a civil discussion regarding this topic. 👍

It is not an age factor really, my fear is that there is not a large market for a JA2-ish game in 3D.

I really really hope that you are right CatsPaw. Belive me I am more than happy if I am wrong and they do produce a game true to the classic games!

What makes me a sceptic is the overall directions of gaming development. In my opinion, larger established companies tend to take a direction of simplifying games. Not make them more complex.

[GODSPEED]

1 hour ago, CatsPaw said:

But I really don't understand why you think the 35-45 generation of players is "insignificant". I agree that 20 years ago this could be so. People who reached this age stopped playing computer games. But now everything is different. People in their 40s continue to play actively, and are not much inferior in this regard to the younger ones. But at the same time they are the most solvent category. Why should developers ignore them?

I do not think @Hendrixbelieves it is an insignificant generation, as he proves that we still care...

BUT. Like ANY older games today, usually only small indie teams will try and 'revive' old games. Blizzard themselves are not the ones who worked on Diablo II, they hired a small team to do the work.

Gaming is a business more than it is about passionate games. Today, the head of most publishing divisions are businessmen trying to manage money-making businesses... even if the development teams are passionate gamers, they do not make the rules, because they need the big publishers to get money.

When we look at gaming as a whole, the vast majority of games have become simplified over the time. A few days ago, I mentionned Battlefield 2, Rainbow Six 3... these are only a few names.. but we could go on with other titles like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Diablo, X-com, Elder Scrolls, Resident Evil...

We older gamers have played those and we are used to the type of "harder" gameplay, with sometimes clunky controls, very little help, almsot no direction to help..

Modern gamers see those games and it feels like when I was growing up seeing old DOS games that required extra work to make them function like using mem manager to free up virtual ram. We get used to a way of doing things and it is hard to look backwards.

If you make a clone of Jagged Alliance 2 today, nobody but old die-hard fans will play it and everyone will leave bad reviews of it being too clunky, too old, too this or that.




ALSO, keep in mind, even if our generation still plays games... most of our generation also do not play as much or buy as many games. We have, to a certain extent, gained a little "wisdom" (I am now at 45 Wisdom, instead of 38 😅 ) and when we see crap games, we stay away. 10-15 years ago, I would buy games for no reason other than it looking good (maybe I got shot in the head without a doctor around). Now, I only buy it once I've seen gameplay, reviews, etc..

So how would you make a game that can make money with a person like me? You create a new game that will be easy for EVERYONE to get into... with a title that someone my age will have no choice but to buy just because we are sentimental.



IT IS NOT WHAT I WANT, it is unfortunately the way gaming has evolved over time. What do you think?