http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1UOtnlwyjg

Man, even in pre alpha, the shooting and movement mechanics are making me drool.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch

nice, th for sharing.

They're still well short of their funding target. hope they get there.

Online only?

For once that I see characters moving right and drawing right, the financial support from the public does not seem to be there!...

Did you notice that no sights are floating in the air in front of the character?...

When was last time u saw that in a "Tactical" game play?

Food for thaughts!

Well, I'm impressed and will support the Kickstarter project.

Simply wow! I like the fluent movement and all the sounds. A lot of attention to details, such as the sounds when lowering and rising the weapon. It's these little things that really add to the immersion of a game.

Thanks guys!

We are working on more videos like this. We know we are in for a horrific fight to get funded, but are doing everything we can think of to get there. For those that have backed us already, thank you very much. For those that cannot do so financially, please spread the word far and wide.

And for those on the fence, please realize we cannot show everything at this stage due to incompleteness... but we will get there. By supporting us now you help to ensure that we have the means to get on this full time and to get us all a game that we can truly enjoy!

We need everyone's help. :-)

Well, then I will be waiting for the 2nd release as you couldn't pay ME to be interested in the MP part of any game.

All I play is SP and co-op and have for the last 10 years, whether in a tactical sim, flight sim, FPS, RTS, you name it. I'm not about to change that anytime soon (I feel the same today as I have for the last 10 yrs, so why would tomorrow be different?) but when a good SP campaign with co-op is out I'll go for it.

I just hope it's "true" co-op like they've stated. By that I mean the SP campaign and other humans can take the roles of those on your team, not like Splinter Cell or Rage or ME3 or some of these others were co-op exists separate from the campaign, whether or not it has any bearing on it/is a part of the larger story. In those cases you tend to get at most half as many co-op missions as SP, if not fewer, and you burn through them way too fast.



The Jedi Master

Well you may not see anything... and we can all go back to the CoD game and clones... if we don't support this.

Remember folks... if it doesn't reach the goal, you won't lose your pledge money.

Sign me up for a copy
http://kck.st/LUiPhC

We posted a new update video today:

Ground Branch Sound Design
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch/posts/251162

I completly agree and this is exactly how I feel (regarding Ground Branch and PC gaming in general)!




Sorry, but I definitly won't support this (at least in this current stage)! Just like as I don't care for CoD games (too arcade for me and I don't like corridor games anymore) I also don't care for Americas Army that despite being "realistic" it's multiplayer TvT game only and I also don't like Counter Strikes or Unreal "arcade multiplayer only TvT games" and therefore I don't also care for an Americas Army "copycat" or an "Americas Army - Counter Strike - Unreal" hybrid.
And after many PC games developments in the past and present the word or promisse that IF Ground Branch (MP version) is sucessfull THAN they will RELEASE a single player/co-op version of Ground Branch is just NOT ENOUGH for me, sorry!

Now IF the Ground Branch devs decided to release FIRST the single player/co-op version (I would be happy with single player only initial version) and only AFTER the multiplayer TvT version THAN I would definitly support this!

The initial release will include a "Terrorist Hunt" co-op mode as well as other team vs. AI co-op modes as well (AI being scripted to patrol areas or has basic goals to accomplish) . What it won't have is a story driven single player campaign or singular mission based co-op missions with behavioral AI (Autonomous path finding, complex decision making and behaviors).

Hopefully this helps to convince you and others that there is much more to the initial release than simple PvP and TvT play. Besides, the gameplay mechanics won't allow run and gun "arcade" style play anyway.

Actually what I ONLY care for a PC game is exactly the story driven single player campaign/career and co-op missions with "behavioral AI".

Nevertheless could you explain better/expand on how will that initial "scripted AI" of yours work? Will those AIs be static-only and if not what's the list of decisions that the AIs will be able to do?

I agree... 80% of my gameplay will be co-op, and 20% SP campaign... but will do force on force if it is as good as America's Army was before the 1.8. The tutorial missions would be worth the 5 to 20 bucks you could pledge... It pisses me off that a stupid ass (IMO) adventure game can get 1 mil in less then a week... yet a truly rare and tactical shooter can get 25% of it's goal... the state of gaming SUCKS!

IMO

The "scripted AI" will be able to be placed on patrol paths as well as guard an area. They are still AI so they will be able to survey the area for threats and act upon them (shoot or take nearby cover if available). This can be randomized in placement and multiple paths can be laid out. So no 2 sessions would play out the same. They will choose between weapons/grenades (if equiped) as well. Each AI will more or less have an area that they operate in and won't stray from it, not will they operate in teams or groups.

Hopefully that gives more insight.

I am laughing my *** off and I feel the sorrow of the loss of a game play:

My definition of Tactical game play is that you only play against Human Opponent without any aids from the computer (without flying reticule in the air, and other gimmicks for tactical game play impaired players).

Playing against AI is more likely to be easy because of the size of the computer involved. I designed missions that were hard in VBS2 and converted them into Arma and players were crying because it was too hard and could not finished them on time even in Co-op as in SP. Those missions used the VBS2 AI and used all the tricks of the books-i.e. interlocking fields of fire, using features of the terrain invisible to people no knowing how to read a map, used roofs, trees, set up traps with blatant Tangos AI at different degrees, knowing when people are more likely to turn right than left or go straight, etc...- As you understand there is the AI in one hand and in the other hand how that AI is placed into a dispositive. So to have a simple AI is an expression of the will or the fruit of mission designer incompetence.

People like simple AI placed linearly because the result of the encounter is more likely to boost their ego than to generate frustration. Frustration that could be used later to trigger an adaptive mechanism that could be more likely to lead to a feeling of elation, but not in this case, the winning mechanism being undermined.

Moreover, people like to play the same missions over and over again especially in Co-op then feel good about owning that simple AI so they can brag and congratulate each others about their killing frenzies and imaginary tactical skills. They go "We prevailed! (you better, it is just a simple AI placed by a Dude that never saw the boot sole of a Drill Sergeant)...See how I killed that guy!...Did you see him flying in the air after I threw my grenade!...Saw those Tangos collapsing like a sack of brick!...Get some, yeah!...etc...etc...etc...". It is my perception that this game play style is very onanistic!

For me Tactical game play is force on force with no computer aid, new missions each time for at least one team, so to win it is not the over knowledge of the map, the mission and all its features but the Teamwork quality, Team cohesion combined with individual skills that prevail to a "Mission Accomplished". Anything else is uncivilized (joke referring to an ad about antiperspirant) and I would call it "Week-End Warriorish" game play: Wew!...Pronounced BEWWWW!...lol!

I will agree with Magnum on 2 points that the State of Tactical Game Play Sucks Monkey Balls and has been degrading, then that America's Army before 1.8 was really Tactical.

Wow!...That was cathartic!

The reason many people like co-op is that playing vs well programmed bots keeps you in the spirit of the game. It just takes one or two human opponents finding some loophole in the system to play as a "game to be beaten" rather than in the spirit of game itself. A game can try to force people to play right with game mechanics and realism, but that doesn't mean people can't find a way to screw things up just the same.

force on force would be great... IF the human gamer element didn't come in, force on force usually turns into who's got quicker reaction... theres no proper suppression or threat of life, and thats why I prefer and mostly play co-op... for the human teamwork, while the AI can be programmed for tactical responses... not human, Rambo behavior.

Quicker reactions can be countered by solid teamwork and training!...

A well trained team of 50 year old gents knowing each others would beat a team of 25 years old hooligans on an unknown map to everyone, for a first time mission. The youngs are fast because they play the same mission on the same map all over again, on that point I agree with you Magnum. A 25 years old will do a repetitive task faster than a 50 years old, yet they dont have the creative power and adaptaion given by experience, and that's why they play the same maps, same mission all over again.

Then if everyone on both side -in Force on Force- agreed before hand to plays only tactically there is no "Rambo" behaviors expressed covertly or overtly!...It is about the selection process of the players involved!...It is not a matter of numbers of players involved but a matter of quality of players involved.

A hand picked group of players, all wanting the same things out of that game!...Not an heterogeneous decheveled swearing mob of Week-End Warriors gathered for different reasons!...

If we don't define a goal we will never reach it!...

Requiring the effort to organize a game night instead of just hopping on with a couple of friends limits the usefulness of the game (any game, not singling out GB by any means). This has been the problem for years now with most games discouraging private rooms and forcing a party system and playing with the public.
Playing co-op, you immediately reduce the issue by half, since the game runs the other "team" which can be counted on to play in the spirit of the game. There won't be someone running solo experimenting to see what they can get away with in the game.

I want to be able to get on the game at any time to play it, not just when I can get a group together. Having co-op means you can at least get on with fewer friends, or even the public, and know that at least the other team is playing correctly.

Then there's the issue of 99% of MP games being somewhat idiotic game types. TDM, CTF, Conquest. In co-op, you play *missions*. Rarely does MP give you a system of attack/defend or recon...whatever...that mimics something realistic.
IMO, a solid MP game of attack/defend would have the defenders working on tasks OTHER than just waiting for the attackers to hit. They need realistic duties (objectives) of some sort just like the attackers do. Somehow you need to build in surprise and the need to plan for defenders duties other than just killing attackers. Co-op mimics that much more easily, I have yet to see a MP game that does that at all.

Completly agree with Magnum and Raw Kryptonite.

IMO, MP TvT games have a big limitation which is like Raw Kryptonite said, the lack of "real missions". Take for instance a "simple" SpecOp team assault (by surprise) an enemy base scenario which is guarded by soldiers that aren't expecting an enemy SpecOp assault:
1- In a MP TvT game you have one team (of humans) playing as the SpecOp team and the other team (of humans) defending the base but the defenders as opposed to the real life ARE ALREADY expecting the assault and ALREADY KNOW that the enemy team in comming NOW and instead of simply patroling/guarding the base those defencers will find the best "sniping spot" within the base or base limits and basically snipe the incoming attacker team. This completly ruins the feeling and REALISM for this sort of mission.
2- In the Co-op game (just like in Single Player) you have one team (of humans) playing as the SpecOp team and AIs defending the base and these AIs can be programmed just like real guards/soldiers guarding a base with real behaviour like not expecting the enemy (at least right NOW!) and patroling the base "normally" and only reacting when the enemy attackers are detected which makes this kind of mission much more realistic in the end!
The only way to model this kind of mission REALISTICALLY would be to force the human defender team to be in the game playing for days, weeks or even months with nothing happening (in order to model "boredom" associated with guard duty) and the attacker SpecOp team would choose a hour/day of their like to attack within that day/week/month timeframe! As you can easily understand this is simply NOT viable in any game (to have players playing a game continously for days/weeks/months).

Thanks for the reply.

For those interested in our project, or those that want to find out more about it, we are currently having our reddit AMA:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/vjam4/indie_game_developer_ground_branch_by_blackfoot/

We'll be there from 4pm EST to 5pm EST, or there abouts. :-)

Nice... thx John, looks good.

You can discuss multiplayer TvT/Co-op till the cows come home, and great points from everyone who have already posted.

I’m personally really happy that the initial release of Ground Branch seems to be shaping up like the original Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon series ... a solid TvT platform with some nice randomized AI adversaries for co-op play.

What sets Ground Branch apart from the Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon series are the jaw dropping shooting and movement mechanics, sound design and graphics that I’m seeing from the walk through videos that are being released.

Bottom line ... if you’re at all a FPS fan, you HAVE to pledge some Dollars/Euros/Pounds/whatever on this baby RIGHT NOW!

In case you haven't heard some really awesome sound design yet ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS5fuz-Z4fs

Back this project HERE ...

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/670743543/ground-branch

But the problem is what really made the original Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six games true classics and what set them apart from many other "similar" games was exactly the opposite of what you posted -> What made the original GR/R6 so great was their great and immersive single player campaigns with lots of diferent, original, immersive and realistic looking MISSIONS. The TvT MP games modes and even the Co-Op game mode were always secondary features for both the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games.

But I agree with you in one thing: We could "discuss multiplayer TvT/Co-op till the cows come home" with lots of pros and cons arguments...

Well, to be fair R6 and GR's AI wasn't that sophisticated and what John has said seems to be exactly what they offered...simple guarding/patrolling/searching AI, nothing complex. You assaulted a building, a compound, a room, an airfield...some AI stayed put and waited for you in ambush while others ran out to reinforce the first ones you engage. Conversely in GR there was the possibility of defending against an assault where the AI ran to predetermined objectives, only altering when they encountered the player(s).

The most complex they got was in titles like GRAW2 and R6 Vegas 2, and many people disliked them for many reasons, not least was with the more complicated it got the more choices were usually taken from the player in order not to "break" the mission.

If GB delivers what John is claiming in the initial release, that would be enough for me to commit to buying it at the lower end of the spectrum. Lacking an SP campaign, not to mention the ability to fight it co-op, would make me say it's not worth "full price" ($50+), but it still seems to offer hours of good gameplay for those of us not interested in playing against other humans.

Unfortunately, Gunny's "dream game" can never exist because what game would have enough variety in missions that a significant number of the players would never have played it before? As our missions makers attest, it takes quite awhile to make a good one, and infinity is a large number! Aside from a fixed map like Arma's with some sort of random MP mission generator (which I've never seen work too well aside from Evo/War/whatever they call it now for Arma), the idea of being forced to play like it's "for real" really only lasts until the newness of the game wears off. By two-three days after release there are already people who've played each map several times.



The Jedi Master

In reality,the VBS2 server (HeartBreakRidge) offered 230 MP VBS2 missions and 5 different islands at a rate of 52 Saturdays a year and 2 missions per sessions would take a while before someone does twice the same mission.

I am no dreamer i am a realist and I talk about what I know!