Remember that since this philosophy is a work of man it is therefore open to interpretation and discussion.
The two sides of NORGkrise madsen wrote:
The Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay is a term coined by Hatchetforce. You could define it as a doctrine or concept for making realistic tac-sim games, but it's first and foremost a state of mind for developers. The idea is to use the real world as a template for your game.
A (very) rough description of shooters (including "tactical" and "realistic'" ones) these days is a standard shooter (Doom/Quake/Half-Life e.c.t.) with a few tweaks: You replace your laser gun with an M4 carbine, character model/skin "space soldier" with a Navy SEAL (or whatever), replace the spaceship interior map with an Iraqi village and the bugeyed space monster enemy with an Iraqi insurgent. You may slow down movement speed, reduce weapon accuracy when running and delete jumping, but that's about it.
With NORG you do it the other way around. You build the game to enable real life actions, and those actions have real life consequenses. Jumping is one example that has already been discussed in this forum: With NORG, you can jump as in real life (i.e. not bounce 30ft into the air repeatedly), and you face the same dangers by doing so as in real life: Not being able to fight effectively and being a very easy target. There is a reason why soldiers don't jump up and down in real life. NORG brings this into the game without resorting to "cheap" solutions like simply removing jumping.
Picking up weapons from dead friends or foes during gameplay is another issue already discussed (you'll find it in the "I support NORG!" GR.net thread): In real life, you can pick up guns and ammo, but real life soldiers don't run around ditching their rifle and picking up a new one every two seconds because you never know what kind of weapon you'll end up with. Again, NORG brings this into the game.
You can apply NORG to just about every aspect of a game. Such as this thread: Try applying NORG to the subject at hand: wounds/health and see what you come up with.
One thing though, you have to think waaay out of the box. NORG doesn't work if you try to shoehorn it into an existing game concept. But if you start with a clean slate then NORG becomes the ultimate game-making tool.
The original Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon had NORG (wether the developers knew it or not) and that was why they were so good.
NORG vs REALISM - debatetomshackell wrote:
It seems there are two competing NORG ideas on the forums:
NORG is about creating a realistic simulation of reality. As much as possible players should be allowed to do something if it's possible in real life, and should not be allowed to something that is not possible in real life.
From this realistic simulation it is hoped that realistic mechanics and tactics will arise.
Those who believe in NORG-SIM want the game, first and foremost, to accurately simulate the reality. They are happy to sacrifice realistic tactics if it is necessary to ensure realistic simulation.The two ideas of NORG are similar but have a different focus. Both ideas have their merits, and which camp people fall in is a matter of preference.NORG-TACTICS
NORG is about creating a simulation that encourages and develops realistic mechanics and tactics. If a tactic is effective in real life then it should be effective in the game, if a tactic is not effective in real life then it should not be effective in the game.
Using a realistic simulation of reality is important to ensuring realistic tactics arise.
Those who believe in NORG-TACTICS, first and foremost, want to play the game using realistic tactics. They are happy to sacrifice realistic simulation if it is necessary to ensure realistic tactics.
The two ideas mostly result in the same outcome because they both value similar things. However, there can be disagreement when something cannot be modelled exactly and when this leads to realistic tactics becoming ineffective.
In this case NORG-TACTICS thinks that tactics is more important, and is happy to introduce an unrealistic element into the modelling if that allows realistic tactics to be effective. Realistic tactics must be preserved!
Whereas NORG-SIM disagrees saying that adding an unrealistic element into the modelling is not acceptable. We'll just have to accept that some realistic tactics won't apply. Realistic simulation must be preserved!
The discussion on suppressive fire is largely a discussion of this nature.
http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/ ... topic=1835
I don't want this topic to be another discussion on suppressive fire, but in short the question is: Because players can die lots and real soldiers can only die once there is a risk that the realistic tactic of suppressive fire will become ineffective against players. Might we need to introduce an unrealistic gameplay mechanism to ensure realistic tactics occur?
This is a NORG-SIM versus NORG-TACTICS problem. NORG-SIM says no, we can't introduce an unrealistic feature into the modelling and NORG-TACTICS says yes, realistic tactics must be preserved.
I'm sure there are many other discussions on this forum that are issues relating to the competing sides of NORG.
So my questions are:
- Do people agree that there are these different ideas of NORG?
- Which version of NORG do people personally believe in? ( I've included a poll )
- What other questions are NORG-SIM vs NORG-TACTICS problems?
- Is there a third idea of NORG?
- Crucially, which NORG are the developers using?
i was having a discussion with a friend about the NORG concept vs REALISM. i said the 2 are not the same thing. he believes that NORG can only be applied to games based on realism.
i even mentioned that NORG can be applied to space alien games. his face went blank in disbelief.
maybe its just me and im completely missing the concept behind NORG, but i interpreted this doctrine as Natural Order of REALSTIC gameplay. not Natural Order of REALISM.
here is my arguement:
NORG is a concept that can even be applied to alien space shooters. "why? space shooters arent realistic"... Really? says who? Were you on that very same alien planet to have such an expert opinion on its physics?
here is the idea. On planet Zebex417 the gravity is exactly 33% that of Earth. the atmosphere, nitrogen/oxygen/carbon content, and everything is pretty much the same. Therefore, human Space Marines on this planet can actually jump a lot higher and "moon walk" with the lesser gravity. That is actually realistic. Its just not realistic ON EARTH.
Regenerating health on space suits - Your Nanoforce XP10 armor has a forcefield that can withstand a few Proton Laser beams before disintegrating (similar to how really thick plate of bulletproof glass can stop a few bullets before shattering), then it must wait a second or two before your battery can regenerate a new forcefield (but if you are hit with a plasma beam without forcefield protection you die instantly because human flesh is weak against such a blast). This is realistic because that technology exists in the year 3045 on planet Zebex417. That is realistic. its just not realistic ON EARTH in 2009.
so does that make "Zebex Super Space Marines" a NORG game? yes it does IMO, as long as all of the other gameplay elements fit into the physics of this alien world. I.E super space jump is possible on this planet with your equipment and the lesser gravity, but your character is still human and will still fatigue and die like a human would.
now lets look at Zebex Super Space Marines with en entirely different skin. the game is reskinned and called Hall of Honor 4. The game is based on modern combat (on earth set in 2020). all characters are operating on planet Earth and are using conventional firearms (fires bullets not lasers). they also have human organs with skin, soft tissue and blood. the gameplay of HOH4 is identical to that of ZSSM. the only difference is a slightly less exaggerated jump, less of a "forcefield recover" (but still regenerating health). you even still have the same fatiguing model of ZSSM. so, the gameplay is essentially IDENTICAL to the NORG game ZSSM. so, that said is HOH4 NORG? no it isnt. because the gameplay of ZSSM was designed for an alien planet and then "shoehorned" into planet Earth. the physics on one planet do not apply to that of the other.
ok, so now imagine a new HOH5 was redesigned to closely mimic Human-to-Earth physics relationships, and now all things act as they should. The game still retains the fast paced action of HOH4 though, and even still has infinite respawn game modes. you can still jump, crawl, shoot, run, drive vehicles, run people over, etc. but all of those things have a realistic penalty as it would exist in our natural world.
However, the game is set in the near future and although most of the weaponry is conventional firearms, there are fictional weapons in the game. they added a new gun called the Px9R - a compact assault rifle chambered in 5.56x45mm with a 12" barrel. does the inclusion of this gun automatically disqualify it from being NORG simply because it introduces a gun that doesnt exist in real life? no it doesnt IMO, because the gun still behaves the same way any 5.56 12" barreled rifle would. that is still realISTIC, even though it is not based on realISM.
they have Auto-Mines™ in HOH5. These are like infrared sensor claymores but they do not kill friendlies. is that NORG? it CAN be. "how? 'smart' claymores like in COD4 are so unrealistic". well, for one they are NOT claymores. they are advanced antipersonnel mines. this is how it works: imagine a public Wi-Fi network at an internet cafe. now anyone with a wi-fi laptop can connect to this public network but only those who paid can surf the net on it. how does that work? in this instance the wi-fi network must be able to recognize your computer ID, and if your ID number is on the "approved list" it will allow you access to the internet. now take that "wireless" concept and apply it to this game. every soldier is fitted with an "ID number" in the form of a short range wireless transmitter (the range is just slightly larger than that of the mine's blast radius). The AP mine has a wireless receiver with a programmed set of "ID numbers" of soldiers designated as friendly. as long as a soldier with a "friendly ID number" is detected by the AP mine, it will not detonate.
so, in game here is how it works. Solder 1 plants his AP mine near a door and walks away. Soldier 2 camps next to it oblivious that it is even there. Enemy 1 walks through the door, directly in the immediate sensor radius of the AP mine... but it doesnt go off (the proximity of the "friendly" near the AP mine has disabled it) Enemy 1 proceeds to kill Soldier 2, and shoots soldier 1 in the back of the head (he's thinking ######, my mine didnt even go off). NORG. as opposed to the un-NORG claymore in COD4 which is a highly unrealistic "selective kill" mine that will only kill enemies and not friendlies in its blast radius, which of course is physically impossible.
so, the above Zebex Space Marines and Hall of Honor 5 are 2 examples of so called "arcade" games that have no concept of REALISM, yet abide by the concepts of NORG. the game's style may not be for you, but it was still designed with NORG regardless. NORG can be applied to every genre of game out there.
of course thats just my opinion, and my friend strongly disagrees, stating it is impossible for a game that is not based on realism to be NORG in the first place.
so i ask you, the BFS community, do agree or disagree that NORG =/= REALISM.
Post of my own interpretation in this link here.
jimothy_183 wrote: I reckon that there is only one ingredient that is needed to make an old school realistic tactical shooter that we all know and love around here and that's realism. I also think that team work and tactics is just byproducts of tactical shooters.
You ask most people about what makes a tactical shooter and they will say something along the lines of "ohhh, well I think that it's teamwork and tactics that makes a realistic tactical shooter" but IMO I think that is incorrect.
I think that any game can have T&T to a degree. Take Counter Strike for instance. You can have some form of T&T by rallying your entire team to "rush" a certain area of the map to complete your goal or you can just rambo it out like most people do. Does that make a tactical shooter? No I don't think so, in fact I think it's probably the best example of an arcade shooter but some would say that it would fit loosely into the category of "tactical shooter".
However having realism is different. When you look at it using the NORG philosophy you will see that a game with realism will pretty much force the player to employ T&T as it comes "naturally" in the game as the letter "N" in NORG suggests. Look at issue of jumping in tactical shooters which is already explained in another thread but I can't remember which one. Do solders IRL jump around like bunnies shooting at their enemies like in CS? No. Why? Well as it was already explained in the other thread it would get that solider killed. So what do RL soldiers do to keep themselves from pushing up daisies? They have their buddies next to them to help them out and they then together use the tactics, techniques and procedures that they learned in training to do so (out of a few other things IRL that could keep them alive).
I also think that there two types of tactical shooters out there and here are what I think they are:
"Realistic" Tactical Shooters <--Mine and the many other BFS' fav type of tac shooters. OGR is a good example.
"Action" Tactical Shooters <--Games such as Vegas and GRAW fall into this category here.
Also, going slightly off track here I think that action tac shooters such as vegas and games like it can still be enjoyed by hardcore tac shooter fans if they are enjoyed as a GAME and not a TACTICAL SHOOTER. Obviously if you play it like like a tactical shooter then you should expect to be very disappointed. I can empathise with Mr. Sonedecker as he plays those "action" tactical shooters that I have already mentioned before as I also play some of those action tac shooters (the ones that my PC can handle that is ). Why does he play and enjoy those types of games? My best guess is because he enjoys them as a game and not a tactical shooter. I do the same.
Well that's most of my 2 cents.
jimothy_183 wrote: Well I just reread my post and I realise that it wasn't as well articulated as I wanted to it be.
But anyways Ick about the definition of a tac shooter being able to make a difference for the team through cooperation is really just linked to my realism definition but I think that a realistic shooter is the most simplest way to define a tac shooter (like OGR).
Let's look at an example of a real life scenario:
What happens when a person on the team breaks formation to rambo it out?
Most of the time the **** will hit the fan. It would probably compromise the operation and then it could either result in loss of that persons life, the lives of the team mates , a hostages life or even all three of them.
That is real action with a real consequence.
Now look at a videogame designed with the NORG design philosophy and look at the same action and consequence in the scenario. Would they not be identical? I would like to think so because as the NORG philosophy states: The real world should be used as a template for the game. That would mean that if someone were to do something in the game that reflects real life then it should have a consequence that also reflects real life to match as the NORG philosophy also states (IIRC) that the game should have realistic actions with realistic consequences.
So that is why I say a realistic shooter is the simplest definition of a tac shooter.