Demo criticism.

[BOXman]

I understand this is going into early access and what I have played is a super early build. Yet it is my only option to experience and get a feel for the game. Sadly did not find it enjoyable at all. The prototype that is the current demo is filled with bugs and unfinished aspects.

Again I know this is a very early build, but it doesn't comfort me if that is all I get to see and experience. I am going to list some problems after a 30-minute experience with 3 levels.

-Smoke bombs on some levels seem to be broken for the player, models and terrain are visible to me. They only seem to affect the bots who are clearly in the 0.0.1 version. They do not hide anything.

-Gun-play and gun movement are very stiff. Understandably, this is a limited budget and you probably cannot afford at this time a more realistic feeling or weight. But currently, all guns and movements are very stiff and robotic.

-Maps feel and seem extremely small. extremely small. Not sure if it is an engine limitation or maybe again due to early build or lack of funding. But it is possible to run to the end of the map in under 3 minutes.

-Problematic animation, it seems I cannot cancel a reload animation in the sniper rifle. I am stuck watching bots rush me while I slowly reload the rifle.

Conclusion: I believe the current demo is more harmful to newcomers or customers as it gives an old or bad view of the game itself. As of now, I have no interest in supporting what I have seen. The trailer so far tries to fight for space on the market between project reality and squad. From the demo alone this is highly improbable. I hope the demo would be updated in the future so I can perhaps give it another try. But by the store, you a going to enter early access in two weeks which I hope will be in a better state than the demo.

[=DRK= Bluedrake42]

This is an example of effective negative feedback with a positive approach. Although I don't agree with most of your points, I value your attempt to make it helpful.

Smoke issue:

This issue is unknown to me. It seems like a system bug, consider checking your graphics card drivers. This issue is not reported by other players, to my knowledge.

Gun play:

We recently discussed this as a team and we like our current gun play. We believe it's better than other games (e.g. Squad). There might be a difference of opinion here.

Small maps:

The maps are small temporarily because vehicles are still under development. We have larger maps supporting vehicles that will be released when vehicles become available. This is planned, not an error. The Khafji map is 4 km by default, but limited to 1 km for the demo. These limits will be lifted when vehicles are introduced.

Animation interrupts:

This feature will likely be added when we enhance weapon customization and functionality. If you want to interrupt the reload, you can temporarily switch to another weapon and back.

Response to conclusion:

The game's current state, whether it's friendly to new players or not, is not relevant to the discussion. Of course, we'd like to have more features developed faster, but our current pace is the best we can achieve with our limited funding. Project Reality took over 10 years to reach its current state, but it had a completed game (Battlefield 2) as a foundation. Starting from scratch, I believe our progress is remarkable. However, some people may not appreciate this. Now that the base functionality is in place, the upcoming updates will be more noticeable, as they will focus on visible features rather than engine-level work.

Getting to a playable game was a major accomplishment and it will be easier to develop updates for a functional game than a work-in-progress one. Implementing Steam Workshop took 1.5 months of development, for example.

Our supporters recognize the potential for growth, which is why they've chosen to support us, even though we're not at Squad's level yet. They see the possibilities of what this game can become, not just its current state.

If your major concern is the small map size and inability to interrupt reloads, then it's a great achievement from our perspective. These are minor details compared to what we faced when starting the project.

[BOXman]

First I do not doubt the hardships of coding and developing a game. I know the nightmare first-hand.

-The smoke bug isn't a hardware problem. It is like the CSGO bug, where something with the map itself is causing the effect to glitch. My driver is up to date and is one of the 3000rtx series.

-Your response to the gunplay is more concerning as it falls unto preference. If the team truly believes that the current gunplay is efficient and "realistic" enough to challenge sand storm and Squad that could be a major setback. By no means am I expecting the same quality or level of detail those games have. But clearly, the current version is not even close to or comparable to those games.

-That is a valid reason but by being hindered by a lack of vehicles I cannot truly test the map. But early access so it is understandable.

-Another response that raises concerns for me is "will likely be added". Cancel of animation is a giant feature that is necessary for some factions. (Snipers, ww1 weapons) Not having those for the guns cripples the player over time. If the player needs to use the gun ASAP. He would have to cycle through two items, a random item and back to the main gun. and those could take precious seconds that are necessary for the player.

The last statement confused me, are you expecting a 10-year donation revenue?
I'm going to give a harsh analogy of what I currently see. I see the game as a bucket that the team is promising that in a couple of years, it would be filled with wonderful things. But as of right now, we have a bucket, an empty bucket.

I know I have no agency in changing your mind about the release window but the current version is less than bare-bones. Nothing is captivating about it.

My major concerns are longer than I wish they would be. I am not a reviewer nor am I a tester. I don't have the time or the will to fully list them. But what I have brought up so far are the most visible and noticeable problems I encountered in the 30 minutes of play from the demo.

[=DRK= Bluedrake42]

I remind you that Squad in early access had less features than we have right now, so again… complaining that we don’t have as many features as games that have had significantly more time and money than us to implement them… is a non starter.

[VehLaw]

@boxman I think that if you're going to comment on gunplay you have to be a bit more specific than "stiff", gunplay is a big topic and its hard to understand the problems you're having with it by the word "stiff".

A developer cannot take the feedback of "stiff" and change gunplay parameter to "less stiff", what do you think can be improved in the gunplay?

[BOXman]

Originally posted by =DRK= Bluedrake42:

I remind you that Squad in early access had less features than we have right now, so again… complaining that we don’t have as many features as games that have had significantly more time and money than us to implement them… is a non starter.

True, but starting with less doesn't incentivise me to check the game out. Because If I currently have a more polished and better option to choose from why would I try something that has less? For me at least there is nothing that captures my attention. Which is completely fine.

Originally posted by Veh_:

@boxman I think that if you're going to comment on gunplay you have to be a bit more specific than "stiff", gunplay is a big topic and its hard to understand the problems you're having with it by the word "stiff".

A developer cannot take the feedback of "stiff" and change gunplay parameter to "less stiff", what do you think can be improved in the gunplay?

I can't really go into specifics with feelings because I don't have the exact details of the game. I can say the default setting FELT way too wavy and slippery so I turned it down to like 15 or 6 (cannot remember).

Again the gun-play is about how the game feels for the player. In this instance, for me, it felt Stiff and robotic once I lowered from the default setting which was even worse. Because as I pointed out before the default setting felt too Smoove and wavy. I'm not part of the team so I cannot tell them how to fix it or what exactly they need to change. That I cannot do. I can only give feedback Which I just did.

[=DRK= Bluedrake42]

https://joinsquad.com/2016/03/10/whats-up-with-vehicles-part-1/

Let me remind everyone that Squad didn't implement vehicles until years after their Steam Early Access release. Furthermore… the same developer who worked on Operation Harsh Doorstop was hired to implement vehicles in Squad. That’s right… the same developer who left Offworld Industries after implementing their vehicle system is the programmer who joined our team to assist with vehicle development. I personally met this developer while doing voice work for Squad's Kickstarter trailer.

Contrary to popular belief, we have made equal or more progress compared to Squad at the same stage of development. Our current features are equal to what Squad had at launch… if anything we actually have more features than they did. Using Squad as a benchmark for an early access release is unjustified as we have exceeded their progress at the same stage they were at during their own early access release.

It's baffling to see people perceive Squad's history with rose-colored glasses. Despite being a free game instead of a full-priced game, our achievements are remarkable. In my opinion, we are ready for an early access release. Those who disagree and defend other games mentioned here are likely biased towards Squad for emotional reasons. I don't know why this disconnect between people's memory and actual events exists, but it doesn’t change what the reality is.

[BOXman]

This isn't a positive thing... I find the vehicles in SQUAD very poorly made. But again this is my take on it (and most of the community of SQUAD).

Yes, SQUAD didn't start with vehicles. Yes, it takes time to fully implement the features I know that.

But I already have SQUAD. What is my incentive to become a supporter of this game? Currently, there is no feature or gameplay aspect that is solely unique to Harsh. Right now it is just a very bare-bones game that promises to become better than SQUAD and project reality.

And no, I do not find SQUAD update history with delight or "rose-coloured glasses" I find them infuriating as they lost direction and their main team. I don't see what achievements have you made to say that you are a better version of when SQUAD started. Also, SQUAD started with a low price tag and slowly raised the price because their method of adding content was so expensive and demanding that ruined their budget.

I truly believe you need to add more features or something unique to the game because as of now nothing is special about it expect for the hard work you and your team put into it.

[=DRK= Bluedrake42]

There is only one thing I can say at this point: if you don't understand the purpose of the game in its present state, you aren't obligated to play it. There are some of us who recognize its value as it is now, and look forward to what it can become upon completion. It's okay if you don't share that enthusiasm or don't appreciate the game in its current form. You might want to play other games while waiting for the game to develop a bit further. There is absolutely a reason to play this instead of Squad today, even in its current form. However, if you are only looking for things that aren't in the game right now... It may make more sense simply to wait and let those of us who enjoy the game continue to improve it.

[Kingkat54]

Played the demo. Looks good. Mechanics are solid. My preference has always been about the maps. Maps for me,make or break a game. Best of luck to the team.

[Brodaty]

Originally posted by =DRK= Bluedrake42:

I remind you that Squad in early access had less features than we have right now, so again… complaining that we don’t have as many features as games that have had significantly more time and money than us to implement them… is a non starter.

Sir. You don't have features.
You will have them on release. Maybe or not.
We - players - will decide if you have these features, sorry, but not you ;)
Reading all posts here I've strange feeling on the "arrogance and self-confidence" of the authors. The trailer honestly makes me feel weird. Instead of curiosity, it's a slight embarrassment that a game that isn't yet released is a huge alternative and is definitely better than the competition in opinions of... authors. Time will verify this, of course, but you shouldn't be surprised if such hype-building will make the game massacred with negatives. Some may put them up negative review not because they don't like the game. Just because they don't like your self-confidence. Don't be surprised.

[MissNurseXochi]

Originally posted by =DRK= Bluedrake42:

https://joinsquad.com/2016/03/10/whats-up-with-vehicles-part-1/

Let me remind everyone that Squad didn't implement vehicles until years after their Steam Early Access release. Furthermore… the same developer who worked on Operation Harsh Doorstop was hired to implement vehicles in Squad. That’s right… the same developer who left Offworld Industries after implementing their vehicle system is the programmer who joined our team to assist with vehicle development. I personally met this developer while doing voice work for Squad's Kickstarter trailer.

Contrary to popular belief, we have made equal or more progress compared to Squad at the same stage of development. Our current features are equal to what Squad had at launch… if anything we actually have more features than they did. Using Squad as a benchmark for an early access release is unjustified as we have exceeded their progress at the same stage they were at during their own early access release.

It's baffling to see people perceive Squad's history with rose-colored glasses. Despite being a free game instead of a full-priced game, our achievements are remarkable. In my opinion, we are ready for an early access release. Those who disagree and defend other games mentioned here are likely biased towards Squad for emotional reasons. I don't know why this disconnect between people's memory and actual events exists, but it doesn’t change what the reality is.

+100

[=DRK= Bluedrake42]

Originally posted by Brodaty:

Sir. You don't have features.
You will have them on release. Maybe or not.
We - players - will decide if you have these features, sorry, but not you ;)

Game is already out. You can download the demo or the playtest. If that isn't enough for you to figure out what "features" are already in the game I don't know how to help you. I'm not telling you what features are in the game, I'm referencing the features we've already proven are in the game when we released it almost a year ago.

Originally posted by Brodaty:

Reading all posts here I've strange feeling on the "arrogance and self-confidence" of the authors. The trailer honestly makes me feel weird. Instead of curiosity, it's a slight embarrassment that a game that isn't yet released is a huge alternative and is definitely better than the competition in opinions of... authors.

Game is an alternative, we never said it was better. It is free, and it has the potential to become better than those games... and as of now, it already has more features (not my opinion, verifiable by the releases we've already put out) than many of those other games had on launch.

Originally posted by Brodaty:

Time will verify this, of course, but you shouldn't be surprised if such hype-building will make the game massacred with negatives. Some may put them up negative review not because they don't like the game. Just because they don't like your self-confidence. Don't be surprised.

If you're threatening to review bomb the game because you have a personal grudge against developers on the team, that's fine and we expect that. I think that is an abuse of the Steam review system, but it doesn't really matter to me. We're here to make a game, not play the Steam review game. We all remember No Man's Sky.

Steam reviews don't mean a game is bad. I'd say the amount that people abusing Steam reviews to attack developers they don't personally like, instead of properly reviewing the game itself, has damaged the weight Steam reviews originally had.

Play the game or don't, doesn't bother me. Like the game or don't, doesn't change what our mission is here. If you don't like the game and want to play something else, that's fine. We're not here to make the game for people who don't like it, we're here to make the game for people who do.

Originally posted by Brodaty:

it's a slight embarrassment that a game that isn't yet released

To me it seems like you are an outsider only now discovering the game. You're saying a lot of things here that either aren't true, or are just you not doing a basic amount of research.

Maybe play the version of the game that is already out and learn a little bit more about the project before you immediately jump to telling us what this game is.

[Alumenad]

Bluedrake, first of all I'd like to say that I have nothing but goodwill for you and this project. I hope it becomes successful and that it delivers on everything it set out to be and beyond that. I think it's very interesting as a project, I think it's commendable, even noble to an extent. So just for that thank you for trying and putting your energy into this project.

One thing that I would like to mention is that I've played all manner of milsims, tactical shooters, you name it. Started playing them as early as the first Ghost Recon and Operation Flashpoint all the way up to today with Tarkov, RON, GB, and much of the indie tactical games you cover on your channel. Right now, and this is my humble opinion, you guys really should look to invest more time into the gunplay. I'm somewhat of a gun nut and I can already say that Squad is quite a ways a ahead of you guys in terms of both feel and realism.
The gun play is going to be the key thing in this project, together with sound, for it's success or failure. People are looking for guns that sound, feel, and are animated in a way that makes them believable. I don't believe you guys are quite there yet, you're doing a good job but imo it needs more work.

I know that you guys don't have the biggest budget but let me give you an example of a game that has very little budget, one that you've covered on your YT channel and which is imo has some of the most impressive gunplay I've ever seen. SCP 5k. Yes sir. The animations, the sounds, godly! The models aren't very impressive but my god the way the guns react, the feedback, the reload animations, the way they hold the pistols and .. gosh... . I'd def take a closer look at that. Goodluck with the project Drake!

[=DRK= Bluedrake42]

Originally posted by Alumenad:

Bluedrake, first of all I'd like to say that I have nothing but goodwill for you and this project. I hope it becomes successful and that it delivers on everything it set out to be and beyond that. I think it's very interesting as a project, I think it's commendable, even noble to an extent. So just for that thank you for trying and putting your energy into this project.

One thing that I would like to mention is that I've played all manner of milsims, tactical shooters, you name it. Started playing them as early as the first Ghost Recon and Operation Flashpoint all the way up to today with Tarkov, RON, GB, and much of the indie tactical games you cover on your channel. Right now, and this is my humble opinion, you guys really should look to invest more time into the gunplay. I'm somewhat of a gun nut and I can already say that Squad is quite a ways a ahead of you guys in terms of both feel and realism.
The gun play is going to be the key thing in this project, together with sound, for it's success or failure. People are looking for guns that sound, feel, and are animated in a way that makes them believable. I don't believe you guys are quite there yet, you're doing a good job but imo it needs more work.

I know that you guys don't have the biggest budget but let me give you an example of a game that has very little budget, one that you've covered on your YT channel and which is imo has some of the most impressive gunplay I've ever seen. SCP 5k. Yes sir. The animations, the sounds, godly! The models aren't very impressive but my god the way the guns react, the feedback, the reload animations, the way they hold the pistols and .. gosh... . I'd def take a closer look at that. Goodluck with the project Drake!

SCP 5k has a much higher budget than us because they are a fully priced game, and they earn a pretty significant amount of money. I don't know who has told you that their budget is small, but it most definitely is not.

However, what makes your opinion here incredibly strange... and I'm sure you're not aware of this... but the developer behind SCP: 5k's gunplay (Albarnie) was the developer who joined our team specifically to overhaul our gunplay.

This is the reason why SCP: 5k's gunplay and ours is incredibly similar, because literally the exact same developers worked on it.

I understand you have nothing but good will for the project, and I absolutely appreciate that... but you have to understand why sometimes I get concerned with people's feedback potentially being either biased, or possibly even completely off-base.

I absolutely agree that SCP: 5k has fantastic gunplay. That is the reason we hired the developers from SCP: 5k to work on Operation: Harsh Doorstop, and why as of this moment... our gunplay is incredibly similar to theirs.

Like... we're way ahead of you on this.

So I think the only real question left is... why didn't you notice that?

[Alumenad]

Well to me it seemed they had a small budget. Perhaps they have a bigger budget, that's fine.

Here is a comparison between OHD and Squad. OHD looks stiffer to me. Squad also sounds better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PMYo3KCHRo

Here is an SCP gunplay overview. Looks better than Squad, but sounds worse.

https://youtu.be/45ie8CKpLns