Our Ghosts of War - A 400km2 World War 2 Sandbox Survival Game Developed in UE4

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Hello. I've finished stitching together aerial spy references for what we intend to launch our game with. I've also started whiteboxing the game to get a get a general sense for scale.

The plan is to start on the roads tomorrow. There's a road plug-in I purchased from the Unreal Engine 4 forums that does a great job of clicking roads into existence. The terrain gets disturbed a little bit but we have little choice because UE4 is pretty awful when it comes to roads. Alireza was begging to have the source code rewritten so we could have a better road tool created but it's simply not a priority if we want to have the game playable any time soon. We'll do our best to make the terrain appear as undisturbed as possible but it's more or less a limit of UE4. Sometimes you just got to roll with the punches.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Hello everyone,

I've begun laying down roads across Normandy. The road plugin we're using is pretty sweet. It more or less makes placing roads as simple as pointing and clicking ((the roads follow the white dots you see in the image)). The creator of the plug-in was busy with school so he wasn't able to update it to Unreal Engine 4.12 until yesterday. The scale of the road meshes that came with the plug-in was also way too big and so we've had to shrink them down. I'll try getting that working tomorrow.

My workflow involves comparing shots of old aerial spy shots and current Google satellite imagery. Neither are perfect. The spy shots are authentic but warped. The Google Maps are more accurate in regards to scale but plenty has changed in the last 75 years. I have to balance both and decide whether which I want to follow in any given area. Either way I'm happy with the results and will continue tomorrow. I'll keep you guys updated.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Aleksa finally wrapped up his M12 Trench Gun for Our Ghosts of War. How's it look? It's been in development for the past three weeks and I'm personally very happy with the results. The MG42 and a Panzer IV tank turret were also finished up this week and I'll have renders of those soon.

I've been doing a lot of planning for the future of our firearms and I think in our final build (when we come out of Early Access) I want to have something like 128 firearms made (doesn't include things like grenades, mines, etc.). Typically it takes a good artist 40-60 hours to finish one firearm. The M12 Trench Gun was worked on part-time which is why it took as long as it did. If Aleksa was working full time it'd been finished sooner.

My plan is that after Early Access we'd hire one weapons artist full-time (full 160 hours per month) and a second weapons artist part-time (80 hours per month). Together they'd deliver 3-4 weapons per month. These weapons would be rigged and animated as soon as possible and added to our Early Access build on the 10th of every month (along with all other updates).

I intend to support Our Ghosts of War for a period of three years after we release on Early Access. The logic behind this is that it takes more or less any developer that long to turn out something great with enough content to justify a game's existence. After those three years have passed we would come out of Early Access with our final game.

In that time span we can realistically create a minimum of three firearms per month. 3 firearms per month x 12 months = 36 firearms per year. 36 firearms per year x 3 years = 108 firearms over three years. 108 firearms + the 20 firearms we intend to launch with = 128 firearms total. I'll discuss how we intend to go about weapon balancing in our next update.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Huh, well nothing wrong with being in the early stages. I hope you guys can keep a cool head and get your project running. These survival games often have a tendency to get stuck in Early Access mode. I'd suggest you try to avoid becoming just another one of those. It's a real cut-throat "there'll always be another" kind of space.

Even a unique premisse isn't a guarantee to lift your game up for a longer period of time. And three years in Early Access is long. Like, so long that you're game will probably be forgotten by that point. It's a pretty saturated genre and Early Access's reputation is dwindling among 'core gamers', aka the group that plays this sort of thing, as is.

Anyway, so I wonder; what's the actual goal of a match in this game? Are you actually invading? Having to capture points or defend them? Something that, seeing as it's a Rust/ARK-esque thing, would take a long time to accomplish so your character is persistent with a single game taking weeks perhaps? What are you actually going to do as a player? Because I can't fathom this being truly Rust-like in that you'll see some soldiers randomly building a hut somewhere, trolling about. Those games are often popular for their freedom, but being in an army really restricts that freedom.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

These survival games often have a tendency to get stuck in Early Access mode. I'd suggest you try to avoid becoming just another one of those. It's a real cut-throat "there'll always be another" kind of space. And three years in Early Access is long. Like, so long that you're game will probably be forgotten by that point. It's a pretty saturated genre and Early Access's reputation is dwindling among 'core gamers', aka the group that plays this sort of thing, as is.

I think most survival games stuck in Early Access mode tend to not have a long term vision for what they wish to achieve. That's why three years later games like Rust and 7 Days to Die (both released in 2013) are still stuck in Early Access. Nevertheless these games still sell thousands of copies every month (today nearly 60,000 played Ark, 38,000 played Rust, etc.). This proves that if you make a viable game the community will support you for years to come.

The reason I detail the number of weapons I expect in our final release is so that you can see my stream of thought through development. By the time we launch on Early Access you guys will have a ton of information at your disposal as I breakdown my design aspirations for you.

But cowardly as it may be, I don't want my ideas being lifted. I also expect some of my desired features to be cut. Rather than to announce them ahead of time and and face your fury for having to remove them, it's more responsible to get these features working before talking about them. As more of what I can achieve in three years becomes clear to me I will share the information with you.

Anyway, so I wonder; what's the actual goal of a match in this game? Are you actually invading? Having to capture points or defend them?

There's some debate in the team about this. Ultimately I will have final say however. The coding team wants to make Our Ghosts of War a straight up survival game with no end goal. Just perpetually online like Rust or Ark. The reasoning behind their argument is that because we're making a survival game, and survival games don't have an end goal, we should follow suit. Otherwise we're not making a survival game.

I'm not convinced that's the right path. I think appeal of traditional survival games is waning and we'll have to do something new and fresh if we're going to maintain an audience for the next three years. I've been studying games like Xenoblade Chronicles X and Grand Theft Auto Online, among others, and thinking about how we can create something unique. I'm still sorting out the final details but generally I have a pretty fleshed out outline of what I want Our Ghosts of War to be. I'll announce more as soon I'm ready to.

Seeing as it's a Rust/ARK-esque thing, would take a long time to accomplish so your character is persistent with a single game taking weeks perhaps?

Yes. Your character is persistent so a single game could take weeks. Your character is saved on the server you make them on and you would have to reconnect to the server to access that character. It's the nearly the same system as Ark. There will be character save data associated with your character on the server and there will be player data associated with your player account. Even if you die you will never lose the player data associated with your player account.

I can't fathom this being truly Rust-like in that you'll see some soldiers randomly building a hut somewhere, trolling about. Those games are often popular for their freedom, but being in an army really restricts that freedom.

It won't be truly Rust-like. Generally most, but not all, current survival games are more or less The Purge simulators. This is intended to be a new take on the survival genre. I'm way more interested in doing something that focuses more on community, your friends, and your companions. You can go hungry. You can craft. Those aspects will be similar. And by all means be a troll. But if you kill a member of your army there will be ramifications for those actions. The game will react.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Sounds sort of like PlanetSide really; Open world, you can more or less do what you want but you're on a side fighting another side. Difference being that you want real survival elements like hunger & thirst along with player constructions? With persistent characters... But I'm guessing players won't spawn in naked like in Rust & ARK, right? Because after all, this is a military game and you mentioned classes. So how exactly will characters be persistent? In my mind "persistent" means naked till you've gathered a bunch of stuff you keep as you reenter the game & lose on death, and then have to start from scratch. But then, if I'm playing as, say a sniper class so I start with a sniper rifle, then I die... Won't I just respawn with the same sniper rifle again when I reselect that class? The idea of classes seems to go against the idea of persistent characters. The idea of fixed factions does too.

Also how exactly will we build stuff? Will we see a load of soldiers cutting down trees to get wood? Will you have to mine metal you make a tank? Survival means that you have to gather resources to create stuff and survive. I'm having trouble imagining how this'll work within the logic of a team PvP game.

"But if you kill a member of your army there will be ramifications for those actions. The game will react."

If I may make a suggestion here, you say the game will react when, in any other survival game, the game would do nothing but the players would react. Hows about players being assigned ranks and having to deal with traitors? demote, expel... The idea of actively being a traitor, and it, rather than just being a troll but a valid means of play, is interesting. Maybe a traitor could lose their faction status and become a civilian who then has to join the opposing team. Maybe after an execution they're automatically placed on the other team. Or maybe a team can build a POW camp and traitors are placed in it, till saved by the other team.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Sounds sort of like PlanetSide really; Open world, you can more or less do what you want but you're on a side fighting another side. Difference being that you want real survival elements like hunger & thirst along with player constructions? With persistent characters...

I haven't played Planetside. I will download it and give it a go next weekend. I'm in the process of knocking out Pikmin 3 right now. Only a few fruits left. I'll let you know how comparable Planetside is.

But I'm guessing players won't spawn in naked like in Rust & ARK, right?

They won't be naked but they won't spawn with weapons or equipment either. Limited bullets as well. They'll have to score all that stuff themselves from crafting, air drops, etc.

So how exactly will characters be persistent?

Like in most survival games if a player quits out of a server their character will remain in the game world. If an enemy player comes across them they're liable to be killed and have their items stolen from them. I've designed things so this is less likely to happen at the start of the game meaning players will be able to get their bearings better than in other survival games. This also means that having your character killed later on will probably be more painful as you're likely to lose more progress and better items.

In my mind "persistent" means naked till you've gathered a bunch of stuff you keep as you reenter the game & lose on death, and then have to start from scratch. But then, if I'm playing as, say a sniper class so I start with a sniper rifle, then I die... Won't I just respawn with the same sniper rifle again when I reselect that class? The idea of classes seems to go against the idea of persistent characters. The idea of fixed factions does too.

We're going into Early Access with no classes. There is going to be a lot of design work done on sorting out how exactly each class is different and that will take time. Each class should have their own set of abilities beyond what weapon they are proficient with. I plan to add one class at a time through future updates. How you access each class will also be different for each class though I'll decline to go into detail regarding that. The goal is to reduce player redundancy and repetition. Also classes won't spawn with weapons. Everyone starts "naked".

Also how exactly will we build stuff? Will we see a load of soldiers cutting down trees to get wood? Will you have to mine metal you make a tank? Survival means that you have to gather resources to create stuff and survive. I'm having trouble imagining how this'll work within the logic of a team PvP game.

Crafting will more or less be the same as in other survival games. What I've tried to figure out is how procuring resources, crafting, and etc., play into your player experience and the overall pacing of the game. One thing that Xenoblade Chronicles X did very well is that while the game is slow as molasses at the start, the more hours you put into the game, the faster the overall pacing becomes. This way 150 hours later you're playing a much faster paced game than you were at hour 1 and so you're getting far more done. I want my game to respect your time. How crafting plays into that is a big part of that equation.

If I may make a suggestion here, you say the game will react when, in any other survival game, the game would do nothing but the players would react. Hows about players being assigned ranks and having to deal with traitors? demote, expel... The idea of actively being a traitor, and it, rather than just being a troll but a valid means of play, is interesting. Maybe a traitor could lose their faction status and become a civilian who then has to join the opposing team. Maybe after an execution they're automatically placed on the other team. Or maybe a team can build a POW camp and traitors are placed in it, till saved by the other team.

Being a traitor is entirely a valid way to play and things will happen to justify that play style. Like I said, "The game will react." Things like the POW camp are all planned for. It was one of the things I didn't want to mention because if for some reason we're not able to pull it off we don't want you guys to be angry with us. But yes POW camps are something I've got planned. Also just because you're a traitor doesn't mean the other side will necessarily want you.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

I'd recommend you try Planetside 2 as, minus the survival elements, it sounds like the closest thing out there to what you're trying to do. Also it's free to play.

I really don't get how in a Team Vs Team game you could start without a weapon. In other games, like say Rust, if you cross another player at the start it's pretty much a coin toss as to whether or not they're going to murder you. In your game however there's going to be a whole faction of players whose goal it is to kill you on sight and won't hesitate to do so. You say there will be things in place, so I guess it'll be wait and see... But unless you intent to wall of new spawns till they can gather some resources (and in that case you may as well just cut out the middle man and have them spawn in with base equipment), there will always be a massive chance they'll instantly cross the enemy team and get killed straight away. Even the notion of spawning into a "safe" outpost. In a survival game there isn't really such thing as 'safe'. Outposts get raided, raided by well armed players. A bunch of guys spawning in with no gear are going to get slaughtered and will do nothing to defend that outpost. If you do try Planetside 2, as a test, I'd recommend you spawn into an outpost under attack, and imagine you're doing so without any gear and pay no attention to the stuff put in place to prevent spawn killing.

Of course I have no idea what you have planned, but those are some of the things that jump out at me as being issues with your concept. The idea sounds really cool.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

I really don't get how in a Team Vs Team game you could start without a weapon. In other games, like say Rust, if you cross another player at the start it's pretty much a coin toss as to whether or not they're going to murder you. In your game however there's going to be a whole faction of players whose goal it is to kill you on sight and won't hesitate to do so. You say there will be things in place, so I guess it'll be wait and see... But unless you intent to wall of new spawns till they can gather some resources (and in that case you may as well just cut out the middle man and have them spawn in with base equipment), there will always be a massive chance they'll instantly cross the enemy team and get killed straight away. Even the notion of spawning into a "safe" outpost. In a survival game there isn't really such thing as 'safe'. Outposts get raided, raided by well armed players. A bunch of guys spawning in with no gear are going to get slaughtered and will do nothing to defend that outpost. If you do try Planetside 2, as a test, I'd recommend you spawn into an outpost under attack, and imagine you're doing so without any gear and pay no attention to the stuff put in place to prevent spawn killing.

Of course I have no idea what you have planned, but those are some of the things that jump out at me as being issues with your concept. The idea sounds really cool.

When my friends and I played Rust we were instantly murdered and it was very difficult to get our bearings. The reason it works in Rust is that because there is no end goal so if a player dies it's no big loss apart from the resources that were gathered. Just start over. It works in the context of the design. But in Our Ghosts of War you would be trying to win a war. There's a fundamental difference.

When you start Our Ghosts of War you will start off in a safe area for either army. This is to encourage players to get their bearings as our game is going to have far more complex systems than the current crop of survival games. It's more or less to say, "Get your war machine in order guys." At the birth of a server, apart from traitors, both sides will be relatively safe. However the longer a server is alive, and as both sides get deeper into enemy territory, the pacing of the game will change and a system will become apparent that encourages battles to become more and more frequent.

By the end of a server's life, battles will become practically non-stop, raids will become regular occurrences, and I imagine one side will overwhelm the other and one side's war machine will crumble. At that point that specific server would be retired with prizes for the winning army and a new server would go up. All this would be expected go on over a period of months.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Ok, so there is a main base that's safe. So will it remain safe or near the end, maybe when one team has done something, like conquered most of the map or something, will the base become invadable or always be safe?

It's becoming a lot clearer, sounds a lot more feasible. And it's good you mentioned rewards for winning, you have to have an incentive to win otherwise no one would care and just mess around. You just need to make sure people can't all become traitors at the end and suddenly switch for the winning team.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Ok, so there is a main base that's safe. So will it remain safe or near the end, maybe when one team has done something, like conquered most of the map or something, will the base become invadable or always be safe?

Everything is destructible. If your forces become overwhelmed no base is going to protect you.

You just need to make sure people can't all become traitors at the end and suddenly switch for the winning team.

If everyone becomes a traitor will there be a winning team?

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Working on our mud material. Should have more to show this week.

 

[JamesStone]

Seems like a nice thing you got there, but I honestly don't know how you can make an open ended multiplayer survival game about World War II in which you play a soldier from one of the sides. Seems like the inherit chaotic nature of sandbox games would get in the way of army-type warfare.

What you got here in terms of story? Some kind of purgatory shtick, where the soldiers who died in the war fight never-ending?

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Hello everyone. I've negotiated the involvement of an artist that contributed to Halo 5 and some other AAA games and upon hearing the internal details for what we're planning for this game, they've decided to jump aboard Our Ghosts of War. Today was their first day on the job and they've been assigned to create Point Du Hoc. This is their progress for the day. I'll keep you updated.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Reworked the scale a bit to make the cliffs bigger and more authentic to real life.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

Important update. I've reached out to 3 artists involved in AAA development. Great all around talents whose help the project could definitely use. Although they're interested in contributing to Our Ghosts of War they're hesitant to join until we show some gameplay. So Alireza is banging out a 1024 x 1024 level that we're going to apply all our finished gameplay to. It's a simple level divided by a river in the middle.

This level should be done in 2-3 days and then forwarded to our coders who will begin to apply all the gameplay systems they've created so far to the level. We'd then run some multiplayer tests and based on crits from inside the team we would continue to refine our gameplay.

After reviewing performance issues, Alireza would make a new 2k map and we'd repeat the process. This is important because as we increase the scale of the game the odds of players running into each other shrinks dramatically and that's something we need to consider as it directly affects the feel of the game. Once we expand that to 400km2 the experience will become far different than something like Rust or Ark which usually have far, far smaller map sizes.

 

[pixelperfectpolygons]

So animations...

Our plan has been to scour the net first to get the basic animations we need like walking, running, crouching, going prone, etc. Both the Unreal Marketplace and the Unity Asset Store are great resources. Retargeting purchased animations requires a skilled hand and our rigger Dragan has done a wonderful job of rising to the occasion. I couldn't be more proud to have him on the team.

Once we incorporate all the relevant animations from the Marketplace and Asset Store we'll do an inventory of the animations that still need to be completed. With that list in hand we'll begin our hiring process to get someone on the team that could take care of that for us. We'll see how it goes although I have a few really good looking reels and portfolios bookmarked.