Your thoughts on PR and other games focused on Realism.

[MadTommy]

Damn Christian, you lucky git.. great choice of degree!

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

BF2 vanilla was too repetitive and one dimensional. Every game was pretty much the same. I find PR far more diverse and challenging. It is slower paced and less spammy. There are numerous other reasons too, but i think this covers the key points.

Do you prefer more realism in a game?

It would appear so.. not sure why. I play PR, Arma2, DCS BlackShark, LockOn, Rise of Flight... all sims except PR & Arma2, which are fps trying to be realistic. I guess they are more challenging than games not trying to be realistic.

Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)

Yes.. a game is entertainment and should be entertaining. That is the bottom line for me.. if its amazingly realstic but no fun to play, then its a **** game.

When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

For me a FPS can never be a simulation. Well not with today's level of technology at least. Flying and driving games can provide such levels. BlackShark with trackIr and a home built pit is a simulation.. not many other games get close.

Would you consider PR a simulation?

No, not even close.

____

Hope it helps.

[Ninja2dan]

In short:

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?
3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
5. Would you consider PR a simulation?

Answer any questions you'd like, preferably with some explanation.
Thank you.

This'll be a long post...better use the restroom before you get started.


I've been playing military-oriented computer games since the days of the C-64 and games like Airborne Ranger. Over time technology got better and so did the games. But even to this day, some of the games that were most memorable for me were the Microprose stuff. M1 Tank Platoon being the game that stands out most of all, but others like F-19 Stealth Fighter, SEAL Team, etc also come to mind. One thing that these games had in common that appears to be lacking in games now is the "achievement" aspect. In the games mentioned above, you got realistic military awards and promotions for doing well.

So one of the aspects of BF2 that got me into the game most was the achievements aspect of it. But over time, with more and more stat-padding, those same stats became pointless. The vanilla game was also plagued with hackers, spammers, dolphin-divers, exploiters, cheaters, you name it. I had fully dumped the game off my PC and almost thrown out the box when along came PR. PR adds a whole new element to the game, taking the **** that was vBF2 and turning it into something that I really enjoy. Although it lacks any "achievement" aspect, I still get a feeling of personal satisfaction knowing that I helped my team out, regardless of win or lose I did a good job and had fun doing it.

PR also lacks the hacks and exploits that vanilla was known for, and the general attitude of the players is more mature and better-suited towards my style of gaming. On a scale of 1-10, vanilla would get a 2 and PR a 9. I would give PR a 10, but not until the new goodies are added.


I strongly prefer realism in any game. As a former soldier, I actually know the difference between what is real and what isn't. I don't base my opinions of "realism" off of other games or what I've seen on television. For me, playing simulations sometimes makes me feel like I'm back out there in the field. I really enjoyed being a soldier, which is why I'm in the process of reenlisting and getting ready for deployment to Iraq in the few coming months. For me, the more realism the better. Without the realism, where is the challenge?


I have worked as a software developer in the past for military simulation programs, stuff way beyond what PR players are used to seeing. So my answer might be a little more "technical". Basically, a military simulation is designed to compliment but not replace real world training. In essence, you are not going to make a simulation on how to take a **** or wipe your ***. Military simulations are designed to train soldiers on skills that are either too dangerous or expensive to train in the real world. Training scenarios like how to react to an artillery strike or nuclear blast, disarming mines, firing weapons, NBC drills, vehicle driving and weapon systems operation, etc are all good examples of what a simulation should be used for.

So to answer your question, I would say that things such as having to rearm and refuel a vehicle are not outside of the military simulation realm. But other aspects of real-world military procedures such as filling out the PLO forms or doing PMCS on the vehicle after you complete your mission, those are left outside the simulation.


As to when a "game" becomes a simulation, I guess any program that "simulates" real-world procedures can be considered a simulation. But what most people would consider a simulation is something that is very detailed and specific about the particular task, often requiring skill and practice to perform properly. For the most part, a simulation will require the player/operator to perform all of the necessary functions/actions in the simulation that they would be required to perform in the real world, with the exception of certain tasks that are non-critical.

Here's an example: Say you want to simulate firing the M-16A2 rifle. The simulation should NOT require you to press a button to pull back the charging handle, press another button to release the charging handle, then press yet another button to move the selector lever, and then press and hold another button while you shoot (to simulate holding your breath). What the simulation SHOULD do is require the player to aim the weapon using the sights correctly, hold the weapon on target, and squeeze the trigger. There is no way at all that you can simulate the operation of the rifle in a computer, but what you can simulate is some of the marksman skills. Usually weapons simulators are designed to train the soldier on identifying and engaging the targets, not the handling of the specific weapon.


At this time, I would not fully consider PR a simulation. To a point, it is a dulled-down simulation but it still lacks a lot of aspects and details that I would recommend be added in order to properly provide the necessary training for soldiers. One thing that the PR team must do is to actually reduce the realism in many ways in order to make the game more player-friendly and to balance the teams equally. It is possible that a version of PR could be made for simulation purposes, but that's beyond the goals of the PR team right now.

If you want to look at a good comparison between what makes a game a simulation or not, look at ArmA 2 and VBS2. ArmA 2 is the game side, and VBS2 is the simulation side.


As you can imagine, real military simulation software isn't intended to be used by the general public for a lot of those reasons. Many players that are not real soldiers are either not going to know what the hell they are doing, or would get so frustrated that they'd give up after a few minutes of trying. That or they'd be so bored, they'd fall asleep drooling on their keyboards. And due to the large amount of work that is needed for a true simulation, you can understand why the cost of programs such as VBS2 are so high compared to even the latest and most high-tech of computer games.

[andrewthecool]

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

Yes. less jumping noobs and more ppl to play with.

Do you prefer more realism in a game?
Most of the time

Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?
Yes, but for a game to be good while being realistic whould need a REALY interactive enviornment, Like Different objectives in a game, not the same: Insurgency for example, every squad goes out and then wont act as a team, only squad based where insurgents can wipe them out.

When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
Isent that the same thing?

Would you consider PR a simulation?
To a extent, yes. Not as a whole tho, it has potential to be a simulation, but nobody works as a team,
to acomplish goals.

[Cassius]

I did not even know virtual battlespace 2 existed O.O . I dont know what it does and what can be done in it, but if it is kind of like arma 2 and relatively bug free and runs 60+ players stable O.O

[Ninja2dan]

I did not even know virtual battlespace 2 existed O.O . I dont know what it does and what can be done in it, but if it is kind of like arma 2 and relatively bug free and runs 60+ players stable O.O

Don't mean to go OT, but Virtual Battle Space - Home

60+ players? Try hundreds of players, with the capability to connect multiple simulation programs including software like SB Pro. I think after checking out their site and seeing the various uses, you'll see what it's capable of.

[frilel]

Thanks alot for all the replies, it's really helped me out writing the essay which i turned in a couple of days ago. Sorry for not having replied to your answers but I've been quite busy.

All the replies helped me alot, especially from Ninja2dan's. I feel really lucky getting the opinion from someone who has worked in the business=P, it made things clearer.
Btw good luck to you in the army Ninja2dan! I myself is doing the Swedish compulsory military service next year, voluntarily though=P

Damn Christian, you lucky git.. great choice of degree!

Hehe, yeah I guess so. Thank you =P

And again: I thank everyone who helped me out here, I knew I could count on the PR community.

[LionRock]

[*]Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF

One word: Experience. Other games usually focus on scoring or something like that and you don't really remember rounds afterwards. I remember lots of great pr rounds were I and the squad which I'm part of had a great impact on the games flow.

[*]Do you prefer more realism in a game?

Yes, as much realism that's possible without ruining the gameplay. For example Arma series is great but sometimes it's just too cumbersome to play and frustrating. So gameplay-> realism.

[*]Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)

Game has too much realism when you found yourself fighting with the user interface or game mechanics instead of fighting the enemy or supporting those who do. For example Arma's dropdown menus are horrible and not realistic at all.

[*]When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

I'd say when the level of subsystem modelling (radio, gun, vehicles, repairing etc) is realistic as in real life.

[*]Would you consider PR a simulation?

No. More like influenced by realism.

There you go

EDIT: Lol was I late or something. Well hope your essay gets good reviews.

[Indian_Clay]

Thanks alot for all the replies, it's really helped me out writing the essay which i turned in a couple of days ago. Sorry for not having replied to your answers but I've been quite busy.

All the replies helped me alot, especially from Ninja2dan's. I feel really lucky getting the opinion from someone who has worked in the business=P, it made things clearer.
Btw good luck to you in the army Ninja2dan! I myself is doing the Swedish compulsory military service next year, voluntarily though=P

Hehe, yeah I guess so. Thank you =P

And again: I thank everyone who helped me out here, I knew I could count on the PR community.

Would you mind posting your essay? It seems like a good read.

[Original|nl]

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
vBF2 becomes really boring, its always the same deal! PR is fresh and a completly diffrent game, I really like the teamplay and communication part!
Do you prefer more realism in a game?
Yes, more realism more epicness
Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
Well, I think a game cannot have to much realism, it will never be like in RL But yeah going to toilet and stuff is to much..
When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
I can't really answer that question, I think a simulation is something to prepare you for a real deal, it can be used for training.
Would you consider PR a simulation?
No, It will never be, PR would have to make an engine by itself and I think it would be 'unplayeble'