Project Reality VS Armed Assault

Hellcat · Post by **Hellcat** » 2007-02-19 20:00

Advantages vs disadvantages. What remains to be desired? Any thoughts on the two.

So many people make reference to both on either native forums, but the authors of the criticism keep coming back. The two games appeal to identical demographics, so at some point there might be almost NO difference between the two.

Even better question: what would the next few versions of PR need to add, to exceed ArmA in it's alleged superiority? With such a responsive dev team, coupled with a constructive community; it's only a matter of time before PR claims monopoly on realistic gameplay.

Clypp · Post by **Clypp** » 2007-02-19 20:04

Other than a longer view distance what does ArmA have? That is no small matter but I think PR does everything else better.

I have only played the demo for ArmA so maybe my opinion is wrong.

NavalLord · Post by **NavalLord** » 2007-02-19 20:04

ArmA lags like crazy for me, even on the lowest settings. And it's far too advanced for my inferior brain. I have no idea what's going on.

As far the eventual no difference part; I don't see that happening. ArmA is it's own independent game, the engine was designed for that game and it's game play style. PR has to conform to the Battlefield 2 engine, which is designed for arcade action, and not realism.

Fenix16 · Post by **Fenix16** » 2007-02-19 20:10

Arma costs money and from what I hear is extreamly similiar to Op Flashpoint.

vanity · Post by **vanity** » 2007-02-19 20:11

I've never played ArmA and looking at the screenshots, I remember hearing about this before it's release. It looks pretty awesome, is it fun? My main concern would be the player movement...mosts games feel very sluggish compared to BF2.

If it has a positive review, I might look into playing it. The PR "server disconnects" are happening more and more regularly. I'm losing desire to play it.

Wipeout · Post by **Wipeout** » 2007-02-19 20:14

I was extremely disappointed by ArmA.. Though I've only played the demo it just didn't match up to what I had heard. I'd prefer AASF inf v inf before I'd play ArmA inf v inf. As for comparing PR and ArmA, I don't really think you can do that to well.

I prefer PR..

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-02-19 20:16

Fenix16 wrote:Arma costs money

Lol? So does any game.

Fenix16 wrote: and from what I hear is extreamly similiar to Op Flashpoint.

Which is a very good thing.

ArmA will not survive on it's own, it will be the mods, and trust me on this one,
ArmA's modding abilities exceed that of the bf2 engine by lightyears.

vanity · Post by **vanity** » 2007-02-19 20:23

I'm not seeing a US release for it.

*deep breath*

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-02-19 20:26

Release date for US should be around May....

Animalmother · Post by **Animalmother** » 2007-02-19 20:29

Armed assault has a more realistic and immersive battlefield experience and better graphics. That sums up the advantages. In other words, you wanna feel like you're in a battlefield, watch ArmA vids. Playing the game is no where near as entertaining or as satisfying as project reality. It takes a miracle to get into a good online game where theres anywhere near as much cooperation as there is in even the crappiest PR server. The cooperation and teamwork alone pretty much cancel out the advantages that ArmA has since cooperation is realism and immersion. Of course you can use the perfect robotic AI but minus immersion/entertainment since its just boring and lonely.

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2007-02-19 20:31

CUrrently PR is way better than arma.

when arma is released in north america, and when the realism modders start working their magic, then we shall see.

I think arma will start to get really good in june, but I think PR and arma can co-exist peacefully.

[PR]AC3421 · Post by **[PR]AC3421** » 2007-02-19 20:32

I havnt heard anything amazing about ArmA yet. I think it might be to cumbersome and slow to be very immersive. I'll wait and see when it releases in the U.S.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2007-02-19 20:34

vanity wrote: I'm not seeing a US release for it.

US Release: May 1st published by Atari ...

ArmA vs. PR : Current, PR hands down. Better players, better stability (yep, ArmA is THAT bad), lower PC requirements. ArmA IS more realistic, in most areas, but there are FAR too many problems with it right now to be a viable 'mainstream' realism game.

ArmA vs. PR: Future (say 6-12 months), ArmA hands down. It will be (IMO) impossible to compete with ArmA as an engine, PR WILL live because of its reputation of a great realistic game, but ArmA WILL have more and better options. Simple fact, BF2 is NOT made for heavy modding, ArmA IS. Already, right now, you can make a game mode that is identical to PR's AASv2, complete with BF2 restrictions and all.

Perhaps with the 1.05 patch due out at the end of this month I'll look at doing just that.

The main reason ArmA is being held back is not because of all the bugs, it is because the 'mod tools' are not released yet, so many of the community's modders are waiting to release until they are. Since BI is fixing the bugs first, then releasing the tools, it will be a while yet (probably 6 months or so) before ALL of those tools are released.

Guerra norte wrote:ArmA will not survive on it's own, it will be the mods, and trust me on this one

Exactly.

Hellcat · Post by **Hellcat** » 2007-02-19 20:35

ArmA demo:

-I remember not enjoying being a seagul while waiting for a bunch of n00bs to finish camping and finish the match.

-I did like the distance draw. Bushes actually hide people.

-You can level trees with a humvee. Although what it does to framerates is for another flame-post.

-Really like the faster respawn of PR. It's just long enough to not want to die again, and yet you are ACTUALLY playing the game for more then five minutes.

-I don't think there are squads. The comms between squads and commander is something I really like.

-The vehicle position-change: what a nightmare.

vanity · Post by **vanity** » 2007-02-19 20:36

Animalmother wrote:Armed assault has a more realistic and immersive battlefield experience and better graphics. That sums up the advantages. In other words, you wanna feel like you're in a battlefield, watch ArmA vids. Playing the game is no where near as entertaining or as satisfying as project reality. It takes a miracle to get into a good online game where theres anywhere near as much cooperation as there is in even the crappiest PR server. The cooperation and teamwork alone pretty much cancel out the advantages that ArmA has since cooperation is realism and immersion. Of course you can use the perfect robotic AI but minus immersion/entertainment since its just boring and lonely.

I could see the environments being so large that action and especially teamwork winds up being pretty sparce. As far as single player with AI bots, forget it. The only SP game I like anymore is HL2. The "lonely" factor you mentioned rings true.

{9thInf}Dr!fter *E* · Post by {9thInf}Dr!fter *E* » 2007-02-19 20:38

It’s hard to compare the two games. PR is a mod of an arcade style war game whereas ArmA was meant to be a simulation style war game. PR does a great job at taking a lot of the arcade aspect out of the game while still leaving in a high fun factor. There are a lot of things that PR can’t do because of the BF2 engine.
You can’t make it so a wounded solider can’t stand or walk or shoot accurately (a wounded ArmA sniper is worthless) with the BF2 engine. PR compensates by adding blurred vision and the fact that you will bleed to death if you don’t get medical attention. I think they did a great job with it but you are clearly limited with the BF2 engine.

You can’t have a massive open ended map like ArmA. Map making is, IMO, one of PR’s strong points and while they can’t match the massive island of ArmA a lot of them are huge by BF standards. The only bad thing about maps for BF games is that you can’t play a custom map without installing it. ArmA, Counterstrike, and other games don’t have that problem.

You can’t lean around corners like ArmA. Nothing major but its something I like.

I think they are too different to clump together. I think when FH two comes out it will be more of a comparison as to how two BF2 mods present their view of a less arcade-like combat game.

DirtyHarry88 · Post by **DirtyHarry88** » 2007-02-19 20:47

I tried the demo and it was full of bugs, not to mention my pc just couldn't manage it.

[PTG] ]-[00T · Post by **[PTG] ]-[00T** » 2007-02-19 20:49

I must admit I was disappointed with the ArmA demo.

I've never played OpFlash so I couldn't comment on whats similar etc. I must say however that I've never liked multiplayer games that include AI bots at cap points.

I wasn't particularly thrilled with the graphics or playability of it to be brutally honest either.

I don't doubt that it is more simulation than BF's more arcadey feel but I think PR finds the balance pretty well.

It was all the waiting around that caused me to lose interest in the game most of all.

zeidmaan · Post by **zeidmaan** » 2007-02-19 20:49

Leaning around corners is very nice. Also the binding of one key to more actions is pretty sweet. For example you can bind "a" to strafe left (by holding it) but if you double click it you lean left. Or click middle mouse to reload but hold midle mouse to use binoculars. I found that very handy.

[PTG]Z.user · Post by **[PTG]Z.user** » 2007-02-19 20:53

No contest really Armed Assault hasnt got the same gameplay as PR!