How Does PR compare to Americas Army

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor · Post by **SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor** » 2007-11-06 04:04

I have been watching the development of AA the past couple of years and someone posted a link to your Project Reality site.

How does PR compare in strengths & weaknesses to AA?

Gameplay, teamwork, weapons, realism, update cycles, ROE, teamkilling, re-spawn?, AA Honor system?, training?

Was PR specifically designed to compete with AA & lure additional realisim $$$$ in the BF2 coffers?

Any links of AA vs PR?

Txs for any responses!

WNxKenwayy · Post by **WNxKenwayy** » 2007-11-06 04:08

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor wrote:I have been watching the development of AA the past couple of years and someone posted a link to your Project Reality site.

How does PR compare in strengths & weaknesses to AA?

Gameplay, teamwork, weapons, realism, update cycles, ROE, teamkilling, re-spawn?, AA Honor system?, training?

Was PR specifically designed to compete with AA & lure additional realisim $$$$ in the BF2 coffers?

Any links of AA vs PR?

Txs for any responses!

AA = better for small squad infantry combat realism.

PR = better for everything else.

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-11-06 04:22

I play both AA and PR and i like PR much more. Get yourself a MIC and get into PR now and you wont be disappointed. Like this guy said AA is for infantry combat and PR covers everything. You can move a bit more loosely in PR but the weapons act the same and are just as accurate as in AA. There is also MUCH MORE TEAMWORK(granted you have a MIC). Dont wait for .7 because thats when all the n00bs will flood the game so if you play now you will find almost nothing but people who enjoy the game and play it well.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-11-06 04:29

i stop playing America's Army @ 91 honor when i discovred Project Reality... i'll be back on it for the Version 3.0, i'm tired of the 2.x series...and ALL the freaking bug...

Doom721 · Post by **Doom721** » 2007-11-06 05:09

I played AA before 2.0, and compared to PR - PR is great for combined arms and AA was all about infantry combat... leaning.... and grenades >.<

I dislike AA, PR is more exciting and user friendly to me than AA
Though AA does have nice sounds - and the training before usage of weapons is the best part of the game - though probably impossible in PR

<1sk>Headshot · Post by **<1sk>Headshot** » 2007-11-06 10:42

I find AA extremely tedious and boring for many reasons that I won't gointo so this will probably be biased.

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor wrote:Was PR specifically designed to compete with AA & lure additional realisim $$$$ in the BF2 coffers?

It's an independent mod, EA doesn't make any $ from this game (except the people who buy it just for this mod.)

Your PR experience is really going to depend on the server you choose and the time you play. Some servers are excellent with many member using lots of teamwork, communication over VOIP and with admins who kick any teamkilling smacktards.

If you join a squad where no-one communicates try changing squad, team or even server. IMO it's crucial to get the proper game experience.

Warmagi · Post by **Warmagi** » 2007-11-06 11:18

I used to play AA, Im still coming back to it from time to time, did all the training - great fun (wish something like this could be in PR). Last time I played 2.2 or 2.3 I think. There was Javelin and Humvees introduced then. What I liked the most was games with real soldiers on army servers, you can learn a lot from this guys.

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-11-06 11:27

Warmagi wrote:I used to play AA, Im still coming back to it from time to time, did all the training - great fun (wish something like this could be in PR). Last time I played 2.2 or 2.3 I think. There was Javelin and Humvees introduced then. What I liked the most was games with real soldiers on army servers, you can learn a lot from this guys.

real soldiers play pr too

<1sk>Headshot · Post by **<1sk>Headshot** » 2007-11-06 12:31

Yeah there's a thread dedicated to Army serviceman, there's loads of them. In retrospect the one thing I do like was the training. Was pretty fun but other times boring. Like the Special forces sneaking mission. Yawn.

Salah ad Din · Post by **Salah ad Din** » 2007-11-06 13:04

I guess the really stupid thing about AA is, no matter what team you're on, you always play US soldiers. This sort of defeats any context with reality.
E.g. you cannot really model differences between say an AK-47 and a M-16, because although the other side LOOKS like using AK's, THEY are really using M-16's.

On the other hand, AA has nice things like leaning around corners, rolling while prone, toggled crouch, and so forth.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-11-06 14:58

Next version (3.0) of America's Army will be more Realistic, they'll stop do War on Terror trought the game, and it will be a fictional conflict between United States Army and a Fictional Country whit equal Technologie... ( like US versus UK lol )

FoW_Strummer · Post by **FoW_Strummer** » 2007-11-06 15:01

Americas Army is ok IMO. The grenades are realistic, but thats about it. LOTS OF HACKERS in AA. Also, the teamplay aspect of AA is poor. Really only a few maps are played...(the tedious Bridge Crossing, boring BORDER, and the better of the bunch...DUSK) The Special Forces maps like Hospital are OK too. Unless you are on TS or Vent with friends it can be very "lone-wolf" like. Also, the rounds are very Ravenshield like in that they are quick..and hard to really set up plans and act on them. PR is so much better than AA on many areas. TEAMPLAY TEAMPLAY. In PR you have to be able to communicate and work with others to win. Dont believe me. Get on squad of socially inept people and see how good you do. Unless the other team is the same, you will most likely lose the round. The graphics, the maps , the gameplay is all much more fluid than AA.

Everyone talks about excellent infantry games...I always thought that the original Ghost Recon series was the best EVER for this genre. I mean..if I could win the lottery I would love to redo that game with todays engines and some tweeks like leaning. This game is why games like BF2 and PR are here today. GR was cool in that if you got shot in the leg or your leg was injured.. you limped. If you got shot in the arm, your aiming would be off. The maps were nice and large and also had some great urban ones. RVS was good too for urban warfare, but of course, when UBISOFT bought the franchise it began to destroy these two awesome games. (IE: RVS Lockdown and VEGAS..blah and the embarrassing Ghost Recon AW 1 and 2...boooo). I have been hearing a big buzz about the new COD4..I think it comes out today. I am curious about that. COD2 was pretty nice, but very un-realistic.

Just my 2 cents worth.
STRUM

supahpingi · Post by **supahpingi** » 2007-11-06 15:24

H3eadshot wrote:Yeah there's a thread dedicated to Army serviceman, there's loads of them. In retrospect the one thing I do like was the training. Was pretty fun but other times boring. Like the Special forces sneaking mission. Yawn.

The SF sneaking mission was horrible.slow,broing and everything else thats bad!And here comes the disaster,i finally reached the end,and then still couldnt play SF maps

Clypp · Post by **Clypp** » 2007-11-06 15:41

A slow pace is very important for a tactical shooter. You need time to draw up plans and then execute. I played AA a couple years ago and it is too fast, teamwork is limited and there were a few other issues. Maybe it has improved since then.

PR does an excellent job of this, teamwork is the best in any game and tactics are vital. The only game that allowed better tactics, that I have played, is the original Ghost Recon. I must have played the campaigns a dozen times. First game I played online too, back with the old 56k. Strummer, I really hope you do win the lottery.

Post by **Ninja2dan** » 2007-11-06 16:03

You also have to remember that AA was not meant as a true "game", but was designed as a free-release recruiting tool for...guess who? THE US ARMY. So of course you will only get to play the US Army. The game is made for smaller squad-level tactics and missions, and it's not made to be as realistic as it is arcade-like. The younger generation that this game was pushed towards are those with no real military or tactical experience, so full realism would have been boring or just plain scary.

AA had a few good points, but it fails in the realism and teamwork departments. It was nice to have people qualify before using certain kits, but the qualification training was simple and required little skill. SF for example, you just had to low-crawl the entire map and that's it. I never had to stop and wait, I just kept crawling along the path. 30 minutes of yawning.

ArmA could beat that game with a dead stick, while blindfolded and choking on a gumball. Good for a little fun, Bad for realism and tactical play.

gclark03 · Post by **gclark03** » 2007-11-06 19:56

America's Army is just a propaganda tool, like a lot of other people have said (and the government has openly stated multiple times). Had it been designed for fun, it would be fun - this is the United States we're talking about, their budget is practically unlimited compared to that of some random Battlefield 2 mod team.

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor · Post by **SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor** » 2007-11-06 20:25

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:real soldiers play pr too

How does project Reality get funding since you are not EA?

Are any of the Devs from previous gaming titles?

What does the DICE engine offer in comparison to Unreal engine?

Do you have stat indicators in users versus servers?

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor · Post by **SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor** » 2007-11-06 20:36

gclark03 wrote:America's Army is just a propaganda tool, like a lot of other people have said (and the government has openly stated multiple times). Had it been designed for fun, it would be fun - this is the United States we're talking about, their budget is practically unlimited compared to that of some random Battlefield 2 mod team.

Actually AA was designed as a training simulator for it's soldiers. It was then transported into the gaming environment in order to attract potential recruits and to further educate the public in soldiers activities in warfare.

Friendly fire and importance of unit communication are two very obvious elements of war that are misunderstood from the general public.

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor · Post by **SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor** » 2007-11-06 20:37

Hotrod525 wrote:i stop playing America's Army @ 91 honor when i discovred Project Reality... i'll be back on it for the Version 3.0, i'm tired of the 2.x series...and ALL the freaking bug...

How does PR handle re-spawning? Are the nades & flashes same as AA?

SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor · Post by **SICKiatrist_U.of.Tor** » 2007-11-06 20:39

H3eadshot wrote:I find AA extremely tedious and boring for many reasons that I won't gointo so this will probably be biased.

It's an independent mod, EA doesn't make any $ from this game (except the people who buy it just for this mod.)

Your PR experience is really going to depend on the server you choose and the time you play. Some servers are excellent with many member using lots of teamwork, communication over VOIP and with admins who kick any teamkilling smacktards.

If you join a squad where no-one communicates try changing squad, team or even server. IMO it's crucial to get the proper game experience.

is there a big differance between the BF2 player and the BF2 PR player?