Project Reality Forums

B0ng_McPuffin wrote:Good idea, but it will never catch on... thats far too much work for FUN....

B0ng_McPuffin wrote: Arma2 has the right idea, just horrible flying physics, and a somewhat unrealistically high hardware requirement to ever make it popular and abysmally shitty AI on single-player and lack-of-focus in multiplayer all leads to a failed idea... a good idea, but a failed idea.

Psykogundam wrote:Arma is the only one that tried to do it, and its my opinion that they failed. Its not a bad game, its very modable its just not very playable. and im not talking about xp and stats and strafe jumping... Im talking about shooting your targets lol.

BF2 is a spammy game, and doesnt cater to expantion. COD's levels are too small becasue they are static objects stuck together. theres nothing in the negative zone outside of what you see, the map while looking realistic is just one big Collision.

However, this game may have potential. it could turn out being as spammy as everything else. but who knows. its called Heroes and generals and its made by the guys who made hitman. and the hitman games were quite realistic, but also quite arcadey. the game works by having an mmo style battlefield where soldeirs spawn in and partisipate in WW2, and another leaf of the game is where high ranking players operate as the general and order troops to go places and do things. which other than BF2 on a small scale hasnt been done before. (afaik)
Heroes & Generals Windows, Web game - Mod DB

Other than that i dont know what to tell you...realism gamers while being a minority group are mostly comprised of older guys who like fight sims army and sniper games. but we simply arnt being catered to in the ways we desire.

But you should bare in mind, nobody else is either. even gears of war, halo, bad company, and a bunch of other console fps arnt getting it right for their fans, with the exception of resistance 3 i guess.

badmojo420 wrote:The same could be said about a lot of stuff in PR. Who wants to spend a couple hours driving supply crates to people who need them? Or sitting in a tent staring at a map with dots on it? Or laying on a rooftop waiting to fire a missile at an aircraft that might never come. Or "shoveling" sandbags, etc. Lots of people still enjoy all those activities.

A game like I describe wouldn't be cool just for the task you are currently doing, rather it would really immerse you into a team/army where people are counting on you, and if you screw up your simple task, that could cost lives somewhere down the line. It goes back to what the OP said about killing CPU opponents not being as fun as killing human players. I admittedly wouldn't play much artillery simulator on its own, but if it was part of a larger human conflict and my shells were falling on real human players, it would mean something more.

Bluedrake42 wrote:(how frustrating would it be to never see the A10 coming until it was too late)

40mmrain wrote:you know, instead of waiting around for 20 minutes on the pad jacking off, or building a fob in a misc corner of the map at the start of each game when waiting for heavy air assets, it would be a lot more fun, and immersive to sit in the cockpit of your craft flipping the switches to start the engine, test it for problems, etc.

PFunk wrote:Distracted by radio chatter, press wrong sequence, blow out engine, wait 20 mins for respawn and 20 mins to start up again. Made fun of mercilessly for the rest of the round.

I can see it happening.

Bluedrake42 wrote:oh come on now you're just being negative

Providence932 wrote:Uhh, no. Ground forces communicate directly with close air support all the time. JTACs are around for a reason. Squads are equipped with Radios for a reason. You think that some Platoon commander or Squad leader would be sitting on the ground, fighting the enemy when gunships are circling, unable to communicate with them with his own radio?

The easiest video that comes to mind when you have an aircraft directly communicating with ground forces is the one released by wikileaks. Crazy-Horse 1-8 communicates directly with ground forces after his engagement and you can even hear the responses and chatter of ground forces from the Apache's own radio.

There are also numerous studies, reports and other documentation of American forces communicating and coordinating close air support directly from their own radios. Do you honestly think that danger-close air support would be communicated through a third party in the middle of a fight when it's perfectly acceptable, as well as possible, to call the aircraft on your own?

PFunk wrote:Have you never seen anybody crash a jet on take off cause they didn't know how it worked? Sit still at the end of the runway and accelerate to 100%. They screw that up regularly enough.

I have faith in the chaos of war, and the chaos that is particularly sowed by those inept in managing their assets.

Come on, you know it would happen. Not saying I wouldn't enjoy it myself... maybe. But you know, it would.

Bluedrake42 wrote:can you honestly tell me you've never played a flight sim just to fuck everything up haha, I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, I'm just saying people could still have fun =P I think for the casual servers people will have fun just blowing **** up and romping around (albeit sloppily) with military equipment, and for tactical servers, there will be communities experienced enough to have serious rounds.