Project Reality Forums

my thoughts on this (from a while ago)

PR versus ARMA - Tactical Gamer

I wish the PR movement and control system was in Armed assault.

The main problem with armed assault is that it has really bad server issues with regards to hitting the enemy. sometimes the enemy vehicle will glitch. Units will move accross the terrain maybe 100 meters and then appear at their position 100 meters ago, effectivly repeating the movement, and creating a loop that cycles once every second or two.

Another problem is that afaik theres no hit fixer, allthough there are so many things you can do with arma that there probibily is a hit fixer of some sort.

If you want really good hit boxes get COD4, next in line somwhere is BF2 and after that somwhere is ArmA:Armed assault.

ArmA: An amasing combat sim. but was released well before it was finished. luckily arma 2 will be out soon. hopefully with the above problems fixed. with better animations for weapons and better physics and movement controls. from the vids Arma2 looks a lot nicer that arma with regards to colors, objects, animations etc.

You seem always to be against realism... tried COD4?

Anyway. the mission editor in armed assault was pretty fun to play with the first couple of days, but eventually it'll run dry.

I bought ARMA cuz you could use track IR with it, which was very cool. But, overall, the game was clunky, the voice command voices were horrifically bad and the gameplay was extremely dull.

Sgt.Smeg wrote:If 400 square kilometers is true, that's 25x larger than Kashan.

Kashan = 4 square kilometers

ArmA = 400 square kilometers

4X100 = 400



4x25 = 100 O_o


Anyway, I was just saying the videos from ArmAII Look very similar to Project Reality.


Im seeing now how messed up my post is.. O_o

If you wanted to do a good comparison then pr is vbf2 in a way and arma is pr lightyears ahead.

PR is very arcadey compared to ARMA, If you want an actual military type game ARMA is for you.

Sorry that this is semi off-topic guys but Dev1200 is asking for a maths lesson.

Kashan is 4km across. 4x4=16

400/16=25

o_O k?

Sgt.Smeg wrote:If 400 square kilometers is true, that's 25x larger than Kashan.

umm actually if Kashan is 4 sq kilometers then hes right it is 100x larger

Kashan is 16 square kilometers

lol, Kashan is 4 km, 4 x 4 = 16 then 16 x 25 = 400

ergo its 25 x bigger

ergo x2 please refrain from making yourself look more stupid

I bought ArmA on Steam and consider it to be my worst game purchase ever. I tried hard to like it but nothing felt smooth, intuitive or fun. It looks and feels like an alpha that should never have seen the light of day. Because of this, I highly doubt I will ever buy another BIS product again.

Robbi187 wrote:lol, Kashan is 4 km, 4 x 4 = 16 then 16 x 25 = 400

ergo its 25 x bigger

So what is that 16? Kashan's length and width is 4 kilometers, Multiply the 2 and you get 16 square kilometers. Kashan is NOT 4 square kilometers

And here I was thinking I would get away from math on spring break

arma is a very finished game. arma's engine,vbs2, is a militray simulation and it doesn't need all the details that nitpicky gamers care about.

YouTube - Virtual Battlestation 2 - VBS2 - Part 1/4

Kashan = 4km^2 = 16 square kms.

Wow that took long.

hmmm....both are very different but very good in there own way i would say PR wins though only because ArmA seems unfinished

DXfan01 wrote:hmmm....both are very different but very good in there own way i would say PR wins though only because ArmA seems unfinished

LAWL, I've not played Armed Assult so I can't really compare the gameplay of each but does PR seem finished to you?

No, I didn't think so...

Well, not only a few months ago, I was actually looking through PR/ArmA comparison threads like these, trying to see if purchasing ArmA would be worthwhile; would ArmA be a good game? Lucky for me, my friend purchased me a copy over Steam, so I had to look no further, I could just try out the game.

Now be advised that my experiences with ArmA are playing nothing except ArmA with the ACE mod (Advanced Combat Environment), which is pretty much the "PR of ArmA". I've no experience in vanilla ArmA, but I've been told that it's probably nothing worth my time now that I've been playing ACE, and that ACE is "the shit".Those of you who are posting negative responses to the game probably played some of the early versions of the vanilla ArmA (which I've heard, sucked... To some extent).

Playing with the TacticalGamer.com community, ArmA with ACEmod was actually fun. There's definately a LARGER learning curve to it than vBF2 and PR combined, and slap on the confusing key controls and you've got yourself one heck of a newbie. I think you have to have more patience when it comes to ArmA, it's definately not a perfect game, but it can be fun at times. ArmA has some of it's little quirks too, like I often dread long briefings and drawn-out plans. Some people love the planning aspect of the game, and some love the execution of the plan. In short, ArmA, gameplay-wise, is a step up from PR, in terms of simulation.

Personally, I play both PR and ArmA, and love the two equally. PR is something that you can jump on and play for an hour or so, and then go do something else. To get the most out of ArmA, you've got to devote some time to it, as well as a little more patience, as installing patches and mods can become more time-consuming than say, PR.

Lastly, I recommend ArmA for those with patience and a desire for simulation a step up from PR. I can compare the two, but they're just really different from each other. (Oh, and if you tried the "demo" of ArmA, it represents nothing of the actual game. The demo is bugged and **** compared to the latest version of ArmA).

PR seems more finished than ArmA