Project Reality Forums

well, I've never been in combat, but since video games are mainly a visual medium and there is never any chance of getting a bullet in your head, I imagine, it doesn't come close.

There is no thrill about war, and war is not "fun"

The reason why none of us is likely to respond to threads like these is that most of the time it's just some lazy ******* trying to write a paper or do marketing research and honestly we can't be arsed to give you the time of day. Want to find out how realistic it is? Join up.

Simple answer to the question is in PR there is no fear.

Try playing for real, where after 60 seconds you dont "rise from the dead" but its simply game over.

Brummy wrote:Not even close.

I play PR for its fun, teamwork and less jumpy, arcadey gameplay.

However unfortunately, the weapons don't handle like they should, vehicles don't, players don't, player size is limited, atmosphere is lacking, etc etc.

yeah I think Brum is right tbh

though I expect it does portray some realisitic aspects but in game ways.

compared to other games its surely better though (except for milsims like ArmA)

In one life community events, it gets pretty realistic.

Maverick wrote:There is no thrill about war, and war is not "fun"

on the contrary, i have numerous friends who have served in iraq and/or Afghanistan that have stated quite the opposite.

"part of you is thinking, why the **** did i sign up to this!!! and the other half is thinking this is amazing!"

Though PR adds realism it is still has a very arcade like feel. The most realistic game I've ever played is Arma.
However these are still both games, which are made for fun and enjoyment. Real combat is not fun, and the only way to experience it is to live through it. No one wants to go into combat, even the most gun ho soldier is just putting on a face. Soldiers go to war not for the experience, not because it sounds like fun, but because they understand and hear a calling to something that is greater than themselves. You ask any soldier, marine, what have you, what they fought for, you will get answers like, I fought for the guy next to me, or I fought for my country, you will never find someone who says they fought for themselves because they thought it would be good fun.

As PR can only simulate the sights and sounds of combat its always missing the dimension of touch and feeling. From games of paint ball and airsoft, some of my strongest memories come from being covered in mud and being cold.
Depending how much someone uses touch/feeling to form a sense of reality, decides how much this factor reduces how close PR is to reality for them. e.g. I cant help not touching any surface with a intriguing texture *crazy*

Sights, sounds, physics, rules all determine how I want to respond to the game but they also determine how I can respond to the game. Sometimes these conflict, preventing me moving, shooting the way I want to. This can either bring PR closer to real combat if it enforces the law of physics but if stops something that the laws allow for in reality, then PR drifts away.

For example:

When I used to play PR 20 hours a week for years on end, it drove me to develop the simple ideas and concepts about how to win I started with. After 2 years, with limited input of ideas from outside, I found US Army tactics guides on the global Security site, comparing them, I was shocked by similarities with some of my own ideas.

However alot of it remained thoroughly grounded in my head (as theory) simply because these tactics did not increase the chance of winning enough to make all the effort required organizing them worth it. I wanted to play PR as if it was exactly like reality but the game made it to much a challenge too be fun.

3 combat tours, and PR or any video game doesnt have a single resemblance to actual combat!

^^^ from the horses mouth so to speak.

Ever played Gran Turismo, ever driven one of the cars on their in real life? I should imagine PR is to war what racing games are to driving, not much like the real thing at all.

Altough maybe some routines of PR might resemble real life a bit more? Patrolling, the "feeling" you have when defending and looking out for the enemy?

You'll never feel the mental and physical stress in a computer game as you would in real life.
Bullets flying pass your head , hands shaking from fear, teammates screaming out orders or worse screaming for a medic, death around the corner, etc.

realism is in the eye of the beholder. You get out what you put in. To quote Thomas Jefferson...

"The tree of realism must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of smack-tards and Hackers."

...or somthing like that.

It is very close with ground combat but air combat they really need to improve the plane and heli handiling.

It has the ability to be realistic but i think the true problem lies with the actions of the players which are nto very realistic

Despite the obvious touch, smell and psychological aspects of war that you will only experience by signing up. The top two factors that obstruct realism for PR are,

1. BF2 engine constraints
2. Players

I would hope that experienced military personnel that have actually played PR in an organized fashion would agree with me saying that applying real world tactics in-game works (most of the time).

PR's main focus is what all real world military forces are driven by, TEAMWORK. As Chuc once said, it's a bridge for the gap between FPS games and milsims.

My retort to the OP is that "How close to real combat do you think PR is?" is contradictory. It's like saying "How close does looking at a sandwich come to actually eating it?"

gazzthompson wrote:^^^ from the horses mouth so to speak.

He might not be that ugly mate.