frilel wrote:In short:
- Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
- Do you prefer more realism in a game?
- Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
- When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
- Would you consider PR a simulation?
Answer any questions you'd like, preferably with some explanation.
Thank you.
This'll be a long post...better use the restroom before you get started.
I've been playing military-oriented computer games since the days of the C-64 and games like Airborne Ranger. Over time technology got better and so did the games. But even to this day, some of the games that were most memorable for me were the Microprose stuff. M1 Tank Platoon being the game that stands out most of all, but others like F-19 Stealth Fighter, SEAL Team, etc also come to mind. One thing that these games had in common that appears to be lacking in games now is the "achievement" aspect. In the games mentioned above, you got realistic military awards and promotions for doing well.
So one of the aspects of BF2 that got me into the game most was the achievements aspect of it. But over time, with more and more stat-padding, those same stats became pointless. The vanilla game was also plagued with hackers, spammers, dolphin-divers, exploiters, cheaters, you name it. I had fully dumped the game off my PC and almost thrown out the box when along came PR. PR adds a whole new element to the game, taking the **** that was vBF2 and turning it into something that I really enjoy. Although it lacks any "achievement" aspect, I still get a feeling of personal satisfaction knowing that I helped my team out, regardless of win or lose I did a good job and had fun doing it.
PR also lacks the hacks and exploits that vanilla was known for, and the general attitude of the players is more mature and better-suited towards my style of gaming. On a scale of 1-10, vanilla would get a 2 and PR a 9. I would give PR a 10, but not until the new goodies are added.
I strongly prefer realism in any game. As a former soldier, I actually know the difference between what is real and what isn't. I don't base my opinions of "realism" off of other games or what I've seen on television. For me, playing simulations sometimes makes me feel like I'm back out there in the field. I really enjoyed being a soldier, which is why I'm in the process of reenlisting and getting ready for deployment to Iraq in the few coming months. For me, the more realism the better. Without the realism, where is the challenge?
I have worked as a software developer in the past for military simulation programs, stuff way beyond what PR players are used to seeing. So my answer might be a little more "technical". Basically, a military simulation is designed to compliment but not replace real world training. In essence, you are not going to make a simulation on how to take a **** or wipe your ***. Military simulations are designed to train soldiers on skills that are either too dangerous or expensive to train in the real world. Training scenarios like how to react to an artillery strike or nuclear blast, disarming mines, firing weapons, NBC drills, vehicle driving and weapon systems operation, etc are all good examples of what a simulation should be used for.
So to answer your question, I would say that things such as having to rearm and refuel a vehicle are not outside of the military simulation realm. But other aspects of real-world military procedures such as filling out the PLO forms or doing PMCS on the vehicle after you complete your mission, those are left outside the simulation.
As to when a "game" becomes a simulation, I guess any program that "simulates" real-world procedures can be considered a simulation. But what most people would consider a simulation is something that is very detailed and specific about the particular task, often requiring skill and practice to perform properly. For the most part, a simulation will require the player/operator to perform all of the necessary functions/actions in the simulation that they would be required to perform in the real world, with the exception of certain tasks that are non-critical.
Here's an example: Say you want to simulate firing the M-16A2 rifle. The simulation should NOT require you to press a button to pull back the charging handle, press another button to release the charging handle, then press yet another button to move the selector lever, and then press and hold another button while you shoot (to simulate holding your breath). What the simulation SHOULD do is require the player to aim the weapon using the sights correctly, hold the weapon on target, and squeeze the trigger. There is no way at all that you can simulate the operation of the rifle in a computer, but what you can simulate is some of the marksman skills. Usually weapons simulators are designed to train the soldier on identifying and engaging the targets, not the handling of the specific weapon.
At this time, I would not fully consider PR a simulation. To a point, it is a dulled-down simulation but it still lacks a lot of aspects and details that I would recommend be added in order to properly provide the necessary training for soldiers. One thing that the PR team must do is to actually reduce the realism in many ways in order to make the game more player-friendly and to balance the teams equally. It is possible that a version of PR could be made for simulation purposes, but that's beyond the goals of the PR team right now.
If you want to look at a good comparison between what makes a game a simulation or not, look at ArmA 2 and VBS2. ArmA 2 is the game side, and VBS2 is the simulation side.
As you can imagine, real military simulation software isn't intended to be used by the general public for a lot of those reasons. Many players that are not real soldiers are either not going to know what the hell they are doing, or would get so frustrated that they'd give up after a few minutes of trying. That or they'd be so bored, they'd fall asleep drooling on their keyboards. And due to the large amount of work that is needed for a true simulation, you can understand why the cost of programs such as VBS2 are so high compared to even the latest and most high-tech of computer games.
But yeah going to toilet and stuff is to much..