Project Reality Forums

Conman51 wrote:I HATE this "argument".

You want to get rid of re spawns too? Thats realistic. This China Vs Russia map? Get rid of it, not real enough. And OMG!? China Vs US? Thats not happening in real life. Get rid of it!

Its a misnomer. if you knew where the name Project Reality came from you would know it was just supposed to be a temp name until something better was though of. Nothing better was though of because PR is unique in what it does, you cant just name it on the type of game it is.

Would if be much better if the mod was called "Project Gameplay with some realistic elements" ?

If you want reality go join the military.

I play ArmA2 ACE/ACRE with a serious community. No respawn, hardcore stuff. Much more enjoyable than the gameplay oriented PR... for my needs. PR has become COD counterpart for me. I play it once in a while, see that there is a bunch of unorganised drama kids and turn it off.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Arma2 or Arma3 is MUCH more realistic than PR; powers of 10 more realistic. If PR is not realistic enough for you, I would suggest one of those. The Arma franchise is a simulator, versus the PR video game. Especially with ACE/ACRE. It gets crazy in those games if you're looking to spend hours humping around in the desert/mountains/urban areas, and occasionally getting to shoot at things.

I disagree that PR = COD. That's like comparing a lollipop to a hot fudge sundae. They are not in the same league.

However, if your time is limited, but COD bores you to death after one or two rounds, PR is a great balance of the two.

I've been playing FPS games for going on 10 years now, and PR ruined them ALL for me. I don't think I'll ever find a video game that satisfies me quite so much.

That said, the Arma series is great for what it is. I just don't have the time or energy to commit to that level of game play.

While the devs have the final say, I would vote that gameplay > realism.

With regards to the body armor, what does it matter? We're getting into the minutiae of things. BLUFOR already has scopes, body armor, incendiaries, and a number of other advantages. Regardless of what kit you put on, better tactics beats better body armor every single time.

I would agree that comparing PR to something like CoD or even Counterstrike is a bit "unfair" and exaggerated. But for those that do play the more complex tactical simulations like ArmA, vBF2 and PR for BF2 can seem a bit...gimpy. But again, you're trying to compare two things that are worlds apart.

Personally, I much prefer ArmA with ACE/ACRE and several other similar "realism" mod/add-ons. But I also spent part of my life actually out in the field doing those things in real life, and since I'm currently unable to continue doing them, ArmA/VBS/etc let me still enjoy many of the aspects that I miss. For me, PR, vBF2, etc all seem too "gamey", fast paced with not much tactical planning or complex maneuvers. But I hold nothing against those that dislike such complexity.


Adding "too much" realism to a game has its pros and cons. Some people enjoy the casual aspect of a game, where they can hop in, and in less than 10 minutes they can be playing the game. In under an hour, they can win a round, yell "Wahoo!", grab another Mountain Dew, adjust their headset, and prep for the next round. While others actually enjoy spending 30 minutes in the planning phase, don't mind spending 10+ minutes before they make contact, and spend the next 2-4 hours wearing out their mouse buttons. Different games appeal to different play styles, and different features in games likewise appeal to different people.

My opinion is that the BF2 engine has so many limitations, that trying to add too much realism into it, even via a great mod like PR, is just asking too much. There's a limit as to how far you can go, and once you reach that limit things can get garbled. One aspect of realism might be possible while another is not, and that just confuses people. While ArmA for example is made from the ground up to support many more realistic features, I feel that the interface alone can put many people off. I myself don't look to ArmA if I just want to play a few quick games for the evening. But if I feel like spending a few hours really digging in and awaking the "inner grunt", ArmA helps get the job done better.

I would really hope that after all these years, players can stop arguing about which game is better. You need to understand the differences in the games, and what style of play they offer. PR is great for what it offers, as is ArmA/etc. There's no need to bash on other games just because you personally don't enjoy that style or feature set.


As for body armor, there are so many aspects that can fall into calculating a penetrating hit, non-penetrating hit, damage to tissue caused by various hits, etc. And trying to replicate realistic armor values in PR is not so simple, maybe not even worth the effort. If the team does decide to play around with armor values, I'll be sure to lend my opinion and advice on how to keep it balanced between realism and gameplay.