Project Reality Forums

Since it won't get past the "Receiving Mission File" screen on the demo, I'm going to say PR is better than staring at a black screen.

Leo wrote:Since it won't get past the "Receiving Mission File" screen on the demo, I'm going to say PR is better than staring at a black screen.

Will thats strange?
maybe its just the demo, the full version of ArmA works fine for me (except 7-10 frame rates when in a forest :sad . What system are you running ArmA on? I can run ArmA on very high settings with 2.4Ghz Dual core, 2GB of Ram, and a SHITTY Radeon X1600 with 512MB. I shouldn't run it on very high, but I have to have graphics quality.

I don't think its a hardware issue, its just that I'm staring at that damn screen for 15 minutes watching people join and disconnect while I'm staring at "Receiving Mission Files"

Leo wrote:I don't think its a hardware issue, its just that I'm staring at that damn screen for 15 minutes watching people join and disconnect while I'm staring at "Receiving Mission Files"

Normally when a game has a problem loading into the game, launching it is due to hardware. Loading into an online game can be affected by not only hardware but either connection to the server or ports on firewall. Of course buggy games will have errors. More so apparent if you don't meet recommneded requirements and updated drivers.

hard to compare the two. I love both, Arma is a great simulatar with endless depth, It has the best graphic of anygame ive played, and has a great single player level editor. However if you dont have a top of the line computer, dont even try running it, you will not be happy. The track-ir system is crazy.

PR is faster pass and allows you to play more agressivly. When i play the two I dont play the same at all. They are different types of games.

ArmA sucks

I tried the ArmA demo, and hated it. My machine is decent, and the graphics looked really bad. Nothing like the trailers. The whole game seemed like a class project by high school kids. Uninstalled after about ten minutes. Perphaps the finished game is better, but the demo was so bad I would be very unlikely to try it. PR all the way for me.

r3st wrote:ArmA sucks

How eloquent..

The demo was a bit underwhelming, definitely agreed there. But I'm still tempted to shell out for the full game, probably when the English version is up for digital download (28th I think) or the US release in May..

Most of my problems with the demo were from the unpredictable connections and so forth, as well as a bit of a hit to my system. But I gather that both of these things are addressed in the full release, and I DID have a great game with some guys using VOIP. Being a demo, many other servers just had people running around like headless chickens (myself included) trying to figure out what to do..

The mods that have been released so far are...mindblowing. Before the tools are even out!

In the next couple of releases of PR we'll be adding elements that I don't believe any other FPS on the market has, including ArmA.

When you see stuff like Helmand's destructible buildings .. it takes a couple of release cycles for that to filter into more maps and such. Same can be said of some of the other upcoming features and capabilities.

PR tends to focus on teamplay to make up for the engine induced realism constraints. That in and of itself can make for a more realistic gaming experience in some ways.

Simio1337 wrote:One word "TrackIR" .

Amen to that!

I have the trackir 4 pro with 6DOF (used to be called Vector expansion). The ability to control your rifle with your mouse, and "look around" in game merely by moving your head makes for huge immersiveness. To lean around a corner, you lean your head.

AA and PR are two very different games, IMHO, and fill two different niches.

ehehee, Operation Flashpoint wasnt playable until the 1.92 patch, about two years after its release. Sure, ArmA might be better in patching aspect, but I wouldnt expect too much.

However, Comparing a MOD for bf2, and a released wargame is nuts.
What I liked in the original OFP was the ability to roam free in vast landscape, which aint going to happen in any game with bf2 engine, ever.

The best thing in OFP was the exellent mission editor which enabled players with enough coding experience to make what they wanted. C&H missions with multiple objectives with AND/OR flags were yesterday's news in it. Ability to add sound and video straight into the mission without too much hassle. Top notch. Im not sure I will ever buy ArmA, at least not before i update my rig. Maybe after a year or two when they get to v. 1.92 again.

I have Arma and play PR.
Both are a different setup. In graphic aspect, Arma wins bigtime from BF2/PRMM. But for teamwork PRMM rules!

I hope to that they become one in the future!

Rusty_FunP wrote: The best thing in OFP was the exellent mission editor which enabled players with enough coding experience to make what they wanted.

QFT. The OFP game was really great, but the single player mission editor was fucking awesome in every way. Well designed scripting language, pretty decent GUI tools.
If you misspent your youth playing tabletop games it was like having them come to life. Put a US squad and a Russian squad on each side of a village, place yourself as a civvy and tell the squads to capture the building in the centre and watch them duke it out. Awesome.
Never got into the Multiplayer side of it though, being unable to join a game-in-progress was the real killer.

But, by far the best bit of OFP, the absolute apogee of military sim design was getting rid of the Jump button.

PR on high settings is smooth as silk for me, while ARMA on low settings still is jittery. No ragdolls in ARMA. PR FTW.

Armed Assault takes the fun out of everything.

If you don't have a sniper rifle, you're shit out of luck.

The graphics hurt my eyes, the controls are clumsy and unnatural.

But what really bothers me, is the sound.

The sound effects in ArmA is the worst I've ever heard in a game in ages. Even the old Commander Keen games had some quirky midi appeal. ArmA sound is just bad.

Only thing I liked about ArmA is the size and layout of the maps. Thats it.

Armed Assault was not even playable for me and it was a big dissapointment. Project Reality for me.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Even if you could play ArmA on a 5 year old computer perfectly and it looked good, the fact is that it will not get very many people to buy it and be attracted to it since it is one of those super realistic games.(their selling point)

PR though, is free of charge and based off a popular game(BF2) which is well worth the money because of the number of people playing the game. And when all you have to do is download it, it attracts more people.

My point is though, is that PR will have many people come to it who are tired of BF2 and want something a little different and caters to both realism and gameplay types. So the player base of PR will keep getting larger and the players will get better along the way.

ArmA's advertising makes it sound like it is only catering to the ultra realism freaks out there. Not only will the base be small, but the mod base will be even smaller if only a few people have the actual game.

And right now, it seems like PR has more advertisement then ArmA does.


I guess I can say "I told you so" to those who kept hyping the game up before playing it.

Stick that on the box and get it on the shelf lol, I couldnt have put it better myself!

You cant really compare the two games, even PR is centred around the Arcadey style of Vanilla and many ex-vanilla players simply play it because the weapon damage is better and the game is still being actively worked on.

ArmA is terrible, i agree, i played the demo, couldnt hit a thing, i used to run a tactical site for realism game enthusiasts, ive spent years playing games that i believe have the ability to employ a realistic experience into your game playing but ArmA is that bad it wouldnt even get a mention on the site these days, the controls are terrible, the action is slow, the sound is terrible, the hit detection is good, the uniforms and equipment are outdated, the scripting tools are good, the community is good (and growing by the day) and the graphics are excellent.... as long as you have a computer made to NASA standards.

You cannot compare a mod of an arcade style game to a game intended for long range, multiple vehicle and infantry firefights, its just not possible.

For times when i want a fast paced shooter ill play PR
When i want to actually think about what im doing in a game, ill go with something else

Just my opinion.

I really can-not get into ArmA's infantry movement and shooting. The movement feels clunky and cumbersome, especially around urban environments. Shooting short and long range is lucky, I feel the recoil and displacement of your weapon is just too high. You'll aim and miss and just keep firing pot shots until you get lucky, it just feels wrong imo. It might be realistic and all but when it comes to gameplay, it's just, well, poor, unenjoyable.

PR is my favorite game/mod at the moment, it has the upmost PERFECT mix of Realism and good gameplay. I love how you are rewarded with kills if you are a good shot, and not being thrown over the screen like on Arma because it's realllishhhticcckkk. Nice movement. When you get shot at it makes you run / get down, and makes surpressing fire really really work for once, I don't think i've been surpressed on Arma, just one shotted like you would from a sniper.

I hated BF2, and have poured 10+ hours into PR so far, which is alot for me, and the space I play it in. I've done a few missions on ArmA, granted they're scripted and not online, but I'd rather play PR than ArmA

I agree. I had high hopes and did sort of enjoy the ArmA MP demo but the full game has kind of left me with a bitter taste after playing PR 0.5. The handling of your character feels really cumbersome and clunky (terrible at closer ranges). I much prefer the feel of the BF2 engine and tbh on some maps I do prefer the BF2 graphics. ArmA graphics look great in some areas and pretty bad in others like some buildings. The sunset effect on ArmA is way OTT to a point where I can't see any targets apearing on the screen. The BF2 engine has it perfect, it looks really nice without blinding the player like a giant orange flashbang.

PR is to BF2 what FH was to '42 - the way the game should have been in the first place.