Project Reality Forums

I agree with everything that has been said regarding CQB in ArmA, the grenades are thrown overarm even in buildings (usually resulting in the hand grenade aimed for a doorway hitting the roof and clonking me on the head) and the speed of the characters in the game gives off the "i cant be arsed" attitude.

ArmA is not realistic, not by far, the weapons are terrible and do not represent their real life counterparts at all, the player movement is not as fluid as it would be in a combat situation and the disembarking of vehicles is terrible.

From a "Geardo" point of view the game blows with the equipment and look of the characters.

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

I can understand how some people would be upset with ArmA if they had issues running it. I have no such problems so I can't comment on that but ragdolls? Come on! The BF2 & PR ragdolls are a JOKE! You hit a guy with a bullet and he flops up in the air and all kinds of crazy stuff. How is that good other than for a laugh?

{9thInf}Dr!fter *E* wrote:I can understand how some people would be upset with ArmA if they had issues running it. I have no such problems so I can't comment on that but ragdolls? Come on! The BF2 & PR ragdolls are a JOKE! You hit a guy with a bullet and he flops up in the air and all kinds of crazy stuff. How is that good other than for a laugh?

True dat, BF2 ragdolls are pretty sucky. Now, HL2, that has proper ragdolls.

Guys you don't understand that the difference between ArmA and PR is huge. Those games are very different and serve for different purposes. I love PR and it is the only reason I bought BF2, but believe me now that European version of ArmA got released a week ago I'm gonna buy it. It is more optimized and runs better. Of course I'm not gonna quit playing PR because those game are too different.

Let's look back at the past first when OFP was released. When it was released it lagged on computers like ArmA does, but after half a year with numerous patches it was perfect. It is easier for EA to optimize BF2 because it is a huge company, but for a small independent developer like BI Studio (they had about 25 people working on OFP) it is much harder to make a good game without any bugs. I know this because I've been playing OFP since it came out almost every week with my clanmates until July of 2006.

You see if you want to play CTF they don't buy ArmA.
If you want to play DM - don't buy it.
If you want to play it like PR where you just come home after work and jump on any server in search of teamwork - don't buy it because it is not gonna work that way.

There are really only 2 ways to enjoi ArmA(OFP)

1) Play Cooperative mode with your friends against PC enemies in single player missions. (Since OFP had a huge mod community, you could simulate any conflict - use whatever addons you want - WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia Afghanistan. And the mission editor was so easy that it was extreamley easy to create your own coop mission)

2) Create a clan and play in some sort of a league.



So these games are very different. Because you can't find a teamwork on public servers in ArmA. Believe me if you have your friends by your side and you are using teamspeak ArmA becomes the Ultimate War Simulation.

This is a ridiculous comparison. One is a retail game, the other is a mod of a retail game.

{GD}StevenGarcia wrote:This is a ridiculous comparison. One is a retail game, the other is a mod of a retail game.

But I think they do have overlap in terms of the potentially interested player base.

Plus it's flattering to be compared to a retail game

Armed assault looks real, PR feels real...there, that's the difference between the two in terms of realism.

FREEGUNNER wrote:Armed assault looks real, PR feels real...there, that's the difference between the two in terms of realism.

thats it in a nutshell.

Heh, registered just to post on this topic.

When it comes to reality, you can't compare PR to ArmA. I've read a lot about the cumbersome movement in ArmA, and I agree, if you are new to it or the OFP series then it will seem incredibly cumbersome at first. However, if you play for a few hours or so you'll get the hang of it. I have no problems with the movement whatsoever. In fact, the amount of control you have over your character is amazing. Example: You're first in line to enter a room, with most games you would be looking up, and your gun would be facing that direction also. However, in ArmA you can lower your weapon, hold Alt, and look around with your head while your weapon is lowered thus not revealing your position outside the door. The movement does take some getting used to, especially if you are coming from a game like PR.

Secondly, don't judge the game simply from the MP Demo. Personally, having played the Czech version of this game (the legality of which is up for debate ), the game is best enjoyed with clan mates, an older audience (this game is definitely not for the impatient type), those who have served and are serving in any military, and preferably on the rocks. I recall playing with a clan totally comprised of former members of the US Army. We were on their public server and were practicing room clearing tactics and all sorts of movement formations, Ranger formations or something. (The AI in ArmA also utilizes real-life formations).

Anyways, it's disappointing that people aren't enjoying this game simply because of the movement or how accurate weapons are (Though I don't see a problem with the accuracy of the weapons, ArmA correctly maps the effective ranges of the weapons in the game. Don't be expecting to hit anything with an M16 at 600m+) Also, what made the OFP series great and what will be ArmA's greatest feature are the mods that will be developed. Anyone having been into OFP will no doubt remember RTS2/3.

ArmA is a great game, though definitely not for all. (Realism + slow pace) PR, in my opinion, is like a toned down version of ArmA that is better suited for most realism-fans. (Realism + fast pace)

I believe it will be hard for PR to reach the level of realism found in ArmA simply because the BF2 engine (so far) will not allow it.

BF2 Limitations

• lack of free-aim
• inability to lean
• ability to shoot accurately while crawling
• instant proning
• small map size (comparatively, Al Basra is tiny)
• small draw distances

Armed Assault runs like total **** and is clunky as hell

installed it, only set resolution and started and pow!

it drags on my "uber" PC like a dead cat....

than i just uninstalled it...

{GD}StevenGarcia wrote:I believe it will be hard for PR to reach the level of realism found in ArmA simply because the BF2 engine (so far) will not allow it.

BF2 Limitations

• lack of free-aim
• inability to lean
• ability to shoot accurately while crawling
• instant proning
• small map size (comparatively, Al Basra is tiny)
• small draw distances

Sometimes you don't need all that stuff though. PR is a perfect example because it is 50/50 when it comes to the realism and gameplay working together. Throw teamwork in there, and the game is pretty much perfect. If you give players that much freedom and ability in an online game, they will either be turned off by the complication, spread all across the keyboard as someone said, or too slow to work effective in fast paced online combat.(SWAT 3/4 were still fast in MP for being realism/tactical games. Talking about the realism mods for them too)

I don't think there isn't a face paced game out there, and if you give players all those abilities, they will pretty much be useless because someone will not use them and just use basic methods to kill which are quicker. Same with BF2/PR when it comes to insta-proning and crouching.

When everyone upgrades the computers ArmA will look different on their new shoes.

Cerberus wrote:Armed Assault runs like total **** and is clunky as hell

Probobly cause the maps are MASSIVE, they're like double the size of PR maps and PR maps are double the size of vanilla maps and getting a sense of what that adds up to equals something our rigs can't handle. I mean seriously, look at the size of the this map! http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7196/a ... mapge2.jpg
I think gulf of omen is the size of like one of the those beaches.

Map size of arma?
Is'nt ArmA 1 map, the island? It mesures 40 x 40 KM

yes, 40 x 40 KM...

Also, if you've kept up with ArmA, you will note that the new patch will eliminate a large source of lag, also allowing users to lower the grass. (another source of lag)

There already are TWO patches which increase the performance, but if they don't work with your cracked version, don't complain :rolleyes not adressed at Dylan)

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Sometimes you don't need all that stuff though.

I would say that to satisfy realism fans, you do.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote: I don't think there isn't a face paced game out there, and if you give players all those abilities, they will pretty much be useless because someone will not use them and just use basic methods to kill which are quicker. Same with BF2/PR when it comes to insta-proning and crouching.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. However, I do agree that the BF2 engine forces unrealistic combat movements.

FREEGUNNER wrote: they're like double the size of PR maps

No, the map is much larger than that.

{GD}StevenGarcia wrote:I believe it will be hard for PR to reach the level of realism found in ArmA simply because the BF2 engine (so far) will not allow it.

BF2 Limitations

• lack of free-aim
• inability to lean
• ability to shoot accurately while crawling
• instant proning
• small map size (comparatively, Al Basra is tiny)
• small draw distances

Can you elaborate on what free aim means? And should you really be able to shoot accurately while crawling?